Where the Term Comes From?
The term onto-theology originates in Martin Heidegger’s philosophy.
Heidegger used it to describe how Western metaphysics has historically combined:
- Ontology: the study of being (what it means “to be”), and
- Theology: the idea of a supreme being, God, or ultimate ground.
In this framework, Western thought often tries to ground all beings in one highest Being (God, essence, truth, presence).
Derrida’s Engagement with Onto-Theology
Derrida, influenced by Heidegger, takes the critique further.
For him, onto-theology is the structure of Western metaphysics itself, where thought always tries to secure:
- A foundation (something ultimate to ground meaning), and
- A center (logos, truth, God, presence, essence).
- This tendency makes philosophy logocentric (centered on “logos” = reason, word, presence).
Derrida’s Critique
- Derrida argues that onto-theology reduces difference, play, and becoming by insisting everything must be explained in terms of a single origin or ultimate meaning.
- Whether it is called God, Truth, Being, or Reason, onto-theology is always about seeking a final presence that guarantees meaning.
- This is what Derrida famously deconstructs — the “metaphysics of presence.”
Onto-Theology in Deconstruction
Derrida doesn’t simply reject onto-theology but shows its limits.
His project is to reveal how texts, language, and thought always escape full closure, and cannot be reduced to one ultimate ground.
Instead of a fixed essence or divine foundation, Derrida emphasizes:
- Différance (meaning always deferred and differing),
- The trace (signs of absence within presence),
- The impossibility of absolute foundations.
Simple Example
Imagine philosophy is like a dictionary.
Onto-theology wants there to be one “master word” (say God or Truth) that guarantees the meaning of all other words.
Derrida shows that such a word is never self-sufficient; it only gets its meaning through other words.
Meaning is therefore always relational and unstable, not grounded in an ultimate “Being.”