/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14398282]

Whitehead general #125, last one hit bump limit
Previous thread >>14396741

>Who is whitehead
A seminal anglo philosopher who defined modern thought. Refuted guenon and parmenides, refuted hinduism, Buddhist icon

>where can I read him
Start with the gilford lectures.

>today’s topic
His refutation of all “being” philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14398290]

Based

[Anonymous No.14398293]

what is a being philosophy? i know its guenon, but what does that mean

[Anonymous No.14398321]

>>14398293
Being vs becoming. Two forces beyond the petty arguments of the temporal world that use various human agents to represent themselves. They were first traced in our world to heraclitus and Parmenides, though likely manifested before. Since recorded history we have seen them inspire by divine revelation certain thinkers for use in their spiritual war. Whitehead stands as the final victory of becoming over being, when he triumphantly defeated guenon in the final refutation.

[Anonymous No.14398536]

Pope is the golden mean between being and becoming.

[Anonymous No.14398542]

Be cooming

[Anonymous No.14398555]

>>14398282
He doesn't refute "being." For Whitehead, becoming is for the purpose of being (signification in the universe), and being is for the purpose of novel becoming (the emergent individual self). Read him before you meme him kthx.

[Anonymous No.14398571]

>>14398282
post the pastebin and discord next time, faggot

[Anonymous No.14398583]

>>14398555
And he's not a Buddhist icon.
I see now that OP is a guenonfag psyop.

[Anonymous No.14398588]

Process-relational philosophy gives at least two accounts of experience that aren't capable of communicating on each other's terms despite being somewhat mutually intelligible. You have to pick between the flâneur and the surveyor, the first is for the navigator the second is for the cartographer.

[Anonymous No.14398616]

>>14398282
Derrida did "process" better than Whitehead imo. Not only is the spirit of process philosophy captured better in his "philosophy of hesitation", but it is not beholden to a metaphysical traditon that interferes with its articulation, like in Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.14398646]

>>14398616
Derrida didn't even do metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14398653]

What is his position on the one and the many?

[Anonymous No.14398674]

>>14398588
then we are left with the map which is itself impartial

[Anonymous No.14398688]

>>14398646
Derrida would say that he is doing something more general to metpahysics that is still invetabily "metpahysical" as it is a causal product of the metaphysical traditon. For Derrida there is no escape, no break, no rupture (or rather always a rupture); what is, is always inherited for him.

[Anonymous No.14398701]

>>14398688
metaphysics* sorry phoneposting

[Anonymous No.14398703]

>>14398674
I have Deleuze's profile, but I look more like Ben Stiller though.

[Anonymous No.14398704]

>>14398282
What does Whitehead have to do with Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.14398705]

>>14398653
"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."

From the last section of Process and Reality that Whitehead admitted was more poetic than philosophical.

[Anonymous No.14398713]

>>14398704
Nothing. Just guenonfag mad at some buddhafag.

[Anonymous No.14399038]

>>14398705
Thanks. Good answer. Reminds me of Kant's antimonies. Is it wrong if he reminds me of Hegel? That's what I first thought of when a friend described Adventures of Ideas to me. I know he is known more for Deleuze and Deleuze is non-Hegelian though. I would love to see work on Hegel and Deleuze however... (or Hegel and Whitehead)

[Anonymous No.14399250]

>>14398282
Is Whitehead's philosophy allied to Buddhism as Guenon is to Advaita?

[Anonymous No.14399312]

>>14399038
Whitehead read Hegel

[Anonymous No.14399318]

>>14399250
No

[Anonymous No.14399385]

>>14398282
RETROACTIVELY refuted

[Anonymous No.14399628]

Whitehead is cool

[Anonymous No.14399631]

[Anonymous No.14399654]

[Anonymous No.14399664]

[Anonymous No.14399692]

[Anonymous No.14399787]

>>14399692
>the wonder remains
Tell that to anal*tic philosophers. They ruin philosophy

[Anonymous No.14399804]

>>14399664
What does it say about its problems?

[Anonymous No.14400019]

>>14399804
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2604434-process-philosophy

[Anonymous No.14400058]

[Anonymous No.14400235]

Is there a chart for witnessing wonders with Whitehead?

[Anonymous No.14400296]

>>14399250
Whitehead is beyond Advaita (and Guenon by extension) AND Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.14401262]

>>14398616
Derrida's beholden to more obscurantism than Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.14401264]

>>14398588
>tfw flaneur
Anyone care for a derive?

[Anonymous No.14401422]

>>14401262
Never said he wasn't, only that Whitehead is beholden to long unexamined metaphysical cliches.

[Anonymous No.14401475]

>>14401422
Whitehead doesn’t hearken to Language as the deconstructionists are always doing, but rather notes language’s inadequacies alongside its unavoidability. He doesn’t yearn for a return before, or a leap beyond, metaphysics, but much more subversively just does metaphysics, inventing his own categories and working through his own problems, in order to make metaphysics speak what it has usually denied and rejected (the body, inconstancy and change, the relativeness of all perspectives and of all formulations). And he doesn’t critique 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.

