Charles Hartshorne | |
|---|---|
 Hartshornec. 1990 | |
| Born | (1897-06-05)June 5, 1897 Kittanning, Pennsylvania, U.S. |
| Died | October 9, 2000(2000-10-09) (aged 103) Austin, Texas, U.S. |
| Education | |
| Alma mater | Harvard University (BA, MA, PhD) |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | 20th-century philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Process philosophy |
| Doctoral students | John B. Cobb |
| Main interests | Metaphysics,philosophy of religion |
| Notable ideas | Process theology Modalproof of the existence of God Dipolar theism |
Charles Hartshorne (/ˈhɑːrtshɔːrn/; June 5, 1897 – October 9, 2000) was an American philosopher who concentrated primarily on thephilosophy of religion andmetaphysics, but also contributed toornithology. He developed the neoclassical idea ofGod and produced amodalproof of the existence of God that was a development ofAnselm of Canterbury'sontological argument, which influenced Gödel's proof.[1]
Hartshorne is also noted for developingAlfred North Whitehead'sprocess philosophy intoprocess theology.
Hartshorne was born inKittanning, Pennsylvania, and was a son of the Reverend Francis Cope Hartshorne (1868–1950) and Marguerite Haughton (1868–1959), who were married on April 25, 1895, in Bryn Mawr, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. the Rev. F. C. Hartshorne, who was a minister in theProtestant Episcopal Church, was rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Kittanning from 1897 to 1909, then rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church inPhoenixville, Pennsylvania, for 19 years (from 1909 to 1928). After resigning from the ministry in late 1927 or early 1928, within a few years Francis was appointed pension fund manager of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Philadelphia.
Among Charles's brothers was the prominent geographerRichard Hartshorne.
Charles attendedHaverford College between 1915 and 1917, but then spent two years as a hospital orderly serving in the US Army. He then studied atHarvard University, where he earned the B.A. (1921), M.A. (1922) and PhD (1923) degrees. His doctoral dissertation was on "The Unity of Being". He obtained all three degrees in only four years, an accomplishment believed unique in Harvard's history.
From 1923 to 1925 Hartshorne pursued further studies in Europe. He attended theUniversity of Freiburg, where he studied under the phenomenologistEdmund Husserl, and also theUniversity of Marburg, where he studied underMartin Heidegger. He then returned to Harvard University as a research fellow from 1925 to 1928, where he andPaul Weiss edited theCollected Papers ofCharles Sanders Peirce v. 1–6 and spent a semester assistingAlfred North Whitehead.
After Hartshorne worked at Harvard University, he became a professor of philosophy at theUniversity of Chicago (1928 to 1955), and was also a member of the university's Federated Theological Faculty (1943 to 1955). He then taught atEmory University (1955–1962), followed by theUniversity of Texas (1962–retirement). He published his last article at age 96 and delivered his last lecture at 98.[2]
In addition to his long teaching career at the previous three universities, Hartshorne was also appointed as a special lecturer or visiting professor atStanford University, theUniversity of Washington,Yale University, theUniversity of Frankfurt, theUniversity of Melbourne andKyoto University. He served as president of theMetaphysical Society of America in 1955. He was elected a Fellow of theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1975.[3]
Hartshorne acknowledged that he was greatly influenced byMatthew Arnold (Literature and Dogma),Emerson'sEssays,Charles Sanders Peirce, and especially byAlfred North Whitehead.[4] He acknowledged these and other 'giants' in a 1983 lecture.[5]Rufus Jones was his Haverford teacher and continuing mentor. He also found inspiration in the works ofJosiah Royce (Problem of Christianity),William James,Henri Bergson,Ralph Barton Perry andNikolai Berdyaev. He conducted a lengthy correspondence over some twenty-three years withEdgar S. Brightman ofBoston University about their respective philosophical and theological views.
In turn Hartshorne has been a seminal influence on thetheologiansMatthew Fox,Daniel Day Williams,Norman Pittenger,Gregory A. Boyd,Schubert M. Ogden (born March 2, 1928) andJohn B. Cobb, on the American philosophersFrank Ebersole, Donald Viney and Daniel Dombrowski, and on the Australianbiologist-futurologistCharles Birch.
