Theism/Atheism: Imagination and Ontological Openness

There is no need to oppose one possibility with the other. Speculative philosophy's task is to overcome the dualistic limitations of sense-understanding (subject v. object, quality v. substance) by way of a schematic renewal of (or participatory intervention into) our habitual way of imaging the world. Speculative philosophy must hold the binary (God/no-God) together to [...]

Philosophy Blogging, OOO/SR, Nihilism, and God

It is difficult to describe the effects of the blogosphere on consciousness, especially when the information communicated via blogs pretends to be philosophical. The blog, as a medium, has not yet been swallowed as radio by TV, or the printed word by the digital hyperlink, and so gaining perspective on its effects remains difficult. We're [...]

Whitehead on God and the Universe in “Modes of Thought”

It might be helpful for the last pages of Whitehead's 5th lecture in Modes of Thought (1938), "Forms of Process," to be available online. I'd enjoy unpacking the implications of what is said here, and so I will post them in the hopes that they be productive of further reflection on my part, as well as generative of [...]

The New Reformation: Whitehead on Christian Metaphysics

"...if you want to make a new start in religion, you must be content to wait a thousand years." -Alfred North Whitehead I've been thinking through my recent posts on the philosophical import of religious experience, and in light of some of the concerns brought up by Jason Hills, I wanted to further unpack the [...]

Types of Explanation in Whitehead and Hegel

I'm still working my way through Hegel and Whitehead: Contemporary Perspectives on Systematic Philosophy (1986), ed. by George R. Lucas, Jr. Today I read Klaus Hartmann's (University of Tubingen) essay, "Types of Explanation in Hegel and Whithead". Hartmann finds both similarities and differences in their respective approaches to philosophy. Among the similarities, he notes their [...]

God and Religious Experience in Whitehead: another response to Levi Bryant

Levi Bryant has problematized my attempt to clarify Whitehead's position on the function of divinity in the universe. He writes: "You make the claim that without God there would be chaos and no order. This is a problematic claim for two reasons. First, you have repeatedly tried to claim that God isn't supposed to explain [...]

The Creativity of Causality in Bios and Cosmos: a response to Levi Bryant

Levi Bryant has posted a comment in response to me over at plasticbodies. He has also posted a comment directed at Adam and I over at knowledge-ecology. I'd like to respond to some his questions and concerns, which include issues surrounding causality, explanation, God, and Nature. He first suggests I have conflated two different construals [...]

Causality in Whitehead’s Panentheism

Plasticbodies has posted another volley in the theism-nihilism discussion, this time drawing attention to causality. He asks: What does process theology give us that a (process) naturalism cannot? Or, put otherwise, how does one get from nature to divinity without begging the question? I'll paste my comments in response here: I have written quite a [...]

Religion and Philosophy: The God Problem

The discussion continues over on Levi Bryant's blog. Bryant agrees with me that Whitehead's conception of God does not fall prey to many of the ethical and epistemological criticisms he levels against traditional theism. But he fails to understand the problem that Whitehead's God is purported to have solved. Whitehead's style of philosophizing has much [...]

Ontology and God: a further response to Levi Bryant

I posted the following as a comment to Bryant's short response. Adam Robbert has a nice comment there, too. There is no necessary relationship between OOO (or ontology generally) and theology or morality, but certainly every ontology has theological and moral implications. To the extent that OOO has something in common with Whitehead’s process ontology, [...]

SR/OOO and Nihilism: a response to Harman and Bryant

I've already posted a short response to Harman, but I wanted to re-visit the issues explored in that post concerning the difference between Homo Sapiens, as an object among objects, and the Anthropos, as an ideal toward which every object tends. I will also try to disentangle my own "cosmotheandric" position from the generic anti-nihilism [...]

OOO and Anthropos: Graham Harman responds

Adam Robbert and Graham Harman have both posted responses to my post about the anthrodecentrism of object-oriented ontology. I think Adam's summary of my position as regards the relationship between divinity, nature, and humanity is quite accurate. He chose Raimon Panikkar's term "cosmotheandrism" to describe my approach. I'm definitely sympathetic to this characterization and have [...]

Nature in Whitehead, Hegel, and Schelling

In order to correct what I fear may have been an unfair caricature of Hegel presented in some of my posts earlier this year (HERE and HERE) after reading Iain Hamilton Grant's Philosophies of Nature After Schelling, I've sought out perspectives from thinkers more sympathetic to Hegel's approach. First on the list was the integral [...]

Cosmos, Anthropos, and Theos in Harman, Teilhard, and Whitehead

Knowledge-Ecology has written a reflection upon finishing Graham Harman's new book The Quadruple Object. Adam writes that "OOO is greatly enriching our sense of cosmos, whilst (somewhat) impoverishing our sense of anthropos." I've had similar reservations about Harman's anthrodecentrism (if I may diagnose it): Harman and the Special Magic of Human Knowledge. Harman's is an ontology [...]