Talk:Ontotheology

On the origin of the term

A direct quote is given from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (aka Critique of Speculative Reason, with two citations as to the origin of the term. As is not uncommon with Kant, the term ontotheology was subjected to a number of interpretations in the last two centuries, of which Heidegger's usage is, while prominent, only one of several. Heidegger was making an equation between the entire realm of speculative theology (defined as "ontotheology" , cf. "cosmotheology") and metaphysics. It's an interesting interpretation that has caught the eye of many philosophers, with differing interpretations of what Heidegger meant, and whether he was legitimately redefining the parameters of both metaphysics and ontotheology. That in itself is an interesting debate. ... Kenosis 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ken,

I think the usage as you say does flow through many years and for that reason because of the radical changes in its meaning and to help someone get directly to a certain usage it is not helpful to remove the sectioning.

The quote from Magee is not "erroneous fabrication", and I dont think it constructive to attribute it so. As a respected scholar I believe he is entitled to his belief. I do add that it is mistaken perhaps since Kant coined the original term, one might suggest that ontotheology in the hands of Heidegger and Derrida made the matter a more pressing and relevant issue. It is notable that Kant only uses the term once, no?

Heidegger controversial? What particular philosopher was not controversial? In any case he is hugely influencial on the continental tradition, within which this term is most relevant since I do not believe it used in the Anglophone tradition Lucas20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: "The quote from Magee is not "erroneous fabrication", and I dont think it constructive to attribute it so": In a pig's eye. First, I simply said it is "erroneous". We have several citations clearly showing this, including Kant's original usage. Don't forget, Kant, in his Critique, defined many of the problems of philosophy for at least the succeeding century and beyond, even until today in many instances. Second, if it's clearly erroneous, it's our job to tell it like it is.

I recognize this is a learning process, but the recent push to put Heidegger as the definitive view of ontotheology today is simply incorrect. I trust we will get this straight for the reader in the end, as well as for our own accurate information.

As to Heidegger, he is not only controversial, but highly controversial, and anything but definitive on the subject of ontotheology today. I trust we'll get that straight for the interested reader as well, at least in the end. ... Kenosis 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your "pig's eye"? I dont agreed that it is erroneous, there is some truth in it just as in Kant's own use of the word "intuition" which he "borrowed" from the scholastics. It is also true in the sense that lots of people believe (mistakenly perhaps) that he did coin it. When a word is reused centuries later it often is very different, for example, would you explain "technology" as the Greeks understood it, the "logos" of "techne", the "discussions about skills".

In any case Heidegger, "highly controversial", I dont know why you think this, but you are entitled to your opinion, I think it is brave of you to stand alone on such opinion. The point here is really Heidegger's writing and thought, about which one would be hard pushed to find a philosopher in the continental tradition not influenced by him. Ontotheology would not even be up for discussion, would not have been an entry in this encylopedia if it were not for Heidegger and Derrida. I cant see who else is vying for using this term within philosophy.--Tercross 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that "Lucas" is also User:Tercross. I have reverted thrice. Somebody else's job to keep the personal POVs and musings out for now. As I said, I trust we'll get this right for the reader in the end. ... Kenosis 22:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, alot of extra stuff is included here and I have had to revert several times. We will see that it works ok I hope. As a suggestion it may be an idea to have a seperate page for theological rather than philosophical usage. Theology seems to have little used the term apart from a reaction to the recent philosophical usages of it, also there is no reference from the theology page.. The page was initially created with a view to understanding contemporary usage of the term. However, it is nice to have an etymology too, though a dictionary might also benefit from that. --Tercross 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be a POV fork. Verboten. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

a POV fork? What is this and secondly to what do youi refer when you suggest it is a "POV fork"? Verboten? Do you mean verbatim?--Tercross 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you try to stick with just one user names? It's really rather easy you know. In any case, see Wikipedia:Content forking. Verboten. Schlecht. Nicht gut. Verstehst du? •Jim62sch• 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Usages of the term "ontotheology"

Heidegger's proposal to equate philosophy in general, and metaphysics specifically, with the term ontotheology has met with very mixed reception among philosophers. It remains quite unsettled as to what the meaning and appropriate range of application of the word (at least as of yet), and depends on who the writer is. A number of late-20th and 21st century writers appear to be using the term as Kant gave it, thus applying it to the scholastics starting at a minimum with Anselm, and forward through Descarte's causa sui, Spinoza's and Leibniz's metaphysics, along with that of other "rationalist" philosophers such as Hegel and forward from there.

