From
The
Journal of Religion, Vol. 46, No. 4. (Oct. 1966) 500-502. A
review of
A
Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality,
edited by Donald W. Sherburne, New York: Macmillan Co., 1966.
Pp. 263.
A Review of
Donald W. Sherburne,
A Key to Whitehead's Process
and Reality
Lewis S. Ford
In more whimsical moments I have often wondered what a
well-trained biblical scholar in source criticism would make of
Whitehead’s published writings. Let us suppose he were handed an
untitled copy of Science and the Modern World and deprived of all
independent knowledge of its authorship. I feel sure our scholar would
declare the work to be a compilation from two separate sources, H, a
broadly educated and genial historian of ideas, and M, a highly
technical systematic metaphysician. Those chapters on “Abstraction” and
“God” are clearly from M’s hand, as well as the concluding three or four
paragraphs from most of the latter chapters. Religion in the Making
likewise appears to be a compilation: chapters i, ii, and iv by H,
while M contributed chapter iii. Adventures of Ideas would be
even more complex: H supplied Part I and quite possibly Part II; M is
definitely the author of Part III, while those lyrical reflections in
Part IV on truth, beauty, adventure, and peace must be by yet a third
hand, P, a late source that enjoyed the opportunity to reflect upon the
work of the metaphysician and a source that bears strong affinities to
Modes of Thought.
This veritable quarry for source analysis, alas, seems
unyielding to the aspiring student who would penetrate to the core of
Whitehead’s thought. Whitehead’s fascinating reflections on science,
religion, and civilization (the work of H) are readily accessible, but
they furnish very few clues as to the character of Whitehead’s fully
developed metaphysics, while the work of M in these volumes is too
fragmentary and abrupt to provide much of an overview, and the
post-metaphysical reflections of P seem always to presuppose that
central metaphysical core our student has sought in vain to master.
There is no alternative but to turn to Process and Reality, not
just because this is Whitehead’s magnum opus, but because this is
the only work in which his systematic metaphysical ideas are spelled out
with any measure of completeness.
Process and Reality,
in turn, is hardly designed with an eye toward pedagogical facility. If
the initial chapter on speculative philosophy has the warmth and
vitality of Genesis, surely the second chapter on the categorial scheme
has plunged us directly into the barren wastes of Leviticus, and Part II
is as disordered as the writings of the prophets. Part III is much more
manageable, provided we have the fortitude to have survived to that
point, or the good fortune of being warned beforehand. Skipping Part
IV, which none but the most hardy Whiteheadians ever traverses, we reach
the golden land of Part V on God and the world. Exclusive attention to
Part V, however, may be even more disastrous than our crypto-Marcionite
habit of reading the New Testament without reference to the Old.
Fortunately, Sherburne’s Key has changed all this. By drastically
rearranging an abridged text of Process and Reality (approximately
two-fifths of the original). Sherburne has provided us with a very
manageable introduction to the central metaphysical principles expressed
in Whitehead’s own words. The Key renders Process and Reality
pedagogically accessible for the first time, as a quick enumeration of
its contents will readily make apparent.
The first two chapters introduce the basic concepts. The
first chapter on the actual entity ushers us into the “subjective” world
of concrescence, prehension, and subjective form. Students on whom I
tested this material found this chapter the one they had to read at the
slowest rate. Many new ideas were being introduced in a condensed and
rapid fashion, but the material was quite intelligible once mastered.
Clearly Sherburne experienced difficulties in finding suitable
elementary material on the actual entity. All the same I question the
advisability of introducing the distinction between the initial and the
objective datum of a simple physical feeling as early as page 10. (I
hasten to add that Sherburne’s introductory explanation and diagram
immensely clarify Whitehead’s discussion of the distinction.) Chapter
ii isolates the three “formative elements” Sherburne previously
identified in his A Whiteheadian Aesthetic (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 1961): eternal objects, God, and creativity. The
three are presented in a connected fashion, for God is introduced as the
locus of all unrealized eternal objects, while creativity and God are
shown to require each other. Sherburne concludes with a one-page
explanation of creativity, summarizing some of the insights of his own
brilliant analysis in A Whiteheadian Aesthetic (pp. 9-20).