[Anonymous No.14401658]

>There is a greatness in the lives of those who build up religious systems, a greatness in action, in idea and in self-subordination, embodied in instance after instance through centuries of growth. There is a greatness in the rebels who destroy such systems: they are the Titans who storm heaven, armed with passionate sincerity. It may be that the revolt is the mere assertion by youth of its right to its proper brilliance, to that final good of immediate joy. Philosophy may not neglect the multifariousness of the world — the fairies dance, and Christ is nailed to the cross.
Whitehead was a poet

[Anonymous No.14401678]

>>14401658
which work is that in? i thought that whitehead was a meme but that actually sounds pretty good.

[Anonymous No.14401769]

>>14401678
not a whitehead shitposter and rarely if ever post about him, but whitehead is actually pretty cool and a great writer. most of the whitehead faggots on /lit/ seem to have little to do with him other than that they heard his process philosophy is vaguely in line with their twitter political philosophy, so don't associate them with him. his pre-P&R books, like adventures in ideas, are really good. he's like a speculative william james combined with a sort of nature worship through science.

process and reality itself is insanely hard to understand, for me it wasn't even the jargon, it was that i can't figure out what he is actually designating with the terms he's using. if you're interested in it though, check out auxier & another guy's co-authored book on him, called quantum of reality or something like that. there's a nice review of it on ndpr.

[Anonymous No.14401785]

>>14398282
Is Whitehead general meant for all process philosophers or just Whitehead?

[Anonymous No.14401793]

>>14401475
>as the deconstructionists are always doing
Derrida focused on "language", specifically writing, insofar as he realized that its predicates (historically negative; absence, death, mechanical repetition etc.) are generalizable to what philosophers have historically have called "experience", "existence", "reality", "being", "the subject" "the self" etc. He arrived here through his deconstruction of Saussure, and from it he derived his """ontology""" (hauntology) of difference (Différance). Whitehead did not make this realization, and instead acted within the metaphysical tradition hitherto that presupposed (unawares) presence to itself. Hence quotes like:
>Speech is human nature itself, with none of the artificiality of written language
something that wouldn't be out of place in Saussure.
Derrida not only doesn't yearn for a return before, or a leap beyond metaphysics, OR "subversively" just does metaphysics anyway; rather he makes the realization that this is what we were always-already doing all along; all that he is doing, all that Whitehead is doing, all that everything is doing; twisting and contorting in wonderful and ungainly ways.

[Anonymous No.14401811]

>>14401793
does derrida anywhere address the problem of kant and whether we can ever adequately describe nature? is he open to mysticism and higher metaphysics?

i don't mind linguistic philosophers who show that language is always-already provisional, what i mind is when they say (more often simply presume) that language is all we have and we can never escape it

[Anonymous No.14401851]

>>14401769
well i hold william james in high regard so i'll check out adventures in ideas. i'm worried that i won't have the foundation in metaphysics to approach p&r, so thanks for the recommendation on some good secondary

[Anonymous No.14401852]

Is Whitehead a moral realist? Something tells me no much like Deleuze, who I have much more familiarity with, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.14401922]

>>14401811
Derrida would say something like the fact that we're stuck in this thing we call "language" (graphic, phonic and physical signifies, institutionalized and formalized) is contingent and irrelevant insofar as we, and everything else, is stuck in "writing"; hence "there is nothing outside the text" (il n'y a pas de texte extérieur) and "everything is textural". What he means by "text" and "writing" here are those characteristics of these things that are generalizable; broadly and simply, Différance (his idea of the "trace" or "mark" is the product of this generalization as well). He uses these words specifically to a) stick his nose up to a metaphysical tradition that historically maligned these characteristics, and b) to be obscure. A less obscure formulation of his "il n'y a pas de texte extérieur" would be something like "there's nothing outside difference". This not an ontological claim, or at least minimally so, as difference is that which exists between substances (hence "hauntology"). Hence his predilection for processes and oscillations and undecidables that we find more explicitly articulated in his later works.

[Anonymous No.14401969]

>>14401922
that's alright by me, but my question is still whether metaphysics per se is possible either within or despite the "differential" structure of consciousness.

i understand that any given word we invoke for defining or giving meaning to "consciousness" here is contingent, and implicated in structures and blah blah blah. all that is fine. my question is: can what we really MEAN when we say "consciousness," that is, whatever the real metaphysical essence really proper (propre) to what we call consciousness really "is" in itself, ever relate to what we really MEAN when we say "nature," in its own essence and in-itselfness and so forth? (and i use all this language of quiddity, reality, essence, and in-itself etc. deliberately, because you know what i mean by it, however contingent and structurally implicated the terms may be.)

again: is metaphysics in this real sense at least possible for derrida? if he says no, then i want to know on what basis.

[Anonymous No.14402071]

>>14401969
I suspect Derrida would give the excruciating answer of yes and no simultaneously. "No", in the sense that "there is nothing outside the text"; that we have no recourse within the text to which that which lies outside it; yet, as we all experience first hand, there is still inevitably meaning; something like a ghost or specter emerges from the cloud of traces that holds a trace in place; and hence "yes", in the sense that "there is nothing inside the text" either (or that "everything is inside the text"); we *only* have direct access; we *only* have access to that "in itself"; the whole category of "itself-ness" is defunct (here I like to import my readings of pragmatism and mimetic theory). BUT, that in itself necessary bares the trace of what it is not, which brings us back to "there is nothing outside the text". In summary, metaphysics for Derrida would be another one of his undecidables, possible impossibles, hesitations.

[Anonymous No.14402125]

>>14402071
that sounds like the kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon though. i do understand what it means to say that the "category of 'in-itselfness' is defunct," i know phenomenology and pragmatism etc., but at the end of the day, the laws underlying physical nature are "things in themselves" whether you like it or not. if you want to deny they are, you either have to become a radical humean sceptic, to the point of nihilism, or you have to have some metaphysical basis for saying so.

kant maintains the distinction between phenomenon (analogous to language/difference in derrida) and noumenon (the actually-thereness of a fucking rock, and the physical laws underlying it). if derrida maintains that same distinction, with whatever qualifications and radical pluralizing and historicizing of all categories and of the transcendental itself, that's fine by me. but at the end of the day, that's still a kantian distinction between phenomenal and noumenal - again, unless you mean to deny to me that the rock is actually there or that we should be interested in questions like "why do lawlike constants (seem to) exist in nature."

one classic way to get around this problem of adequacy and dualism is naturphilosophie, namely, by saying that whatever language/differance/consciousness is, it is a part of nature and thus participates in nature. and again, i am aware you can problematize all those terms. but at the end of the day, we know what we mean when we say the rock is really there, that the world is really there, that there seem to be something like newtonian/einstinian constants underlying the physical world, and that these presumably have some "existence." the only stances it seems credible to me to have about these statements of fact are
>yes/probably, but we can never know them in themselves (kant)
>who knows? all i know is that i exist right now, and hell, i barely even know that (hume/scepticism, and arguably this is just nihilism)

which one of these camps does derrida fundamentally fall into for you?

[Anonymous No.14402131]

>>14402125
i should add, there are other credible stances (like mysticism and such) but i am talking about ones that seem like they would be possible for derrida.

[Anonymous No.14402148]

>>14399312
He read Nietzsche’s Will to Power too

[Anonymous No.14402182]

who?

[Anonymous No.14402323]

>>14402125
If Derrida he were to place himself in one of those camps (he wouldn't) it would be the third: mysticism. His penchant for apophatic theology is no accident. When asked if différance is the god of negative theology, he replied "It is and it is not."
>that sounds like the kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon though
For Derrida there is no distinction though. You mustn't have understood me when I said those characteristics of writing are generalizable; when Derrida says "generalizable", he really does mean it. Différance isn't some vulgar linguistic idealism. Do you think this distinction is retained nevertheless? If so, how?
>we know what we mean when we say the rock is really there
From Bernard Stiegler's Technics and Time 1:
>Now phusis as life was already différance. There is an indecision, a passage remaining to be thought. At issue is the specificity of the temporality of life in which life is inscription in the nonliving, spacing, temporalisation, differentiation, and deferral by, of and in the nonliving, in the dead
We're already beyond the human and animal, but now extrapolate past life, past the (supposedly) dead rock, and into everything as such. Again, when he says "generalizable" he really does mean it.

[Anonymous No.14402375]

>>14402323
so you're saying he thinks the nature of nature itself is this differance (again, as a stand-in for whatever you want to call consciousness or thought etc.), or at least that differance is a subset of it. but that is a metaphysical claim and puts him in the same camp as the naturphilosoph and whitehead, which i'm fine with personally, but i'm not sure if derrida would be fine with me saying it? are you a "derridean whiteheadian" or do you think he was actually committed to this, and more than playfully so? because i always read his apophaticism as appropriating old discourses about the fragmentary character of thought/language in its relation to essences, without necessarily believing in the essences themselves.

>Do you think this distinction is retained nevertheless? If so, how?
i would say it is, unless you want to be an extremely radical nondualist about it. if you are saying derrida is in the "thou art that" crowd or indifferenzpunkt crowd, i.e. the crowd that thinks we are SO MUCH the "same thing" as the totality of reality that we (as finite minds) have literal identity with reality, and our finitude is only illusory - if you want to say that, you are making some really big claims for derrida, and i'm curious where in his writings you think he non-controversially commits to this? i am not being disputatious, i genuinely want to know and i am curious

again, i am fine with what you are doing because it seems to me to be in the same ballpark as whitehead and others who think that metaphysics is possible after the discovery of the contingency of thought and language, or even enhanced by this discovery. but within that ballpark you now have to earnestly do metaphysics, real metaphysics, for example there is a distinction between the kind of radical nondualism i just described and a nondualism which gives genuine (i.e. non-illusory, non-"maya") ontological status to created/emanated/differentiated things. and there is the metaphysico-epistemological question of how we can first determine how such issues can be discussed, i.e. what are valid criteria for determining the truth/falsity of statements like "physical constants have objective reality, but every random imaginary you have, like 'the non-existent unicorn', does not have objective independent reality" or "there is one unitary Absolute, and everything else is maya / the Absolute is no less real/permanent than what emanated from it."

if you are comfortable putting us back on those grounds, i'm all with you, but i want to be sure that we are back on such grounds, because desu they instantly invoke the question of: so, is all historical metaphysics fair game again? can i be a neo-thomist and derrida has no problem with it - and by that i mean, he won't wink at me and say "sure, it's all differance anyway hehehe play whatever language games you want ;)" but will actually respect that i am averring the real existence of aristotelian essences?