Charles Taliaferro, as an example, in Evidence and Faith: Philosophy and Religion since the Seventeenth Century (2005), uses the term "ontotheological" in reference to Kant (at 306) and Derrida (at 324), but "ontological" in reference to theological arguments involving More, 18, Leibniz, 139–140, Spinoza, 151, Kant, 224–227, 229, Hegel, 271, Russell, 226 (taking the more analytical slant of course). This appears to be a fairly well accepted allocation of these terms, even though the term ontotheological can reasonably be applied to arguments of all the above writers except that of Russell. And some writers appear to use it just that way, more or less as a synonym for ontological. According to Heidegger's assertions about what philosophy, particularly metaphysics, "does for a living", all of this can be termed ontotheological including Russell's slant. (If you ask me personally, Heidegger has a very good point, but my personal view of Heidegger's point is not relevant in Wikipedia.)

Heidegger says, inter alia, as follows, according to one philosophy writer's analysis that I could find:

"Philosophy’s questioning is always and in itself both onto-logical and theological in the very broad sense. Philosophy is Ontotheology. The more originally it is both in one, the more truly it is philosophy. And Schelling’s treatise is thus one of the most profound works of philosophy because it is in a unique sense ontological and theological at the same time (Treatise p. 51)."

Daniel Fidel Ferrer writes in comment about this view of Heidegger's: "According to Heidegger theology, philosophy, metaphysics, and ontology are closely linked. This position is not in line with what passes as Philosophy on most university campus[es] today." ([1]). Most professors of philosophy would agree with Ferrer's basic assertion here, which is that Heidegger's assertion unduly blurs the categories typically used by philosophers to mark the territory of discussion.

Thus Heidegger's use of the term, although it is presently the most widely thrown around by the Google standard of notability, is but one approach to the term. Kant, I should note, for all the neologisms he threw around, was responsible for "inventing" and initially defining a significant number of terms that are today key terms in philosophy and beyond, and ontotheology appears to be another one of them. So a lot of this is about territory within philosophy. Heidegger's saying in essence, "well, heck, it's all ontotheology whenever you get philosophers discussing the issues of what's 'beyond' physics and what is 'being' (i.e., metaphysics, theology and ontology), and you can't separate them". At the very least it is plain that many other writers disagree. ... Kenosis 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is certainly a provocative statement by Heidegger and Derrida, equating the history of philosophy with ontotheology. And I would not exclude physics and the sciences from this, they could, in fact, be seen as the objective correlative for such an equating. "Heck it is all ontotheology", no, it is more like, "it has all been like that until I came along! I'll save you from this great error", "I give you a genuine ontology instead of a disguised ontotheology". Nor could we say they are completely correct, jury's out; but it is a most interesting current use of a term that had been practically dead and has been taken up by most continental philosophy. It is not really an issue in Anglophone, as far as the term's use goes. We must distinguish its use, its "shorthand", from its meaning in this philosophy section of the encyclopedia.

The term is widely used by Heidegger, Derrida and the like, not just according to Google, or "campuses" (was it a questionaire he gave on a corner of that great philosophical campus, MIT?), but from what I can find at university sources. Try looking in Ovid Philosopher's database or Jstor, almost all references are to Continental philosophers, the likes of Derrida, Ricoeur, Levinas, etc. who use it from Heidegger's sense.--Lucaas 15:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who "Daniel Fidel Ferrer" is, but that most professors do not agree that these issues (ie, that metaphysics, ontotheology are linked etc.) is conjecture really, and we must not rely on hearsay but turn to the more established writers in philosophy, we are certainly not going to decide the issue here, but one must remember that ontotheology is, in a way, the name for this issue whether you say philsophy has been ontotheological or not. "Both the contention that there are 'eternal truths' and the jumbling together of Dasein's phenomenally grounded 'ideality' with an idealized absolute sibject, belong to the residues of Christian theology within philosophical problematics which have not as yet been radically extruded" .........Heidegger, Being and Time, H229. Lucaas

Well, for the present, I would assert that removal of the bulk of a section on Kant with three footnotes and replacing it with a POV plainly intended to debunk Kant's involvement is vandalism. I suggest getting back about the task of improving the rest of the article, and if I'm able to find more useful and relevant material, I'll add to it and attempt to integrate it the best I can. ... Kenosis 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no point of view it is straight from Kant. It is actually quite simple what Kant means by the term, no debunking, I'd suggest you try readng it, check the history of the terms usage too. What was added in that edit on cosmotheology etc. overly complicates the matter, anyhow COSMOtheology has its own page, lets not define it here. All Kant means by ontotheology is quite simple: knowledge of God through concepts alone, ie, without experience.

