[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 158 KB, 760x1165, B549B032-E1A1-45C0-BD9A-C27D560B7C17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17481964 No.17481964 [Reply] [Original]

So this is it... the beginning and the endgame of philosophy and literature as a whole

>> No.17481970 [DELETED] 

>>17481964
Containment board

>> No.17482017

Book-cover judge: "It's not all it's cracked up to be."

>> No.17483293

>>17481964
shit book, shit philosopher

>> No.17483318
File: 86 KB, 288x475, 1474783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17483318

>>17481964

No, this is.

>> No.17483326
File: 59 KB, 850x400, quote-philosophy-begins-in-wonder-and-at-the-end-when-philosophic-thought-has-done-its-best-alfred-north-whitehead-31-36-20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17483326

>>17481964
Philosophy doesn't have an endgame.

>> No.17483338
File: 13 KB, 210x240, 800339AD-D6E4-447F-B478-22D6EC6F8A2E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17483338

>>17481964
No anon. It’s just the beginning

>> No.17484323

>>17483318
isn't Logical Investigations his masterwork?

>> No.17484427

>>17483338
This is a great meme but I hate it.

>> No.17485308

Hegel > Kant

>> No.17485463

>>17483326
"Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)

>> No.17485529

>>17485463
Whitehead seems to believe quite sincerely and unproblematically in things like Truth, Beauty, and Progress – and yet, because he sees these ideals in terms of ongoing processes rather than regarding them as fully established principles, he can be as withering as any pomo thinker could be on the stupidity of conservative and essentialist pieties. “The defense of morals,” he writes, “is the battle-cry which best rallies stupidity against change.” And, “it is really not sufficient to direct attention to the best that has been said and done in the ancient world. The result is static, repressive, and promotes a decadent habit of mind."
All these remarks are much more withering in context, than they are when you read them in isolation, as I have just cited them. For they arise in the course of an almost excessively even-handed and commonsensical discourse. Whitehead never seeks to outrage and shock the reader, the way Nietzsche does (or Heraclitus seemingly did); if anything, he seeks to reassure and calm his readers. (Stengers says that he is the most “serene” of philosophers). But, all the while keeping a tone that is bland and fuddy-duddy-ish, he says things that are truly startling, and radical. For he presents a view of the world in which nothing is fixed, but everything is in flux; in which there are no final unities, so that notions like subject and object are relative and always shifting; in which, in its own odd way, Beauty is more important, and more substantial, than Truth; and in which there is no certainty, but only Adventure.
Whitehead offers the sort of synthesis that postmodern thinkers have been striving after but unable to attain: a view of the world that is radically anti-foundationalist, but at the same time not corroded by ultra-skepticism and total rejection of scientific objectivity; and that has a kind of cosmic irony to it, while at the same time insisting that reality is not just an illusion inside our heads or our language. It’s not a matter of buying the details of Whitehead’s metaphysics, but of seeing how he does it, and thereby being encouraged to create a metaphysics of one’s own: a ramshackle construction, not an assertion of absolute truths, and which stands outside the duality with which recent theoretical thought has so often blackmailed us.

>> No.17485560

>>17483293
Fpbp

>> No.17485610

litteraly BTFOd completely in the last hume thread

>> No.17485817

>>17485308
cringe

>> No.17485832

>>17485610
Post link

>> No.17485858

>>17485529
There are a lot of bold claims in there that would need to be substantiated, and I am very skeptical that any substantiation provided is sufficient and compelling. Furthermore it does not interest me to read more, due to the aforementioned doubt. Yeah, it seems to me like the Biblical quotation I provided was a good response.

>> No.17485884

>>17484323

Really depends on what period of Husserl you prefer.

>> No.17486777

>>17481964
literally the gayest book in all of philosophy

>> No.17486818

He was at least wrong about the objectivity of mathematics.

>> No.17487814

>>17483338
Hegel took a shit on Kant'w work, and them Marx wiped his ass even more with it.

>> No.17487940

>>17485529
>and thereby being encouraged to create a metaphysics of one’s own: a ramshackle construction, not an assertion of absolute truths
what do whiteheadians think of nelson goodman? they seem compatible

>> No.17488355

You’re all wrong and faggots, Kant is based