What do you think?
Rate this book
Zero Fallacy: and Other Essays in Neoclassical Philosophy
Charles Hartshorne is arguably the most important living metaphysician and one of the most eminent figures of American philosophy in the twentieth century. He is internationally known for his contributions to the philosophy of creativity and for his distinctive brand of process philosophy and theology. For more than seven decades Hartshorne has presented his theses ever more persuasively, comparing and contrasting them in illuminating fashion with those of major historical figures and movements, from Plato to Kant to Popper. Central to his outlook are fresh interpretations of such notions as God, freedom, chance, creativity, the primacy of aesthetic meaning, affective tone, the social character of experience, sympathy as self-creative, relatedness and asymmetry, feeling and feeling of feeling, and generalized causal possibility with a place for probabilities and open possibilities.
This collection of Charles Hartshorne's writings -- many never before published -- is an indispensible introduction to his rich and indelible contribution to contemporary philosophy. It covers the extraordinary range of Hartshorne's thought, including his reflections on the history of philosophy, philosophical psychology, philosophy of science, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, literature, ornithology, and, above all, theology and metaphysics.
This collection of Charles Hartshorne's writings -- many never before published -- is an indispensible introduction to his rich and indelible contribution to contemporary philosophy. It covers the extraordinary range of Hartshorne's thought, including his reflections on the history of philosophy, philosophical psychology, philosophy of science, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, literature, ornithology, and, above all, theology and metaphysics.
- GenresPhilosophy
268 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1998
2 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 9, 2024
A VOLUME PUBLISHED IN HONOR OF HARTSHORNE’S 100TH BIRTHDAY
Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) was an American philosopher who taught philosophy at the University of Chicago, Emory University, and lastly the University of Texas. He is perhaps best remembered for his development of Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy into a form of theology.
About half of the essays in this 1997 collection were previously unpublished, and the other half had been published.
In a 1975 essay, he explains, “According to what is called ‘process theology,’ every creature every moment decides something that God does NOT decide for it. Living is deciding, and each creature must do its own deciding, its own living. Scientific determinism, now fortunately qualified even in physics, had the effect of seeming to support bad theology, since both conceived past (or eternal) reality as leaving nothing truly unsettled for us in the present to decide. But life is a process of turning a partly open future into a definite past. The interest of Iife depends on this process.” (Pg. 47-48)
In a 1987 essay, he observes, “It remains a serious question whether or not rational happiness can flourish without something like the belief in God or in something more permanent and relevant to the meaning of our lives than empirical science can provide us with. The Japanese… apparently without an explicitly theistic religion, live with remarkable freedom from the vicious violence that disfigures many Western societies… Most Japanese lack a definite idea of God.” (Pg. 59)
In another essay, he argues, “IF one admits supreme freedom to create in God, does one go to zero freedom, or creativity, in us? Or to a lesser type of form of freedom? Surely the latter is more reasonable… In reading many recent biographies, one finds evidence of the importance of the classical theological ‘problem of evil’ as an important cause of agnosticism, atheism, or metaphysical despair. The problem is not solved by merely admitting HUMAN freedom. Much human and nonhuman suffering comes from ‘inanimate’ nature… Skeptics argue that God, by making a choice to allow members of our, or other species, to be free, is responsible for the bad effects made possible by this freedom. If, however, freedom is a transcendental, God has faced no option between a world of more or less free creatures and a world consisting partly, or universally, of unfree creatures… The zero of freedom is, then, also the zero of concrete actuality. No other view… does justice to the importance of freedom.” (Pg. 68-69)
He suggests, “Buddhism, in my view, is in some respects superior to any Western form of humanism; however, its belief in reincarnation weakens its concentration on our one-time individual life spans, while its surface appearance of atheism makes it unable to give permanent significance to our lives without the reincarnation myth… A high Japanese authority on Buddhism, named Suzuki [presumably D.T. Suzuki]… said he was not sure that Buddhism is nontheistic.” (Pg. 76)
In a 1970 essay, he asserts, “Whitehead’s proposal … is that we take human experiences causally to ‘inherit’ directly from some bodily processes, and these to inherit directly from our experiences, inheriting in each case implying temporal ‘following’ rather than sheer ‘accompanying.’ Thus, the general principle of causality is all we need… the concept of ‘substance’ is show to be no absolute addition. Causality, substance, memory, perception, temporal succession, modality are all but modifications of one principle of creative synthetic experiencing, feeding entirely upon its own prior products. This I regard as the most powerful metaphysical generalization ever accomplished.” (Pg. 115)
He argues, “The truth, first proclaimed by Whitehead, but implied by both Hebrew and Greek thought in general, is that actuality and finitude belong together. Only abstractions, possibilities, can be absolutely infinite. Infinity is a negative word and a negative idea, and its entails inactuality, another negative word. Identifying deity with pure infinity is not praise of God and reduces the all-worshipful to an empty abstraction.” (Pg. 166)
He asks, “If death means that the careers we have had become nothing, or a heap of dust, what is history about, or biography?... My personal view is that the complete rational aim is the service of God, whose future alone is endless and who alone fully appropriates and adequately appreciates our ephemeral good. What some term ‘social immortality’ is literal immortality only so far as God is the social being who is neighbor to us all, exempt from death, and able to love all equally adequately. Deity is the definitive ‘posterity.’” (Pg. 191-192)
He states, “Religious values are finally aesthetic. God is not discharging duties, but lovingly enjoying the creation. The creatures on the preethical stages…. are enjoying themselves and what they sense of the life around them… Without language… an animal can hardly have ethical notions. Ethical values distinguish humanity; only above a certain level do aesthetic values do so… Not art (simply as such) but science, philosophy, politics, religion, distinguish us.” (Pg. 206-207)
Later in this essay, he contends, “To demand posthumous rewards and punishments can only be justified theistically if it can be shown that God needs heaven and hell in order to have divinely satisfying creatures. God enjoying or suffering the spectacle of hell has never been a very inspiring notion, I rather think… Would having Hitler endless punished for his terrible misdeeds do anyone any good? Or would it merely add to the already vast spectacle of creaturely suffering, endured vicariously by deity? How competent are we in the art of playing God imaginatively?... What many see as evidence of divine wrath, or lack of concern for creaturely welfare, may also be seen as sign of infinite respect for creaturely freedom.” (Pg. 214)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Hartshorne, or Process Philosophy/Theology in general.
Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) was an American philosopher who taught philosophy at the University of Chicago, Emory University, and lastly the University of Texas. He is perhaps best remembered for his development of Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy into a form of theology.
About half of the essays in this 1997 collection were previously unpublished, and the other half had been published.
In a 1975 essay, he explains, “According to what is called ‘process theology,’ every creature every moment decides something that God does NOT decide for it. Living is deciding, and each creature must do its own deciding, its own living. Scientific determinism, now fortunately qualified even in physics, had the effect of seeming to support bad theology, since both conceived past (or eternal) reality as leaving nothing truly unsettled for us in the present to decide. But life is a process of turning a partly open future into a definite past. The interest of Iife depends on this process.” (Pg. 47-48)
In a 1987 essay, he observes, “It remains a serious question whether or not rational happiness can flourish without something like the belief in God or in something more permanent and relevant to the meaning of our lives than empirical science can provide us with. The Japanese… apparently without an explicitly theistic religion, live with remarkable freedom from the vicious violence that disfigures many Western societies… Most Japanese lack a definite idea of God.” (Pg. 59)
In another essay, he argues, “IF one admits supreme freedom to create in God, does one go to zero freedom, or creativity, in us? Or to a lesser type of form of freedom? Surely the latter is more reasonable… In reading many recent biographies, one finds evidence of the importance of the classical theological ‘problem of evil’ as an important cause of agnosticism, atheism, or metaphysical despair. The problem is not solved by merely admitting HUMAN freedom. Much human and nonhuman suffering comes from ‘inanimate’ nature… Skeptics argue that God, by making a choice to allow members of our, or other species, to be free, is responsible for the bad effects made possible by this freedom. If, however, freedom is a transcendental, God has faced no option between a world of more or less free creatures and a world consisting partly, or universally, of unfree creatures… The zero of freedom is, then, also the zero of concrete actuality. No other view… does justice to the importance of freedom.” (Pg. 68-69)
He suggests, “Buddhism, in my view, is in some respects superior to any Western form of humanism; however, its belief in reincarnation weakens its concentration on our one-time individual life spans, while its surface appearance of atheism makes it unable to give permanent significance to our lives without the reincarnation myth… A high Japanese authority on Buddhism, named Suzuki [presumably D.T. Suzuki]… said he was not sure that Buddhism is nontheistic.” (Pg. 76)
In a 1970 essay, he asserts, “Whitehead’s proposal … is that we take human experiences causally to ‘inherit’ directly from some bodily processes, and these to inherit directly from our experiences, inheriting in each case implying temporal ‘following’ rather than sheer ‘accompanying.’ Thus, the general principle of causality is all we need… the concept of ‘substance’ is show to be no absolute addition. Causality, substance, memory, perception, temporal succession, modality are all but modifications of one principle of creative synthetic experiencing, feeding entirely upon its own prior products. This I regard as the most powerful metaphysical generalization ever accomplished.” (Pg. 115)
He argues, “The truth, first proclaimed by Whitehead, but implied by both Hebrew and Greek thought in general, is that actuality and finitude belong together. Only abstractions, possibilities, can be absolutely infinite. Infinity is a negative word and a negative idea, and its entails inactuality, another negative word. Identifying deity with pure infinity is not praise of God and reduces the all-worshipful to an empty abstraction.” (Pg. 166)
He asks, “If death means that the careers we have had become nothing, or a heap of dust, what is history about, or biography?... My personal view is that the complete rational aim is the service of God, whose future alone is endless and who alone fully appropriates and adequately appreciates our ephemeral good. What some term ‘social immortality’ is literal immortality only so far as God is the social being who is neighbor to us all, exempt from death, and able to love all equally adequately. Deity is the definitive ‘posterity.’” (Pg. 191-192)
He states, “Religious values are finally aesthetic. God is not discharging duties, but lovingly enjoying the creation. The creatures on the preethical stages…. are enjoying themselves and what they sense of the life around them… Without language… an animal can hardly have ethical notions. Ethical values distinguish humanity; only above a certain level do aesthetic values do so… Not art (simply as such) but science, philosophy, politics, religion, distinguish us.” (Pg. 206-207)
Later in this essay, he contends, “To demand posthumous rewards and punishments can only be justified theistically if it can be shown that God needs heaven and hell in order to have divinely satisfying creatures. God enjoying or suffering the spectacle of hell has never been a very inspiring notion, I rather think… Would having Hitler endless punished for his terrible misdeeds do anyone any good? Or would it merely add to the already vast spectacle of creaturely suffering, endured vicariously by deity? How competent are we in the art of playing God imaginatively?... What many see as evidence of divine wrath, or lack of concern for creaturely welfare, may also be seen as sign of infinite respect for creaturely freedom.” (Pg. 214)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Hartshorne, or Process Philosophy/Theology in general.