[Anonymous No.14402471]

>>14402375
Lot's of questions, I'll try to answer them all.
>but that is a metaphysical claim
He wouldn't deny this. But he wouldn't hesitate in qualifying it by saying that it's a claim not present even to itself either. This is the minimal metaphysics he'll try to retain. Will you let him have it? I don't even know if he lets himself have it desu, but it certainly seems that he tries.
>are you a "derridean whiteheadian"
Whiteheadian? no. I only brought up Derrida because I think he does Whitehead better than Whitehead. So perhaps yes, maybe I am a Whiteheadian. Derridean? yes; at least until he starts de-anthropomorphizing différance. Here I become a Gansian, who I think does a brilliant job filling in the gap in "nevertheless we get meaning" ("why and how?" we all ask).
>do you think he was actually committed to this, and more than playfully so?
Commitment IS play. But yes, I think he's committed to this and something more, and unfortunately you're not going to get much more from me than that. This is one of those ineffable intuitions that can only come from reading someone to the point of introjection. Of course, Derrida would say this is the only type of reading, and I'm inclined to agree.
Your next paragraph receives the same answer as above.
>but within that ballpark you now have to earnestly do metaphysics, real metaphysics
Again, it was like this all along. It's what we're doing and its what we've always done. I can't be comfortably putting you back on "these grounds" because "these grounds" were always there (or perhaps they were never there at all; it doesn't matter, it's the same thing).
>but will actually respect that i am averring the real existence of aristotelian essences?
He'll wink at you not out of disrespect, but because he'll know that things won't turn out how you (or he) will expect. "Go ahead, do *real* metaphysics", he'll say as he winks.

[Anonymous No.14403130]

>>14401785
It's a meme thread. Looks like it was made by a guenonfag psyop but then it turned to a real thread lel.

[Anonymous No.14403140]

>>14401852
No he isn't

[Anonymous No.14403144]

>>14401769
Adventures of Ideas is post-P&R

[Anonymous No.14403165]

>>14402471
Derrida seems to be too embedded within the tradition of critique and prioritizing reason more than I like. Whitehead is foremost the philosopher of adventure so I don't know where you are getting off comparing both of them.

[Anonymous No.14403306]

[Anonymous No.14403604]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14403977]

Where can I find Process and Reality epub?

[Anonymous No.14403990]

>>14403977
Probably on b-ok or libgen

[Anonymous No.14404143]

Whitehead was a sage

[Anonymous No.14404153]

>>14403140
Typical. I'm pretty sure, much like Deleuze's philosophy, a few minor shifts or "doubts" cast in certain directions, could have allowed for the possibility of accommodating moral realism. It's like all these modern philosophers cannot help but be Faustian.

[Anonymous No.14404188]

>>14404153
Moral realism is retarded

[Anonymous No.14404210]

>>14404188
>tfw atheist moral realist and constantly get shit on
At least I'm real moral, rite gaiz?

[Anonymous No.14404220]

>>14404188
What's retarded is how much of an edgelord you are. Go eat shit, you dumb faggot.

[Anonymous No.14404229]

>>14404210
>constantly get shit on
You deserve public execution, not just being mocked. It's neither bad nor good after all.

[Anonymous No.14404234]

>>14404229
Why would anyone deserve anything if morals are unreal? Checkm8 edgefag

[Anonymous No.14404241]

>>14404234
Don't consider it a matter of deserving, but consider it a matter of the random, sudden nature of a cruelty which cannot be called evil, at least in your shit worldview.

[Anonymous No.14404407]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14405385]

>>14403165
Whitehead is constrained by the metaphysics of presence.

[Anonymous No.14405393]

>>14405385
He isn't

[Anonymous No.14405515]

>>14402375
I recognize those long autistic paragraphs.
Did you by any chance funpost on /leftypol/ under the trip Hoxha and run the blog Apotheosis? I remember reading about Whitehead there before it got taken down. I tried finding the guy on reddit / twitter / mumble but it's like he dissappeared from the web.
If you are, why'd you stop the blog?

[Anonymous No.14405530]

>>14405515
>Apotheosis
That's not him I think that is Eris Omniquery. He posts on /lit/ sometimes.

[Anonymous No.14405539]

>>14405515
Stirnerfags are even worse than Guenonfag.

[Anonymous No.14405555]

>>14405515
nope that's not me, i've neft been on /leftypol/ and i'm not a huge whitehead fan like i said. haven't even read the auxier i recommended, just been meaning to

[Anonymous No.14405580]

>>14405555
ah, my bad then.
>>14405530
I don't know if it's him, but this guys is interesting. thanks for the find!
>>14405539
spooky

[Anonymous No.14405629]

>>14405580
People with ADHD are not welcomed here.

