Question: What did Lie algebras and hyperbolic quaternions demonstrate a need for?

Answer: the need to expand algebraic structures beyond the associatively multiplicative class

model theory, which is sometimes described as "universal algebra + logic". In Alfred North Whitehead's book "A Treatise on Universal Algebra," published in 1898, the term "universal algebra" had essentially the same meaning that it has today. Whitehead credits William Rowan Hamilton and Augustus De Morgan as originators of the subject matter, and James Joseph Sylvester with coining the term itself. At the time structures such as Lie algebras and hyperbolic quaternions drew attention to the need to expand algebraic structures beyond the associatively multiplicative class. In a review Alexander Macfarlane wrote: "The main idea of the work is not


Question: What was G.B. Matthew's opinion of "A Treatise on Algebra"?

Answer: "It possesses a unity of design which is really remarkable, considering the variety of its themes."

class. In a review Alexander Macfarlane wrote: "The main idea of the work is not unification of the several methods, nor generalization of ordinary algebra so as to include them, but rather the comparative study of their several structures." In a separate review, G. B. Mathews wrote, "It possesses a unity of design which is really remarkable, considering the variety of its themes." "A Treatise on Universal Algebra" sought to examine Hermann Grassmann's theory of extension ("Ausdehnungslehre"), Boole's algebra of logic, and Hamilton's quaternions (this last number system was to be taken up in Volume II, which was never finished


Question: Lie algebras and hypobolic quanternions drew attention to the need for what?

Answer: expand algebraic structures

known as "mereotopology", a theory describing spatial relations among wholes, parts, parts of parts, and the boundaries between parts. In "A Treatise on Universal Algebra" (1898) the term "universal algebra" had essentially the same meaning that it has today: the study of algebraic structures themselves, rather than examples ("models") of algebraic structures. Whitehead credits William Rowan Hamilton and Augustus De Morgan as originators of the subject matter, and James Joseph Sylvester with coining the term itself. At the time structures such as Lie algebras and hyperbolic quaternions drew attention to the need to expand algebraic structures beyond the associatively multiplicative


Question: What did reviewer GB Mathews say algebraic structures possessed?

Answer: unity of design

class. In a review Alexander Macfarlane wrote: "The main idea of the work is not unification of the several methods, nor generalization of ordinary algebra so as to include them, but rather the comparative study of their several structures." In a separate review, G. B. Mathews wrote, "It possesses a unity of design which is really remarkable, considering the variety of its themes." "A Treatise on Universal Algebra" sought to examine Hermann Grassmann's theory of extension ("Ausdehnungslehre"), Boole's algebra of logic, and Hamilton's quaternions (this last number system was to be taken up in Volume II, which was never finished


Question: Reviewer Alexander Macfarlane believed that the main idea of the work is a comparative study of what?

Answer: several structures

class. In a review Alexander Macfarlane wrote: "The main idea of the work is not unification of the several methods, nor generalization of ordinary algebra so as to include them, but rather the comparative study of their several structures." In a separate review, G. B. Mathews wrote, "It possesses a unity of design which is really remarkable, considering the variety of its themes." "A Treatise on Universal Algebra" sought to examine Hermann Grassmann's theory of extension ("Ausdehnungslehre"), Boole's algebra of logic, and Hamilton's quaternions (this last number system was to be taken up in Volume II, which was never finished


Question: How long did Whitehead and Russell expect to spend creating Principia Mathematica?

Answer: a year

set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful." Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that "Principia Mathematica" would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years. When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its


Question: How long did it actually take to complete Principia Mathematica?

Answer: ten years

set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful." Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that "Principia Mathematica" would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years. When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its


Question: How long did Whitehead and Russell think it would take them to complete Principia Mathematica?

Answer: a year

set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful." Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that "Principia Mathematica" would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years. When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its


Question: How long did it actually take Whitehead and Russell to complete Principia Mathematica?

Answer: ten years

set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful." Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that "Principia Mathematica" would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years. When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its


Question: How many volumes was Principia Mathematica?

Answer: three

set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful." Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that "Principia Mathematica" would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years. When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its


Question: How many pages was Principia Mathematica?

Answer: 2,000

set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. Whitehead and Russell were working on such a foundational level of mathematics and logic that it took them until page 86 of Volume II to prove that 1+1=2, a proof humorously accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful." Whitehead and Russell had thought originally that "Principia Mathematica" would take a year to complete; it ended up taking them ten years. When it came time for publication, the three-volume work was so long (more than 2,000 pages) and its


Question: Who paid to publish Principia Mathematica?

Answer: Cambridge University Press

audience so narrow (professional mathematicians) that it was initially published at a loss of 600 pounds, 300 of which was paid by Cambridge University Press, 200 by the Royal Society of London, and 50 apiece by Whitehead and Russell themselves. Despite the initial loss, today there is likely no major academic library in the world which does not hold a copy of "Principia Mathematica". The ultimate substantive legacy of "Principia Mathematica" is mixed. It is generally accepted that Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem of 1931 definitively demonstrated that for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, there


Question: What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in philosophy?

Answer: generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon

was invited to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy at 63 years of age. This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as "Process


Question: What lectures did Whitehead present in 1927-28?

Answer: Gifford lectures

was invited to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy at 63 years of age. This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as "Process


Question: Under what name were those lectures later published?

Answer: Process and Reality

exist independently of one another. Today Whitehead's philosophical works – particularly "Process and Reality" – are regarded as the foundational texts of process philosophy. Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us." For this reason, one of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in recent years has been in the area of ecological civilization and environmental ethics pioneered by John B. Cobb, Jr. Alfred North Whitehead


Question: Who also struggled to follow Whitehead's writings?

Answer: professional philosophers

was invited to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy at 63 years of age. This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as "Process


Question: Following Arthur Eddington's lectures, what did Whitehead  publish?

Answer: Process and Reality

exist independently of one another. Today Whitehead's philosophical works – particularly "Process and Reality" – are regarded as the foundational texts of process philosophy. Whitehead's process philosophy argues that "there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us." For this reason, one of the most promising applications of Whitehead's thought in recent years has been in the area of ecological civilization and environmental ethics pioneered by John B. Cobb, Jr. Alfred North Whitehead


Question: In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work considered?

Answer: the most difficult to understand

was invited to join the faculty at Harvard University as a professor of philosophy at 63 years of age. This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as "Process


Question: What affect did Matthews' opinion of the difficulty of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them?

