Chapter 1 of Aristotle’s Categories (traditionally placed first in the corpus) introduces the distinction between univocity and non-univocity. He gives the prosaic example that when we say that a man and an ox are animals, the meaning of “animal” is the same in both cases. “Animal” is being said univocally or synonymously. But when we say that a picture of a man or an ox is an animal, the sense in which we call the picture of an animal an “animal” is not the same as the other two. Here “animal” is being said non-univocally (or equivocally, or homonymously) in relation to the other two, and overall is being said in many ways.
Aristotle is both univocity’s inventor and its insightful critic. Univocity has tremendous value for technical pursuits. Exact reasoning requires that the same term have the same meaning everywhere. But at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, he cautions that we should not seek more precision than is appropriate to the subject. In part, this means that we should not be overly prescriptive toward others. But it also recalls Aristotle’s view that there are many goods, or that “good” is said in many ways. And many goods together are better than just one.
In the Metaphysics, he discusses at length how “being” is said in many ways — much to the embarrassment of later writers who have wanted to find a “science of being” there.
In the Physics, he not only discusses four different meanings of “cause”, but goes on to use every one of them in different ways. “Cause” is said in very many ways.
I also think that beauty depends on a kind of richness and polyvalence that univocity eliminates. Stable, resilient ecosystems depend on biodiversity. Good breeding is the opposite of inbreeding.
