Tuesday, July 31, 2018

A New Argument for the Univocity of Being

Here follows a new argument for the univocity of being. It is from Peter Thomae's De ente, of course, soon to hit bookstores near you. Peter himself does not, however, present the argument as an argument, but rather as a corollary of an argument.

Petrus Thomae, Quaestiones de ente, q. 14 a. 1 (ed. forthcoming):

If being is not univocal, it is not contractible.

The broader context, from the same passage:

Regarding the first article, I set forth seven propositions. 

The first: 'contraction' connotes first what it is contracted through which it is contracted and to what it is contracted or the term of contraction, for contraction necessarily presupposes the contractible, co-requires the contractive, and pertains to some term.
The second: contraction presupposes one notion or concept in the contractible, for contraction seems to be nothing other unless the application of something to many through indifference and neutrality.
Corrolary: therefore if being is not univocal, it is not contractible.

1 comment:

Lee Faber said...

Interestingly, this argument shows up in Thomas Wylton's QQ super Ph. I q. 13, ed. Schmaus, which date to 1301-4. So much earlier than Peter Thomae. For Wylton, it is one of the principal arguments that he rejects: "Item ens est contrahibile".