In a book by Eric Mascall called Existence and Analogy, he writes “simpliciter diversa et eadem secundem quid is the Thomistic definition of analogical discource. For the Suarezians, however, with their conceptualist bias and the consequent sharp line drawn between thought and the extra-mental thing, an analogical concept applies to different beings in ways simpliciter eadem et diversa secundum quid”. This is a footnote buried in the book and I have no idea what it means. Anyone?
It’s Greek to me.
I can tell you precisely what that Latin means:
The first phrase is “in a simple sense, different, and (but) the same according to ‘something’.”
The second one means “in a simple sense, the same, and (but) different according to ‘something’”.
As to the sense of it, I cannot enlighten you.
simpliciter eadem = absolutely the same
secundum quid = in some respect
We have to be aware that some things are many absolutely, but one in some respect. Also the converse.
Hmm…It doesn’t make much sense to translate “simpliciter eadem” as “absolutely the same”, since it give the clearly contradictory notion (and also doesn’t match the meaning of the Latin words):
“absolutely the same, but different according to (or ‘in respect to’) ‘something’,”
One might say that two editions of the same book from different years are “the same in a simple sense, but different according to ‘something’ (i.e. their year of publication).” But it would be contradictory to say (using your translational choice): “they are absolutely the same, but different according to ‘something’ (i.e. their year of publication).”
Or, conversely, we might have a red apple and a red car, a could say “simpliciter diversa, et eadem secundum colorem”, meaning, “they are different in a simple sense, but the same according to their color”. But again, it would be contradictory to say “they are absolutely different, but the same in respect to color”.
Why translate ‘simpliciter’ as ‘absolutely’, instead of ‘simply’, or ‘in a simple sense’?
I was thinking essential vs accidental.