Answer: Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest

of the respect generally shown to Whitehead by his philosophical peers at the time arose from their sheer bafflement. Distinguished University of Chicago Divinity School theologian Shailer Mathews once remarked of Whitehead's 1926 book "Religion in the Making": "It is infuriating, and I must say embarrassing as well, to read page after page of relatively familiar words without understanding a single sentence." However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of


Question: What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to explain Whitehead's ideas?

Answer: Henry Nelson Wieman

the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. Shortly after Whitehead's book "Process and Reality" appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review: "Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But


Question: What was the result of that lecture?

Answer: Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years

the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. Shortly after Whitehead's book "Process and Reality" appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review: "Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But


Question: Who was frustrated in Whitehead's books but still interested?

Answer: Mathews

of the respect generally shown to Whitehead by his philosophical peers at the time arose from their sheer bafflement. Distinguished University of Chicago Divinity School theologian Shailer Mathews once remarked of Whitehead's 1926 book "Religion in the Making": "It is infuriating, and I must say embarrassing as well, to read page after page of relatively familiar words without understanding a single sentence." However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of


Question: What school recognized the importance of Whitehead's work?

Answer: Chicago's Divinity School

the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. Shortly after Whitehead's book "Process and Reality" appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review: "Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But


Question: When was Henry Nelson Wieman invited to the Chicago Divinity school?

Answer: 1927

the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. Shortly after Whitehead's book "Process and Reality" appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review: "Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But


Question: Who was invited to the Chicago Divinity school as one of Whitehead's only experts?

Answer: Henry Nelson Wieman

the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. Shortly after Whitehead's book "Process and Reality" appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review: "Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But


Question: What happened after Henry Nelson Wieman gave a lecture about Whitehead?

Answer: hired

the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. Shortly after Whitehead's book "Process and Reality" appeared in 1929, Wieman famously wrote in his 1930 review: "Not many people will read Whitehead's recent book in this generation; not many will read it in any generation. But


Question: What effect did Whitehead have on the future of metaphysics?

Answer: he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions.

separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. Whitehead was convinced that the scientific notion of matter was misleading as a way of describing the ultimate nature of things. In his 1925 book "Science and the Modern World", he wrote that "There persists ... [a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In


Question: Which publication is considered the most impressive metaphysical text?

Answer: Process and Reality

its influence will radiate through concentric circles of popularization until the common man will think and work in the light of it, not knowing whence the light came. After a few decades of discussion and analysis one will be able to understand it more readily than can now be done." Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though "Process and Reality" has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will


Question: Who thought Process and Reality was little-read because the reader has to separate them from normal thought?

Answer: Isabelle Stengers

its influence will radiate through concentric circles of popularization until the common man will think and work in the light of it, not knowing whence the light came. After a few decades of discussion and analysis one will be able to understand it more readily than can now be done." Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though "Process and Reality" has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will


Question: What philosophy in the west was challenged by Whitehead?

Answer: how the universe works

separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. Whitehead was convinced that the scientific notion of matter was misleading as a way of describing the ultimate nature of things. In his 1925 book "Science and the Modern World", he wrote that "There persists ... [a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In


Question: What was Whitehead's philosophy able to anticipate for the 21st century?

Answer: scientific and philosophical problems

separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. Whitehead was convinced that the scientific notion of matter was misleading as a way of describing the ultimate nature of things. In his 1925 book "Science and the Modern World", he wrote that "There persists ... [a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In


Question: What did Whitehead believe regarding creativity?

Answer: creativity is the absolute principle of existence

relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to


Question: An entity is a sum of relations, a valuation of them and what else?

Answer: reaction to them.

relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to


Question: All entities, being unable to predict behavior, are because of what?

Answer: the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities

predict an electron's movement (for instance) is not due to faulty understanding or inadequate technology; rather, the fundamental creativity/freedom of all entities means that there will always remain phenomena that are unpredictable. The other side of creativity/freedom as the absolute principle is that every entity is constrained by the social structure of existence (i.e., its relations) – each actual entity must conform to the settled conditions of the world around it. Freedom always exists within limits. But an entity's uniqueness and individuality arise from its own self-determination as to just how it will take account of the world within the


Question: Not being able to predict what any entity is going to do is what principle b Whitehead?

Answer: creativity is the absolute principle of existence

relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to


Question: What did Whitehead believe about an entity's relation to other entities?

Answer: has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws

relations, but also a valuation of them and reaction to them. For Whitehead, creativity is the absolute principle of existence, and every entity (whether it is a human being, a tree, or an electron) has some degree of novelty in how it responds to other entities, and is not fully determined by causal or mechanistic laws. Of course, most entities do not have consciousness. As a human being's actions cannot always be predicted, the same can be said of where a tree's roots will grow, or how an electron will move, or whether it will rain tomorrow. Moreover, inability to


Question: What is a basic description of the theory of representative perception?

Answer: the mind only has private ideas about other entities

needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin "prehensio", meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of "representative" perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way,


Question: What term did Whitehead describe that perception is not limited to the living?

Answer: prehension

needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin "prehensio", meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of "representative" perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way,


Question: What language does the term "prehensio" come from?

Answer: Latin

needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin "prehensio", meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of "representative" perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way,


Question: What does the word "Prehensio" translate into?

Answer: to seize

needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin "prehensio", meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of "representative" perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way,


Question: How many modes does perception occur in according to Whitehead?

Answer: two

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: What is prehension used to define?

Answer: a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons

needed a new way of describing perception that was not limited to living, self-conscious beings. The term he coined was "prehension", which comes from the Latin "prehensio", meaning "to seize." The term is meant to indicate a kind of perception that can be conscious or unconscious, applying to people as well as electrons. It is also intended to make clear Whitehead's rejection of the theory of "representative" perception, in which the mind only has private ideas about other entities. For Whitehead, the term "prehension" indicates that the perceiver actually incorporates aspects of the perceived thing into itself. In this way,


Question: What does the term "prehension" signify regarding an entities perceptions and relations?

Answer: entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: How do the senses affect causal efficacy?

Answer: unmediated by the senses

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: What can be said about the accuracy of presentational immediacy?

Answer: it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive

is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person


Question: What is the term for the experience dominating primitive organisms that have a sense for fate?

Answer: causal efficacy

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: What is the other term for "pure sense perception"?

Answer: Presentational immediacy

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: What is it called if you mistake a reflection in a mirror for the real thing?

Answer: Presentational immediacy

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: How does Whitehead define causal efficacy?

Answer: "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go."

entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, "causal efficacy" (or "physical prehension") and "presentational immediacy" (or "conceptual prehension"). Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go." It is, in other words, the sense of causal relations between entities, a feeling of being influenced and affected by the surrounding environment, unmediated by the senses. Presentational immediacy, on the other hand, is what


Question: How does Whitehead define presentational immediacy?

