Search

Panpsychism is the thesis that physical nature is composed of individuals each of which is to some degree sentient. It is somewhat akin to hylozoism, but in place of the thesis of the pervasiveness of life in nature substitutes the pervasiveness of sentience, experience or, in a broad sense, consciousness. There are two distinct grounds on which panpsychism has been based. Some see it as the best explanation of the emergence of consciousness in the universe to say that it is, in fact, universally present, and that the high-level consciousness of humans and animals is the product of special patterns of that low-level consciousness or feeling which is universally present. The other ground on which panpsychism is argued for is that ordinary knowledge of the physical world is only of its structure and sensory effects on us, and that the most likely inner content which fills out this structure and produces these experiences is a system of patterns of sentient experience of a low level.

Idealism is now usually understood in philosophy as the view that mind is the most basic reality and that the physical world exists only as an appearance to or expression of mind, or as somehow mental in its inner essence. However, a philosophy which makes the physical world dependent upon mind is usually also called idealist even if it postulates some further hidden, more basic reality behind the mental and physical scenes (for example, Kant’s things-in-themselves). There is also a certain tendency to restrict the term ‘idealism’ to systems for which what is basic is mind of a somewhat lofty nature, so that ‘spiritual values’ are the ultimate shapers of reality. (An older and broader use counts as idealist any view for which the physical world is somehow unreal compared with some more ultimate, not necessarily mental, reality conceived as the source of value, for example Platonic forms.) The founding fathers of idealism in Western thought are Berkeley (theistic idealism), Kant (transcendental idealism) and Hegel (absolute idealism). Although the precise sense in which Hegel was an idealist is problematic, his influence on subsequent absolute or monistic idealism was enormous. In the US and the UK idealism, especially of the absolute kind, was the dominating philosophy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, receiving its most forceful expression with F.H. Bradley. It declined, without dying, under the influence of G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell, and later of the logical positivists. Not a few philosophers believe, however, that it has a future.

After a brief discussion of Kant’s critique of attempts to prove the existence of God, this chapter turns to Hegel. After some account of his life, there follows an account of his early posthumous theological essays. The chapter moves on to his final system. Some account is offered of his dialectical method and the progression from Pure Being, through the three great categories of The Idea in itself or The Logical Idea, The Idea outside itself or Nature, and the Idea in and for itself or Spirit. This terminates in what Hegel calls Absolute Spirit, which itself terminates in The Absolute Religion, that is to say Christianity. Hegel’s peculiar version of the doctrine of the Trinity is discussed. Finally the question as to the real religious value of Hegel’s system is raised.

This chapter discusses the position presented by Kierkegaard in his two related works: Philosophical Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, which were published under the pseudonym, Johannes Climacus. It is shown that in Fragments, Climacus merely tried out the idea of God incarnating himself to achieve mutual love with men in spite of their fallen state, but did not specify Christianity as proclaiming the realization of this idea. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, the focus is more explicitly on Christianity. Kierkegaard’s most thorough discussion of ethics, Works of Love, is also examined, which emphasizes the need for Christians to grow out of worldly self-love and embrace a life of suffering.

This introductory chapter starts the discussion by some general remarks on what makes a belief system a religious one and the criteria for calling something ‘God’. There is a brief discussion of Descartes and of Pascal and the relation between the expressions ‘the Absolute’ and ‘God’ is briefly considered.

This chapter presents the author’s own point of view. It is a form of absolute idealism quite close to that of F. H. Bradley but also influenced by Spinoza, Josiah Royce, and process philosophy. ‘Pantheistic’ may be a more appropriate term than ‘absolute’ idealism to dissociate it from any absurd reduction of Nature to the human experience of it. The nature of metaphysical truth, experience, panpsychism, ethics, problem of evil, and absolute idealism and religion are analyzed. It is claimed that absolute idealism has a certain religious character of its own.

Religion has been described in this book as ‘a truth to live by’ (that is what is thought to be a truth by the believer and is associated with ‘religious’ emotions). This last chapter considers with reference to each of the philosophers discussed at any length in this book whether his metaphysics could provide anyone who accepted it with such a ‘truth’. Each of them qualifies as religiously significant from this point of view. The truth of the system matters for anyone inclined to adopt it but what matters for others is its ethical effect upon him or her.

This chapter examines the philosophy of T. H. Green, the initial leading figure among the absolute idealists who dominated British philosophy in the late 19th century. Green sought to establish that the existence and nature of human beings, especially of the human mind, was not susceptible of a purely empirical or scientific explanation. He claimed that the only possible explanation involved reference to the existence of an Eternal Consciousness, which was gradually realizing itself in the temporal world, more especially in the life of human beings. Further issues in his philosophy are examined, such as that things count as real only if they are in unchanging relations to each other, the difference between negative and positive freedom, the nature of moral choice, the superiority of a virtue ethic to a utilitarian one.

Whitehead and Hartshorne are considered the founding fathers of process philosophy as a fully worked out metaphysic. Both believe that the basic stuff of the world is experience, which comes into being in what William James called ‘drops of experience’ or ‘momentary experiential wholes’. Both believe that each such momentary whole prehends earlier such wholes, and makes itself into a unitary reality with these prehended past wholes as its raw material. They also believe that creativity is a basic feature of reality. Their views on process theology, proofs of God’s existence, and ethics are discussed.

This chapter begins with a description of the life of Josiah Royce. It then discusses the following themes from Royce: proof of the existence of God, ethical theory, and the problem of evil in The Religious Aspect of Philosophy; the panpsychism of The Spirit of Modern Philosophy; the four conceptions of being in The World and the Individual; time and eternity and the worlds of description and acquaintance mainly in The Spirit of Modern Philosophy; and the notion of the beloved community in The Philosophy of Loyalty and The Problem of Christianity. Some comments on Royce as a religious thinker and man are presented.

A theory of punishment should tell us not only when punishment is permissible but also when it is a duty. It is not clear whether McCloskey's retributivism is supposed to do this. His arguments against utilitarianism consist largely in examples of punishments unacceptable to the common moral consciousness but supposedly approved of by the consistent utilitarian. We remain unpersuaded to abandon our utilitarianism. The examples are often fanciful in character, a point which (pace McCloskey) does rob them of much of their force. If there was no tension between utilitarian precepts and those which come naturally to plain men, utilitarianism could have no claim to provide a critique of moralities. The utilitarian's attitude to such tensions is somewhat complicated, but what is certain is that there is more room in his system for the sentiments to which McCloskey appeals against him than McCloskey realizes. We agree with McCloskey, however, on the absurdity of substituting rule‐utilitarianism for act‐utilitari...