No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Theological Originality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
Extract
In contemporary discussion of the philosophy of religion, or for that matter of any branch of philosophy, the names of Whitehead and Wittgenstein are not often linked. Whitehead's later work is, for the most part, treated as a rather specialized interest, an attractively under-cultivated field for the enterprising thesis-writer perhaps, but well away from the main centres of current philosophical activity. And what he has to say about specifically religious or theological issues (apart from the often quoted or misquoted ‘Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness‘)1 becomes simply one ramification of an ingenious but somewhat eccentric system. Nonetheless, there is at least this much justification for considering it in relation to the much more influential and widely discussed views of Wittgenstein. Whitehead has some original things to say about God, Wittgenstein some original reasons for thinking that Whitehead's brand of originality is here radically misplaced. And the possibility or otherwise of such theological originality is an issue of very considerable importance for the philosophy of religion.
- Type
- Research Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976
References
page 1 note 1 Religion in the Making (Cambridge, 1926), p. 16.Google Scholar
page 2 note 2 Process and Reality (Cambridge, 1929), p. 492.Google Scholar
page 3 note 1 Process and Reality, pp. 28f.
page 3 note 2 A brave attempt at a general outline of the Whiteheadian philosophy can be found in Professor Dorothy Emmet's article on Whitehead in The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (New York and London, 1967), VIII, 290ff.Google Scholar Longer treatments can be found in, for example, her Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism (London, 1932)Google Scholar, Lowe's, V. ‘The Development of Whitehead's Philosophy’ in The Philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, ed. Schlipp, P. A. (Evanston, 1941), pp. 15ff.Google Scholar, or Leclerc's, I.Whitehead's Metaphysics (London, 1958).Google Scholar For an interesting study of Whitehead's theological views (and a comprehensive bibliography) see Thompson, K. F. Jr, Whitehead's Philosophy of Religion (The Hague, 1971).Google Scholar
page 4 note 1 Cambridge, 1953 edn, pp. 221ff.
page 4 note 2 Pp. 484ff.
page 5 note 1 On this point, see, e.g. Process and Reality, pp. 121f.
page 7 note 1 Individuals (London, 1959), p. 9.Google Scholar
page 8 note 1 The latter piece of advice was, in effect, offered by Professor Braithwaite, R. B. in his review of Science and the Modern World in Mind, n.s. xxxv (1926), 499.Google Scholar
page 9 note 1 The Blue and Brown Books (Oxford, 1969), p. 25.Google Scholar
page 10 note 1 For a Wittgensteinian reaction to such accounts of concept-acquisition see, for example, Professor Pitcher's article ‘About the same’, Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophy and Language, ed. Ambrose, and Lazerowitz, (London, 1972), pp. 120ff.Google Scholar
page 10 note 2 ‘Use, Usage and Meaning’, Ar. Soc. Supp. vol. XXXV (1961), 233.Google Scholar
page 10 note 3 Cambridge (Mass.), 1964 edn, pp. 28ff.
page 10 note 4 The Diversity of Meaning (London, 1962), p. 71.Google Scholar
page 14 note 1 Job 11: 7.
page 14 note 2 Ecclesiastes 5: 2.
page 14 note 3 Science and the Modern World, p. 222.
page 15 note 1 Process and Reality, p. 4.
page 15 note 2 Sense and Sensibilia (Oxford, 1962), p. 2.Google Scholar
page 16 note 1 Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (Oxford, 1966), pp. 53ff.Google Scholar
page 16 note 2 ‘Religious beliefs and Language-games,’ Ratio XII (1970), 35.Google Scholar
page 16 note 3 Scepticism (London, 1973), pp. 39f.Google Scholar