Thomas writes that “to signify something by words or merely by the construction of images . . . yields nothing but the literal sense” and “poetic images refer to something other than themselves only so as to signify them; and so a signification of that sort goes no way beyond the manner in which the literal sense signifies.”
If I understand this, I’m not convinced. First, because this seems to conflate meaning with signification, which I take to be equivalent to reference. They aren’t the same. Second, because how we say what we say is as important as the reference of what we say. I can refer to the same person as a “man” and as a “dirty rat”; they are both literally signifying the same person, but the way they signify inflects the reference. ”Dirty rat” is not just a pointer, but an implicit metaphor that attributes some sort of “ratness” to the dirty rat in question.
The Revival of Patristics
On May 25, 1990, the renowned patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser, S.J., delivered a lecture at the annual…
The Enduring Legacy of the Spanish Mystics
Last autumn, I spent a few days at my family’s coastal country house in northwestern Spain. The…
The trouble with blogging …
The trouble with blogging, RJN, is narrative structure. Or maybe voice. Or maybe diction. Or maybe syntax.…