This book, one of the handful of truly pathbreaking works in twentieth-century philosophical theology, presents Hartshorne's persuasive rehabilitation of Anselm's Ontological Argument, recast in neoclassical form as "the Modal Proof.".

This book presents Hartshorne's philosophical theology briefly, simply, and vividly. Throughout the centuries some of the world's most brilliant philosophers and theologians have held and perpetuated six beliefs that give the word God a meaning untrue to its import in sacred writings or in active religious devotion: God is absolutely perfect and therefore unchangeable 2.omnipotenc 3.omniscienc 4.God's unsympathetic goodness, 5.immortality as a career after death, and 6.revelationble Charles Hartshorne deals with these six theological mistakes from the standpoint of his process (...) theology. Hartshorne says, "The book is unacademic in so far as I am capable of being that." Only a master like Hartshorne could present such sophisticated ideas so simply. This book offers an option for religious belief not heretofore available to lay people. (shrink)

A philosophy of shared creative experience.--What metaphysics is.--Present prospects for metaphysics.--Abstraction: the question of nominalism.--Some principles of method.--A logic of ultimate contrasts.--Wittgenstein and Tillich: reflections on metaphysics and language.--Non-restrictive existential statements.--Events, individuals and predication: a defence of event pluralism--The prejudice in favor of symmetry.--The principle of dual transcendence and its basis in ordinary language.--Can there be a priori knowledge of what exists?--Ideas of God: an exhaustive division.--Six theistic proofs.--Sensory qualities and ordinary language.--The aesthetic matrix of value.

We offer philosophical motivations for a method we call Virtual World Cognitive Science (VW CogSci), in which researchers use virtual embodied agents that are embedded in virtual worlds to explore questions in the field of Cognitive Science. We focus on questions about mental and linguistic representation and the ways that such computational modeling can add rigor to philosophical thought experiments, as well as the terminology used in the scientific study of such representations. We find that this method forces researchers to (...) take a god’s-eye view when describing dynamical relationships between entities in minds and entities in an environment in a way that eliminates the need for problematic talk of belief and concept types, such as the belief that cats are silly, and the concept CAT, while preserving belief and concept tokens in individual cognizers’ minds. We conclude with some further key advantages of VW CogSci for the scientific study of mental and linguistic representation and for Cognitive Science more broadly. (shrink)

Examines the work of Kierkegaard as an ironist, reevaluating the works he penned under pseudonyms to show both their ironic character and the serious purpose that informed the deception Kierkegaard carried out.

"This is the second of two volumes dealing with the history of philosophy, especially of metaphysics.

This collection of Charles Hartshorne's writings -- many never before published -- is an indispensible introduction to his rich,and indelible contribution to ...

Prior work has found that moral values that build and bind groups—that is, the binding values of ingroup loyalty, respect for authority, and preservation of purity—are linked to blaming people who have been harmed. The present research investigated whether people's endorsement of binding values predicts their assignment of the causal locus of harmful events to the victims of the events. We used an implicit causality task from psycholinguistics in which participants read a sentence in the form “SUBJECT verbed OBJECT because…” (...) where male and female proper names occupy the SUBJECT and OBJECT position. The participants were asked to predict the pronoun that follows “because”—the referent to the subject or object—which indicates their intuition about the likely cause of the event. We also collected explicit judgments of causal contributions and measured participants' moral values to investigate the relationship between moral values and the causal interpretation of events. Using two verb sets and two independent replications (N = 459, 249, 788), we found that greater endorsement of binding values was associated with a higher likelihood of selecting the object as the cause for harmful events in the implicit causality task, a result consistent with, and supportive of, previous moral psychological work on victim blaming. Endorsement of binding values also predicted explicit causal attributions to victims. Overall, these findings indicate that moral values that support the group rather than the individual reliably predict that people shift the causal locus of harmful events to those affected by the harms. (shrink)

A vigorous and wide-ranging defense of Hartshorne’s “neoclassical metaphysics” of creative freedom.

This work brings to a new focus the unity of Hartshorne's thought as a whole, showing the relationship between good philosophical sense and good common sense.

One learns a great deal about a major philosopher by coming to appreciate his perspective on the history of philosophy. Here Charles Hartshorne gives us just such a perspective on the history of philosophy and thereby on himself. This is a reexamination of the history of philosophy, looking at neglected aspects of the philosophers’ thought, interpreting their views in a sharply focused, controversial manner in order to show the origins and development within the Western tradition of the metaphysical and moral (...) views represented by process philosophy. The result is a fresh look at the tradition. This is a clearly written, readable, original, and constructive interpretation of the history of philosophy in hte West from the sixth century before Christ to the present. As the best-known living representative of process philosophy, Hartshorne shows that it has anticipations in Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Hegel, Schelling, and many others, even including the materialist Epicurus and the atheist Nietzsche. Process philosophy and theology have significant overlap with the views of most of the creative, constructive philosophers and theologians of recent times, including Peirce, William James, Bergson, Heidegger, Paul Weiss, Berdyaev, John Findlay, Paul Tillich, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and others. This philosophy takes creative freedom, transcending causal determinism, and a generalized idea of sympathy—“feeling of feeling,” love—as universal principles of life and nature. (shrink)

Hartshorne (emeritus, U. of Texas), possibly the foremost living American philosopher, offers less a chronological autobiography than an anecdotal memoir and meditation associating his philosophical beliefs with specific life situations.

Peirce's three “Neo-Pythagorean” categories have not given his students any complete satisfaction, but I cannot doubt that, though partly misconceived, they can, when freed of certain errors, be of great value.

MR. MEROLD WESTPHAL'S "Temporality and Finitism in Hartshorne's Theism" seems to me one of the most carefully reasoned and fair, though radically critical, essays with which I have yet been favored. Although he seems partial to Thomism, he grants some of my chief points in criticism of that doctrine as it is commonly understood, particularly that there must be contingent properties in God. This has not traditionally been understood as a Thomistic doctrine, and as Westphal seems to admit, it is (...) not suggested by actus purus. Where my critic wishes to disagree with me is that whereas he thinks that a contingent property can be eternal, I hold with Aristotle that what is eternal is necessary and vice versa; and whereas he sees no need for God's contingent properties to be dependent upon the creatures, I hold that they must have such dependence, and even causal or "ontological" dependence. Disagreement concerns God's immutability, and His total independence or absoluteness. I regard the unqualified denial of divine change and the unqualified denial of relativity or dependence as catastrophic errors, and of course I am far from alone in this. How are these issues to be argued? (shrink)