I believe a concepts meaning and use is important to give in context which means including a list of the multiple other theologies Kant defined in the same few paragraphs. Could you define light without dark? I suggest you make a suggestion of what of that new stuff, on cosmotheology, etc. should be added and I'll try and integrate.--Lucaas 15:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tercross, Lucas, Lucaas, whoever you are: I don't have adequate time or inclination to prove these statements of yours to be the errata they currently are, nor do your comments lend themselves to the impression you are genuinely interested in anyting but getting your way on ideas you already have set in your mind at present, and cherrypicking my submissions for excuses to do it. But very quickly: (1) Ontotheology and cosmotheology are relevant because they were introduced to the philosophical world as companion terms. (2) The Iain Thomson book supports the Kant view of the term's origin and use until Heidegger's now-famous assertions about the term. (3) The distinction in Kant's definition is crucial, because the most common philosophical use of the term other than in reference to Heidegger's view is in reference to the "rationalist" philosophers. ... Kenosis 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspicion (of my egoism), as they say, haunts the guilty mind! As I suggested go read Kant, go check the philosophic journals. In Kant, it is clear that cosmotheology is given along with many other theologies, has no special place in this article, it refers to infering God from a general experience, and I agree, include it but along with the other theologies Kant defined in the same paragraphs, and give a reference to its own page which already exists.

Well I too agree with the Thomson book, I have no doubt that Kant coined the term The problem arises in trying to explain why and how the term is used today and not in 1889. That is why you need to check the journals as I did, since you dont seem to believe me, did you check "Ovid philosophers database" or Jstor? --Lucaas 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RE "Well I too agree with the Thomson book, I have no doubt that Kant coined the term": OK, that's a start. So, all editors here can henceforth reasonably agree that this issue is settled in future edits. ... Kenosis 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Revise, "Contemporary Writers" section

In my opinion this section contains too much original research and seems quite off the mark anyhow, since Kant's definition, if you read it (at A630) specifically defines another theology, theologia revelata (revealed theology), as a distinct branch to that of transcendental theology, of which ontotheology is a type. I think the whole issue has come down too much a supposed everyday meaning of "onto" and "theology", rather than taking the "term of art" as it is currently in use in philosophy. Its original use, if any, in theology itself, is another matter and it would be good to have some input on that. It might then be an idea to give two seperate sections one for theology, the other for philsophy.--Lucaas 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have cites for that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations? Yes these are available. What is your opinion on this matter anyhow, is not theologie revelata a different problem to ontotheology? --Lucaas 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ontotheology is at a crossroads of theology and philosophy. Though it's primarily in the domain of philosophy, it belongs to both because many theologians have a direct interest in the form of some of these arguments and indeed some use ontological arguments for the existence and/or argued nature of the supernatural. And yes, "revealed theology" runs very close to ontotheology but is a separate category of theological assertion because one gets to skip over any rational explanation by saying the assertions were revealed. At that point, basically either they believe ya' or they don't. ... Kenosis 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is very much at the crossroads. The article does state that certain people have tried to get over the p"roblem of ontotheology" by going to revelealed theology. Seems to me the problem they see is the problem of trying to show God's existence and not the problem that is described by labelling metaphysics as a form of theology, which seems to be the most widespread contemporary use of it. I hope you like my full explanation of Kant's terms, it may be overkill but it does give the whole picture. What modifications, if any, do you see needed for the section that gives reference to this issue of revelation?--Lucaas 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some consensus here then? Both of us agree that revealed theology is a separate category. It would seem then that the section in the article about getting over ontotheology by turning to revelation, is not within the issue of ontotheology and should be perhaps moved to an article on "belief in God" etc.--Lucaas 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