Answer: "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation

is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person


Question: Which concept does Whitehead state is more dominant in a lower mentality?

Answer: causal relationships

by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). Whitehead believed that when asking questions about the basic facts of existence, questions about value and purpose can never be fully escaped. This is borne out in his thoughts on abiogenesis, or the hypothetical natural process


Question: What does symbolic reference link appearance with?

Answer: causation

is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person


Question: What does having sense perceptions conclude about a person?

Answer: higher grade mentality

by way of using it as such." In this way symbolic reference is a fusion of pure sense perceptions on the one hand and causal relations on the other, and that it is in fact the causal relationships that dominate the more basic mentality (as the dog illustrates), while it is the sense perceptions which indicate a higher grade mentality (as the artist illustrates). Whitehead believed that when asking questions about the basic facts of existence, questions about value and purpose can never be fully escaped. This is borne out in his thoughts on abiogenesis, or the hypothetical natural process


Question: What is the purpose of symbolic reference?

Answer: links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it

is usually referred to as "pure sense perception", unmediated by any causal or symbolic interpretation, even unconscious interpretation. In other words, it is pure appearance, which may or may not be delusive (e.g. mistaking an image in a mirror for "the real thing"). In higher organisms (like people), these two modes of perception combine into what Whitehead terms "symbolic reference", which links appearance with causation in a process that is so automatic that both people and animals have difficulty refraining from it. By way of illustration, Whitehead uses the example of a person's encounter with a chair. An ordinary person


Question: How might an artist view a chair differently than a typical person?

Answer: "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape."

looks up, sees a colored shape, and immediately infers that it is a chair. However, an artist, Whitehead supposes, "might not have jumped to the notion of a chair", but instead "might have stopped at the mere contemplation of a beautiful color and a beautiful shape." This is not the normal human reaction; most people place objects in categories by habit and instinct, without even thinking about it. Moreover, animals do the same thing. Using the same example, Whitehead points out that a dog "would have acted immediately on the hypothesis of a chair and would have jumped onto it


Question: What observation did Whitehead make about life?

Answer: "life is comparatively deficient in survival value."

by which life arises from simple organic compounds. Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is


Question: What did Whitehead state was the biggest indicator of a higher form of life?

Answer: they are actively engaged in modifying their environment

by which life arises from simple organic compounds. Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is


Question: What did Whitehead believe are the goals f life?

Answer: living, living well, and living better

directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. For Whitehead, there is no such thing as wholly inert matter. Instead, all things have some measure of freedom or creativity, however small, which allows them to be at least partly self-directed. Process philosopher David Ray Griffin coined the term "panexperientialism" (the idea that all entities experience) to describe Whitehead's view, and to distinguish it from panpsychism (the idea


Question: What did Whitehead believe was the fundamental purpose of life?

Answer: increasing its own satisfaction

directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. For Whitehead, there is no such thing as wholly inert matter. Instead, all things have some measure of freedom or creativity, however small, which allows them to be at least partly self-directed. Process philosopher David Ray Griffin coined the term "panexperientialism" (the idea that all entities experience) to describe Whitehead's view, and to distinguish it from panpsychism (the idea


Question: Whitehead observes that life is deficient in what?

Answer: survival value

by which life arises from simple organic compounds. Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is


Question: What are higher life forms actively engaged in?

Answer: modifying their environment

by which life arises from simple organic compounds. Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is


Question: How many goals of living is there?

Answer: three

directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. For Whitehead, there is no such thing as wholly inert matter. Instead, all things have some measure of freedom or creativity, however small, which allows them to be at least partly self-directed. Process philosopher David Ray Griffin coined the term "panexperientialism" (the idea that all entities experience) to describe Whitehead's view, and to distinguish it from panpsychism (the idea


Question: Whitehead sees life as directed towards what purpose?

Answer: increasing its own satisfaction

directed toward the three-fold goal of living, living well, and living better. In other words, Whitehead sees life as directed toward the purpose of increasing its own satisfaction. Without such a goal, he sees the rise of life as totally unintelligible. For Whitehead, there is no such thing as wholly inert matter. Instead, all things have some measure of freedom or creativity, however small, which allows them to be at least partly self-directed. Process philosopher David Ray Griffin coined the term "panexperientialism" (the idea that all entities experience) to describe Whitehead's view, and to distinguish it from panpsychism (the idea


Question: What was Whitehead's response to questions about why complex life evolved?

Answer: "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them."

by which life arises from simple organic compounds. Whitehead makes the startling observation that "life is comparatively deficient in survival value." If humans can only exist for about a hundred years, and rocks for eight hundred million, then one is forced to ask why complex organisms ever evolved in the first place; as Whitehead humorously notes, "they certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them." He then observes that the mark of higher forms of life is that they are actively engaged in modifying their environment, an activity which he theorizes is


Question: What was Whitehead's description of God?

Answer: "the brief Galilean vision of humility"

that all matter has consciousness). Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": "It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar,


Question: What is Whitehead's most well-known critical statement regarding the Christian notion of God?

Answer: "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

that all matter has consciousness). Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": "It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar,


Question: What qualities dis Whitehead state that Christians attributed to their version of God?

Answer: primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power

that all matter has consciousness). Whitehead's idea of God differs from traditional monotheistic notions. Perhaps his most famous and pointed criticism of the Christian conception of God is that "the Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar." Here Whitehead is criticizing Christianity for defining God as primarily a divine king who imposes his will on the world, and whose most important attribute is power. As opposed to the most widely accepted forms of Christianity, Whitehead emphasized an idea of God that he called "the brief Galilean vision of humility": "It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar,


Question: What type of God did Whitehead believe existed?

Answer: dipolar

his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the "primordial nature" of God. However, Whitehead was also interested in religious experience. This led him to reflect more intensively on what he saw as the second nature of God, the "consequent nature". Whitehead's conception of God as a "dipolar" entity has called for fresh theological thinking. The primordial nature he described as "the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth


Question: Why did Whitehead view the existence of God as a necessity for his metaphysical system?

Answer: His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities.

his metaphysical system. His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the "primordial nature" of God. However, Whitehead was also interested in religious experience. This led him to reflect more intensively on what he saw as the second nature of God, the "consequent nature". Whitehead's conception of God as a "dipolar" entity has called for fresh theological thinking. The primordial nature he described as "the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth


Question: How does Whitehead define he consequent nature of God?

