Talk:Ontotheology

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Revise, "Contemporary Writers" section

message: 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 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.
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)
thread_title: Primacy of coinage

message: The only sentence in the section for Hegel has had a  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)
thread_title:  Hegel