User:Lucaas, please be advised that you are already in excess of three reverts on this material. In keeping with WP:3RR, a request will be made to block your access if there are any further attempts to remove relevant and properly sourced material from this article. [2] [3] [4] [5] ... Kenosis 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kenosis, as far as I can see you have reverted it FOUR times! Anyhow I tried to merge the stuff in talk, taking in your point of view and giving a complete "tree" for the distinctions Kant made, thus including as much from all sides as possible. When I first started this article I did not know how much interest there was from yourself and others I was really thinking of someone who comes across the term and that is usually in the context of continental philosphy. It would be interesting to know where you first came across this term? --Lucaas 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, three, and if you ask me (which he didn't), none of them at all should have been necessary to begin with. The removed material on Kant is properly sourced and relevant, and is backed up by a very notable secondary source written about Heidegger's usage, and which further states that Heidegger proceeded to apply an alternate usage to the term. The "Lucaas/Tercross" removals and truncated rewrites of the section on Kant are merely stubborn attempts to further the POV that ontotheology is Heidegger's term. When in fact, Kant defined the term, along with a few other key terms today such as phenomenon, noumenon, transcendental aesthetic and many others. In general, when philosophers use the term ontotheology or ontotheological they mean something akin to Kant's definition of the term, unless they're talking specifically about the Heideggarian usage. This is mere stubbornness, and unfortunately I've gotten stubborn too, because the verbatim definition by Kant is key to a proper understanding of the term ontotheology as it has been used by philosophers over the course of the past two centuries. ... Kenosis 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no removed of on Kant's discussion, one of the rather winding quotes is removed and instead a much more thorough inclusion of the concepts around ontotheology is given in a complete "concept tree". One straighforawrd quote from Kant gives a nutshell explanation of the term, it is not really that complex for Kant.

By the way, I have no wish to pretend Kant didnt coin it, of course he did. "When philosphers use the term", you claim this often but I'm not sure to whom you refer, is it from a certain course or general reading or Google? Can you name some that might be recognisable? I already showed from "Ovid Philsophers database", a reputable source, that almost all uses, refer to Heidegger's "redeployment" of the term. I'm not stubborn as such, it is just that I'd like to stay loyal to why I created this topic in the first place. I still wonder where it was you first heard this term? --Lucaas 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Surely the only sane solution is to include both uses of this term.

After all, no one person owns the word. I remind you, I AGREE with you, Kant did coin it as the article states. I just wonder why you disbelieve me when I say most current use in from Heidegger. --Lucaas 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See here a list from Ovid on a search for ontotheology, almost all articles are in the Continental/Heideggerean/Derridean mould, have rarely seen the term used in US or British campus pubs:

• Sochon, Jan. Paul Ricoeur's Thoughts about Theodicy (in Polish). [Journal Article] Kwartalnik Filozoficzny. 33(2): 37-50, 2005.
• Papastephanou, Marianna. Onto-Theology and the Incrimination of Ontology in Levinas and Derrida. [Journal Article] Philosophy and Social Criticism. 31(4): 461-485, 2005.
• Moreiras, Alberto. La piel del lobo: Militancias onto-teologicas. [Journal Article] Res Publica: Revista de filosofia politica. 13-14(6): 309-331, 2004.
• Mayos, Goncal. Modernidad y racionalidad: Razon geometrica versus razon dialectica. [Journal Article] Convivium: Revista de Filosofia. 18: 47-72, 2005.
• Thomson, Iain. Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics of Education. [Monograph] Cambridge Univ Pr, Cambridge.
• Trabattoni, Franco. Platone ontoteologo? [Journal Article] Rivista di Storia della Filosofia. 59(4): 921-930, 2004.
• Mandair, Arvind. Auto-Immunity in the Study of Religion(s): Ontotheology, Historicism and the Theorization of Indic Culture. [Journal Article] Sophia: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysical Theology and Ethics. 43(2): 63-85, 2004.
• Juliao, Jose Nicolao. Os Equivocos de Heidegger na Delimitacao da Ontoteologia. [Journal Article] Principios: Revista de Filosofia. 9(11-12): 82-108, 2002.
• Moya Bedoya, Juan Diego. Los conceptos spinoziano y leibniziano de Divinidad: Una colacion: I parte. [Journal Article] Revista de Filosofia de la Universidad de Costa Rica. 40(101): 41-52, 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucaas (talk • contribs)

Primacy of coinage

Cut:

However, the word's coinage is often, mistakenly perhaps, associated with Heidegger, who redeployed it, thus giving its contemporary use within continental philosophy, as a reference to metaphysics in general, but more especially the metaphysics of presence

I made a bunch of other cuts, too. Who cares who coined the term first?