Answer: God's reception of the world's activity

of potentiality," i.e., the unlimited possibility of the universe. This primordial nature is eternal and unchanging, providing entities in the universe with possibilities for realization. Whitehead also calls this primordial aspect "the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire," pulling the entities in the universe toward as-yet unrealized possibilities. God's consequent nature, on the other hand, is anything but unchanging – it is God's reception of the world's activity. As Whitehead puts it, "[God] saves the world as it passes into the immediacy of his own life. It is the judgment of a tenderness which loses nothing that can


Question: What does Whitehead say that God does with all experiences?

Answer: God saves and cherishes all experiences forever

be saved." In other words, God saves and cherishes all experiences forever, and those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world. In this way, God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance. Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe


Question: What effect does Whitehead claim that experiences have on God?

Answer: those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world

be saved." In other words, God saves and cherishes all experiences forever, and those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world. In this way, God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance. Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe


Question: What conclusion does Whitehead draw about God's treatment of humans' experiences?

Answer: God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance.

be saved." In other words, God saves and cherishes all experiences forever, and those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world. In this way, God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance. Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe


Question: In what way did Whitehead view God as deficient?

Answer: deficient in actuality and change

throughout time. On the other hand, he sees God as permanent but as deficient in actuality and change: alone, God is merely eternally unrealized possibilities, and requires the world to actualize them. God gives creatures permanence, while the creatures give God actuality and change. Here it is worthwhile to quote Whitehead at length: "In this way God is completed by the individual, fluent satisfactions of finite fact, and the temporal occasions are completed by their everlasting union with their transformed selves, purged into conformation with the eternal order which is the final absolute 'wisdom.' The final summary can only be


Question: How does Whitehead view the relationship between God an the world?

Answer: Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another

be saved." In other words, God saves and cherishes all experiences forever, and those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world. In this way, God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance. Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe


Question: How does he define entities' need for God?

Answer: He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide

be saved." In other words, God saves and cherishes all experiences forever, and those experiences go on to change the way God interacts with the world. In this way, God is really changed by what happens in the world and the wider universe, lending the actions of finite creatures an eternal significance. Whitehead thus sees God and the world as fulfilling one another. He sees entities in the world as fluent and changing things that yearn for a permanence which only God can provide by taking them into God's self, thereafter changing God and affecting the rest of the universe


Question: What did Whitehead believe was the basis of religion?

Answer: individual

you are never solitary, you are never religious." Whitehead saw religion as a system of general truths that transformed a person's character. He took special care to note that while religion is often a good influence, it is not "necessarily" good – an idea which he called a "dangerous delusion" (e.g., a religion might encourage the violent extermination of a rival religion's adherents). However, while Whitehead saw religion as "beginning" in solitariness, he also saw religion as necessarily expanding beyond the individual. In keeping with his process metaphysics in which relations are primary, he wrote that religion necessitates the realization


Question: How did Whitehead define religion?

Answer: a system of general truths that transformed a person's character

you are never solitary, you are never religious." Whitehead saw religion as a system of general truths that transformed a person's character. He took special care to note that while religion is often a good influence, it is not "necessarily" good – an idea which he called a "dangerous delusion" (e.g., a religion might encourage the violent extermination of a rival religion's adherents). However, while Whitehead saw religion as "beginning" in solitariness, he also saw religion as necessarily expanding beyond the individual. In keeping with his process metaphysics in which relations are primary, he wrote that religion necessitates the realization


Question: In what state did Whitehead believe religion began?

Answer: solitariness

you are never solitary, you are never religious." Whitehead saw religion as a system of general truths that transformed a person's character. He took special care to note that while religion is often a good influence, it is not "necessarily" good – an idea which he called a "dangerous delusion" (e.g., a religion might encourage the violent extermination of a rival religion's adherents). However, while Whitehead saw religion as "beginning" in solitariness, he also saw religion as necessarily expanding beyond the individual. In keeping with his process metaphysics in which relations are primary, he wrote that religion necessitates the realization


Question: What realization did Whitehead believe religion made necessary?

Answer: "the value of the objective world which is a community derivative from the interrelations of its component individuals."

of "the value of the objective world which is a community derivative from the interrelations of its component individuals." In other words, the universe is a community which makes itself whole through the relatedness of each individual entity to all the others – meaning and value do not exist for the individual alone, but only in the context of the universal community. Whitehead writes further that each entity "can find no such value till it has merged its individual claim with that of the objective universe. Religion is world-loyalty. The spirit at once surrenders itself to this universal claim and


Question: What did Whitehead believe was necessary for an entity to have meaning and value?

Answer: meaning and value do not exist for the individual alone, but only in the context of the universal community

of "the value of the objective world which is a community derivative from the interrelations of its component individuals." In other words, the universe is a community which makes itself whole through the relatedness of each individual entity to all the others – meaning and value do not exist for the individual alone, but only in the context of the universal community. Whitehead writes further that each entity "can find no such value till it has merged its individual claim with that of the objective universe. Religion is world-loyalty. The spirit at once surrenders itself to this universal claim and


Question: What did Whitehead believe was the relationship between the individual and social aspects of religion?

Answer: the individual and universal/social aspects of religion are mutually dependent

appropriates it for itself." In this way the individual and universal/social aspects of religion are mutually dependent. Whitehead also described religion more technically as "an ultimate craving to infuse into the insistent particularity of emotion that non-temporal generality which primarily belongs to conceptual thought alone." In other words, religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to identify their wider meaning and significance. For Whitehead, religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of religion


Question: What French sociologist and anthropologist stated that Whitehead was "the greatest philosopher of the 20th century"?

Answer: Bruno Latour

and terror." French sociologist and anthropologist Bruno Latour even went so far as to call Whitehead "the greatest philosopher of the 20th century." Deleuze's and Latour's opinions, however, are minority ones, as Whitehead has not been recognized as particularly influential within the most dominant philosophical schools. It is impossible to say exactly why Whitehead's influence has not been more widespread, but it may be partly due to his metaphysical ideas seeming somewhat counter-intuitive (such as his assertion that matter is an abstraction), or his inclusion of theistic elements in his philosophy, or the perception of metaphysics itself as passé, or


Question: Where are Whitehead's works primarily studied in English-speaking countries?

