/lit/ - Literature

>>20139357
It unironically filters more people than Hegel.

>>20139357
It's memed up here all the time and discussed a lot actually.

>>20139585
What's his philosophy?

>>20139616
memes, mostly.

>>20139357
>Useless, unpractical non-falsifiable psychobabble

Geez I wonder why

>>20139616
Process philosophy.

>>20139628
>i-it’s non-falsifiable!
Everything is nonfalsiable you stupid nigger, even 2 + 2 = 4. Read a god damn book

>>20139628
Whitehead was a mathematician and his philosophy is the result of trying to craft a natural-language explanation of Relativistic Physics.

>>20139616
A sort of pan-psychist monism that turns Platonism inside out. He basically created Process Philosophy; there are people who are within this group who predate him but he started the whole DUDE LMFAO WHAT IF THINGS WERE PROCESSES INSTEAD OF DISCRETE LUMPS OF BEING QUA BECOMING CUM INTER HOC BEING?! as a philosophical classification. All of that is wrapped up in an absolutely unreadable writing style.

>>20139628
>non-falsifiable
>the Popper meme lives on even though he was BTFO continuously in the late 60's to the late 70's, half a century ago. Just read Lakatos. Even Popper himself conceded that he was a giant fucking retard by the end of it.
>captcha: GGFAG

>>20139357
Because it was retroactively refuted by Rene Guenon (PBUH) and Parmenides (PBUH)

>>20139784
You don't seem to understand what non-falsifiable means. Maybe you should read a book.

>>20139834
PBUH

>>20139357
wow western guy sooo smart wow ! He didn't pick at all from the critcism of atomism by easterns....
Anyway the fact reality would be based on processus is still retarded.
>muh reality is in fact less than what it is
The history of western reductionism, explaining the more by the less, being atheist and in favor of the inferior

>>20140046
Wasn't he a Christian?

>>20139784
>>20139828
How do you fags get away with this idiocy IRL?

>>20140060
It doesn't matter to me. Reductionism is still retarded.
>Reality is [insert x lesser thing]
is always the de facto atheist way of thinking because it explains or think it explains reality by the inferior, something more by something less.
Let's not forget modern retardation comes from christians too, who destroyed their metaphysics (papist and proties being heretics)

>>20140101
But did he actually do that? Maybe people are misrepresenting him.

It's almost impossible to read. I tried and I've read lots of other texts that are supposedly famously difficult, like Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, a lot of Husserl and Heidegger, and most of the major texts of German idealism, and I just couldn't make much headway in Whitehead's system without getting frustrated.

The main problem was that I couldn't figure out whether he was being deductive or descriptive. Someone told me you're supposed to read all the way through, not really understanding the justification of all the elements introduced or how they hang together, and then once you reach the end and loop back around to the front so to speak, you will understand the system as a whole. But this sounded like cope to me, and the person who told me about it admitted he didn't understand Whitehead and had never finished the book either.

I tried looking into secondary sources by Whiteheadians but they seemed to disagree over pretty fundamental issues like the ontological status of most fundamental "atoms" or constituent entities. I was planning to get into Hartshorne's process theology and his explanations of Whitehead, hoping they would be more accessible, but never had the time. I may go back and look at it now. I was also told to look at Quantum of Experience, as a more accessible guide. Arthur Holmes also has an introductory lecture on Whitehead.

The first chapter is very comprehensible if you've studied pragmatism and know anything about turn of the century neo-realism or critical realism, the pragmatist side of it anyway. It's only when you make first contact with the real enemy, the system itself, that you start to feel like you can't make any connections between Whitehead's assertions. It seems like raw description of an already "given" system. It's hard to see how it relates to his pragmatist epistemological setup, at least for me it is.

This thread is pretty shitty so far.

>>20140136
Anon hasn't read Whitehead.

>>20140142
This anon is a knower.

>>20140142
How does it relate to God? I know process theology is important.

>>20140142
When do you have time to read all these? Are you a philosophy student? How old are you?

>>20139938
why do people like you even come here? fuck off

>>20140136
>>20140146
My bad. I were speaking about the broad school and concept of process philosophy, as well as the idea concept or freedom is the core of reality. But my bad because it is worst than that.
>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
>"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."
From wikipedia..
He steals from bouddhist as well as classical metaphysics and like all modern philosophers, try to find a way to turn it upside down.
Muh so precious preccess .. God lack actuality of becoming...