If there's a dispute among non-Wikipedians about this, let's describe the dispute neutrally, i.e., without making the article take sides on the question of who is right. --Uncle Ed 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think anyone would disagree that it was coined by Kant. The problem, briefly, is I think there is way too much lineage in the article given to Kant, because I think the definition of ontotheology for Kant is really very simple (ie, demostrating God through logical argument, Kant disproof of such a tack is famous of course). It reallly only needs one line.

In anycase, I maintain that its the contemporary use of "ontotheology", which, I maintain, is mostly within continental philosophy, that should be the main focus. I've tried demonstrating this with evidence above. The other side, eg, user Kenosis, believes that the term is mainly used to refer to the original meaning from Kant and want to reduce the lines we give to its contemporary usage in continental philosophy.--Lucaas 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Kant's usage

This version by Lucaas, reproduced below, is at present far more confusing than it needs to be to convey the necessary points, and also erroneous on several key issues within. ... Kenosis 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "ontotheology" was first coined by Immanuel Kant, and is a theology which "believes it can know the existence of a Supreme Being [Urwesen] through mere concepts, without the help of any experience whatsoever". As an example of such a theology see St. Anselm’s ontological argument

In is important to note the context within which Kant, defined ontotheology. At the broadest level Kant distinguished two theologies: that which comes from reason and that of revelation. Within the category of reasoned theology he distinguished two further types, transcendental (a form of deism) and natural theology. Transcendental theology aims either at ontotheology or at cosmotheology. Within, the latter, natural theology, there is physico theology and an ethical or moral theology.

However, the word's coinage is often, mistakenly perhaps, associated with Heidegger, who redeployed it, thus giving its contemporary use within continental philosophy, as a reference to metaphysics in general, but more especially the metaphysics of presence ... 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref1:Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, A631.

Ref2:Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, A629-A640

Ref3: " I am in accord with the broadly “ontotheological” interpratation of Hegel offered by Martin Heidegger, who coined the term", Magee, G in "Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition", Cornell University Press, 2001. ... 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will get back to analyzing this later. ... Kenosis 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Consensus

Well, let us try analizing it to gain consensus. Any comments are helpful. Let us present evidence for any change with justification and backup for any accusations of "confusing" or "erroneous", so lets not just sling words and ignorance at one another.18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Lucaas

First Issue For Agreement

The above copy of "Kants Usage", what is it lacking, is it unclear in anyway? --Lucaas 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, we will need to dance around the delineations of natural theology and its sub-categories, and what Kant means by them. Among the reasons is, by ethical or moral theology in this context, Kant meant an argument for the existence of God and/or arguments about the speculated form, style, substance, attributes, etc of God, derived from observations of morals or ethics, and not as commandments, rules, expectations or demands about how humans should behave. While I felt it was necessary to present "cosmotheology" (essentially, the cosmological argument) as a counterpoint to ontotheology (essentially the ontological arguments) because they are competing tensions within "transcendental theology" as defined in the Critique, I think it may be too far out of bounds here to give Kant's entire description of the field of speculative theology. And it is different than most people imagine these terms, especially when translated into other languages like English.

For another, we should skip the reference to "deism" because it does not fairly represent Kant's position on the issue. For Kant, transcendental theology does not equal deism, unless one is specifically excluding the possibility of divine action or influence in the world.

For a third thing, the very word that can be translated as "ontotheology" is an agglutinative term in German, that is not found in all translations of Kant, nor in all translations of Heidegger. Others simply use "ontology", and I or someone else would need to carefully research this out. I don't have much time at present, and I'm still trying to track down the first English translation to use "ontotheology". At some point in the article's development the editors should be able to present this issue properly for the reader.

For a reassurance that the issues are not as simple as Lucaas/Tercross and/or other editors may have surmised in the recent initial development of this article, look at the other translations of the Critique, several of which are available online at no cost. ... Kenosis 02:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so ethical theology is based on morals as found not on some certain traditional rules. Well, perhaps to give it its own page may be an idea. I agree, an entire thing on Kant's theology is beyond the scope here and would be better sited in Kant's page or in theology proper. We are trying to narrow in on onto-theology.

Deism? "The person who believs in a transcendental theology alone, is termed a deist"...Kant(A631). An intervening God would be a natural theology (theism).