Answer: Claremont and a select number of liberal graduate-level theology and philosophy programs

Ray Griffin are becoming required reading for Chinese graduate students. Cobb has attributed China's interest in process philosophy partly to Whitehead's stress on the mutual interdependence of humanity and nature, as well as his emphasis on an educational system that includes the teaching of values rather than simply bare facts. Overall, however, Whitehead's influence is very difficult to characterize. In English-speaking countries, his primary works are little-studied outside of Claremont and a select number of liberal graduate-level theology and philosophy programs. Outside of these circles his influence is relatively small and diffuse, and has tended to come chiefly through the


Question: Who are two of Whitehead's students that have gone on to become renowned in the field of analytic philosophy?

Answer: Bertrand Russell, and he also taught and supervised the dissertation of Willard Van Orman Quine

work of his students and admirers rather than Whitehead himself. For instance, Whitehead was a teacher and long-time friend and collaborator of Bertrand Russell, and he also taught and supervised the dissertation of Willard Van Orman Quine, both of whom are important figures in analytic philosophy – the dominant strain of philosophy in English-speaking countries in the 20th century. Whitehead has also had high-profile admirers in the continental tradition, such as French post-structuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze, who once dryly remarked of Whitehead that "he stands provisionally as the last great Anglo-American philosopher before Wittgenstein's disciples spread their misty confusion, sufficiency,


Question: In what field of study has Whitehead's work been most influential in the United States?

Answer: American progressive theology

simply the sheer difficulty and density of his prose. Historically Whitehead's work has been most influential in the field of American progressive theology. The most important early proponent of Whitehead's thought in a theological context was Charles Hartshorne, who spent a semester at Harvard as Whitehead's teaching assistant in 1925, and is widely credited with developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology. Other notable process theologians include John B. Cobb, Jr., David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, C. Robert Mesle, Roland Faber, and Catherine Keller. Process theology typically stresses God's relational nature. Rather than seeing God as impassive


Question: Who was the most important early supporter of Whitehead's work in the context of theology?

Answer: Charles Hartshorne

simply the sheer difficulty and density of his prose. Historically Whitehead's work has been most influential in the field of American progressive theology. The most important early proponent of Whitehead's thought in a theological context was Charles Hartshorne, who spent a semester at Harvard as Whitehead's teaching assistant in 1925, and is widely credited with developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology. Other notable process theologians include John B. Cobb, Jr., David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, C. Robert Mesle, Roland Faber, and Catherine Keller. Process theology typically stresses God's relational nature. Rather than seeing God as impassive


Question: What advancement of Whitehead's process philosophy is attributed to Charles Hartshorne?

Answer: developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology

simply the sheer difficulty and density of his prose. Historically Whitehead's work has been most influential in the field of American progressive theology. The most important early proponent of Whitehead's thought in a theological context was Charles Hartshorne, who spent a semester at Harvard as Whitehead's teaching assistant in 1925, and is widely credited with developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology. Other notable process theologians include John B. Cobb, Jr., David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, C. Robert Mesle, Roland Faber, and Catherine Keller. Process theology typically stresses God's relational nature. Rather than seeing God as impassive


Question: Who are some other distinguished process theologians?

Answer: John B. Cobb, Jr., David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, C. Robert Mesle, Roland Faber, and Catherine Keller

simply the sheer difficulty and density of his prose. Historically Whitehead's work has been most influential in the field of American progressive theology. The most important early proponent of Whitehead's thought in a theological context was Charles Hartshorne, who spent a semester at Harvard as Whitehead's teaching assistant in 1925, and is widely credited with developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology. Other notable process theologians include John B. Cobb, Jr., David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, C. Robert Mesle, Roland Faber, and Catherine Keller. Process theology typically stresses God's relational nature. Rather than seeing God as impassive


Question: What aspect of God is usually emphasized in process theology?

Answer: God's relational nature

simply the sheer difficulty and density of his prose. Historically Whitehead's work has been most influential in the field of American progressive theology. The most important early proponent of Whitehead's thought in a theological context was Charles Hartshorne, who spent a semester at Harvard as Whitehead's teaching assistant in 1925, and is widely credited with developing Whitehead's process philosophy into a full-blown process theology. Other notable process theologians include John B. Cobb, Jr., David Ray Griffin, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, C. Robert Mesle, Roland Faber, and Catherine Keller. Process theology typically stresses God's relational nature. Rather than seeing God as impassive


Question: How is God usually perceived by process theologians?

Answer: "the fellow sufferer who understands", and as the being who is supremely affected by temporal events

or emotionless, process theologians view God as "the fellow sufferer who understands", and as the being who is supremely affected by temporal events. Hartshorne points out that people would not praise a human ruler who was unaffected by either the joys or sorrows of his followers – so why would this be a praise-worthy quality in God? Instead, as the being who is most affected by the world, God is the being who can most appropriately respond to the world. However, process theology has been formulated in a wide variety of ways. C. Robert Mesle, for instance, advocates a "process


Question: Why did Hartshorne feel that God must be affected by people?

Answer: people would not praise a human ruler who was unaffected by either the joys or sorrows of his followers – so why would this be a praise-worthy quality in God?

or emotionless, process theologians view God as "the fellow sufferer who understands", and as the being who is supremely affected by temporal events. Hartshorne points out that people would not praise a human ruler who was unaffected by either the joys or sorrows of his followers – so why would this be a praise-worthy quality in God? Instead, as the being who is most affected by the world, God is the being who can most appropriately respond to the world. However, process theology has been formulated in a wide variety of ways. C. Robert Mesle, for instance, advocates a "process


Question: Why would God being substantially affected by the world be beneficial?

Answer: as the being who is most affected by the world, God is the being who can most appropriately respond to the world

or emotionless, process theologians view God as "the fellow sufferer who understands", and as the being who is supremely affected by temporal events. Hartshorne points out that people would not praise a human ruler who was unaffected by either the joys or sorrows of his followers – so why would this be a praise-worthy quality in God? Instead, as the being who is most affected by the world, God is the being who can most appropriately respond to the world. However, process theology has been formulated in a wide variety of ways. C. Robert Mesle, for instance, advocates a "process


Question: What subjects has John B. Cobb, Jr. written books on other than process theology?

Answer: biology and economics

naturalism", i.e. a process theology without God. In fact, process theology is difficult to define because process theologians are so diverse and transdisciplinary in their views and interests. John B. Cobb, Jr. is a process theologian who has also written books on biology and economics. Roland Faber and Catherine Keller integrate Whitehead with poststructuralist, postcolonialist, and feminist theory. Charles Birch was both a theologian and a geneticist. Franklin I. Gamwell writes on theology and political theory. In "Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age", futurologists Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist repeatedly credit Whitehead for the process theology they see


Question: What was Charles Birch's profession besides theologian?