>>20139628
So is every take in Quantum Foundations.

Nothing is falsifiable unless you take auxillary hypotheses for granted.

The Earth rotating around the Sun and Newton were falsified many times, we changed the theories instead of throwing them out lol. Read a philosophy of science book.

>>20140284
His process philosophy sounds interesting to me because it refutes Hume's atheism (saying we don't perceive cause). Also that summary preceding the quotes is heretic and not actually said in the quotes. Speaking of God's "deficiency" is ridiculous but not supported by the quotes displayed. Just because God allows us to actualize his plan it doesn't mean he can't do it himself.

Because it is little read

>>20139628
There is no such thing as a "falsifiable" conceptual analysis you mongrel

>>20140336
From whitehead's quote :
>God is completed
>God is fluent (in contrast to the permanent world supposedly)
>the world transcend God
>...
Well, it's heresy. Now we all know it's the typical faggot boomer way to be "I'm so much of a poet, paradoxical inventor ahah..." it's the ego of man.
All modern philosophy is this type of destructive robbery.

>>20140351
Jeez, just read the wiki and shut the fuck up.

>>20140423
Ok you're right about that, but there could still be something interesting in it of he gave birth to process theology.

>>20140336
Atheism is the animalistic way.
I don't know Hume, but what I saw of him was very stupid. He said himself that he is a slave of his passions,...

>>20140453
Kek the process theology is as much heretical.
>we are a new modern school so new so good !
>God is not what you think ahah !
Makes no sense but they love these heresies disguised as paradoxes

Everyone should only study his religion and ancient authors. All the answers are there, new ones all try to outsmart religions and God because of their inflated ego
I'm gonna sleep though now

>>20140516
I tend to agree with you from what I've seen so far. It's a shame so many good minds got lost into narcissistic ego stroking and wasted the little time they were given on this earth self-masturbating. I hope it was worth it and God forgave them. Good night anon.

>>20139357
It's tough, and not-so enlightening from what even a thorough read picks up. "Things a processes" is the very-basic take away; a bit more profound would be something pertaining to a "teleology" that all thing possess to enhance/maintain the complexity of the universe.

I found Science and the Modern World (aside from the chapters on science proper lol) much more insightful. Great descriptions of "how" man's thinking process has changed over time.

A totally different way to get "the same thing" is through mathematical biologist Robert Rosen's description of "life" through category theory. He never cites Whitehead, but I am sure that he was influenced by him. A super neat fact is that Category Theory was not around when Whitehead was active, and may have been useful for him

>>20140572
Really? That meme theory?
Damn Whitehead is a sign of the reader's failure in life.

>>20139357

I was about to suggest that it's because almost no one who posts here has actually read it, but then I realized that this was faulty reasoning: people discuss things they haven't read on here all the time.

Bump

bump

What use is there in replying repeatedly that Whitehead is "heresy" or "heretical"? Heretical to what? Covenant theology? Whitehead isn't trying to be compliant with Exodus—he's writing about the Timaeus. If you want something more your speed stick to Augustine or Aquinas or some other agree and amplify biblical exegesis. No one cares. It's like when you waddle into the Hindu or Buddhist or pagan threads and cry "demons," as if that were a reasonable response. Yes, everyone knows in your system that the philosophers are damnable to hell for their pride. How profound.

>>20143421
What's wrong with discussing if a certain philosopher is heretical or not? It's not like every modern philosopher must be a heretic, especially if they are influential in theological circles.

>>20143556
"Heresy" presupposes there is some authoritative doctrine one is required to adhere to, which we would now need to debate in place of actually discussing Whitehead, because this is not a seminary and no such sectarian standard is accepted.

>>20143602
Lord you are stuck on school level geopolitics, no wonder you are ruled by /x/

>>20143602
Clearly both posters were doing just fine understanding each other because the discussion was about Christianity, which is the implicit religion assumed in Western spaces. It sounds to me that you posted just to demand attention or to try to undermine Christian hegemony rather than trying to contribute in honesty.

