Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Processing Contingency with Theology: A Defense of Whitehead's Pragmatism

Processing Contingency with Theology: A Defense of Whitehead's Pragmatism Processing Contingency with Theology: A Defense of Whitehead’s Pragmatism lisa landoe hedrick / university of chicago divinity school I. Introduction ontemporary debates about the implications of contingency are under- statedly vast. one central question is whether or not a metaphysics of c contingency is a contradiction of terms. of course, how one answers this question in large part depends on what else one means by the terms of the question. metaphysics, according to Alfred north Whitehead’s redescription, is not conceivably the sort of thing one could so much as avoid. metaphys- ics is “nothing but the description of the generalities which apply to all the details of practice.” it is true that the contingency of our starting points and formulations makes it such that our everyday experience underdetermines our metaphysical generalities. Thus, one may have very good pragmatic reasons for not engaging in such a project. but it is another claim entirely to say that all such efforts violate pragmatic scruples. one cannot avoid metaphysics in the sense of denying the metaphysical implications of one’s epistemic structures. A relationship between metaphysics and contingency is implicit in the fore- going characterization. This characterization is in tension with an alterna- tive http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Theology & Philosophy University of Illinois Press

Processing Contingency with Theology: A Defense of Whitehead's Pragmatism

Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-illinois-press/processing-contingency-with-theology-a-defense-of-whitehead-apos-s-3V2L0YfZ87

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Illinois Press
ISSN
2156-4795

Abstract

Processing Contingency with Theology: A Defense of Whitehead’s Pragmatism lisa landoe hedrick / university of chicago divinity school I. Introduction ontemporary debates about the implications of contingency are under- statedly vast. one central question is whether or not a metaphysics of c contingency is a contradiction of terms. of course, how one answers this question in large part depends on what else one means by the terms of the question. metaphysics, according to Alfred north Whitehead’s redescription, is not conceivably the sort of thing one could so much as avoid. metaphys- ics is “nothing but the description of the generalities which apply to all the details of practice.” it is true that the contingency of our starting points and formulations makes it such that our everyday experience underdetermines our metaphysical generalities. Thus, one may have very good pragmatic reasons for not engaging in such a project. but it is another claim entirely to say that all such efforts violate pragmatic scruples. one cannot avoid metaphysics in the sense of denying the metaphysical implications of one’s epistemic structures. A relationship between metaphysics and contingency is implicit in the fore- going characterization. This characterization is in tension with an alterna- tive

Journal

American Journal of Theology & Philosophy – University of Illinois Press

Published: Jun 6, 2019

There are no references for this article.