Top o' the Stack
Correctly used, 'unique' is three-way polyvalent. It can mean that which is one of a kind, that which is necessarily one of a kind, and that which is uniquely unique in that it transcends the kind-instance distinction.
« Earth Day 2024 | Main | Skeptical and Credulous »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Bill, your stimulating post spurred me to reminisce about when I first encountered "uniquely unique." It was over fifty years ago in a collection of essays by Sidney Hook, then a professor of mine at NYU: The Quest for Being (Dell, 1963), within its seventh chapter entitled, "Modern Knowledge and the Concept of God" (first published in Commentary, March 1960, which originated in a lecture Hook delivered in a Unitarian church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on December 18, 1959). He used the phrase to highlight the inadequacy of Frederick Copleston's referring to God as "unique": "What must be intended by Father Copleston . . . is that God is uniquely unique" (p. 117).
Posted by: Anthony Flood | Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 06:43 PM
That's fascinating, Tony. I read *The Quest for Being* years ago, but what I recall is not "uniquely unique," but his "Being is a word that should be banished from the vocabulary of philosophers." (Quoting from memory.) That got my goat! and rankled my ass!
I seem to recall that he gave the following lame contrast argument: 'Being' covers everything; hence has no intelligible opposite and is therefore meaningless.
But Hook was certainly right about Fr. Copleston.
I read Hook's OUT OF STEP in the early '90s and was mightily impressed.
His seeing through the commie delusion covered a multitude of sins.
He was (and tenselessly still is) Jewish, right?
Do you have the above-mentioned Hook books? Willing to part with them?
Posted by: BV | Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 07:09 PM
I would simply respond that a God who is required to transcend any ontological framework is demanded to relate to that framework, as transcendence is a positional relation. So transcendence cannot be the first requirement of any Deity.
Posted by: Richard Norris | Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 02:00 PM
But what I said was, "A truly transcendent God, however, must transcend the ontological framework applicable to everything other than God."
Posted by: BV | Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 04:59 AM