I shall confine my attention to the one Scotist doctrine that seems to be singled out as especially worrisome, the doctrine of univocity. In the first part of the paper I argue that the doctrine of univocity is true. So even if the doctrine has unwelcome consequences, we ought to affirm it anyway; it is not the job of the theologian or philosopher to shrink from uncomfortable truths. In the second part I argue further that the doctrine of univocity is (...) salutary. That is, it does not have the deplorable consequences that have been attributed to it. It should be noted that by “consequences” I mean logical consequences. What historical consequences the doctrine may have had are beside the point: if people have been led astray by false inferences from the doctrine of univocity, the proper remedy is to correct their inferences, not to reject univocity. (shrink)

Recent postmodern discussions of the Christian apophatic tradition level a noteworthy criticism: after all its negations doesn't Christian apophatic discourse in fact slip back into kataphatic assertions about God? This article seeks to address this claim by bringing into concert two important Christian apophaticists in order to designate a type of discourse that emerges from apophatic union, a discourse that is not kataphatic but logophatic.