In German the word is, "Ontotheologie", its all Greek anyhow, so if it did get translated as ontology it would've been a clear slip-up. Ontology is clearly a different word. I think one complication would be the Greek origin of the word "Theology" since they had a different array of gods, their myths, and were mortal. One idea might be to include a sentence on the other meaning for ontotheology in the opening definition at the top, then you could jump to the one your looking for.--Lucaas 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Θεος was the Greek word for "god", period. It was the separate gods who had names and no, they were not mortal. Theology literaly means "to speak of the Gods" (i.e., study), just like biology means the same for life, etc. Not that it much matter here. •Jim62sch• 10:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Theo was not a word, but the stem for "Theos", which comes from the greek for "god" or "gods". The point I was making is that they didnt have one god but many, and they were mortal.--Lucaas 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No one said Theo was a word, it is the combinatory root (or stem as you will). Theos does not "come" from the Greek word for god, it is the Greek word for God. How many gods they had is irrelevant, and no they were not mortal. They may have interacted with mortals (as did the Abrahamic god), but interaction does not correlate to assumption of the quality of mortality. •Jim62sch• 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed no one said theo- was a word. Theos, along with Theoi Theon and Theou were some of the greek words refering to "god", "gods" and "of a god". They could not have had a word for "God", because they had many gods. Many were mortal, or at least died in the myths, some were left living, others were immortal, some found immortality a burden, etc. Theos is a noun unlike "God," which is also a name.--Lucaas 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Theoi, Theon and Theou are declensions from Theos. (Same way in Latin we get deus, dei, deum, deo, etc.) Also, using your logic the Catholic church should not be using the word "Deus" (as in opus dei) as it too meant "a god". BTW, if you have an friends in the Greek artodox church, tell them not to use theos -- even though in Homer, Theos specifically meant God, as in the phrase, Θεòς δωςει, "God will grant". Finally, as it was the Germans who first developed a deep understanding of Greek, produced the first truly usable Greek Grammar and who were by far the best Greek linguists of the age, I'm quite sure that they were aware that "theos" meant both "a god" and "God". You might want to run down to the public library and get a few books on classical Greek: you know just enough to be dangerous, but hardly enough to know what you're on about. The rest of the argument is just silly. •Jim62sch• 10:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No one said that modern usage was not "God" or Dios", "Theos" etc. I'm refering to how the words were in Ancient Greece, the etymology in other words, how their origins were. Notice that in ancient Greek they "articulated" Theo-, that is, in most texts we see, "a god" or "the gods" , etc.. So using "God" without an article and as a name/noun was an innovation that came later in euro languages. As philosophy, we are looking at the origins of the word combo, onto-theology, here, we go to ancient greece, not the modern one. Origins of theology is only a side issue here anyhow, so lets close this issue on "Theos" and leave no mention of it in the article.

