Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne return to religion-online 47 Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Franklin I. Gamwell (eds.) John B. Cobb, Jr. is Ingraham Professor of Theology, School of Theology at Claremont, California, and Avery Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School. Franklin I. Gamwell. is Dean and Associate Professor of Ethics and Society at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. Published by the University of Chicago Press . Chicago and London, 1984. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. (ENTIRE BOOK) These chapters present a criticsl discussion among eminent philosophers, theologians, and Hartshorne himself on Hartshorne’s method, his logic, his theism and his metaphysics. Both proponents and critics of this honored philosopher contribute essays to this volume, and Hartshorne writes extensive response to each writer. Preface Charles Hartshorne has become the most forceful and convincing interpreter of Whitehead, and to him belongs principal credit for shaping the influence of process philosophy upon contemporary philosophical theology. Introduction: How I Got That Way by Charles Hartshorne How philosophers think about religion may well depend largely on how they have encountered it in childhood and youth. Believing this, Hartshorne tells us a bit of the genealogy that makes up his genes and the background that provides the grounds of his theology. Chapter 1: Methodology in the Metaphysics of Charles Hartshorne by Eugene H. Peters For Charles Hartshorne, a metaphysical statement is a unique form of statement. It is to be distinguished from empirical (that is, factual) assertions, which if true at all are true contingently. Metaphysical statements, if true, are true not contingently but necessarily. Chapter 2: The Experience of God: Critical Reflections on Hartshorne’s Theory of Analogy by Schubert M. Ogden If we now understand religion and morality as forms of life and experience that are quite different http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showbook?item_id=2072 (1 of 3) [2/4/03 3:14:03 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne from that of science, the same can also be said of our understanding of philosophy and metaphysics. Chapter 3: On the Language of Theology Hartshorne and Quine by R. M. Martin Martin criticizes Hartshorne's methodology through a rigorous use of Symbolic Logic. He holds that Hartshorne does not develop an adequate concept of aesthetics in relation to metaphysics, and that his distinction between existence and actuality is hopelessly unclear. Hartshorne rebuts him point by point. Chapter 4: Hartshorne and Aquinas: A Via Media by William P. Alston The author disagrees in part with Hartshorne’s neoclassicism and his anti-Thomistic views. Hartshorne replies that becoming as sheer growth, increase without loss, is the concrete reality and the secret of both being and becoming. Chapter 5: Some Aspects of Hartshorne’s Treatment of Anselm by John E. Smith Does logic reflect the nature of reality, or is it a merely formal structure governing the use of language’? In short, are we to have no more than "logic without ontology’’? Smith believes that Hartshorne takes too lightly the view that logic marks out the domain of the "necessary," while the "real" coincides with the domain of fact. The problem with this juxtaposition is that the "real’’ and the necessary are mutually exclusive. Chapter 6: Nature, God, and Man by Paul Weiss The originality of Hartshorne’s discussions about the nature of God, and particularly his daring and novel defense of the ontological argument, have led some to overlook the fact that, as he himself says, his primary interest lies elsewhere. Weise indicates the way he believes Whitehead’s and Hartshorne’s views should be altered, and how they could be extended and filled out -- while maintaining their characteristic thrust and flavor. Chapter 7: Hartshorne and Peirce: Individuals and Continuity by Manley Thompson A brief exploration of Peirce’s use of continuity in his account of individual existence as well as a review of this account in the light of Professor Hartshorne’s criticisms. Chapter 8: Overcoming Reductionism by John B. Cobb, Jr. Hartshorne’s concern is more with the question of what anything must be to be at all, than with determining which entities in the universe have which characteristics. On the whole Cobb has http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showbook?item_id=2072 (2 of 3) [2/4/03 3:14:03 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne accepted and adopted Whitehead’s cosmology, though much in his thought is distinctively his own. Chapter 9: The Place of the Brain in an Ocean of Feelings by George Wolf Wolf looks at Hartshorne's philosophy from the perspective of a psychologist. He suggests tht we monitor spontaneous, complex events in individual atoms and transduce these events into a form that can readily be perceived. Suppose it turned out that people regularly sense something aesthetically or emotionally familiar in the atomic patterns but not in the control patterns. This would not by itself be convincing evidence that there is sentience present. But it would raise interesting questions for further inquiry. Viewed 420 times. http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showbook?item_id=2072 (3 of 3) [2/4/03 3:14:03 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne return to religion-online Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Franklin I. Gamwell (eds.) John B. Cobb, Jr. is Ingraham Professor of Theology, School of Theology at Claremont, California, and Avery Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School. Franklin I. Gamwell. is Dean and Associate Professor of Ethics and Society at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. Published by the University of Chicago Press . Chicago and London, 1984. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. Preface Charles Hartshorne has become the most forceful and convincing interpreter of Whitehead, and to him belongs principal credit for shaping the influence of process philosophy upon contemporary philosophical theology. Text: After joining the faculty in philosophy at Harvard University in 1925, where he began editing the collected papers of C. S. Peirce, Charles Hartshorne also served as an assistant to Alfred North Whitehead. "I am becoming a Whiteheadian without ceasing to be a Peircean," he once said to Whitehead. Subsequently, Hartshorne became the most forceful and convincing interpreter of Whitehead, and to him belongs principal credit for shaping the influence of process philosophy upon contemporary philosophical theology. But Hartshorne pursued this course because he found in Whitehead’s thought the most systematic formulation of convictions at which he had previously arrived, in some cases with the help of Peirce. Accordingly, his intellectual adventure has been, above all, one of philosophical construction, appropriating Whitehead and Peirce especially for his own metaphysical statement. In the Preface to an early volume, Hartshorne wrote: ‘To the mountainous -- http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1894 (1 of 3) [2/4/03 3:14:13 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne I had almost said monstrous -- mass of writing devoted to ‘philosophical theology,’ what can there be to add? I answer simply, if without apparent modesty, there is exactitude, logical rigor." More than anyone else in this century, Charles Hartshorne has fulfilled this commission and, in doing so, has presented a comprehensive proposal which merits an assessment equally thorough and rigorous. This volume is designed to honor Hartshorne’s achievement by contributing to that assessment. Most of the essays included were originally presented at a conference on his thought held at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago in 1981. In 1928, Charles Hartshorne left Harvard to join the faculty of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Chicago; in 1943, he was jointly appointed to the faculty of the Divinity School and thereby to the Federated Theological Faculty, which also served Chicago Theological Seminary, Disciples Divinity House, and Meadville Theological Seminary, and he held this joint appointment until leaving Chicago in 1955. Thus, the Department of Philosophy, the Divinity School, and these other theological institutions collaborated with the Center for Process Studies, Claremont, California, in sponsoring the 1981 conference, At an opening banquet, Hartshorne himself was the featured speaker, and his autobiographical remarks on that occasion, "How I Got That Way," are included as the initial presentation in this volume. The ordering of the essays that follow is not important to a reading of them. On the one hand, each is written as a more or less independent discussion with Hartshorne. On the other hand, precisely because coherence is, for Hartshorne, a criterion of adequate metaphysical formulation, a discussion of any one aspect of his thought implies comments upon his philosophy as a whole. For both reasons, then, one may without loss read in the volume as one prefers. Nonetheless, a broad pattern informs the organization. An opening essay on Hartshorne’s methodology is followed by eight others: the initial four focus in one fashion or another on Hartshorne’s discussion of theism and the latter four attend to other aspects and implications of his thought. In this way, the volume is designed to affirm Hartshorne’s contributions to the wider metaphysical enterprise even while it recognizes his chief interest, philosophical theology. At the conference in his honor, Hartshorne responded to each paper. These replies, together with similar replies to those papers not read at the conference itself, are also included herein, the reply to each essay http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1894 (2 of 3) [2/4/03 3:14:13 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne directly following it. As a consequence, these pages display Hartshorne reflecting at considerable length upon his own proposal in light of interpretations and criticisms offered. It is for this reason that the volume is subtitled "Conversations with Charles Hartshorne." The volume’s title was suggested by a comment included in Hartshorne’s response to the essay by R. M. Martin. Perhaps no other single claim better summarizes the constructive metaphysics which Hartshorne has advanced than his distinction between existence and actuality, upon which rests, among other things, his formulation and defense of neoclassical theism. "I rather hope," Hartshorne comments, "to be remembered for this distinction." The future of philosophy will be its own judge of Hartshorne’s most original contributions. But his colleagues and