process studies articles @ religion online...
Volume 21 (1992)
- Number 1, Spring 1992
- Can Leclerc’s Composite Actualities Be Substances? by John D. Kronen
- Hartshorne and Creel on Impassibility by George W. Shields
- Subjectivity in the Making by Lewis S. Ford
Leclerc’s account of the nature of composite material substances is wrong on three counts: 1. Substantial unity is depicted of the composite; 2. Emergent wholes are presented as more than the sums of their parts; 3. Substances are shown as acquiring new substantial forms.
Dr. Shields is not persuaded that Richard E. Creel’s critique of Hartshorne’s passibilism/impassibilism is acceptable, yet he feels Creel presents some sharp insights in examining some of Hartshorne’s primary doctrines.
The author is concerned with the ontological basis for subjectivity. He recounts Whitehead’s various theories about it. Becoming is identified with subjectivity, being with objectivity. Becoming has primary existence, being has derivative existence.
- Number 2, Summer 1992
- Charles Hartshorne And Subjective Immortality by Marjorie Suchocki
- Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
- Musings Of A Psychologist- Theologian: Reflections On The Method Of Charles Hartshorne by Mary Elizabeth Moore
- Some Not Ungrateful But Perhaps Inadequate Comments About Comments on My Writings and Ideas by Charles Hartshorne
- The Philosophy of Charles Hartshorne by John B. Cobb, Jr.
Hartshorne’s fundamental position, writes the author, is that birth and death are the necessary boundaries to an existence that is fragmentary, and only God is capable of sustaining the infinite novelty that would be required for everlasting life.
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking, admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and offers some solutions.
Dr. Moore discusses three aspects of Dr. Hartshorne method: 1. His distinction between empirical and a priori knowing; 2. His understanding of phenomenology and pragmatism; 3. His use of linguistic and logical-mathematical ways of knowing.
Dr. Hartshorne responds to each of several authors, writing in Process Studies, who critique his writings.
The philosophers of Hartshorne’s time tried to hold him as irrelevant or meaningless and his thought absurd, but they found this impossible. He answered their objects too astutely and responded critically to their own positions in ways they could not ignore.
- Number 3, Fall 1992
- Hartshorne, Metaphysics and The Law of Moderation by Daniel Dombrowski
- Some Comments on Randall Morris' Process Philosophy and Political Ideology by Charles Hartshorne
- Some Under-and Some Over-rated Great Philosophers by Charles Hartshorne
- Whitehead and Alexander by Dorothy Emmet
Dr. Dombrowski examines Hartshorne’s views in three areas: 1. The features of virtue ethics; 2. Moderation as a feature of virtue ethics; 3. Abortion.
Hartshorne comments on some misunderstandings Samuel Morris has of some of Hartshorne's political views, especially his changing views on pacifism.
Hartshorne believes that Plato is the most underrated of all philosophers unless it’s Bergson. Aristotle is the most overrated of all unless it’s Kant. He discusses the differences between these thinkers.
The author believes that although he is unknown because of the emphasis on Whitehead, Samuel Alexander has a better part in some areas of thought.
- Number 4, Winter 1992
- Purposive Organization: Whitehead and Kant by Gordon Treash
- Whitehead and the Dualism of Mind and Nature by Philip Michael Rose
- Whitehead and the Survival of "Subordinate Societies" by Paul A. Bogaard
- Whitehead on the Concept of ‘Importance’ by Ross Stanway
- Whitehead’s Metaphysics by Leslie Armour
- Whitehead’s Theory of Perception by D.L.C. Maclachlan
Kant’s mature thought tests Whitehead’s insistence that experience and rationality represent a high degree of specialization and abstraction.
The problems of modern philosophy’s experiment in dualism is discussed with insights from Hegel, Nietzsche and Whitehead.
Dr. Bogaard compares Whiteheads philosophic appraisal of complex physical objects with the philosophic reflections of three theoretical chemists.
Dr. Stanway writes of Whiteheads notion of "Importance." Central to understanding it are the principle of "relativity;" the concepts of "propositions" and "judgment;" and the "principle of intensive relevance."
According to the author, a conceptual scheme is necessary and appropriate in Whitehead’s interpretation of experience and this is his most important claim.
The Mode of Presentational Immediacy and of Causual Efficacy are discussed in terms of Whiteheadian thought.