>>20143615
>non-Christians are just dishonest and subversive
yes I could tell you thought that from your repeated bleats of heresy heresy heresy
>>20143607
It's a meme don't over think it. Point is, you have people like the guy I am responding to who have this view that internet Christian fundamentalism = normative Western civilization and nothing resembling that has been true for centuries at this point, so to discuss whether Whitehead is compliant with it or not is entirely pointless outside of a rather narrow domain of self-taught not-priest specialists in larping

>>20139357
Bergson is sexier.

>>20143645
The unholy trinity of guaranteed seethe from /lit/: Bergson, Whitehead, and Deleuze

>>20139357
Because reading some schizoid come up with a cope explanation of how things work is a waste of time

>>20143602
Belongs to Australia since the ANZAC's conquered the Levant during WW1 and destroyed the Ottoman Empire.

>>20143676
I think there were some Indian regiments in the Mesopotamia campaign, would imagine some of those must have been transferred to Palestine. So Jerusalem belongs to Hindustan.

>>20140284
what were they called again, synchronicity events?
anyways I am listening to the FMA ost which sounds pretty similar to this, I am spooked to say the least.

>>20143643
>>non-Christians are just dishonest and subversive
Nobody said that. You are accused of dishonesty beause you pretended not to comprehend the implicit religion assumed. You are now misrepresenting my position, further demonstrating the dishonesty accusation was justified.

>>20143703
>you pretended not to comprehend the implicit religion assumed.
There are multiple sects of Christianity you mutt. Which one have you arbitrarily raised aloft as the non-heretical one?
>You are now misrepresenting my position, further demonstrating the dishonesty accusation
I very much doubt it is not your position to consider non-Christians and heretics dishonest or otherwise deficient; after all they cannot be saved and are doomed to hell because they reject Christ, and since they have denied the incarnation, the resurrection, and so forth—which you know to be true—they must be dishonest.

>>20140142
I've had the same experience. I have gotten through most of the high difficulty texts in the western intellectual tradition. Being and Time was published the same year as Process and Reality, and the former, while famously difficult, is still a much easier read than the latter. I made two cracks at whitehead but always found myself losing steam in part II. I actually just pulled the book out of storage a couple weeks ago to try again this year. I would say Whitehead is just a meme but I spent a week with a process theologian a few years back who really impressed me. So I think there's something to it.

>>20143718
>There are multiple sects of Christianity you mutt. Which one have you arbitrarily raised aloft as the non-heretical one?
Once again you ask for answers to obvious questions: the discussion was about Christianity in general i.e. the major denominations. Whitehead's philosophy is contrary to all of them, not to a particular denomination. You'd immediately understand that if you approached the topic from a source of curiosity rather than a source of hatred of Christianity.
>I very much doubt it is not your position to consider non-Christians and heretics dishonest or otherwise deficient
Well, you'd be wrong. Non-Christians can still accept Christ. The problem is with anti-Christians who specifically look to undermine Christian faith in all that they do, and they intentionally deceive curious, honest non-Christians.

>>20139357
Because a few years ago we used to have several Whitehead threads a day and we moved on to the new flavor of the month.

>>20143769
>Whitehead's philosophy is contrary to all of them, not to a particular denomination.
Yeah
>You'd immediately understand that if you approached the topic from a source of curiosity rather than a source of hatred of Christianity.
Well, calling him a heretic isn't exactly coming from a source of curiousity, it's coming from a source of upholding Christian orthodoxy. Whicj you also do here
>The problem is with anti-Christians who specifically look to undermine Christian faith in all that they do, and they intentionally deceive curious, honest non-Christians
Why are only you allowed to have an agenda, but when others do, it is dishonest or subversive? Are you really that much of a narcissist? And moreover, it is patently false that "non-Christians can still accept Christ" unless you mean to say "non-Christians can convert to Christianity" which was not my point—my point was that people who reject Christian orthodoxy are as you say, heretical, and they are categorically doomed. You are the one effectively coming into this thread and howling that Whitehead should be avoided as a subversive anti-Christian, and then you accuse other people of being hostile to your religion. Something about crying out in pain as he strikes you....