students who have written here are persuaded that he belongs to that small class of philosophers who merit enduring attention and appreciation within the philosophic adventure. It is, therefore, our privilege to recommend him to his successors. In doing so, we also intend to express our profound gratitude and respect to Charles Hartshorne. We also gratefully remember two of the participants in these conversations, Eugene H. Peters and George Wolf, who died in 1983. John B. Cobb, Jr. Franklin I. Gamwell 0 http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1894 (3 of 3) [2/4/03 3:14:13 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne return to religion-online Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Franklin I. Gamwell (eds.) John B. Cobb, Jr. is Ingraham Professor of Theology, School of Theology at Claremont, California, and Avery Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate School. Franklin I. Gamwell. is Dean and Associate Professor of Ethics and Society at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. Published by the University of Chicago Press . Chicago and London, 1984. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. Introduction: How I Got That Way by Charles Hartshorne What causes an individual’s choice of a philosophy? If to cause means to strictly determine, my philosophy holds that nothing causes such a choice. There are no literally sufficient conditions in the past for our present ways of thinking, or even for the precise happenings in inanimate nature. However, there are necessary conditions without which the thinkings or the happenings would have been impossible. There are also probabilities, weighted possibilities, or what Popper calls propensities. How a philosopher thinks is partly explained by biological inheritance and environmental influence from conception on. What then made it possible, perhaps probable, that the oldest of five sons of Francis Cope Hartshorne (called Frank by his wife) would develop something like my kind of metaphysics? At least three features of that metaphysics, which I call neoclassical, need explaining. It is, in an obvious sense, religious; it at least tries to be clear and rational; it is both respectful of tradition and yet iconoclastic. My first suggestion is that these three traits were also in my parents. Frank Hartshorne was a sincerely pious Episcopal minister, son of an Episcopal mother and a Quaker father. My father did not merely proclaim his piety, he lived by http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1895 (1 of 11) [2/4/03 3:14:20 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne it. Moreover, it was an attractive form of piety. He saw Christianity as a religion of love and took seriously the two sayings that God is love and that love for God and fellow creatures sums up Christian (and Judaic) ethics. He was essentially affectionate, gentle, and fair in his treatment of others. He had compassion for poor and underprivileged persons. Himself the son of a rich man, he disagreed strongly with the richest man in his church, who expected employees in his iron mill to work a twelve-hour day. My mother, Marguerite Haughton Hartshorne, was the daughter of a pious and scholarly Episcopal minister whom I recall as a gentle and sweet grandfather. One of Mother’s brothers was also an earnest clergyman of the same religion. There was a touch of saintliness in Mother. If she ever acted notably selfishly toward anyone, it escaped my notice. Her piety, even more than Father’s, was attractive. If she hated or envied anyone, that too escaped my notice. The biblical phrase, "in whom was no guile," applied to her well. Once, mostly by the fault of another, she got on a train without her ticket or money. No great deal! Anyone could see that Mother was honest, as well as a lady in the complete, old-fashioned sense, who had a secure place in the world. Mother did not do the cooking for the family, but she kept busy doing useful things. So did Father. I was once told by someone in a position to know, ‘You haven’t a lazy bone in your body." This was true of my parents. How philosophers think about religion may well depend largely on how they have encountered it in childhood and youth. A genuine religion of love has its appeal. This is especially true if the love includes an aspect of what Spinoza called intellectual love and the poet Shelley called love for intellectual beauty. Frank Hartshorne had a very vigorous mind; he had earned two higher degrees, one in divinity and one in civil law, and was given an honorary degree in canon law. He published or spoke in public, respectably I believe, on all three subjects. He had studied natural science and accepted the evolutionary view in biology. He was far from being a biblical literalist. In intellectual development his wife was not his equal, and this was something of a trouble to both of them, though they made the best of it and had a fairly good life together. Mother had deep insights into people. Both my parents were habitually cheerful and, especially Mother, had vivid appreciation for the humorous side of things. She loved the songs of Gilbert and Sullivan. Father loved classical music and poetry, especially Tennyson and Matthew Arnold. http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1895 (2 of 11) [2/4/03 3:14:20 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne You are not to think that these were inhumanly