The God of Metaphysics

597 Pages·2006·2.78 MB·English

by  Timothy L. S. Sprigge

The God of Metaphysics
This page intentionally left blank
The God of Metaphysics
Being a Study of the Metaphysics
and Religious Doctrines of Spinoza,
Hegel, Kierkegaard, T. H. Green,
Bernard Bosanquet, Josiah Royce,
A. N. Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne,
and Concluding with a Defence of
Pantheistic Idealism
T. L. S. Sprigge
CLARENDON PRESS (cid:1)OXFORD
3
GreatClarendonStreet,OxfordOX26DP
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
(cid:1)T.L.S.Sprigge2006
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2006
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
BiddlesLtd,
King’sLynn,Norfolk
ISBN0–19–928304–4 978–0–19–928304–0
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Thisbookisdedicatedto
StMark’sUnitarianChurch,Edinburgh
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
In this book a number of metaphysical systems are examined in such
detail as is practicable. There are probably only a few of my hoped for
readers who are at home with each and all of them, and so most readers
shouldlearnsomethingaboutasignificantphilosophicalsystemnotvery
familiartothem.However,thebookisintendedalsoasacontributionto
thecontinuingdebateaboutthesethinkersamongthecognoscenti.
What links these systems together is that each provides a case for a
religious view of the world based on rational or would-be rational argu-
ment. That a seriously religious perspective on things can derive, or win
important support, from metaphysics is denied by many thinkers—for
example,byBlaisePascal(criticizingespeciallyRene´ Descartes),bySøren
Kierkegaard (criticizing especially Hegel and Hegelians), and by William
James, John Macmurray, and others. According to such thinkers, a God
whoseexistenceissupposedtobedemonstratedinaphilosophicaltreatise
is not the God of ‘Abraham, Isaac and the Christians’ or (so those not
thinking exclusively from the point of view of Judaeo-Christianity may
add) of any actual or possible living religious faith at all. In the light of
this,thepresentbookexaminessomeofthemetaphysicalsystemswhich
theirauthorsdidthinkofasofferingsomekindofdemonstrationof(orat
leastaphilosophicallocusfor)religioustruth,whetherChristianorother-
wise. Thus it sets out to test the objections to what might be called
‘metaphysical religion’ by investigating the works, and even to a limited
extentthelives,ofsomeofthosewhomaybethoughttohaveadvanced
somethingofthatsort(aswellasprobablythebestcritiqueofsuchefforts
by Kierkegaard in his attack on ‘Hegelian Christianity’). However, the
investigationofthemetaphysicalsystemsisalsoforitsownphilosophical
sake. I do not engage in the kind of lofty evaluation, as from a higher
authority,ofthesemetaphysicalsystemsandtheargumentsinsupportof
them,that,asIfear,somecommentatorsdotoday.Mymoredifficultaim
has been to promote understanding of, and interest in, the systems and
their relation to religious issues, and to criticize only for the sake of
Preface
advancingthisaim.Myownviewsonmetaphysicsandreligionaregiven
inChapter9.
ThereadershouldrealizethatIamawarethatitmaybethoughtcheek
to investigate, and even propound, general views of reality and say little
abouthowtheyrelatetothescientificconceptionsoftoday,whichmaybe
thoughttobethemostimportantclueswehaveastothenatureofthings.
Thisisareasonablecharge.Fromthispointofview,Ithinkthattheideal
thinker on such general matters is someone scientifically well equipped
but also aware of the way in which metaphysicians have grappled with
these issues. Of all the thinkers studied here, Whitehead was the best
equippedtodothis,thoughSpinozawaswellequippedinrelationtothe
science of his day. Einstein’s general theory of relativity would have
appealed, I think, to Spinoza, while Whitehead’s philosophy fits well, I
believe,withquantumphysics.Moregenerally,onecanonlyworkatwhat
oneiscapableof,andthisiswhatIhavedone,believingthattheproductis
notentirelyworthless.
Mymainhelpersinwritingthisbookhavebeenthephilosophersthem-
selvesandsomecommentators.Ihavehadsomehelp,forwhichIammost
grateful, with several chapters from John Llewelyn especially on Hegel;
fromAlastairHannayonKierkegaard;fromWilliamSweetonBosanquet;
from John Clendenning on Royce; from John Cobb, Pierfrancesco Basile
and Michel Weber on process thought and over the years from Leemon
McHenryonprocessthoughtandmuchelse.Mostofthesehavenotseen
mytextandarenottoblameforit,buttheyhavehelpedmemuch,either
indiscussionorinanswerstomye-mailquestions.Ishouldalsosayhow
valuable it has been to be able to meet and talk with fellow idealists, or
idealistscholars,fromaroundtheworldinaseriesofconferencesatHarris
Manchester College, mostly organized by Bill Mander (himself a notable
contributor to idealist philosophy), on current and historical idealist
trendsinphilosophy.IamafraidthatIamnotagreatreaderofphilosoph-
ical articles (as opposed to books) just as I avoid reading short stories.
Neitheroftheseformsallowsonetoimmerseoneselfinanother’sworld,
butactsonlysoastojerkoneoutofone’sown.SoIapologizetoallthose
who have written on the philosophers studied here in that medium for
any apparent failure to take account of their work. I may well have read
theirarticles,buttheytendtofloatawayfrommyconsciousmind,though
probably exerting some influence on my conscious thought. This is not
thecase(Ithink)withbooks.IamalsogratefultoallthosewithwhomI
have discussed philosophical and religious issues over the years, but it
wouldbeinvidioustopickoutanyofthemespecially,withtheexception
viii
Preface
of my late brother Robert, from whom I have learnt so much on philo-
sophical and religious matters. I am also deeply appreciative for all the
helpofveryvariouskindswhichIhavehadfrommywife,Giglia.
There is a separate bibliography for each chapter which gives abbrevi-
ations in square brackets for books used in the text. These abbreviations
areinsmallcapitals.Sometimeswhenanauthor’snamedoesnotappearin
thetext,itisusedforthereference.Somerepetitionacrosschaptersshould
makethemindependentlyintelligible.
T.L.S.SPRIGGE
ix