Final answer:
The relationship between linguistic univocity/analogy and metaphysical univocity/analogy is pivotal in classical theism and realism. It is possible to use univocal language within a specific context without committing to metaphysical univocity. The transition from mythos to logos reflects this intricate relationship, as seen in the evolution of metaphysical concepts like 'Process Metaphysics'.
Step-by-step explanation:
In classical theism and realism, the relationship between linguistic univocity/analogy and metaphysical univocity/analogy is complex. Linguistic univocity and analogy deal with how words signify meaning, whether directly corresponding to reality (univocity) or by comparative resemblance (analogy). This contrasts with metaphysical univocity/analogy, which is concerned with the nature of being and the essence of things. For instance, Plato's theory of forms suggested intangible realities (universals) that our words could only approximate through analogy.
It is possible to speak univocally without asserting metaphysical univocity. While linguistic univocity implies a one-to-one correspondence between a word and its meaning, one can use language univocally within specific contexts or frameworks without committing to a single, nonnegotiable metaphysical reality. For example, the term 'good' can be used univocally in ethical discussions without implying that 'goodness' exists as a single, metaphysical universal.
The shift in philosophy from one of religious mythos to one of rational logos represents a move from metaphysical analogy to a kind of linguistic univocity. However, this transition is not a clean break but an evolution where religious and philosophical ideas continually interweave. The concept of Process Metaphysics introduces a dynamic understanding of reality, contrasting traditional static substances with a view that emphasizes actual entities, eternal objects, and the presence of creativity and change.