Answer: geneticist

naturalism", i.e. a process theology without God. In fact, process theology is difficult to define because process theologians are so diverse and transdisciplinary in their views and interests. John B. Cobb, Jr. is a process theologian who has also written books on biology and economics. Roland Faber and Catherine Keller integrate Whitehead with poststructuralist, postcolonialist, and feminist theory. Charles Birch was both a theologian and a geneticist. Franklin I. Gamwell writes on theology and political theory. In "Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age", futurologists Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist repeatedly credit Whitehead for the process theology they see


Question: Who authored "Syntheism - Creating God in the Internet Age"?

Answer: Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist

naturalism", i.e. a process theology without God. In fact, process theology is difficult to define because process theologians are so diverse and transdisciplinary in their views and interests. John B. Cobb, Jr. is a process theologian who has also written books on biology and economics. Roland Faber and Catherine Keller integrate Whitehead with poststructuralist, postcolonialist, and feminist theory. Charles Birch was both a theologian and a geneticist. Franklin I. Gamwell writes on theology and political theory. In "Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age", futurologists Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist repeatedly credit Whitehead for the process theology they see


Question: Why is there difficulty in defining process theology ?

Answer: process theologians are so diverse and transdisciplinary in their views and interests

naturalism", i.e. a process theology without God. In fact, process theology is difficult to define because process theologians are so diverse and transdisciplinary in their views and interests. John B. Cobb, Jr. is a process theologian who has also written books on biology and economics. Roland Faber and Catherine Keller integrate Whitehead with poststructuralist, postcolonialist, and feminist theory. Charles Birch was both a theologian and a geneticist. Franklin I. Gamwell writes on theology and political theory. In "Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age", futurologists Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist repeatedly credit Whitehead for the process theology they see


Question: What was Whitehead's technical definition of religion?

Answer: "an ultimate craving to infuse into the insistent particularity of emotion that non-temporal generality which primarily belongs to conceptual thought alone."

appropriates it for itself." In this way the individual and universal/social aspects of religion are mutually dependent. Whitehead also described religion more technically as "an ultimate craving to infuse into the insistent particularity of emotion that non-temporal generality which primarily belongs to conceptual thought alone." In other words, religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to identify their wider meaning and significance. For Whitehead, religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of religion


Question: What did Whitehead believe religion did with strong emotions?

Answer: religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world

appropriates it for itself." In this way the individual and universal/social aspects of religion are mutually dependent. Whitehead also described religion more technically as "an ultimate craving to infuse into the insistent particularity of emotion that non-temporal generality which primarily belongs to conceptual thought alone." In other words, religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to identify their wider meaning and significance. For Whitehead, religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of religion


Question: What purpose did Whitehead believe religion served?

Answer: a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society

appropriates it for itself." In this way the individual and universal/social aspects of religion are mutually dependent. Whitehead also described religion more technically as "an ultimate craving to infuse into the insistent particularity of emotion that non-temporal generality which primarily belongs to conceptual thought alone." In other words, religion takes deeply felt emotions and contextualizes them within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to identify their wider meaning and significance. For Whitehead, religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of religion


Question: What is Mary Parker Follett known for?

Answer: pioneer in the fields of organizational theory and organizational behavior

Mary Parker Follett Mary Parker Follett (September 3, 1868 - December 18, 1933) was an American social worker, management consultant, philosopher and pioneer in the fields of organizational theory and organizational behavior. Along with Lillian Gilbreth, she was one of two great women management experts in the early days of classical management theory. She has been called the "Mother of Modern Management". Follett was born in 1868 in Quincy, Massachusetts to a wealthy Quaker family. Her family was composed of Charles Allen Follett, a machinist in a local shoe factory, and Elizabeth Curtis (née Baxter) Follett, respectively of English-Scottish and


Question: What do Margaret Stout and Carrie M. Staton view as commonalities between Whitehead and Follett?

Answer: ontology that "understands becoming as a relational process; difference as being related, yet unique; and the purpose of becoming as harmonizing difference."

organizational theory and organizational behavior. Stout and Staton see both Whitehead and Follett as sharing an ontology that "understands becoming as a relational process; difference as being related, yet unique; and the purpose of becoming as harmonizing difference." This connection is further analyzed by Stout and Jeannine M. Love in "Integrative Process: Follettian Thinking from Ontology to Administration" Whitehead's political views sometimes appear to be Libertarian without the label. He wrote: On the other hand, many Whitehead scholars read his work as providing a philosophical foundation for the social liberalism of the New Liberal movement that was prominent throughout Whitehead's


Question: What led to bad investments by asset managers in over-priced credit assets?

Answer: a conflict of interest

super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility." Moreover, a conflict of interest between professional investment managers and their institutional clients, combined with a global glut in investment capital, led to bad investments by asset managers in over-priced credit assets. Professional investment managers generally are compensated based on the volume of client assets


Question: Who is compensated based on the volume of client assets they have under management?

Answer: Professional investment managers

super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility." Moreover, a conflict of interest between professional investment managers and their institutional clients, combined with a global glut in investment capital, led to bad investments by asset managers in over-priced credit assets. Professional investment managers generally are compensated based on the volume of client assets


Question: What is the incentive for asset managers to expand their assets under management?

Answer: to maximize their compensation

under management. There is, therefore, an incentive for asset managers to expand their assets under management in order to maximize their compensation. As the glut in global investment capital caused the yields on credit assets to decline, asset managers were faced with the choice of either investing in assets where returns did not reflect true credit risk or returning funds to clients. Many asset managers continued to invest client funds in over-priced (under-yielding) investments, to the detriment of their clients, so they could maintain their assets under management. They supported this choice with a "plausible deniability" of the risks associated


Question: What rationale did asset managers who continued to invest in over-priced investments to the detriment of their clients use?

Answer: plausible deniability

under management. There is, therefore, an incentive for asset managers to expand their assets under management in order to maximize their compensation. As the glut in global investment capital caused the yields on credit assets to decline, asset managers were faced with the choice of either investing in assets where returns did not reflect true credit risk or returning funds to clients. Many asset managers continued to invest client funds in over-priced (under-yielding) investments, to the detriment of their clients, so they could maintain their assets under management. They supported this choice with a "plausible deniability" of the risks associated


Question: Who was Southern California-based IndyMac a spin-off of?

