Talk:pandeism

This article is dead wrong by a huge leap on the "earliest use of Pandeism". Luigi Ferrarese (an Italian phrenologist) described pandeism in a book called "Memorie Risguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica" ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology") published in 1838. More than 20 years before your claim. And not only was Ferrarese's description so much more on point, but it was unequivocabally critical.

Here is the complete text of the line Ferrarase uses:

"Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto, non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di KANT) : farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, cosi alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese, il quale ha sedotte le menti (COUSIN), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn' altra autorità la propria : profana i misteri , dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore ; costringe , come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec."

I do not speak Italian, but I've had this passage explained to me by one who does and roughly it means that Pandeism is the doctrine that has God split into fragments, and people being fragments of the original God, which profanes the mysteries of theology.

Here's a picture of Ferrarase's line quoted, from google books:



If you're still doubt me, here is a link to the book itself on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=viE7AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA16&dq=pandeismo

So much for the "research" that puts the Germans first. Theoph876 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are concerned principally with words, not concepts. pandeismo is certainly not the same for any dictionary as pandeism. We are often interested in things like the first "attested" use of a given spelling of a word, but that is just raw material in disagreements about questions of intellectual priority in inventing or popularizing concepts. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have very little information on which to make inferences about etymology for the English term. We cannot say how many times the English word was invented or whether the English users were Anglicizing a word they knew from another language. It is even more difficult to determine whether the English users were much influenced by the uses of similarly constructed terms from other languages. One essential aspect of this term is that is a macaronic blend ultimately Greek- and ultimately Latin-descended parts. It is not likely this was done out of lack of learning, but either for sound (Omnideism doesn't sound good to me, anyway!) or to differentiate the concept being discussed from pantheism. There may be yet other issues and reasons that would be more apparent to someone more familiar than with the words and concepts involved. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. I was involved in a dispute over this article in Wikipedia but I have realized that I have not conducted myself well. Theoph876 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that it was something like that. The apology is appreciated but not necessary. Is the entry OK as a dictionary entry? I hope it doesn't say anything false from the point of view of intellectual history a subject I like. But when a dictionary entry becomes a battleground over intellectual history, it is probably a sign that the word doesn't have much currency outside ivory towers. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Confessing my error.
This is strange, I just came to this page and the discussion was gone. Then I went to citations and back to the discussion, and it is restored! A glitch in the machine, I guess. I just came from Wikipeida where I am ashamed to confess that I have been proved in error. I copy the entire discussion below for your benefit.

You’ve been so intent on demanding research, one of the journals (the Journal of Theological Studies, or of the Journal of Modern Theology, must have been one of them but now I can’t find the article) just pushed back the first reference to Pandeism by more than fifty years!! And they put its origin back in Germany, where it belongs and where everyone has always said, from Gottfried Große’s 1787 interpretation of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History:

Naturgeschichte: mit erläuternden Anmerkungen, 1787, Volume 11, 165:

Das sechs und dreyßigste Buch.

Nun Hab' ich noch die Steine ihrer Natur nach zu beschreiben, den Hauptgegenstand unsers moralischen Unsinns — Von Gemmen, vom Succinum, von krystallischen und murrhinischem Geräthe, mag ich nichts sagen. Von allem, was ich bis zu diesem Buche beschrieben, kann man allenfalls sagen, daß es für den Menschen geschaffen sey. Aber die Berge baute die Natur für sich selbst, um in den Eingeweidender Erde Festigleit und Verbindung zu bewürken, die gewaltsamen Flüsse zu bandigen, die Wellen zu brechen, und also mit ihren sestern und hartern Theilen (1) die unruhigen:

(1) Nemlich mit den festen Theilen der Natur selbst. Beym. Plinius, den man, wo nicht Svinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen sonnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konfreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn. Waffer ist ein Naturtheil, Erde auch, nicht minder sind es die festen Gebürge. Unter den unruhigen Naturtheilen versteht er ohnstreitig das Wasser, die Winde u.s.w., geu zu beschranken.

My old-time German is no better than your old-time Italian, but I’ve made it a go with web translators and:

Natural History: With Explanatory Notes, 1787, Volume 11, 165:

The six and thirtieth book.

Describing now I have the stones to their nature, the main object of our moral nonsense - from gems, from amber from krystalkschen(crystal?) and murrhinischem(?) tools, I do not say anything. Of all the things I described to this book, one can perhaps say that it created for the people sey.(?) But the mountains built by Nature for herself, to bewürken(?) in the bowels of the earth and Festigleit(?) connection, bandigen(bandageing?) the violent rivers, breaking the waves, and therefore with their firmer and hard parts (1) the turbulent:

Namely, with the solid parts of nature itself Beyme. Pliny, the one where not Spinozist, but call a sunning Pandeist is nature or God is not separate from the world or being secreted. Its nature is the whole creation in Konfreto(?), and as it seems to be designed with his divinity. Water is a natural part, even the earth, no less, it is the mountains of solid. Among the troubled parts of nature, he understands indisputably the water, wind, etc., restrict, geu(?) too.

And so I'll just go ahead and fix the article, to reflect this half century error. Torquemama007 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torquemama007 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I confess, I am taken by suprise. Yes that is unarguably a much earlier use, and it is certain that it seems to describe the theory, if this is a correct translation. But it's no endoresement of the theory, it can only be said to observe at best. Maybe even a sly insult. A sunning Pandeist? Translation of more of the surrounding text would make the writer's opinion clear, all we know him to be saying is that Pliny could be called a Pandeist, for good or ill. Theoph87602 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the end of the discussion on Wikipedia which I am copying here to set things straight. Also, I was Theoph876 above but have lost my password, so this is my new account unless I find it. Theoph87602 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you went to Talk:Pandeism instead of Talk:pandeism. Wyctioped 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there really two notions going on here?
Seems to me, the second notion is just a characteristic of the first. Well, sure all religions are part of the one whole, if the one whole is the god who's become our Universe.