--Lucaas 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reading this translation], and when Lucaas/Tercross/anon thinks he/they understand it, please do get back to me on it. ... Kenosis 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reference. It translates ontotheology as the "ontological proof (of God)", similar for cosmo-. Well this is not a good translation, theology is not the precisely the same as proving the existence of God. Do you want to include details of how it was translated by various writers? First translation used ontotheology, it was Willich's one of 1798.--Lucaas 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is a valid linguistic translation. The root οντο- means "of being, reality, truth (by extension proof of)" thus, truth-speak-of-god would be accurate. You might want to get a copy of the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, or failing that at least get an OED. •Jim62sch• 10:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Norman Kemp-Smith's translation is not fairly characterized as "not a good translation", at least not based on the issue discussed just above on this talk page. The book Critique of Speculative Reason, also translated as Critique of Pure Reason, is primarily about the various types of "transcendental aesthetic" that are used to try to make sense of the world (it is the work in which Kant made the classic distinction between "phenomenon" and "noumenon" (thing-in-itself, "Ding an sich"). In this particular context of transcendental theology (yet more confusing to many because "natual theology" is part of the "transcendental aesthetic"), the Kemp-Smith translation is equally workable in English as is the Mickeljohn translation, perhaps more workable, because the Kemp-Smith transalation makes plainer what Kant is talking about. Still, "ontological proof" may be more accurately interpreted as "ontological argument". ... Kenosis 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure it is a good translation in general and maybe even gets closer in many cases. In this case no. I believe its the only translation which changes the word. I agree too with the idea that "proof" could tranlate onto-, but the word proof is in German too, and wasn't used by Kant. Nor would it be a good general translation of, onto-, being. I'd be amazed if a non-translation, that is using the same neologism that Kant invoked in Greek, "ontotheology" could be improved upon. Now as for explaining the English/Greek, "ontotheology" for someone not familiar with the term, this is what we're doing, but it was not the job of the German translator to undo Kant's neologism.--Lucaas 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See what Kant does to people?; Heidegger too. When we start talking about "being", one has to wonder how far down that track we're expected to go. Does the writer intend that we should experience being in a way that a plant does, or a rock, or water, and just "be"? Or, is thinking involved?, is talking or writing or reading or listening involved?. If any or all of the last four, there also are words involved, and the concepts they convey. Which leads us back to the complexities of trying to communicate what is meant by being. So my extrapolation that there is God from some aspect of being that I may or may not be able to successfully communicate might well differ from others' extrapolation from being. This is, after all, a difficult topic... Kenosis 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very general topic you have brought up, and an important one. The issue of Being is of that nature. ~"Extrapolations that there is God (or a god), from Being itself", this is onto-theology as practiced, but we are not practicising it here, were trying to define the practice, that is the practice of talking about God (gods) from concepts alone, without referring to the bible or some experience or feeling that one might have, or have had. There is another page for Being itself. And yes it is very "far down the track", Being is the most general concept, it includes all of the above: rocks, concepts, etc. It is also the hardest to see, it's invisible, in a way, since it is always there. The words then as you point out become difficult because words and concepts too have Being. Remind me, what was your "extrapolation from Being"?--Lucaas 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RE "what was your "extrapolation from Being": I personally don't include an ontological argument among my arguments, at least not publicly. They're conceptual nightmares. ... Kenosis 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Issue For Agreement

How to avoid making two pages for this term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.33.74 (talk • contribs)

Solution

Include both uses at equal parity. Unless anyone thinks the coiner of the term should get more. Or the the original dictionary etymology should get more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.33.74 (talk • contribs) I suggest adding to

Ontotheology means the ontology of God and/or the theology of being. It refers to a tradition of philosophical theology first prominent among medieval scholastics such as Anselm, Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas.

with something like,

"It can also refer, in a possibly deprecating manner, to Western metaphysics in general"--Lucaas 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the explanation of Heidegger's assertions about the term are best explained in the appropriate section(s). But if it's to be presented in the intro, perhaps something like "In some usages, the term has been taken to refer to metaphysics in general." This would be fairly consistent with Heidegger's slant. ... Kenosis 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That wording is ok, but would like then to replace last bit with: "...refer to the history of metaphysics".--Lucaas 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Heidegger use it to refer to all metaphysics? or at least make the argument that ontotheology "is metaphysics"? ... Kenosis 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In a way you are right, I think a compromise might be to mention the "tradition of metaphysics" or the "Western tradition of ..."

--Lucaas

Lucaas, shouldn't this be tracked down to get clear on what he meant? i.e., what was the scope of his assertion? ... Kenosis 03:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The scope was from Socrates, thru Descartes, Kant, all the way to early 20th century, ie, the main bulk of the ("official") history of metaphysics at the time of his writing. The point is that his criticism was not of one thing or one philosopher but at a bias he saw in the whole thing. I think without being too fastidiuos, it is enough to say "western metaphysics" in such an opening paragraph.--Lucaas 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So we end up with something like "In some usages, the term has been taken to refer to Western metaphysics in general.", or "In some usages, most notably that of Heidegger, the term has been taken to refer to Western metaphysics in general." ... Kenosis 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the first quote you gave, since it's not just Heidegger who uses it like that but he was the first.--Lucaas 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Third Issue For Agreement

<Please add in third issue>

Hegel

The only sentence in the section for Hegel has had a {{fact}} tag for nearly five months, and the recent addition of citations (December, 2005) did not address this one:

Hegel G. W. F. Hegel, writing after Kant in the Nineteenth century, sought to demonstrate the unity of theology and philosophy through the dialectic and ultimate sublimation of religion in the progressive unfolding of the Absolute Spirit.

As such I moved it here, if there is interest in coming up with a cited and informative version that would be great. I am not sure if I will get to it anytime soon myself. - Sam 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)