The intellectual movement with which Hartshorne is associated is generally referred to as process philosophy and the related area ofprocess theology. The roots of process thinking in Western philosophy can be found in the GreekHeraclitus and in Eastern philosophy in Buddhism. Contemporaryprocess philosophy arose in large measure from the work ofAlfred North Whitehead, but with important contributions by William James, Charles Peirce, and Henri Bergson, while Hartshorne is identified as the seminal influence on process theology that emerged after World War Two.
The keymotifs of process philosophy are:empiricism,relationalism,process, and events.
The motif of empiricism in process thought refers to the theme that experience is the realm for defining meaning and verifying any theory of reality. Unlike classical empiricism, process thought takes the category of feeling beyond just the human senses of perception. Experiences are not confined to sense perception or consciousness, and there are pre-sensual, pre-conscious experiences from which consciousness and perception derive.
The motif of relationalism refers to both experiences and relationships. Humans experience things and also experience the relationship between things. The motif of process means that all time, history and change are in a dynamicevolutionary process. The final motif of events refers to all the units (organic and inorganic) of the world.
While Hartshorne acknowledges the importance of Whitehead on his own ideas, many of the elements of his philosophy are evident in his dissertation, written in 1923, prior to his encounter with Whitehead. Moreover, Hartshorne was not always in agreement with Whitehead, especially on the nature of possibility. Whitehead construed the realm of possibilities in terms of what he called Eternal Objects. Hartshorne was never happy with this way of speaking and followed Peirce in thinking of the realm of possibility as a continuum which, by definition, has no least member and which can be "cut" in infinitely many ways. Definite qualities, for example, a particular shade of blue, emerge in the creative process.
Another difference between Whitehead and Hartshorne is that the Englishman usually spoke of God as a single actual entity whereas Hartshorne thought it better to think of God as a personally ordered series of actual entities, each exhibiting the abstract character of divinity, as necessarily supreme in love, knowledge and power. In Hartshorne's process theology God and the world exist in a dynamic, changing relationship. God is a 'di-polar'deity. By this Hartshorne meant that God has both abstract and concrete poles. The abstract pole refers to those elements within God that never vary, such as God's self-identity, while the concrete pole refers to the organic growth in God's perfect knowledge of the world as the world itself develops and changes. Hartshorne did not accept the classical theistic claim ofcreatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), and instead held tocreatio ex materia (creation out of pre-existent material), although this is not an expression he used.
One of the technical terms Hartshorne used is pan-en-theism, originally coined byKarl Christian Friedrich Krause in 1828.Panentheism (all is in God) must be differentiated fromClassical pantheism (all is God). In Hartshorne's theology God is not identical with the world, but God is also not completely independent from the world. God has his self-identity that transcends the universe, but the world is also contained within God. A rough analogy is the relationship between a mother and a fetus. The mother has her own identity and is different from the unborn, yet is intimately connected to the unborn. The unborn is within the womb and attached to the mother via the umbilical cord.
Hartshorne reworked theontological argument for God's existence as promulgated byAnselm of Canterbury. In Anselm's formula, "God is that than which no greater can be conceived." Anselm'sargument used the concept of perfection. While Hartshorne believed that his reformulated ontological argument is sound, he never claimed that it was sufficient unto itself to establish the existence of God. Throughout his career, from the time of his dissertation, he relied upon a multiple argument strategy, commonly called a cumulative case, to establish the rationality of his di-polar theism.
Hartshorne accepts that, by definition, God is perfect. However, he maintains that classical theism, be it Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, has held to a self-contradictory notion of perfection. He argues that the classical concept of a deity for which all potentialities are actualized fails. Hartshorne posited that God's existence is necessary and is compatible with any events in the world. In the economy of his argument Hartshorne has attempted to break a perceived stalemate in theology over the problem of evil and God's omnipotence. For Hartshorne, perfection means that God cannot be surpassed in his social relatedness to every creature. God is capable of surpassing himself by growing and changing in his knowledge and feeling for the world.