perfect individuals. In the phrase of Wordsworth for his wife, they were "not too good/for human nature’s daily food." In my youth I saw faults enough in both parents, and the full measure of their stature has become clear to me only with my own maturing. In the broad sense of rationality, Mother was perhaps slightly superior to Father. Her view of things could be counted on for sanity, especially her view of personal relations. Three examples. Once, when I was fussing about a girl whom I knew I did not love and did not want to marry, but who had charm and who had somehow offended my pride, Mother heard my story and simply said, "Charles, life is big." No more needed to be said. I had been making a mountain out of a molehill. Once when a parishioner undertook to explain to Mother that she should refer to her black laundress not as Mrs. Smith but simply as Lizzy, Mother said, "I am accustomed to calling her Mrs. Smith. I think I will continue to call her Mrs. Smith." Subject closed. Third example. My youngest brother, Alfred, brought home for us all to look over the first girl who had interested him. We all thought she was hopeless. She seemed extremely frail, for one thing, as though starved from infancy, and not especially well educated. Mother did not argue with Alfred. As she told me later, she simply said, "Alfred, marriage is a very serious matter. It is not enough to love a girl, you must know that you can continue to love her for years after you are married to her. It is not fair to the girl otherwise." No one in the family was unkind to the girl, certainly not Mother. Brother Henry did say to me, "If you’re going to marry into the proletariat, at least you ought to get health." Henry was the one of us with a slight touch of cynicism, and the only one who did not survive his twenties. Father’s sermons were not especially eloquent. They were reasoned affairs, rather like an honest lawyer’s brief. He definitely intended to be rational. He also had the combination you may have noticed in me of respect for tradition but also willingness to smash idols. Biblical literalism, the Bible as the absolute word of God, he thought rather ridiculous. Father also believed, though I was not aware of this when I was thinking out the question myself, that medieval theology, as set forth in scholasticism, was the deduction of absurd consequences from alleged axioms. Father held that the absurdity of the conclusions should have been taken as reason for giving up one or more of the axioms. I have a letter from him about this, written after he had read my book Man’s Vision of God. The letter showed that my rejection of classical http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1895 (3 of 11) [2/4/03 3:14:20 PM] Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles Hartshorne theism was something like an elaborated repetition of what Father went through fifty or sixty years earlier. In thinking about my parents I am struck by the fact that they did not talk in clichés. Mother’s "Life is big" is not a hackneyed use of the word "big." Indeed I have never otherwise encountered it. Mother liked to say of someone she had known for a long time, "So and so has developed." This was high praise. In her diary she wrote, "Charles is a merry child." "Henry is such a comical baby." There was an aunt who, alone among the many relatives, had a reputation for selfishness, and who had kept a grown-up son as handy-man around the house but was finally persuaded by another aunt to let the son go to Labrador to take part in a philanthropic project there. Then she had sent a telegram to the persuading aunt, "James has gone to Labrador as you wished. Hell here." "And of course,’’ said my mother, "She was the hell." Father’s speech was similarly unhackneyed. Once when the family was packing up to go home from summer vacation Father found me reading a book with my unpacked things all around. "You’re a model of inefficiency" was his summary of the situation. What neater way could there have been to make instantly clear to me that my role must be to turn myself right away into a model of efficiency? It comes to this: I and my five siblings had parents who used language creatively, as well as grammatically. When to his observation that, though he liked the main thrust of my Man’s Vision of God he failed to find in it any discussion of sin, I replied "I have a paragraph on sin," his comment was a simple, "A paragraph!" My parents talked and wrote (Mother in letters and a diary) well and to the point. They also told us no lies. Not much about sex, but no wrong things. In our family of eight, plus a cook and a so-called (and well-called) mother’s helper, quarrels were almost unknown and, as brother Richard recently put it, none lasted overnight. I have sometimes been said to like everyone. This would be even more true of my mother. And Father was not a man to quarrel much, though with one relative who irritated him he did have something of a quarrel. Although I argued with both parents, Mother complaining of this, I do not recall accusing them of unkindness in their treatment of me. Once when, as an adult, I defended myself mildly in answer to Father’s letter objecting to my behavior in delaying repayment of a loan from him, no date of repayment having been specified, he replied, referring to his letter, "It was a fault of long- http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1895 (4 of 11) [2/4/03 3:14:20 PM]