[Anonymous No.14405768]

>>14405393
Read the thread retard.

[Anonymous No.14405816]

>>14405768
I did

[Anonymous No.14405959]

Any Whitehead friends familiar with Lani Watson's work on the philosophy of questioning? Seeing as how investigation/inquiry/discovery is a major current in process philosophy, it seems strongly related: https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/186-what-is-a-question

>Beyond the formal sense in which any interrogative sentence or utterance can be identified as a question there is a clear sense in which a question is more than a formal linguistic expression. This is reflected in the survey, and I think it is also highly intuitive. If we want to understand what questions are we need to look beyond their role as a part of language and see them as a part of the way that we think and act. This is an illuminating insight. A question is an act.
Here's her website: https://philosophyofquestions.com/

[Anonymous No.14405998]

>>14405959
I am not familiar will look into it. Thanks for posting, fren.

[Anonymous No.14406318]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14406327]

>>14405816
Read *with* comprehension

[Anonymous No.14406329]

Eris and girardfag need to start posting in here I want to read some autistic rants

[Anonymous No.14406366]

>>14406327
Yup

[Anonymous No.14406368]

>>14403165
There is only critique. This realization puts us in open seas. But a direction is necessarily taken, and land is inevitably found ("meaning nevertheless emerges from the cloud of traces"). It's then that we realize that this act was just another critique.
>prioritizing reason more than I like.
How? This is an idiosyncratic reading of Derrida.
>Whitehead is foremost the philosopher of adventure
No, Derrida is.

[Anonymous No.14406370]

Read Stengers next

[Anonymous No.14406434]

>>14406370
Have you read Cosmopolitics?

[Anonymous No.14406583]

>>14406368
Derrida is good and he certainly provides a great way "in," upholding the spirit of Kantian critique criticizing and undoing the sophistries of pure reason itself ceasingly interrogating these illusions. Ultimately though he has his limitations (I personally think that some of his influences, Blanchot, Bataille, and Levinas, are more interesting thinkers). His main limitation as a philosopher, I think, is that he forever remains too narrowly just a philosopher, too much a part of the great Western tradition to ever venture outside it. He is never willing to open the windows and let in some fresh air. This is why thinkers like Deleuze and Whitehead feel more refreshing to me, they have a more speculative and adventurous air.

[Anonymous No.14406742]

[Anonymous No.14406753]

[Anonymous No.14406857]

[Anonymous No.14406984]

>>14406583
>to ever venture outside it.
There is no outside (or inside), and there is no break from the great Western tradition (or rather always a break). The limitation you see in Derrida (his philosophy of hesitation, his undecidability) is actually the condition for speculation and adventure itself.

[Anonymous No.14406995]

Where can I find a pdf of this? I am a weeb and want to read it.

[Anonymous No.14407057]

>>14406984
And yet the approach of Derrida and his epigones has reached a dead end in this century.

[Anonymous No.14407058]

>>14399628
Nice word soup mate

[Anonymous No.14407088]

>>14407057
To be is to inherit. If Derrida was a dead end, then so was Whitehead, and then so were those he inherited. Is a series of never ending dead ends really a dead end?

[Anonymous No.14407113]

>>14398282
Don't know shit about Whitehead but the his whole Process thing looks like it'd get along with Land's philosophy up until Fanged Noumena.

Anyone read both?

[Anonymous No.14407128]

>>14407088
The only dead end here is continental philosophers developing progressively more unhinged outgrowths of idealism. The Anglos warned you, but you didn't listen.

[Anonymous No.14407139]

>>14407113
Land admits in one part of the thirst for annihilation that he is doing pseudoscience, I am sure it would get along with Whitehead's pseudophilosophy just fine.

[Anonymous No.14407157]

>>14407088
Such a view in itself is a dead end. Philosophy isn't such a tightly knit ordered tradition. Thought is constantly being impregnated with something monstrous.

What is refreshing about Whitehead is that he calls for a radical turn to experience itself while not choosing to focus on the finitude of the human faculties or the limitations of language to explore the effective existence of real qualities belonging to the universe, which is to say, he does not spend his time negatively pointing out these limitations (of language, perception, judgment, etc.). We are not trapped in the prison-house of Language. Instead, he simply admits that there is an inevitable loss in the process of transition from experience to thought, but this is the price of communication. It is here we find the aesthetic problem that is posed by the beautiful as a sensible feeling that cannot be communicated in itself, but only in the form of a nomination of the beautiful. For Whitehead, however, reason does not begin with naming: nomination does not function as a point of departure for reasoning, but rather as a point of accumulation around which other nominations could eventually be added as well. Simply put, the word (the nomination) is not the condition of possible experience of the object, but rather its terminus, its end. Moreover, in Whitehead's philosophy the culmination of experience is called satisfaction, which opens to an aesthetic point-of-view. Nomination, which makes cognition possible, is but one form of satisfaction. There are other ways, besides the linguistic one, of prehending the world, or more precisely entities in the world. Understanding is not privileged in the transition from sensibility to thought, as in Kant, but neither is consciousness, as in the phenomenology of Husserl, since there are satisfactions that take place below or outside the realm of consciousness of, that is, outside the precincts of human intentionality and its various cultural worlds, and even outside the transcendental subject and its possible life-worlds (ie histories). Not only are unconscious modes of thinking and satisfaction accommodated by Whitehead's system, but there are also other subjective forms of satisfaction (experience) that do not have any relation to human consciousness, broadly defined, such as the satisfaction expressed by living cells, crystals, clouds and trees. Freed from the Kantian straightjacket of the transcendental subject who gives to itself the laws for regulating the objects of understanding, we are now ready to explore the world inhabited by both organic and inorganic societies.

