Process, Insight, and Empirical Method
An
Argument for the Compatibility of the Philosophies of Alfred North
Whitehead and Bernard J. F. Lonergan and Its Implications for
Foundational Theology.
A
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Divinity School, The
University of Chicago, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
December 1983
Thomas Hosinski, C.S.C.
Chapter III:
The Influence of Empirical Method in Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s Analyses
of Human Subjectivity
This chapter will resume the
analysis and argumentation of my major thesis. We saw in Chapter I that
Whitehead and Lonergan have essentially identical interpretations of
empirical scientific method. We also saw that both understand empirical
scientific method to be a specialized form of the general method
governing and guiding all forms of cognitive knowing. I have called
this “general empirical method,” or simply “empirical method.” I
concluded from my initial investigation that both Whitehead and Lonergan
understand themselves, as philosophers, to be operating in accord with
this general empirical method. I found, however, that despite this
important similarity, there are several major differences in their
approaches and conclusions. My preliminary investigation of the
similarities and differences between their philoso-phies gave me reason
to suspect that in spite of the differences there might be grounds for
arguing a greater compatibility than has thusfar been recognized. The
similarities I had discovered served as clues in this direction, while
the differences remained as problems calling for further investigation.
My second chapter established to my
satisfaction that Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s interpretations of
empirical scientific method are tenable, meaning that they are within
the spectrum of interpretation offered by contemporary philosophy of
science. I found that their interpretations are fundamentally similar
to that offered by Michael Polanyi. I also discovered that although
their approaches differ, Whitehead and Lonergan are in fundamental
agreement with Polanyi on several major cognitional and epistemological
issues as against a position like Karl Popper’s. Yet I also found that
on several not insignificant topics, Whitehead and Lonergan are in
agreement with Popper. This, in my estimation, demonstrates the
balanced character of their interpretations of empirical scientific
method and knowing. What some would regard as an excessive
“subjectivist” bias in Polanyi’s thought is in Whitehead’s and
Lonergan’s thought mitigated by a recognition of certain valid
“objectivist” position. My study in Chapter II not only led me to
affirm that Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s interpretations of empirical
scientific method are within the spectrum of interpretation offered by
contemporary philosophy of science, but also gave me additional reasons
to suspect that there must be grounds for arguing that their
philosophies are actually more compatible and complementary than has
been recognized by most thinkers employing the thought of one or the
other.
In the present chapter, then, I
shall be considering in more detail the issues I raised in the final
section of Chapter I. My method of approach to the more thorough study
and resolution of these issues shall be to focus attention on
Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s analyses of human subjectivity as the key to
the development of their philosophies. The analysis of human
subjectivity is a central concern in the thought of both men. For both,
though in differing ways, the experience of human subjectivity is the
source and proving ground of philosophy. Moreover, the distinctive ways
in which they pursue their analyses are deeply influenced by the
understanding each has of general empirical method, and by the way in
which they each employ that method. In Whitehead’s view, since the
experience of the human subject is the portion of experience with which
we are most intimately acquainted, it serves as the best point of entry
for an investigation of the general characteristics of experience and as
the best sort of evidence against which to test notions of the general
nature of reality. Whitehead founds his philosophy of organism on his
analysis of the human subject’s experience of causal efficacy and
develops it by a further analysis of the valuing, purposing, and
cognitive functioning of the human subject. Lonergan develops his
philosophy by focusing attention on the experience and cognitive
functioning of the human subject as knower. This illustrates the broad
Kantian context in terms of which Lonergan addresses the philosophical
enterprise. Both Whitehead and Lonergan proceed by applying their
particular understandings of general empirical method to different sets
of data: Lonergan to the data of cognitional process; Whitehead to the
data of human experience more broadly conceived.
The general task of this chapter,
then, is to investigate the possibility of formulating into an
intelligent hypothesis my suspicion that the philosophies of Whitehead
and Lonergan are more compatible than has yet been recognized. First I
shall discuss Whitehead’s analysis of human subjectivity, and then
Lonergan’s, in order to have a careful understanding of the data to
which the hypothesis must appeal for support. The third section will
formulate an interpretative comparison as a first approximation of my
hypothesis. An hypothesis proposing that there is a fundamental
compatibility between the philosophies of Whitehead and Lonergan must
immediately confront the apparent counter-evidence of the great
difference between their respective metaphysics. If there is a
fundamental compatibility between their philosophies, how can their
metaphysical interpretations be so vastly different? This, in a sense,
constitutes the first major test of my hypothesis.
There are, of course, other tests. Among these the most important for
my purpose is the great difference between their respective
interpretations of God. I shall confront this topic in Chapter IV.
Accordingly, the third section of this chapter will also attempt to
confront and resolve this problem, and this should result in a more
refined formulation of my hypothesis and a deeper awareness of the
limitations of its applicability.
Whitehead’s Analysis
of Human Subjectivity
When considering Whitehead’s method,
Process and Reality can be a misleading book, particularly if one
is not well acquainted with his other writings. It is easy to
understand how a person coming to Whitehead’s thought for the first time
and beginning with a reading of Process and Reality might be
tempted to characterize that philosophy as a gigantic and overblown
categoreal speculation. However, it is in fact misled and misleading to
understand his philosophy in light of Process and Reality alone,
even though that book remains “Holy Writ” for his ontology. One of
several difficulties confronting the reader of Process and Reality
is that in this book Whitehead only occasionally indicates how he
arrived at the categories he is employing, and most of these indications
are hidden deep within nearly impenetrable thickets of technical
analysis. It is a book that does not reward cursory examination, nor
will such an examination reveal the nature of Whitehead’s method.
Whitehead states his method clearly enough in PR, 1.1
(Speculative Philosophy”), but what relation that chapter bears to 1.2
(“The Categoreal Scheme”) or the rest of PR is, I suspect, a
mystery to casual readers.
The result is that someone whose acquaintance with Whitehead’s thought
is restricted to even a careful reading of Process and Reality
carried out in isolation from his other writings might be quite
surprised to discover that Whitehead has any analysis of human
subjectivity at all, let alone that it is the key to his philosophy. It
is therefore worthwhile to begin our study in this section by recalling
why human subjectivity—that is, the multifariousness of human
experience—is so important in Whitehead’s thought, and how his whole
philosophy is a consistent and sustained attempt to elucidate that
experience by being unwaveringly faithful to all the clues and testimony
it provides.
Forward to
Human Experience: The
Source and Proving Ground of Philosophy
Back to
Table of Contents