Chapter iii on the phases of concrescence is primarily a
highly condensed version of Process and Reality, Part III,
organized around Whitehead’s list of categorical obligations. Sherburne
concentrates upon the earlier phases, providing just enough of the
higher phases to introduce Whitehead’s explanation of consciousness with
precision. No one could be more aware than he that this account is not
an adequate substitute for a full account of the higher phases, yet
Sherburne’s decision to limit the analysis in this introductory
abridgment was wise, clearly preferable to a rapid-fire cataloguing of
all the types of complex comparative feelings. On the other hand, a
decision to forego the higher phases entirely would have left the
account of consciousness hopelessly obscure.
Chapters iv, v, and vi primarily reorder Process and
Reality, Part II, around three key topics, the nature of macroscopic
societies (with special emphasis upon physiology), perception, and the
examination of other philosophies. The construction of a chapter on
perception from Process and Reality is most welcome, for
otherwise one had to supplement the book with Symbolism: Its Meaning
and Effect, in order to get a connected account of this key issue
which figures so prominently in Whitehead’s refutation of Hume (and with
Hume, Kant). I would quarrel with the inclusion of transmutation in a
discussion of nexus and societies, however, for it properly belongs
within the phases of concrescence. Apparently Sherburne decided to
postpone the discussion of transmutation in order not to obscure the
thrust of the argument leading to consciousness in chapter iii, but I
find the shift gained him little.
The final chapter reproduces Process and Reality,
Part V, on God and the world, with little change. Sherburne’s
organization forced me to read this section as it was intended, namely,
as a description of the interplay between God and the world in response
to the demands of the ideal opposites of permanance and flux, and of
order and novelty. All too often we are tempted to treat this section
as Whitehead’s natural theology, thereby subtly distorting the thrust of
the argument. The opening defense of speculative philosophy is then
made into a brief Appendix, to be read either first or last. While this
chapter surely provides a good initial taste of Whitehead, I found it
extremely profitable to examine this chapter on methodology with
students once they were already well acquainted with the system itself.
Sherburne fittingly concludes with the humbling words of the Preface:
“There remains the final reflection, how shallow, puny, and imperfect
are efforts to sound the depths in the nature of things. In
philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to
finality of statement is an exhibition of folly.”
This summary description barely hints at the enormous and
radical rearranging Sherburne engaged in to achieve this result. On a
single page he might quote from two, five, or twelve different places in
Process and Reality. Quotation marks, ellipses, and reference
footnotes have been omitted so as not to clutter up the text, but a
convenient table of sources is included on pages 249-52. Despite all
this jumping around, the text reads very smoothly, and I would defy our
biblical source critic to determine which passages originally belonged
with which. Perhaps six times at most was I able to spot any
indications of the compilation, primarily in terms of partial
overlapping or in some slight shift in terminology. Whitehead’s style
is remarkably even throughout, and no glaring hiatuses in the argument
were noticeable.
The Key is further enhanced by brief introductory
explanations, four diagrams (one of Sherburne’s specialties), a full
Index, and a forty-three-page glossary of systematic terms. The
glossary leans toward page-long entries on relatively few topics,
heavily relying on Whitehead’s own words. Such entries can be quite
successful as systematic vignettes; see, for example, pages 242-43 on
“structured society.” Yet for quick reference to refresh one’s memory,
many briefer entries would be in order. The entry on prehensions should
be broken down into their various types, while Whitehead’s own language
should be eschewed in order to provide a clarifying contrast with the
main text.
Can the Key be used by itself as an adequate
introduction to Whitehead’s thought? This question was uppermost in my
mind while examining Sherburne. I think the proper answer is: yes, with
difficulty. The problem centers in the earlier chapters, not the later
development or scope of the approach. Sherburne initiates us directly
into Whitehead’s subjective description of actuality, and one only
gradually becomes aware of the general microscopic character of these
actualities. In itself this may well be good, but no reasons are given
why Whitehead came to ascribe subjectivity to all actualities. On this
point Ivor Leclerc’s analysis of the atomicity of becoming in
Whitehead’s Metaphysics: An Introductory Exposition (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1958), has not been surpassed. Only Sherburne, however,
has given us an introduction to Whitehead wholly in Whitehead’s own
words.
Posted March 25,
2007
Back to Ford Page