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.

"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 ...

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)