Answer: Countrywide Financial

Southern California–based IndyMac, a spin-off of Countrywide Financial. Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles market and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States. The failure of IndyMac Bank on July 11, 2008, was the fourth largest bank failure in United States history up until the crisis precipitated even larger failures, and the second largest failure of a regulated thrift. IndyMac Bank's parent corporation was IndyMac Bancorp until the FDIC seized IndyMac Bank. IndyMac Bancorp filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in July 2008. IndyMac Bank was founded as Countrywide


Question: Before its failure, which savings and loan association was the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States?

Answer: IndyMac Bank

IndyMac IndyMac, a contraction of Independent National Mortgage Corporation, was an American bank based in California that failed in 2008 and was seized by the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States. The failure of IndyMac Bank on July 11, 2008, was the fourth largest bank failure in United States, and the second largest failure of a regulated thrift at that time. It was heavily involved in Alt-A mortgages and reverse mortgages which


Question: Who was IndyMac's parent corporation?

Answer: IndyMac Bancorp

Southern California–based IndyMac, a spin-off of Countrywide Financial. Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles market and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States. The failure of IndyMac Bank on July 11, 2008, was the fourth largest bank failure in United States history up until the crisis precipitated even larger failures, and the second largest failure of a regulated thrift. IndyMac Bank's parent corporation was IndyMac Bancorp until the FDIC seized IndyMac Bank. IndyMac Bancorp filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in July 2008. IndyMac Bank was founded as Countrywide


Question: When did Moody's and Standard & Poor downgrade a significant number of IndyMac's MBS bonds?

Answer: April 2008

to regulate its involvement in those loans or tighten their issuing criteria: see the comment by Ruthann Melbourne, Chief Risk Officer, to the regulating agencies. May 12, 2008, in a small note in the "Capital" section of its what would become its last 10-Q released before receivership, IndyMac revealed—but did not admit—that it was no longer a well-capitalized institution and that it was headed for insolvency. IndyMac reported that during April 2008, Moody's and Standard & Poor's downgraded the ratings on a significant number of Mortgage-backed security (MBS) bonds—including $160 million issued by IndyMac that the bank retained in its


Question: If IndyMac's downgraded MBS bond ratings had been in effect at March 31, 2008, what would the bank's capital ratio have been?

Answer: 9.27%

on a significant number of Mortgage-backed security (MBS) bonds including $160 million of those issued by Indymac and which the bank retained in its MBS portfolio. Indymac concluded that these downgrades would have negatively impacted the Company's risk-based capital ratio as of June 30, 2008. Had these lowered ratings been in effect at March 31, 2008, Indymac concluded that the bank's capital ratio would have been 9.27% total risk-based. Indymac warned that if its regulators found its capital position to have fallen below "well capitalized" (minimum 10% risk-based capital ratio) to "adequately capitalized" (8-10% risk-based capital ratio) the bank might


Question: What was the value of IndyMac's MBS bonds retained in its MBS portfolio that were downgraded in April 2008?

Answer: $160 million

to regulate its involvement in those loans or tighten their issuing criteria: see the comment by Ruthann Melbourne, Chief Risk Officer, to the regulating agencies. May 12, 2008, in a small note in the "Capital" section of its what would become its last 10-Q released before receivership, IndyMac revealed—but did not admit—that it was no longer a well-capitalized institution and that it was headed for insolvency. IndyMac reported that during April 2008, Moody's and Standard & Poor's downgraded the ratings on a significant number of Mortgage-backed security (MBS) bonds—including $160 million issued by IndyMac that the bank retained in its


Question: What was one of the agencies that downgraded a significant number of IndyMac's MBS bonds in April 2008?

Answer: Moody's

to regulate its involvement in those loans or tighten their issuing criteria: see the comment by Ruthann Melbourne, Chief Risk Officer, to the regulating agencies. May 12, 2008, in a small note in the "Capital" section of its what would become its last 10-Q released before receivership, IndyMac revealed—but did not admit—that it was no longer a well-capitalized institution and that it was headed for insolvency. IndyMac reported that during April 2008, Moody's and Standard & Poor's downgraded the ratings on a significant number of Mortgage-backed security (MBS) bonds—including $160 million issued by IndyMac that the bank retained in its


Question: What is a well capitalized ratio?

Answer: minimum 10% risk-based

on a significant number of Mortgage-backed security (MBS) bonds including $160 million of those issued by Indymac and which the bank retained in its MBS portfolio. Indymac concluded that these downgrades would have negatively impacted the Company's risk-based capital ratio as of June 30, 2008. Had these lowered ratings been in effect at March 31, 2008, Indymac concluded that the bank's capital ratio would have been 9.27% total risk-based. Indymac warned that if its regulators found its capital position to have fallen below "well capitalized" (minimum 10% risk-based capital ratio) to "adequately capitalized" (8-10% risk-based capital ratio) the bank might


Question: Who is the Senator that asked FDIC if it had considered ordering IndyMac to reduce its reliance on brokered deposits?

Answer: Charles Schumer (D-NY)

no longer be able to use brokered deposits as a source of funds. Indymac further warned that if its level of deposit liquidity was reduced in this way, the bank anticipated that it would reduce its assets and, most likely, curtail its lending activities. This statement was comparable to those adopted by other Southern California banks that were experiencing liquidity problems, such as Pomona First Federal (PFF) and Vineyard Bank. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) would later point out that brokered deposits made up more than 37 percent of Indymac's total deposits and ask the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) whether


Question: What does the abbreviation FDIC stand for?

Answer: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

and others by the member firms. In 2017, the total compensation and benefits of its 39 employees was $11 million. Although modeled loosely on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which protects bank customers, unlike the FDIC where accounts are protected against loss of value, SIPC does not protect against market fluctuations or changes in market value. It does not protect against losses in the securities markets, identity theft, or other third-party fraud. Unlike the FDIC, SIPC also does not provide protection where there are claims against solvent brokers or dealers. It provides a form of protection for investors against


Question: How much of IndyMac's total deposits of $18.9 billion on March 31, 2008 were considered brokered deposits?

Answer: a little over $7 billion

more than 37 percent of IndyMac's total deposits, and ask the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) whether it had considered ordering IndyMac to reduce its reliance on these deposits. With $18.9 billion in total deposits reported on March 31, Senator Schumer would have been referring to a little over $7 billion in brokered deposits. While the breakout of maturities of these deposits is not known exactly, a simple averaging would have put the threat of brokered deposits loss to IndyMac at $500 million a month, had the regulator disallowed IndyMac from acquiring new brokered deposits on June 30. IndyMac was


Question: Had the FDIC disallowed IndyMac from acquiring new brokered deposits on this date, the threat of brokered deposit losses would have been $500 million a month?

