/lit/ - Literature

>>12288104

And saying that we understand by "analogy" doesn't imply that we understand at all.

If God is utterly different from anything in nature, then how could any analogy based on natural being give us the slightest clue towards understanding God? It seems to me that Thomistic analogies only contain content from the natural universe, and attempt to indicate something that is non-natural - but this is impossible if such analogies can only use content derived from nature.

> The transcendent deriving from truth or beauty, rather than unlimited merely being a negation of limits.

How is "indeterminate" anything other than a merely empty formalism, parasitic upon the earthly experience of determinate beings? In the same way that "infinite" is parasitic upon "finite" (without adding any instructive content), for example.

We can try to dignify this game by terms such as "transcendent," but what is the *content* that we are actually thinking about, and how does this content indicate that there is some divine being separate from our speculative mental activity? "Truth" and "beauty" can have rigid meanings for populations of human animal minds, but if you're trying to argue for some transcendent divinity apart from such minds, then I think you have all of your arguing ahead of you.