>>20143866
>Well, calling him a heretic isn't exactly coming from a source of curiousity, it's coming from a source of upholding Christian orthodoxy.
Correct, and it is plain and upfront.
>Why are only you allowed to have an agenda, but when others do, it is dishonest or subversive?
I only pointed out the dishonesty in yours: pretending not to understand the topic or questioning how it's relevant. You're free to talk honestly and call us idiots for believing in the Christian faith and close-minded for considering whether a writer is heretical or not. But instead, look at you:
>What use is there in replying repeatedly that Whitehead is "heresy" or "heretical"? Heretical to what? Covenant theology?
Feigning ignorance and good faith, which I granted to you all here >>20143556 by simply inquiring about your first question and ignoring the rest of it. But then, instead of continuing that line of thought, you revealed that your interest was not in finding out the point of the discussion but rather to imply that it's simply unknowable to figure out which doctrine was argued about. You were called out for dishonesty as you should be.
> unless you mean to say "non-Christians can convert to Christianity"
Yes, that's what I meant. You accused me of believing all non-Christians are dishonest and subversive, and I explained to you that it is not true. Many non-Christians are merely confused honest people. Conversions can happen at any point, and different people have their own struggles and their own paths.
>You are the one effectively coming into this thread and howling that Whitehead should be avoided as a subversive anti-Christian
Well, it was not me who said that, but the person who said it was honest about it. Non-Christians will obviously ignore him as he never tried to conceal his intention.
>and then you accuse other people of being hostile to your religion.
Nope, I accused you of being dishonest. Be hostile all you want.

>>20143950
Now that all agendas are out in the open

What's the deal with Christians?

Did the priets really scammed them with money and catholic school was a den for pedo priests?

>>20143950
>Many non-Christians are merely confused honest people.
So people who disagree with you are just "confused" now rather than actively dishonest? Viciously arrogant as ever—remind me why I should accept your paradigms of what is heretical or not again? That was indeed my original question: what basis have you or we for deciding what is orthodox and what is heretical? You have simply affirmed "Christianity" as if that were normative and beyond reproach. I contest that such a position is intensely naive in a post-medieval world, and that the classification of Whitehead or others as heretics is without substance outside of your own doxographical concerns. There are more meaningful ways to assess someone's work than "does it disagree with my religion"

>>20144058
>So people who disagree with you are just "confused" now rather than actively dishonest?
You're the one who assumed I believed they were actively dishonest. You seem very confused in general too.
>I contest that such a position is intensely naive in a post-medieval world, and that the classification of Whitehead or others as heretics is without substance outside of your own doxographical concerns. There are more meaningful ways to assess someone's work than "does it disagree with my religion"
Each to their own. Just don't pretend you don't understand what we're talking about, which you are still doing.

>>20144319
>anyone who disagrees with me is dishonest and confused
Look, if you can't explain why deviation from Christian orthodoxy should be rejected as heresy to people who don't subscribe to your doxography, then don't. All I have said and will continue to say is that to evaluate Whitehead as a heretic or not is irrelevant outside of whatever dogmatic circle you've drawn around yourself, and is moreoever a discussion that can take place entirely in the absence of having read the work in question, which is of course /lit/'s preferred method of discourse

>>20144375
>Look, if you can't explain why deviation from Christian orthodoxy should be rejected as heresy to people who don't subscribe to your doxography, then don't.
There's nothing to explain: if you're not a Christian, you mustn't care that a work is heretical. It was a discussion between Christians, which doesn't seem to concern you.

>>20144454
Well as I said, Whitehead wasn't trying to be compliant with the demands of your religion. So not much to discuss for you beyond barging into the thread, calling him a witch, and flipping the table.

>>20144495
That's about as much as it was discussed.

>>20144518
The future of /lit/

>>20140082
falsify my fist flying through your skull faggot

>>20140101
>>20140284
>bro he just said reality be processes and shit
>THATS REDUCTIONISM BRO
>wow western guy soo smart wow!
>steals from bouddhist
>>>>>FROM WIKIPEDIA
cry some fucking more you loser lmao

>>20139357
It was meme'd a lot when girardfag was still around.

>>20144554
More like the present and the past. E-christian revival bullshit killed what little value this board had left years ago.

>>20139784
2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks. Proof? 2 = 2 rocks, 4 = 4 rocks. Therefore, 2 (rocks) plus 2 (rocks) = 4 (rocks)

>>20147098
That’s just a tautology