二十世紀西方最重要的形上學家懷德海(A. N. Whitehead)，在當代一片反形上學的氛圍中，堅持西方思辨哲學的傳統，肯定哲學形而上的功能。他曾經提到他的「機體哲學(philosophy of organism)採取的立場，似乎更接近某些印度或者中國的思想，而不接近西亞或歐洲的思想。前者把歷程(process)看作是終極的，後者把事實看作是終極的」。這使得他特別受到當代中國哲學家方東美先生的重視，自民國十六年起，即引進他的思想。其門人程石泉先生晚年發煌中西機體哲學，亦承此師說。懷德海與當代中國哲學家之間的「相遇」，可堪稱爲中西哲學史上的一大盛事。然而雙方的「相遇」，似乎只是哲人之間偶然交換睿智的一瞥，「彼此」的激賞甚於實質的理論交流。究其原因，懷德海哲學向以艱深繁複著名，且與當代科學理論以及自然神學運動關係密切，不易爲中國哲學家所理解而接受；而中國哲學更是淵遠流長，系統繁多，絕非懷德海所能知。雖然歷史上，雙方不曾實質「相遇」；但在思想議題上，懷氏對中國思想的嚮往，以及方程二先生對懷氏哲學的重視，提供中西哲學對話重要的線索。在這新世紀伊始，全球化的浪潮方興未艾，世界各文明間的接觸更爲頻仍，如何爲中西哲學打開對話的管道，無寧是個重大的課題。本文擬就三方面探討這個問題：一是懷德海心目中的中國與中國思想；二是方東美與懷德海哲學；三是程石泉與懷德海哲學。

A. N. Whitehead (1861-1947) was one of the great metaphysicians in the twentieth century of the West who had assumed his position by inveighing against the torrents of anti-metaphysics, and by defending the importance and the necessity of metaphysics in the philosophical pursuit. As he once wrote in his Process and Reality, the general position of his philosophy of organism "seems to approximate more to some strains of Indian, or Chinese, thought, than to western Asiatic, or European, thought. One side makes process ultimate; the other side makes fact ultimate." Some contemporary Chinese philosophers were touched by these statements and trying to explore Whitehead's reasoning behind them. However, even before the publication of Process and Reality, as early as in 192, Thome H. Fang (1899-1977), when teaching philosophy at Central University, Nanking, Mainland China, noticed the ingenuity and significance of Whitehead's thought and its relevance to Chinese thinking. His student Shih-chuan Chen (1909-2005), following him, has been devoted to the comparative studies between Chinese philosophy and Whitehead's philosophy ever since he was an undergraduate of Central University. In their philosophical enterprise, Fang and Chen were convinced that Whitehead's philosophy of organism is communicable to Chinese in virtue of its organic mode of thinking and its core concept of creativity. The present paper is an attempt to deal with this earliest 'encounter' between Chinese philosophers and Whitehead from three perspectives, namely, Whitehead's understanding of Chinese thought, and Thome Fang's and Shih-chuan Chen's understanding of Whitehead's philosophy. We may find enough evidences in Fang and Chen's works to show that Whitehead had appreciated Chinese thought in the broadest sense, and they had shared their philosophical outlooks with him.