Talk:Analogia entis

About this Article

I have replaced the strange redirect (to Rule of Faith) with a basic article. There is no other serious treatment of analogia entis in articles, perhaps because though important and fundamental, it is very difficult to summarize it clearly and key material has only recently become available in English: this difficulty is primarily (IMHO) because there are several different meanings (philosophical, theological, devotional) which do not illuminate each other, and a lot of noise (for example, it seems that the link to Rule of Faith exists because of Karl Barth's opposing concept of analogia fidei, so you get an analogy of an analogy of an analogy.)

I believe the key to making a clear article is to avoid treating the term as univocal: bringing out that when philosophers use it it means one thing (or group of things), when Catholic theologians use it it means something further, and when Protestant theologians use it it means something else again. The difficulty for an editor is that almost all quotes from reliable sources use analogia entis in the sense of their specialist field, which can result in clashes of meaning: in particularly concerning its scope: is it a statement about God or a statement about things, about language or knowledge, about academic abstractions or mystical devotion?

I think there are other usages of Analogia Entis, particualarly in devotional and rhetorical use, that need to be added to the article for completeness.

As for notability, I think it is enough that the leading Catholic theologians of the last century (von Balthasar, Ratzinger) and the leading Protestant theologian (Barth) all treated it very seriously, under the influence of their mutual friend Przywara, who said it was "the fundamental rhythm of Catholic thought". Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio alarms

Earwig triggers multiple WP:COPYVIO alarms. Apparently these are false, caused by lengthy quotes that are properly attributed in the text of the article. The subjects of WP:OVERQUOTING is open, sometimes formatting is not up to WP:QUOTE.

• http://www.millinerd.com/2006/12/whos-afraid-of-analogia-entis.html
• http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-dionysius-areopagite/#SymThe

Some quotes have confusing formatting:

• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-dionysius-areopagite/#ChaWri
• https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/01/the-end-of-the-analogy-of-being

Викидим (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have made several changes such as reducing some lengthy quotes, better citations, making ellipses use [], and removing some italicization of quotes, adding [emphasis added] as per WP:QUOTE and WP:QUOTATIONS. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)