Page History

...

-Isn't it rather clear that the "question" that Whitehead here takes to be "the Illost general formulation of the religious problem" is the sort of question a \Vesterner, conditioned by the biblical tradition, would be likely to ask? Also, to what extent is this formulation of the religious problem at all apparent in Religioll ill tile Nlilkillg? \Vouldn't one be inclined to judge from the position set forth there that the "religious problem" had more to do with the origin of value, and hence with the necessary conditions of its origin, than with its destiny? 

Wiki Markup3401516 f.J-What, really, is "the ultimate evil in the temporal world"? Does it lie in "the fact that the past fades, that time is a 'perpetual perishing,'" or rather in the fact that those of us who have the capacity to ask and answer this question are unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that the past fades, and so on? Perhaps, in "the temporal world" generally, the ultimate evil is, indeed, transience. But in that part of the temporal world where there can be such things as "the higher intellectual feelings" and therefore _moral_ _freedom, isn't the ultimate evil the inauthentic way in which beings capable of such feelings, or of such freedom, fail to come to terms with "perpetual perishing"-in short: "sin"? _341 1517 f.l-in what sense is "God" a"intuition"? Also, how is God, conceived as primarily, if not only, "conceptualappetition," any kind of a possible solution to the "religious problem," as\Vhitehead formulates it just above?-Perhaps \Vhitehead's comment here that"God and the World introduce the note of interpretation" helps to shed light onsome of his other comments concerning God. Thus, for example, he can say that"the immanence of God gives reason for the belief that pure chaos is intrinsicallyimpossible" (111 1169\]). Or, again, he can say, "the concept of 'God' is the way inwhich we understand this incredible fact-that what cannot be, yet is" (3501531 \). In both of these comments, the same point is made as appears to be madein the original comment, namely, that by reason of the concept-term "God" weare able to understand or interpret what is already a matter of direct intuition,belief, or experience. By inference from what Whitehead says on 347 \[5261, wemay say that the "fundamental intuition" of which the concept-term "God" is theinterpretation is "the intuition of permanence in fluency and of fluency inpermanence."ma~rof "interpretation," as distinct from this question are unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that the past fades, and so on? Perhaps, in "the temporal world" generally, the ultimate evil is, indeed, transience. But in that part of the temporal world where there can be such things as "the higher intellectual feelings" and therefore moral _freedom, isn't the ultimate evil the inauthentic way in which beings capable of such feelings, or of such freedom, fail to come to terms with "perpetual perishing"-in short: "sin"? _341 1517 f.l-in what sense is "God" a"intuition"? Also, how is God, conceived as primarily, if not only, "conceptualappetition," any kind of a possible solution to the "religious problem," as\Vhitehead formulates it just above?-Perhaps \Vhitehead's comment here that"God and the World introduce the note of interpretation" helps to shed light onsome of his other comments concerning God. Thus, for example, he can say that"the immanence of God gives reason for the belief that pure chaos is intrinsicallyimpossible" (111 1169]). Or, again, he can say, "the concept of 'God' is the way inwhich we understand this incredible fact-that what cannot be, yet is" (3501531 ). In both of these comments, the same point is made as appears to be madein the original comment, namely, that by reason of the concept-term "God" weare able to understand or interpret what is already a matter of direct intuition,belief, or experience. By inference from what Whitehead says on 347 [5261, wemay say that the "fundamental intuition" of which the concept-term "God" is theinterpretation is "the intuition of permanence in fluency and of fluency inpermanence."ma~rof "interpretation," as distinct from 

34415221-But, dearly, what God presupposes is not just "the

3451523J-Note Whitehead's reference here, not to the "primordial nature of God," but to "the primordial side of the nature of God," which, presumably, must also be said to have a "consequent side." That he can speak in this way, surely indicates how little the first way of speaking should ever be interpreted rigidly,

Wiki Markup346{_}general_ _metaphysical character of creative advance," of which God is the primordial exemplification, but also "the 'temporal creatures'''-not these, those, or any other_ _particular_ _creatures, but_ _sOllle_ _creatures_ _(d._ _225 1344\)._ _f._ _\[526 f.J-What does it mean to be "everlasting"? Does it mean_ _(1)_ _to combine creative advance with the retention of mutual immediacy; (2) to be _to be 

objectively immortal while devoid of perpetual perishing; or (3) to reconcile

...