Talk:Immanence/Archive 1

Nominated for deletion
Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 16 to Apr 21 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:


 * Dicdef. Transwiki to wiktionary. -- Zigger 17:29, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)
 * Keep. Immanence is an important philosophical concept, and this article can be expanded accordingly - for now the stub will have to suffice. Pteron 19:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even as dicdef it is incorrect. Mikkalai 02:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know much about philosophy, but I'll take Pteron's word. Cribcage 06:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some content, including links to religious topics, but it is still a stub. (The reference to the Unix book has me lost). Imc 13:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. - UtherSRG 00:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Additions
Having read this page, there are a number of additions that I'd like to make - I add this discussion comment before making them:

a) Immanence is better related to panentheism than to pantheism - I'd add that, along with a link to the panentheism page

b) Among Christian groups (or, at least, in this case among Christian-derived groups) the Religious Society of Friends - the Quakers, of which I'm a Member - though non-creedal, largely base their (our) theology and Testimonies ('guides to right living') with attention to the notion that there is 'that of God' present within every (human) person (I parenthise (real word?) 'human', since the evolving view among Friends - Quakers - is that there is 'that of God' present within everything - not that everything is God (pantheism) - that would contradict Friends'Peace Testimony, for example).

I have a vague knowledge that this question of 'that of god present within all humans' - ie a limited form of immanence (and mightily human-centric as equally among Friends!) - is also part of Lutheran theology - I'll search more on that.

c) Finally, my reading of a history of Toynbee Hall ('Toynbee Hall and Social Reform 1880 - 1914: The search for community', Standish Meacham, Yale UP) suggests that Thomas Hill Green (for whom there is a Wikipedia entry, but without the following point) was influential in promoting the actions at Toynbee Hall on the basis of his views on immanence: this, if so, needs adding to both his biographical note and to the philosophy section at this entry.

Any comments any-one watching this?

Hope so!

john courtneidge

Weasel words
Suggested weasel words: "Scholarly works differentiate these traditions from monism. " What sort of scholarly works?

Unsourced
Having read this page, i conclude that it has almost no reliable sources. There are 8 endnotes: one is a biblical quote, one is a book on spinoza, and the other 6 are a unpublished work from an website of no authority.

Looking at the external links, one is to the long superseded old catholic encyclopedia, one to a conference paper, and two to unreliable unauthoritative websites.

If anyone is still watching this, how about some real sources? I'll be back to remove the unreliable ones. DGG (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I added 2 real and actual sources; Carl Schmitt and Jean-Luc Nancys article. FINginga (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism
I deleted a couple sentences under the heading "Mormonism" because part of it was unrelated to the article, and part of it didn't make sense. It's all unsourced anyway, so I stripped it down to the part that actually relates to the current article.

--

There are several heterodox or quasi-heterodox ideas that are not mainstream LDS theology. I have edited these for brevity, clarity, and doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.55.81 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism
I don't have any sources for this, but if your looking to expand, immanence is also a concept in hinduism. The main trinity, brahma, vishnu, and shiva are referred to as the Sat-Tat-Aum, (the being, the thatness or immanence, and the word(like the holy spirit in the catholic trinity). im not sure how to fit it in, but its worth adding a section. Baron Harkonnen (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, No Reference and apparently an Original Research Problem In Immanence in religion section
The following sentence: "Christians also have the distinction of referring to God as "Abba Father", a personally endearing term akin to "daddy" used by Jesus in Mark 14:36...." goes against NPOV and is not sourced. The Latin from the New Vulgate for "Abba Father" is "Abba, Pater!". This also appears to be "original research". If you have a legitimate reference for this sentence, reference it. I'm deleting this sentence. Jason3777 (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried to fix the material I deleted
I don't know enough about this subject to be sure this was the original intent of the person who wrote "Christians also have the distinction of referring to God as "Abba Father", a personally endearing term akin to "daddy" used by Jesus in Mark 14:36 and later by Paul in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6." but I did try my best to replace it using documented sources hopefully carrying the same context without the unverified information "Christians also have the distinction" and the use of "daddy".

The replacement reads "Jesus’ use of “Abba, Pater” - a combination of the Aramaic and the Greek forms of “Father” - in prayer shows a filial intimacy with God (Mark 14:36); Paul furthers this filial connection with God to all Christians in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6." Jason3777 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Secular sense unrepresented
The sense in which this term is used in Continental Philosophy is misrepresented. Lycurgus (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What does misrepresented mean? It´s actually quite a common term... well, mayde in a bit marginal sources. FINginga (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrible POV problems in Christianity section
Content aside, most of the article has a relatively normal tone. The Christianity section sounds like someone is preaching at a church. Most of the phrases used in the descriptive paragraphs - not quotes - are not anything anyone would say outside of a deeply Christian perspective. It should be rewritten to remove the religious overtones, which are irrelevant to the article and certainly don't belong in a descriptive paragraph. Examples follow:
 * - "The only transcendent, almighty, and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. "
 * - "God who in his essence is incomprehensible and transcendent."

Glacialfury (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mormon quote
The Mormonism section ended with a one line paragraph:

Verse 36 in section 93 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants says "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth."

This quote doesn't add anything to the preceding summary paragraph. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than proselytizing, so I deleted it.

I also made some small grammatical changes to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.165.67 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Immanence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080625200657/http://www.file.org.br/the_culture_of_immanence.doc to http://www.file.org.br/the_culture_of_immanence.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate articles?
My immediately feeling from reading this page is that religious immanence and immanence as it relates to transcendental and highly metaphysical philosophies, should be separate articles. --Tomsega (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose, since, read only a little of it, but still I believe they are meant to be of same topic, same phenomenom, so principally only the angle is different. The section of philosophy should only be clearified and enlargened. FINginga (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immanence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611135900/http://www.egs.edu/library/gilles-deleuze/biography to http://www.egs.edu/library/gilles-deleuze/biography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence starts "Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths..." Is anything missing there? If that covers all faiths, we might just as well leave "monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic" out. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)