Hartshorne acknowledged a God capable of change, as is consistent withpandeism, but early on he specifically rejected bothdeism and pandeism in favor of panentheism, writing that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".[6]
Hartshorne did not believe in the immortality of human souls as identities separate from God, but explained that all the beauty created in a person's life will exist for ever in the reality of God. This can be understood in a way reminiscent ofHinduism, or perhapsBuddhism's Sunyata (emptiness) ontology[dubious –discuss] namely that a person's identity is extinguished in one's ultimate union with God, but that a person's life within God is eternal.Hartshorne regularly attended services at severalUnitarian Universalist churches, and joined the First Unitarian Universalist Church inAustin, Texas.[7]
By the end of his life, in his late nineties, Hartshorne viewed metaphysics as the most rewarding aspect of philosophy: "the search for necessary truths, truths that are not only true, but they couldn’t have been false.”[8]
Hartshorne's philosophical and theological views have received criticism from many different quarters. Positive criticism has underscored that Hartshorne's emphasis on change and process and creativity has acted as a great corrective to static thinking about causal laws and determinism.
Others indicate that Hartshorne has quite properly placed a valuable emphasis on appreciating nature (even evidenced in Hartshorne's hobby for bird-watching). His emphasis on nature and human-divine relationships to the world has given rise to reflective work on developing theologies about pollution, resource degradation and a philosophy ofecology. Allied to this has been Hartshorne's emphasis onaesthetics and beauty. In his system of thought science and theology achieve some integration as science and theology provide data for each other.
Hartshorne has also been an important figure in upholdingnatural theology, and in offering an understanding of God as a personal, dynamic being. It is accepted by many philosophers that Hartshorne made the idea of perfection rationally conceivable, and so his contribution to theontological argument is deemed to be valuable for modern philosophical discussion.
It has been said that Hartshorne has placed an interesting emphasis on affirming that the God who loves the creation also endures suffering. In his theological thought the centrality of love is very strong, particularly in his interpretation of God, nature and all living creatures. Hartshorne is also appreciated for his philosophical interest inBuddhism, and in stimulating others in new approaches to inter-religious co-operation and dialogue.
Langdon Gilkey questioned Hartshorne's assumptions about human reasoning experiences. Gilkey pointed out that Hartshorne assumes there is an objective or rational structure to the whole universe, and he then assumes that human thought can acquire accurate and adequate knowledge of the universe.
In Hartshorne's theology there is no literal first event in the universe, and the universe is thus regarded as an actually infinite reality. This has led some to point out that as Hartshorne has emphasized that every event has been partly determined by previous events, his thought may be susceptible to the problems associated withinfinite regress.
Other critics question the adequacy of panentheism. The point of tension in Hartshorne's theology is whether God is really worthy of worship since God needs the world in order to be a complete being. Traditional theism posits that God is a complete being before the creation of the world. Others find that his argument about God's perfection is flawed by confusing existential necessity withlogical necessity.
In classical Protestant andEvangelical thought, Hartshorne's theology has received strong criticism. In these theological networks Hartshorne's panentheist reinterpretation of God's nature has been deemed to be incompatible with Biblical revelation and the classic creedal formulations of theTrinity. Critics such as Royce Gordon Gruenler (born January 10, 1930),Ronald Nash andNorman Geisler argue that Hartshorne does not offer a tripersonal view of the Trinity, and instead his interpretation of Christ (Christology) has some affinities with the earlyheresy of theEbionites. It is also argued that Hartshorne's theology entails a denial of divine foreknowledge andpredestination tosalvation. Hartshorne is also criticized for his denial or devaluing of Christ'smiracles and the supernatural events mentioned in the Bible.
Other criticisms are that Hartshorne gives little attention to the classical theological concepts of God's holiness, and that the awe of God is an undeveloped element in his writings. Alan Wayne Gragg (born July 17, 1932) criticizes Hartshorne's highly optimistic view of humanity, and hence its lack of emphasis onhuman depravity,guilt andsin. Allied to these criticisms is the assertion that Hartshorne overemphasizes aesthetics and is correspondingly weak on ethics and morality. Others have indicated that Hartshorne failed to understand traditional Christian views about petitionaryprayer and survival of the individual in the afterlife.
Hartshorne was avegetarian.[2] He did not own a car and preferred to use his bicycle. He was a supporter offeminism.[2] Hartshorne was interested inbird vocalization. In 1973, he authoredBorn to Sing: An Interpretation and World Survey of Bird Song which argued that some bird species have evolved to appreciate melody and sing for pleasure.[9]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| People | |
| Other | |