[Anonymous No.14407168]

>>14407139
Land is a pseud but don't talk shit about Grandpa Al

[Anonymous No.14407179]

Whitehead was the crown heir to Nietzsche. Fuck Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.14407209]

>Whitehead general #125
What?

[Anonymous No.14407240]

>>14407157
>the finitude of the human faculties or the limitations of language to explore the effective existence of real qualities belonging to the universe, which is to say, he does not spend his time negatively pointing out these limitations (of language, perception, judgment, etc.). We are not trapped in the prison-house of Language.
Neither does Derrida. He isn't some vulgar linguistic idealist. I don't where you got that reading of him from.
>a radical turn to experience itself
And you don't think this "experience itself" will inevitably be problematized (as a matter of fact, it was always-already problematized). Derrida says, "yes!", and celebrates this fact, stating that it is only *here* when "philosophy" begins. When you say
>Such a view in itself is a dead end.
with the hope laying such a line of thought to rest, you have in fact laid it to rest; produced a dead end. In doing so however, you've started the game all over again. Derrida affirms this process; the process OF the process of philosophy.
The rest of your comment is just SEP-tier explication of Whitehead that has no bearing on the conversation.

[Anonymous No.14407250]

>>14407088
You take the abstractions you are dabbling in as concrete. You entrap yourself. Tisk tisk Whitehead is shaking his head.

[Anonymous No.14407264]

>>14407240
>you don't think this "experience itself" will inevitably be problematized
Why would it be

[Anonymous No.14407266]

>>14407168
I will admit that Whitehead is not 100% trash like Land, but from what I know about his philosophy (which is not much, I admit - but I can make an educated guess about it) it seems little more than playful juggling of words, more concerned with evoking abstract imagery that providing us with a sound ontology.

My source: >>14399631

[Anonymous No.14407287]

>>14407250
There is only entrapment (and simultaneously only freedom): il n'y a pas de hors-texte. Derrida is laughing.

[Anonymous No.14407288]

>>14407266
Not sure what you have a problem with there. The generalization and technicalization of his language is key.
>“Philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles. Weakness of insight and deficiencies of language stand in the way inexorably. Words and phrases must be stretched towards a generality foreign to their ordinary usage; and however such elements of language be stabilized as technicalities, they remain metaphors mutely appealing for an imaginative leap.”

[Anonymous No.14407308]

>>14407287
Good so you admit that you are just playing with abstractions and practicing self masturbation.

[Anonymous No.14407330]

>>14407308
Playing? Yes. And so are you but you just haven't realized it yet. Abstractions? Who cares.

[Anonymous No.14407352]

>>14407330
More self masturbation. Your view hinges on self masturbation. You take your abstractions and being within concrete reality. The dead end is within yourself.

[Anonymous No.14407359]

>>14407352
as being*

[Anonymous No.14407370]

>>14407264
Hahaha. For the same reason "life" and "God" and "reason" and "man" and "subject" and "self" and "the same" etc. have.

[Anonymous No.14407395]

>>14407352
>Your view hinges on self masturbation.
Yes.
>You take your abstractions and being within concrete reality.
Your word choice, but I get the gist. My answers is "yes".
>The dead end is within yourself.
Yes. As it is within you and everyone else. And it's there, at the dead end, at the roadblock, the aporia, that our philosophical journey begins.

[Anonymous No.14407399]

>>14407370
All of thought foremost comes from experience and how you relate with the world. Not sure what makes it problematic.

[Anonymous No.14407409]

>>14407395
Good. You have admitted that you are a pseud.

[Anonymous No.14407422]

What most people think process philosophy is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8
What process philosophy actually is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmwXkJV_B-w

[Anonymous No.14407431]

>>14407399
Yeah and God is truth and becoming is mere appearance and all knowledge comes from reason etc. Yours is just another in a long line of philosophical cliches. This isn't a bad thing though, it's just how this works. One day it'll be overcome (it was always-already), all you can do is play the game.

[Anonymous No.14407436]

>>14407422
based

[Anonymous No.14407438]

>>14407409
Yes. One day when you grow up, you will too.

[Anonymous No.14407457]

>>14407431
No, literally everything is drawn within experience. You have a physical body, a conciousness emergent within nature, relations drawn up.

[Anonymous No.14407481]

>>14407457
Yes and all truth comes from reason etc. We've all heard this one before. Here, I'll problematize your apparently incorruptible first principle: find me one experience NOT meditated by representation.