Answer: June 30

more than 37 percent of IndyMac's total deposits, and ask the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) whether it had considered ordering IndyMac to reduce its reliance on these deposits. With $18.9 billion in total deposits reported on March 31, Senator Schumer would have been referring to a little over $7 billion in brokered deposits. While the breakout of maturities of these deposits is not known exactly, a simple averaging would have put the threat of brokered deposits loss to IndyMac at $500 million a month, had the regulator disallowed IndyMac from acquiring new brokered deposits on June 30. IndyMac was


Question: How much was the threat of brokered deposit losses per month to IndyMac?

Answer: $500 million

more than 37 percent of IndyMac's total deposits, and ask the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) whether it had considered ordering IndyMac to reduce its reliance on these deposits. With $18.9 billion in total deposits reported on March 31, Senator Schumer would have been referring to a little over $7 billion in brokered deposits. While the breakout of maturities of these deposits is not known exactly, a simple averaging would have put the threat of brokered deposits loss to IndyMac at $500 million a month, had the regulator disallowed IndyMac from acquiring new brokered deposits on June 30. IndyMac was


Question: How much in deposits did account holders withdraw from IndyMac in late June 2008?

Answer: $1.55 billion

hold $10.7 billion of loans it could not sell in the secondary market. Its reduced liquidity was further exacerbated in late June 2008 when account holders withdrew $1.55 billion or about 7.5% of IndyMac's deposits. This “run” on the thrift followed the public release of a letter from Senator Charles Schumer to the FDIC and OTS. The letter outlined the Senator’s concerns with IndyMac. While the run was a contributing factor in the timing of IndyMac’s demise, the underlying cause of the failure was the unsafe and unsound manner in which the thrift was operated. On June 26, 2008, Senator


Question: What percent of IndyMac's deposits were withdrawn by account holders in late June 2008?

Answer: 7.5%

hold $10.7 billion of loans it could not sell in the secondary market. Its reduced liquidity was further exacerbated in late June 2008 when account holders withdrew $1.55 billion or about 7.5% of IndyMac's deposits. This “run” on the thrift followed the public release of a letter from Senator Charles Schumer to the FDIC and OTS. The letter outlined the Senator’s concerns with IndyMac. While the run was a contributing factor in the timing of IndyMac’s demise, the underlying cause of the failure was the unsafe and unsound manner in which the thrift was operated. On June 26, 2008, Senator


Question: Who is the Senator that released a letter to the FDIC and OTS that prompted a "run" on IndyMac?

Answer: Charles Schumer

run after Senator Charles Schumer warned the public of them. IndyMac depositors, fearing the worst, withdrew about 7.5% of deposits from IndyMac. Shifting focus from the financial condition of the bank to Senator Schumer, regulators and others in the financial sector quickly criticized Schumer for publicly releasing his letters, which they attempted to discredit and claimed further destabilized the bank. Leading the criticism was John M. Reich, director of the OTS, who said that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) "do not comment on open and operating institutions". Mr Reich spoke widely of "dissemination


Question: What was the name of the bridge bank established to assume control of IndyMac Bank's assets, liabilities and deposit accounts?

Answer: IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB

it may cut them again. The following day, the bank's shares reached a 52-week closing low of $0.31. On July 11, 2008, citing liquidity concerns, the FDIC put IndyMac Bank into conservatorship. A bridge bank, IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, was established to assume control of IndyMac Bank's assets, its secured liabilities, and its insured deposit accounts. The FDIC announced plans to open IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB on Monday July 14, 2008. Until then, depositors would have to access their insured deposits through ATMs, their existing checks, and their existing debit cards. Telephone and Internet account access would also be restored


Question: What is the maximum amount of funds the FDIC guarantees in insured accounts?

Answer: US$100,000

on Monday, when the bank reopened. The FDIC guarantees the funds of all insured accounts up to US$100,000, and has declared a special advance dividend to the roughly 10,000 depositors with funds in excess of the insured amount, guaranteeing 50% of any amounts in excess of $100,000. Yet, even with the pending sale of Indymac to IMB Management Holdings, an estimated 10,000 uninsured depositors of Indymac are still at a loss of over $270 million. In response, Congress increased the FDIC insurance limit to $250,000 for any bank that failed since January 1, 2008, as part of the Dodd-Frank Act,


Question: How many IndyMac account holders held funds in excess of the FDIC's insured amount of US$100,000?

Answer: roughly 10,000 depositors

on Monday, when the bank reopened. The FDIC guarantees the funds of all insured accounts up to US$100,000, and has declared a special advance dividend to the roughly 10,000 depositors with funds in excess of the insured amount, guaranteeing 50% of any amounts in excess of $100,000. Yet, even with the pending sale of Indymac to IMB Management Holdings, an estimated 10,000 uninsured depositors of Indymac are still at a loss of over $270 million. In response, Congress increased the FDIC insurance limit to $250,000 for any bank that failed since January 1, 2008, as part of the Dodd-Frank Act,


Question: On what date did the FDIC put IndyMac Bank into conservatorship?

Answer: July 11, 2008

its retail lending and wholesale divisions, halted new loan submissions, and cut 3,800 jobs. On July 11, 2008, citing liquidity concerns, the FDIC put IndyMac Bank into conservatorship. A bridge bank, IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, was established to assume control of IndyMac Bank's assets, its secured liabilities, and its insured deposit accounts. The FDIC announced plans to open IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB on July 14, 2008. Until then, depositors would have access their insured deposits through ATMs, their existing checks, and their existing debit cards. Telephone and Internet account access was restored when the bank reopened. The FDIC guarantees the


Question: On what date did the FDIC plan to open IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB?

Answer: July 14, 2008

its retail lending and wholesale divisions, halted new loan submissions, and cut 3,800 jobs. On July 11, 2008, citing liquidity concerns, the FDIC put IndyMac Bank into conservatorship. A bridge bank, IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, was established to assume control of IndyMac Bank's assets, its secured liabilities, and its insured deposit accounts. The FDIC announced plans to open IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB on July 14, 2008. Until then, depositors would have access their insured deposits through ATMs, their existing checks, and their existing debit cards. Telephone and Internet account access was restored when the bank reopened. The FDIC guarantees the


Question: How many mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008?

Answer: Over 100

involved in home construction and mortgage lending such as Northern Rock and Countrywide Financial, as they could no longer obtain financing through the credit markets. Over 100 mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008. Concerns that investment bank Bear Stearns would collapse in March 2008 resulted in its fire-sale to JP Morgan Chase. The financial institution crisis hit its peak in September and October 2008. Several major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover. These included Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Citigroup, and AIG. On October 6,