Henology and Ontology

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

I have recently read and learned about “henology.” To be honest, I hadn’t heard of this branch of philosophy until Martín (A. Sandwich in the old forum) asked me:

Essence or essences?; medium or means?; end or ends? the end justifies the means or the ends justifies the mean?, etc.

Thanks to those questions, I discovered Henology. It is a metaphysical concept that emerges under Neoplatonism and transcends to the concept of “the One”.

But I asked myself – what is the difference with ontology then?

I tried to do research on the Internet. I looked for a clear and concise text that would help me, but most of the pages I visited and the articles I read turned out to be confusing.

However, I think this approach by “Grokipedia” is good, but still, I need to have some doubts cleared up.

Henology fundamentally differs from ontology in its primary object of study and metaphysical orientation. While ontology investigates the nature of being (to on) and the structures of existence, henology, as articulated in Neoplatonic philosophy, centers on “the One” (to hen) as a transcendent principle beyond being itself, ineffable and not reducible to any category of existence.

These are my questions:

What is the difference between to on and to hen?

Does the principle “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” have a relation to Henology?

From an ontological point of view, The London Bridge is a particular entity while the color green is a universal entity.

Is the One - according to Henology - an entity which transcends those categories?

Perhaps Henology and the concept of One may serve as an argument for God’s existence, but I’m not really sure.

What do you guys think about Henology and Ontology?

2 Likes
2

I hadn’t heard the term henology either. From what you’ve described and from what I read on the web, the focus on the One seems like just a specific ontological position. So henology is a specific ontology.

My personal interest in Taoism is definitely henological. The Tao is the indivisible, unspeakable unity.

3

Thanks for sharing your views, Clarky.

Yes, Henology is like a unicorn inside metaphysics.

I am not quite sure if it could be understood as a specific ontology, because (from what I read) most philosophers agree that it is separate from ontology itself.

The Tao is a very good example of Henology, yes.

4

What is your definition of ontology (and I mean yours)? Some will define ontology as about the nature of being and then suggest that the nature of being and the source of being are either unrelated or related in a manner we can never understand. And if you accept that, then you are now doing what Heidegger calls onto-theology.

Henology (at least your description of it) is onto-theology.

This is a great topic.

1 Like
5

Any discussion of the One must include a process by which the One becomes the many. In Taoism, for example naming is the process by which this happens—by which non-being becomes being. You can’t have one without many. That makes it ontology.

1 Like
6

That’s great stuff. And now I am saying more stuff because the machine requires no less than 20 characters. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
7

Well, Arne, I guess I would define ontology as the branch of metaphysics that focuses on being.

Interesting! I have never heard of onto-theology.

Thanks! Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. You are welcome. :wink:

1 Like
8

Perhaps.

However, I think henology tries to transcend.

Henology is not concerned with the concepts of one versus many, the individual versus the group, etc.

As I understand this concept, it is about a “source”; for example, imagine that everything constituting reality is placed in a bottle. This bottle would be named the “One”. Then, we start pouring everything out of it.

9

The problem with that is there’s nothing to say about the One. As Lao Tzu wrote—“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” The Tao, the One, isn’t even a thing. The Tao Te Ching calls it non-being. Talking about it makes it something that is not the Tao. There’s no place to stand and look at the One.

What do henologists say about the One? What is there to say?

10

I can’t disagree with everything you said about Tao and Taoism. However, I think henology is related to other philosophy branches. It is also, in my opinion, a Western-like idea, particularly in Plotinus’ discourse.

Roughly speaking, henologists hold that the One is beyond all being and preaching, being the indivisible source from which everything emanates.

I still think that there are notable differences with the Tao. Don’t you think, Clarky?

For instance, the One seems to be hierarchical and structured while the Tao is more free.

11

Do you believe there is something like henosis (union with the one) that is somehow conditionally different from other states of being (talking about the one). Are we always unified with the one, or does it really require an emptying or silence of content?

A henologist might say that the purpose of life is to achieve unity with the one, if we are not already unified with the one.

12

This is from Verse 42 of Stephen Mitchell’s translation of the Tao Te Ching:

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

This is just one example. Another—this is from Verse 25:

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

1 Like
13

This is something I’ve tried to figure out. I think it is possible to experience the Tao, the One, directly, without words or concepts. Maybe I’ve done it, I’m not sure. Certainly not very often.

Yes, we are always unified with the One, but that doesn’t mean we recognize it.

I’ll go back to my original point. This is metaphysics—ontology. It’s nothing mystical or supernatural.

14

I’ll try to be more precise on what I said: the Tao is here and there; it expands, while the One is located in a unit, indivisible; it transcends.

15

I think they are the same thing but Chat GPT a reliable source thinks they are similar but different. We can leave it at that.