[Anonymous No.14407518]

>>14407288
The text says that Whitehead talks about material objects as having mental states, but this shouldn't be understood literally as panpsychism, but it isn't really a metaphor either. So what does it mean?

Secondly, I completely reject the idea that talking in clear terms about metaphysics is somehow misguided. David Hume for example, is pretty clear about his philosophy of nature. Should we dismiss it because it makes too much sense?
>Words and phrases must be stretched towards a generality foreign to their ordinary usage; and however such elements of language be stabilized as technicalities, they remain metaphors mutely appealing for an imaginative leap.”
This also seems like a non-sequitur. It is obviously possible to make a point while speaking literally, not every use of language is metaphorical.

[Anonymous No.14407601]

>>14407481
Are you a solipsist?

[Anonymous No.14407619]

>>14407601
Only when I need to be. Are you able to answer the question whilst retaining the primacy of this thing you call "experience"?

[Anonymous No.14407626]

>>14407518
I'm someone else replying.
Biological evolution is an imaginative leap that analogizes human creativity to a creative process that requires no conscious intelligence, rather the intelligence is embodied in the relationships between organisms and their environment. For example "selection" in the evolutionary sense is a metaphor drawn from our experience of "choice." Likewise Whiteheadean thought abstracts this further, to spacio-temporal events as evolutionary entities. This is why Whitehead references his metaphysics as the "philosophy of organism."

[Anonymous No.14407629]

>>14407619
The answer lies within that question

[Anonymous No.14407636]

>>14407629
And it is?

[Anonymous No.14407639]

>>14407636
>>14407601

[Anonymous No.14407651]

>>14407639
I said I'm only a solipsist when I need to be. Do you think I need to be one here?

[Anonymous No.14407658]

>>14407651
Either way your position falls apart. I will stop here. I'm not in for debating sophists.

[Anonymous No.14407670]

>>14407658
You failed before you even begun. Not a bad thing though, that's just how it goes.

[Anonymous No.14407806]

>>14407670
He has succeeded, the target was hit. You don't know how to look along that axis yet.

[Anonymous No.14407845]

>>14407806
I've long surpassed that axis. Implicit within every success is the trace of its failure.

[Anonymous No.14408473]

>>14398282
I refuse to believe this man actually existed, theres no history about him, he might as well be an actual spook

[Anonymous No.14409088]

Anyone actually reads Whitehead or just post memes? Can any whiteheadean explain to me his notion of eternal ideas? How does it relate to Platonic Ideas? Are the eternal ideas subject to flux as well or are they exempt from it?

[Anonymous No.14409124]

>>14409088
check out the auxier book bro, google the review on ndpr

[Anonymous No.14409398]

>>14409088
Eternal objects
Steven Shaviro has a strong reading of them.
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=578

[Anonymous No.14409479]

>>14409398
>for Whitehead, “concrete particular fact” cannot simply “be built up out of universals”; it is more the other way around. Universals, or “things which are eternal,” can and must be abstracted from “things which are temporal” (40). But they cannot be conceived by themselves, in the absence of the empirical, temporal entities that they inform.

So they are more like Aristotle's forms than Platonic Ideas then? They don't exist by themselves but only in particular substances.

I think even Shaviro makes this comparison (albeit not explicitly, but really how more obvious can you be?)

>Thus “it is not ‘substance’ which is permanent, but ‘form.’ ”
>When Whitehead says that forms as well as substances, or eternal objects as well as actual entities, must be accepted as real,
Here he is clearly equating forms = eternal objects and substances = actual entities.

So the question becomes: Why the association of Whitehead with Plato (Whitehead calls himself a Platonist - albeit with qualifications - in Process and Reality!) rather than Aristotle (unless one considers Aristotle a - qualified - Platonist)? Why is the connection Aristotle-Whitehead ignored and his name connected with Heraclitus, Hegel, etc.?

[Anonymous No.14409534]

>>14409479
>but only in particular substances
Gotta be careful here because Whitehead's philosophy isn't a substance philosophy.
>Why the association of Whitehead with Plato
Well if you have been seeing what he has been doing with Locke, Hume, Kant, etc he has been twisting their philosophies while constructing his philosophy of organism. With Plato he has been converting him to empricism, inverting him.
>Eternal objects=actual entities
No. Eternal objects are pure potentials and actual entities have been actualized

[Anonymous No.14409557]

>>14409534
>No
It's the guy you referenced that is saying so.

>When Whitehead says that forms as well as substances, or eternal objects as well as actual entities, must be accepted as real,

[Anonymous No.14409579]

>>14409557
He's not equating them. Read on.

