Talk:Ousia

message: St. Gregory Palamas does not hold that the divine energies "lay outside of the godhead"; instead, he teaches that they are the manifestation of God outside of the divine essence.  In fact as St. Gregory Palamas said, "When we speak of one Godhead, we speak of everything that God is, namely, both essence and energy." [St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 126; see The Philokalia, vol. 4, page 406]  In other words, the divine energies are God as He manifests Himself in the world.
See my essay:  Book Review: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas
: You're right.  I've removed the offending section.  It didn't represent anything that resembles Palamas's teaching, and its meaning was hard to extract, as well.  —Preost talk contribs 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palamas

message: I'm not an ontologist, but I think there are some clarifications to be made about ousia and ontic. At least I am confused by it, as it sort of clashes with my school knowledge. The following is more or less how my Philosophy and Greek teachers explained the stuff to me:
#When you read the old texts, you do not find "ontic" (ontikos / ontikè) in there. It's almost always τα οντα / ta onta (Nom.Pl. of the Neuter), which would probably best translate as "the things that exist" / "what exists", i.e. the subject of existence.
#ousia is the abstract noun, the state or fact of existence itself.
#Looking at the relationships between the different terms syntactically, e.g. in the sentence "A is B", then A would be "ta onta", and the concept of "is" would be "hè ousia".
So you really can't have a sentence like "its analogues are the English participle being, and the Greek ontic" in the general introduction, can you? It's certainly not an analogue to the "Greek ontic", whatever that would be. Can somebody help clarify this part? Trigaranus (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix this by claiming that it is a modern philosophical term. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ontic and ousia: ''"its analogues are the English participle being, and the Greek ontic"'' 

message: So The Godhead is one machine with three execution modes, executing in parallel at three different places (hypostases/local realities), completely equal as regards to qualities (ousiai) only differed by XYZ (although the hypostasis René Descartes was defined later on)?? Said: Rursus (☻) 16:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No way! Hypostases ≠ local realities. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mega-huh!!?

message: Can someone explain the reason we have separate articles for essence, substance theory, accident (philosophy) and ousia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge required? 

message: According to the Merriam Webster website (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ousia), the pronunciation in English would be one of the following:
\ˈüzēə, ˈüsēə, ˈüzh(ē)ə, ˈüsh(ē)ə\
I am going to edit that in, since it seems routine enough.
AthanasiusOfAlex (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for the pronunciation 

message: Is there a source for the claim that the Synod of Antioch in 268 C.E. condemned the term ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) because it originated in pagan Greek philosophy?
According to J. N. D. Kelly, it was, rather, Paul of Samosata's application of the term that was condemned; not the word itself. In Early Christian Creeds (p.247) he write: "It seems certain that Paul's application of the description homoousios to the relation of the Father and the Son was condemned by his judges." Metatool (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Synod of Antioch and ὁμοούσιος  

message: The english word "iota" when we say "differs by an iota" comes from this. Because of "homo-ousia" and "homoi-ousia", so it differed by an iota, which was the difference between heresy and non-heresy 129.180.158.114 (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differed by an "iota" 

message: In the first section under the introductory definition, there is the final statement "the Latin word accident (sumbebekós).[1][2]" I am neither an authority on this subject, nor am I proficient in Latin, having had only two years of study in that language. Nevertheless, I tried to trace the word by using the link underlying sumbebekós, which led to dubious results. In a related article "Accident (philosophy)", the word used there is the Greek symbebekos. Still trying to find sumbebekós as a Latin word, possibly a variation of the Greek into Latin, I searched for the word on the internet in Latin dictionaries and finally in my large old Latin-German Stowasser school dictionary, but found no entries anywhere. I found the word in this spelling on one Spanish site, but that was a Spanish word and Spanish, though a Romance language, is not really Latin. Also, the spelling with a "k" is not normally a Latin spelling, as the letter "k" was only rarely used, although a takeover from the Greek into Latin, only modifying the "y" into a "u", is conceivable. Still, for the sake of consistency with other related articles, where the word is presented in the Greek form (see above), it may be better to present the word in the original Greek form here too, saying it is from that language. However, if the author/s has/have a direct and traceable source in Latin, the present form could be retained, perhaps with an additional reference to this source. It is possible, that a certain author or authority on this subject used the word spelled in this way in Latin or that my Stowasser, though large, is still not comprehensive enough to present every Latin word. Since I am new to the edit-community, I wanted to present this in a talk, rather than undertaking an edit myself, which I will leave to the author(s) to decide and possibly modify.
Natureandculture (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small lingual observation