Skip to content
Analiza i Egzystencja
57 (2022)
OpenAlex

For the whole journal, according to OpenAlex.

Citations
215
Publications
300
H-index
6
I10-index
2
Mean citedness (2 years)
0.14
Citations received by year
Journal citation chart. Exact values are available in the table below. 2017: 1 2018: 12 2019: 6 2020: 14 2021: 25 2022: 23 2023: 19 2024: 39 2025: 40 2026: 34 2017 2026
Show data table
Citations received by year
YearPublicationsCitations
2017251
20182312
2019236
20202014
20212125
20222623
20232519
20242639
20252540
20262034

Data retrieved:

What do these numbers mean?

Publications and citations cover records linked to this journal in OpenAlex. H-index is the largest number h of publications with at least h citations each. I10-index counts publications cited at least 10 times. The chart shows citations received in each year; the current year is incomplete. Coverage may differ from WNUS and other services.

The 2-year mean is an OpenAlex metric. It is not the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.

View in OpenAlex (new tab)
Google Scholar

Panenteizm a teizm klasyczny. Uwagi na kanwie Jacka Wojtysiaka krytyki stanowiska Józefa Życińskiego


(Panentheism and classical theism.Comments on the basis of Jacek Wojtysiak's criticism of Józef Życiński's position)
DOI: 10.18276/aie.2022.57-03
Cite

The full text is available

Abstract

Panentheism and classical theism. Comments on the basis of Jacek Wojtysiak’s criticism of Józef Życiński’s position The article was inspired by the tenth anniversary of the death of Archbishop Życiński and the article containing polemic with his panentheism published by Wojtysiak. Wojtysiak claims that the essence of theism is the thesis about the existential selfsufficiency of God and the resulting asymmetry of his causal relationship with the world, which consists in the fact that God can exert causal influence on the world, but the world cannot influence God in this way. Since Życiński contradicts this thesis, according to Wojtysiak, his panentheism is not theism at all. I do not agree with this judgment, and what Wojtysiak calls ‘theism’ I call ‘classical theism’. Both panentheism and classical theism constitute legitimate versions of theism. Ishow that the classical theism in the version proposed by Wojtysiak is entangled in serious difficulties. One of them is that on cosmological level it harmonizes best with occasionalism, that is, with full theological determinism. Another one is connected with the thesis t that God is impassible, which deprives him of the possibility of fulfilling these pro-religious functions, which are crucial for Christianity, such as God’s experiential involvement in the history of the world. I propose that the recognition of divine passibility be the minimum condition for any panentheism or position similar to it. Meeting this condition does not require the rejection of the thesis about the classically understood divine immutability, omnipotence or the creation of the world ex nihilo, but it is conducive to the revision of these notions. I point out that revisions proposed by Życiński in his version of panentheism were incomparably smaller than those proposed by Whitehead or especially Hartshorne, but still they cannot be treated as a minor supplement to classical theism. They constitute version of panentheism or neoclassical theism, which is a much better philosophical basis for Christianity.
Preview PDF

Open PDF

Bibliography (31)
  1. Buckareff, A., Nagasawa, Y. (red.) (2016). Alternative Concepts of God: Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine. Oxford: OUP.
  2. Culp, J. (2020). Panentheism. W: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pobrano z: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/ (3.10.2021).
  3. Drozdowicz, Z. (2020). Kontrowersje wokół deizmu. Humaniora, 2 (30), 13–22.
  4. Freddoso, A.J. (2019). Powszechne współdziałanie Boga z przyczynami wtórnymi – trudności i perspektywy. Tłum. R. Koszkało. W: P. Gutowski, M. Iwanicki (red.), Teizm, ateizm i religia. Najnowsze spory w anglosaskiej filozofii analitycznej (s. 655–683). Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
  5. Gutowski, P. (2013). Józefa Życińskiego koncepcja relacji między nauką a religią. Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria, 22 (1), 15–30.
  6. Gutowski, P. (2016). Stare i nowe. Esej o roli jednostkowych podmiotów, zmiany i wątpienia w religii. Kraków: Dominikańskie Studium Filozofii i Teologii.
  7. Gutowski, P. (2020). Alfred North Whitehead i jego metafizyka oraz filozofia cywilizacji. W: A.N. Whitehead, Przygody idei (s. IX–XLVIII). Tłum. M. Piwowarczyk. Warszawa: PWN.
  8. Harstshorne, Ch. (1948). Divine Relativity, A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  9. Harstshorne, Ch. (1970). Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method. London: SCM Press.
  10. Harstshorne, Ch. (1984). Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Albany: SUNY.
  11. Judycki, S. (2009). Filozofia i chrystologia. Analiza i Egzystencja, 10, 7–32.
  12. Mander, W. (2020). Pantheism. W: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pobrano z: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ (3.10.2021).
  13. św. Tomasz zAkwinu (1999). Traktat o Bogu. Summa teologii. Kwestie 1–26. Tłum. G. Kurylewicz, Z. Nerczuk, M. Olszewski. Kraków: Znak.
  14. Whitehead, A.N. (1978). Process and Reality. New York: The Free Press.
  15. Wojtysiak, J. (2012). Panenteizm. W związku z poglądami Józefa Życińskiego, Charlesa Hartshorne’a i innych przedstawicieli „zwrotu panenteistycznego”. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 60 (4), 313–337.
  16. Zagzebski, L. (2013). Omnisubjectivity: A Defense of a Divine Attribute. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
  17. Życiński, J. (1985). Teizm i filozofia analityczna, t. 1. Kraków: Znak.
  18. Życiński, J. (1988). Teizm i filozofia analityczna, t. 2. Kraków: Znak.
  19. Życiński, J. (1990). Trzy kultury. Poznań: W drodze.
  20. Życiński, J. (1992a). Bóg Abrahama i Whiteheada. Tarnów: Biblos.
  21. Życiński, J. (1992b). Ułaskawianie natury. Kraków: Znak.
  22. Życiński, J. (1993). Język i metoda. Kraków: Znak.
  23. Życiński, J. (2000). Inspiracje chrześcijańskie w powstawaniu nauki nowożytnej. Lublin: RW KUL.
  24. Życiński, J. (2002). Bóg i ewolucja. Lublin: TN KUL.
  25. Życiński, J. (2006). The Rationality Field and the Laws of Nature. W: S. Wszołek, R. Janusz (red.). Wyzwania racjonalności (s. 87–101). Kraków: WAM.
  26. Życiński, J. (2009). Wszechświat emergentny. Bóg w ewolucji przyrody. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
  27. Życiński, J. (2010). Jak rozumieć matematyczność przyrody? W: M. Heller, J. Życiński (red.), Matematyczność przyrody (s. 19–35). Kraków: Petrus.
  28. Życiński, J. (2011a). Bóg i stworzenie. Zarys teorii ewolucji. Lublin: Gaudium.
  29. Życiński, J. (2011b). Bóg postmodernistów. Lublin: RW KUL.
  30. Życiński, J. (2011c). Świat matematyki i jej materialnych cieni. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.
  31. Życiński, J. (2014). Transcendencja i naturalizm. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.