[Anonymous No.14409592]

>>14409557
>But even though eternal objects are altogether real, they are not the same thing as actual entities. Like Deleuze’s virtualities, they are precisely not actual. This is because, in themselves, they are not causally determined, and they cannot make anything happen. Eternal objects “involve in their own natures indecision” and “indetermination” (29); they always imply alternatives, contingencies, situations that could have been otherwise. This patch of wall is yellow, but it might have been blue. This means that their role is essentially passive. “An eternal object is always a potentiality for actual entities; but in itself, as conceptually felt, it is neutral as to the fact of its physical ingression in any particular actual entity of the temporal world” (44). You might say that yellowness “in itself,” understood as a pure potentiality, is utterly indifferent to the actual yellow color of this particular patch of wall. Yellowness per se has no causal efficacy, and no influence over the “decision” by which it is admitted (or not) into any particular actual state of affairs. Eternal objects, like Deleuze’s quasi-causes, are neutral, sterile, and inefficacious, as powerless as they are indifferent. At the same time, every event, every actual occasion, involves the actualization of certain of these mere potentialities. Each actual entity is determined by what Whitehead calls the ingression of specific eternal objects into it. “The term ‘ingression’ refers to the particular mode in which the potentiality of an eternal object is realized in a particular actual entity, contributing to the definiteness of that actual entity” (23). Each actual entity creates itself, in a process of decision, by making a selection among the potentialities offered to it by eternal objects. The concrescence of each actual entity involves the rejection of some eternal objects, and the active “entertainment,” or “admi[ssion] into feeling” (188), of others. And by a kind of circular process, the eternal objects thus admitted or entertained serve to define and determine the entity that selected them. That is why – or better, how – this particular patch of wall actually is yellow. By offering themselves for actualization, and by determining the very entities that select and actualize them, eternal objects play a transcendental, quasi-causal role in the constitution of the actual world.

[Anonymous No.14409641]

>>14409579
But, he is. Read.
>Thus “it is not ‘substance’ which is permanent, but ‘form.’ ”
>When Whitehead says that forms as well as substances, or eternal objects as well as actual entities, must be accepted as real,

>>14409592
In this paragraph he is saying that eternal objects and actual entities are not the same thing, which nobody is saying that they are. I didn't say that actual entities = eternal objects. Rather that actual entities = (individual) substances; eternal objects = forms. Or in other words
>Thus “it is not ‘substance’ which is permanent, but ‘form.’ ”
>When Whitehead says that forms as well as substances, or eternal objects as well as actual entities, must be accepted as real,
It is you rather that has misunderstood me and the author that you referenced.

[Anonymous No.14409649]

>>14409641
Cont.

Of course, it's true that Whitehead is not a substance theorist and is neither an Aristotelian or Platonist (without qualification). These are mere comparisons, when you break down the concepts, they have important differences.

[Anonymous No.14410536]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14410624]

>>14407845
Clearly not if you believe you "surpass" axes

[Anonymous No.14410637]

Get out of reductive monism
https://youtu.be/BHztIS9kdVY

[Anonymous No.14410957]

This was a good thread. It helped me brush up on my Derrida who I have read. I genuinely believe Derrida was an incarnation of true evil, and I like to define myself as the anti-Derrida. He unknowingly embodies everything wrong with the Western philosophical tradition but amplifies it. In fact, he never truly rejected the Western philosophical tradition; he just took the worst trends and heavily emphasized on them.

[Anonymous No.14410963]

>>14410957
>emphasized on them
emphasized them*
I wish 4chan had an edit function.

[Anonymous No.14410979]

>>14410957
Derrida is ok that guy just has an awful reading.

[Anonymous No.14411093]

>>14410957
Whitehead is incredibly relevant to Derrida and deconstruction (and vice versa, Derrida posting should be encouraged in Whitehead threads at least in my opinion) by association with the current of "constructive postmodernism": http://huarenworldnet.org/articles/postmodernism

> Constructive postmodernism did not arise as a corrective of deconstructive postmodernism. It has been around longer, although it did not emphasize the label. Its most important founder, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote a book called Science and the Modern World. Although he does not say so explicitly, he treats the modern world in terms of the ideas and practices that came to dominance in the seventeenth century. He shows how brilliantly they succeeded, but he also notes the price paid for this success. He also shows how they no longer suffice for the sake of science itself. Throughout the book he indicates alternative assumptions that could work better for science at the time he wrote. Clearly, he is calling for a new conceptuality that can replace the modern one.

>He also points to the emergence of a new philosophy. He does not point to phenomenology or language analysis. Instead he points to William James and specifically his essay, “Does Consciousness Exist.” This is a thoroughgoing deconstruction of the Western substantial self or ego. He thus makes clear that what is needed is a new understanding both of the natural world and of the human being, and he points forward to a possible new construction. Subsequently, in Process and Reality, he spells out this new vision in rigorous detail. We consider it the classical work in constructive postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.14412251]

>>14410979
Exaplain how my reading is bad. It's such an easy thing to say but it's never elaborated on.

[Anonymous No.14412290]

Yo stop posting in this thread so I can make the next one. I want to make a real OP that isn't retarded.

[Anonymous No.14412551]

>>14398588
>>14398282
Can process fags riddle me these questions:

1) If everything is in a constant state of becoming or flux, how is this fact not changing?

2) How can you have knowledge under process ontology?

3) Where do the fixed metaphysical principles of logic like 1+1=2 come from?

4) What's the answer to zeno's paradoxes?

5) Thoughts on Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.14412934]

>>14398282
Literally a Jewish op to subdue intellects into endless hallways of possibility and out of reality.