/lit/ - Literature

>>13971851
where to start with this fine gentleman?

post some good passages

>>13971851
>retroactively triggers guenonfag

>>13971851
>inverts plato
Explain this right fucking now or you haven't read Whitehead.

>>13971858
The ultimate evil in the temporal world is deeper than any specific evil. It lies in the fact that the past fades, that time is a 'perpetual perishing.' Objectification involves elimination. The present fact has not the past fact with it in any full immediacy. The process of time veils the past below distinctive feeling. There is a unison of becoming among things in the present. Why should there not be novelty without loss of this direct unison of immediacy among things? In the temporal world, it is the empirical fact that process entails loss: the past is present under an abstraction. But there is no reason, of any ultimate metaphysical generality, why this should be the whole story. The nature of evil is that the character of things are mutually obstructive. Thus the depths of life require a process of selection. But the selection is elimination as the first step towards another temporal order seeking to minimize obstructive modes. Selection is at once the measure of evil and the process of its evasion. It means the discarding the element of obstructiveness in fact. No element in fact is ineffectual: Thus the struggle with evil is a process of building up a mode of utilization by the provision of intermediate elements introducing a complex structure of harmony. The triviality in some initial reconstruction of order expresses the fact that actualities are being produced, which, trivial in their own proper character of immediate 'ends,' are proper 'means' for the emergence of a world at once lucid, and intrinsically of immediate worth.
"The evil of the world is that those elements which are translucent so far as transmission is concerned, in themselves are of slight weight; and that those elements with individual weight, by their discord, impose upon vivid immediacy the obligation that it fades into night. 'He giveth his beloved - sleep.'"

>>13971873
Basically his concept of Eternal Objects which are mistaken to be Platonic or universals by those who misread him but for Whitehead concrete particular fact is not built up by universals but it is more of the other way around. Universals, or things which are eternal, can and must be abstracted from things which are temporal. But they cannot be conceived by themselves, in the absence of the Universals, or things which are eternal,” can and must be abstracted from things which are temporal. But they cannot be conceived by themselves, in the absence of the empirical, temporal entities that they inform. Eternal objects, therefore, are neither a priori logical structures, nor Platonic essences, nor constitutive rational ideas. They are adverbial, rather than substantive; they determine and express how actual entities relate to one another, take one another up, and “enter into each others’ constitutions” (148-149). Like Kantian and Deleuzian ideas, eternal objects work regulatively, or problematically, temporal entities that they inform. Eternal objects, therefore, are neither a priori logical structures, nor Platonic essences, nor constitutive rational ideas. They are adverbial, rather than substantive; they determine and express how actual entities relate to one another, take one another up, and enter into each others constitutions. Like Kantian and Deleuzian ideas eternal objects work regulatively, or problematically.

Whitehead also rejects the Platonic separation between eternity and time, the binary opposition that sets a higher world of permanence and perfection (a static, spiritual heaven) against an imperfect lower world of flux. The two instead must continually interpenetrate. For permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence. Those who would disjoin the two elements can find no interpretation of patent facts. Actual entities continually perish; but the relations between them, or the patterns that they make, tend to recur, or endure. Thus it is not substance which is permanent, but form. And even forms do not subsist absolutely, but continually suffer changing relations. In asserting this, Whitehead converts Plato from idealism to empiricism, just as he similarly converts Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant

>>13971877
this is a VERY weird passage. I want to refute it, but every time I want to grab an arm he agrees with what I understand to be the case.

>character of things being mutually obstructive
pic related. evil is confirmed of natural origin. see also: Girard, mimetic desire, buddhists on attachment

>the struggle with evil is a process of building up a mode of utilization by the provision of intermediate elements introducing a complex structure of harmony
harmony being one of the three qualities of beauty, the ideal of beauty of course being God

>The evil of the world is that those elements which are translucent so far as transmission is concerned
In other words, often unconsidered or unidentified by man in his decision making. Unexpected. Unintelligible. The darkness that does not understand the light (John 1).

>>13971851
Fuck off! Ffs! He didn't do anything original you blind elephant feeling pseud. Shut the fuck up and read something older than 200 years!

Can you fucking evolve you intellectual sprog? I'm tired of this amphibian faced, troglodyte staring back at me with his lifeless, uninspired eyes that reveal only his own shame at his mediocrity.

>>13971858
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, "Seek simplicity and distrust it."

>>13971926
will reply to this later doing homework atm interesting thread OP

>>13971858
Philosophy, in one of its functions, is the critic of cosmologies. It is its function to harmonise, refashion, and justify divergent intuitions as to the nature of things. It has to insist on the scrutiny of the ultimate ideas, and on the retention of the whole of the evidence in shaping our cosmological scheme. Its business is to render explicit, and — so far as may be — efficient, a process which otherwise is unconsciously performed without rational tests.

>>13971877
>>13971926

>>13971858
k last post. just look more up on wikiquote if you arw curious.

“The teleology of the Universe is directed toward the production of Beauty.”

