Question 13 of ST.
#11
I finally was able to check out Garrigou-Lagrange's fuller commentary on this question. Here's what he writes; maybe it will be helpful:

"[...] Every name is either concrete (wise) or abstract (wisdom) [....] With reference to creatures, abstract names, such as wisdom, signify a simple form, whereas concrete names, such as wise, signify a composite subsisting being in which such form is found. And as God is both simple and subsisting, we attribute abstract names to Him to signify His simplicity, and concrete names to signify His subsistence."

So I was very mistaken earlier in my understanding of the distinction.

So revised, examples of concrete names as they apply to God: wise, true, good, powerful.
The abstract names: wisdom, truth, goodness, power.

The concrete refers to God's subsistence only in the sense that whenever for us we attribute a concrete name to something, we are referring to some subsisting being in which is found that name or form. And the abstract refers to God's simplicity because the abstract refers to forms themselves, which are simple. It seems then if we attribute some names to God, we would have to be speaking metaphorically.

I guess loving would be the concrete name and love would be the abstract. Enlightening could be a concrete name and light could be an abstract name but those are applied metaphorically to God since He isn't physical. The other terms I used above would apply analogously.
Reply
#12
Neat, so I was onto something with that last interpretation I put forward.

Can you give me the reference for that quote from Garrigou-Lagrange?
Reply
#13
(06-30-2015, 08:57 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Neat, so I was onto something with that last interpretation I put forward.

Can you give me the reference for that quote from Garrigou-Lagrange?
Sure, it's from The One God (1943 English edition) pp. 384-386, where he comments on this question from the Summa.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)