Read
October 18, 2019This series of essays provides an deeply thoughtful summary and survey of the themes and concerns addressed by Charles Hartshorne over the course of his career as a thinker, writer, teacher. Hartshorne is considered the premier thinker and formulator of Neoclassical Philosophy, also known as Process-Relational Philosophy or Theology.
He is known for refining and developing the Neo-Classical Process Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. His philosophy is a theistic metaphysical concept that accounts for the whole of reality and takes into consideration the developing insights from science over the 20th century.
Hartshorne’s philosophical writings have provided the foundation for recent theologians to make corrections to the classical concepts troubling philosophers and theologians, especially in the West, since the time of Plato, 400 years before the time of Christ.
Hartshorne directly addressed the problem of accounting for a Creator God interactive with his universe, accounting of the Hebrew and eastern concept of a dynamic living reality, not a static, abstract principle so long revered in the history of Christian philosophy from its Gentile Mediterranean foundations developing soon after the demise of the Jewish Christian movement in the last half of the 1st century CE.
I was impressed with how readable these essays are, though they probe the deepest questions of reality. His voluminous encyclopedic knowledge of the history of philosophy and Christian theology is astounding, and his easy consideration of all and varied writers in western history is impressive, to understate the case.
He handles details of each question in a deft manner. He is amazingly apt at roundly criticizing the erroneous conclusions and misjudgements of any philosopher, while still strongly affirming the valid claims of one and sundry to show how a small correction or insight from our later knowledge can align great thinkers from different eras. He is familiar with the philosophers of every nation in modern times and every movement school of philosophy and freely interacts with their ideas here.
Hartshorne is gracious, too, in noting the details of nature and science and the astronomical universe we have access to that was not available to the greats of the past, like Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and even the early Rationalists of the later medieval and modern age in Europe, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes and such. Often a basic insight now available in elementary or middle school science texts is enough to correct a conclusion of an earlier philosopher or scientist of the past.
This book was refreshing and entertaining, but even more so, encouraging and satisfying. Hartshorne deals with and accounts for all the major questions and considerations plaguing the inconsistencies and niggling details where a concrete-relational biblical concept of God conflicts with the rationalized abstractions that have so strongly framed western thought since the scholastic period on into the modern era.
He is known for refining and developing the Neo-Classical Process Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. His philosophy is a theistic metaphysical concept that accounts for the whole of reality and takes into consideration the developing insights from science over the 20th century.
Hartshorne’s philosophical writings have provided the foundation for recent theologians to make corrections to the classical concepts troubling philosophers and theologians, especially in the West, since the time of Plato, 400 years before the time of Christ.
Hartshorne directly addressed the problem of accounting for a Creator God interactive with his universe, accounting of the Hebrew and eastern concept of a dynamic living reality, not a static, abstract principle so long revered in the history of Christian philosophy from its Gentile Mediterranean foundations developing soon after the demise of the Jewish Christian movement in the last half of the 1st century CE.
I was impressed with how readable these essays are, though they probe the deepest questions of reality. His voluminous encyclopedic knowledge of the history of philosophy and Christian theology is astounding, and his easy consideration of all and varied writers in western history is impressive, to understate the case.
He handles details of each question in a deft manner. He is amazingly apt at roundly criticizing the erroneous conclusions and misjudgements of any philosopher, while still strongly affirming the valid claims of one and sundry to show how a small correction or insight from our later knowledge can align great thinkers from different eras. He is familiar with the philosophers of every nation in modern times and every movement school of philosophy and freely interacts with their ideas here.
Hartshorne is gracious, too, in noting the details of nature and science and the astronomical universe we have access to that was not available to the greats of the past, like Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and even the early Rationalists of the later medieval and modern age in Europe, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes and such. Often a basic insight now available in elementary or middle school science texts is enough to correct a conclusion of an earlier philosopher or scientist of the past.
This book was refreshing and entertaining, but even more so, encouraging and satisfying. Hartshorne deals with and accounts for all the major questions and considerations plaguing the inconsistencies and niggling details where a concrete-relational biblical concept of God conflicts with the rationalized abstractions that have so strongly framed western thought since the scholastic period on into the modern era.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews