Inclusive Infinity and Radical Particularity: Hartshorne, Hegel and Nis

inclusive Infinity and Radical ill-temperedity Hartshorne, Hegel and Nishida ABSTRACT God, or in Nishidas case Buddha-nature, is frequently conceptualized as relating to the cosmos by including it deep down the Infinite. Particular elements within the world are not seen as existing in absolute variousiation or total negation from Spirit, God, or Absolute Non-Being. The more are not excluded but are, on the contrary, included within the One. The system of logic by which the One includes the Many is a logic of manifold unity, or, as Hegel quite confidently puts it, true infinity as opposed to misbegotten infinity. I will argue that much(prenominal) a logic of inclusive infinity is operative in Hartshorne, Hegel and Nishida. Each uses different terminology and writes with different systemic emphases, but as applied to God or the Ultimate, the run short and consequences of the logic of inclusivity are strikingly similar for all three philosophers. Although immeasurable inclusivi ty provides a way of unifying the chaotic diversity of existence into a rational totality, there are central questions that have remained unanswered in the three metaphysicians. Primary among them is the question that sums up within itself many of the others the caper of radical circumstanceity. The particular elements of the world which are claimed to be included within the parameters of the Ultimate are alone that particular fragments of reality. I argue that their particular nature makes it impossible for the Infinite to incorporate them within its purview without meridian serious difficulties. God, or in Nishidas case Buddha-nature, is frequently conceptualized as relating to the world by including it within the Infinite. Particular elements within the world are not seen as ex... ...oblem of including evil but of including within Gods essence contradictory have gots such as joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure at the same time. Is it rattling possible that the Ultimate fully experience each element it contains however when there are a myriad number of elements of the opposite image? Yet the problem of radical particularity is even deeper. It is not just a matter of including evil, nor of including contradictory experiences, but of including any finite experience within the Ultimate. The Infinite cannot become finite because finite things are finite. I will concede that there may be a metaphysical solution to the problem of radical particularity that may have eluded the confront analysis. I have not proven that inclusive Infinity is impossible, still that there is a significant problem with its conceptualization that has not been adequately addressed.