"The passage of nature which is only another name for the creative force of existence"

The oneness of the universe, and the oneness of each element of the universe, repeat themselves to the crack of doom in the creative advance from creature to creature, each creature including in itself the whole of history and exemplifying the self-identity of things and their mutual diversities."

"In the inescapable flux, there is something that abides; in the overwhelming permanence, there is an element that escapes into flux.Permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence."

"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 expressed in terms of a group of antitheses, whose apparent self-contradictions depend on neglect of the diverse categories of existence. In each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition into a contrast.

It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.

It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.

It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.

It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.

It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.

It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God...

What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world... In this sense, God is the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands."

faggots

>>13971982
Aquinasanon here.

>“The teleology of the Universe is directed toward the production of Beauty.”
100% agreed.

>"The passage of nature which is only another name for the creative force of existence"
Gonna need some detail here. Reminds me of what some noospherefags have been thinking in recent decades. Look up Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme.

>The oneness of the universe, and the oneness of each element of the universe, repeat themselves to the crack of doom in the creative advance from creature to creature, each creature including in itself the whole of history and exemplifying the self-identity of things and their mutual diversities."
What an odd statement. Almost Plotinan in nature: many and the one, but also a "crack of doom" reminiscent of Christian eschatology.

>"Permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence."
LITERALLY an exhortation to prayer.

>the rest
Pretty much doctrine. Why isn't Whitehead more popular?

there's some meme arrows i forgot to put in the OP
>Destroys logical positivism
>Destroys anthropocentrism
>Deatroys the linguistic turn and deconstructionism
>Destroys the determinism/free will dichotomy
Truly an amazing man I admire him greatly. K I go to bed now. Read Whitehead.

>>13971926
>the two
>implying non-monism
Lmao

He doesn't convert shit. Hes just a revisionist if he seriously thinks hes changed anyone of those thinkers philosophies. Hes just calling his own idealism empiricism because hes a filthy Anglo who wants to fit in.

All of you fucking whitehead fools need to read something else and stop watching that fag's shitty pesud jewtube channel.

>>13972044
He is a pluralist and a philisophical naturalist.
He is not a revisionist. And he doesn’t “critique” (like Heidegger) the history of philosophy, but rather twists it in wonderfully ungainly ways, finding, for instance, arguments in Descartes that are themselves already the best response to Cartesian dualism, or anti-idealist moves in Plato.

>>13971857
Modes of Thought>Science and the Modern World>Adventures of Ideas>Process and Reality

>>13971982
Fuck sake nigga read the dao de ching. This fool missed the fucking bus. You can find this same shit it the presocratics as well imo.
>>13972068
>pluralist
>philosophical naturalist
Mfw

>>13972091
I'm starting to think this is the correct take. Whitehead's writing is flowery enough that anyone can see their dogma in it. At least judging from what I've seen so far.

>>13972091
very embarrassing peepee and wojak posters truly are of the lowest quality please leave my thread if you are not going to be a nice boy

>>13972089
Thanks a lot, only decent Anon ITT.

How much did Deleuze rip off from Whitehead?

>>13971851
You forgot
>retroactively btfo by Parmenides
>holds immense influence in the newage community
>number 1 philosopher studied at chinese community college

>>13972106
Whitehead posters should fuck off out of lit and finish reading the classics, you pathetic, broken record, psedu-fucks.

بأثر رجعي

>>13971857
To add on, best secondary lit:
Thinking with Whitehead
The Quantum of Explanation: Whitehead's Radical Empiricism
The Metaphysics of Experience

>>13972044
>>13972091
>>13972162
Dogmatism looks ugly from the outside. Even if you're right, it's not worth acting retarded and sycophantic over. I guess it's just a character thing

>>13972211

I'm not angry because i think Whitehead is wrong and I'm right, I'm angry because fags won't stop positing him.

Think for yourself ya fools.

The funny thing is I bet not a single one of these Whitehead memers read P&R cover to cover. Remember that faggot who opened the thread with it then started posting his feet? Fuckin joke

>>13971851
>destroys the subject/object dichotomy
he didn't do it at all. remind yourself of eternal objects.

>>13972719
Eternal objects are not things but potentialities

>>13971851
i have no idea what you're talking about but can someone please post more pics of anime/manga characters reading philosophy works

>>13972768
this is classic

>>13972152
>>13972169
Where is Guenonchad now that we need him?

>>13972730
Hahaha, sure thing buddy. Eternal objects are just one big fat cope. There's no escape from captial B Being, faggot.

>>13971851
there are several lectures on the harvard channel for anyone interested
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnRjVDRdQOTtmQA99kCzOwA/videos
I haven't watched them myself because I'm a long way from being able to read Whitehead yet but I know Longuenesse is based, I liked her thesis on Kant

Is it sufficient to read Bergson before Whitehead?

>>13971851
>yet no one outside of /lit/ ever mentions him
hm

>>13972719
He did it with his concept of prehension

>>13972897
It doesnt matter

>>13971926
Is The Good or The Absolute an eternal idea in the same way the form of the chair would be for Whitehead?

>>13971926
Kant also thought the general came from the specific. That's his synthesis.