Abstract

The differences that lie between Professor Peltz and myself seem, reading his elegant reply, to be more semantic than material. The point which he makes, in §I, that he means by ‘equivocal’ what I, following Aristotle and the tradition, would want to call ‘analogical’, disarms any criticism. For my own part I will go on writing ‘analogical’, but it would be wilful systematically to misunderstand Professor Peltz’ ‘equivocal’, now that it has been explained.