/lit/ - Literature

Done

Deleuze's conception of becoming is pretty much diametrically opposed to Whitehead's process philosophy. I think those who see a Deleuzo-Whiteheadian axis as existing are being duped by “process” and related words.

There are two ways to look at becoming. One is to say that becoming is an indivisible, primary movement not really composed of individual states. The states are merely abstractions cut away from the primal movement. Here we have Deleuze and Bergson. And here we also have Aristotle in the Physics, some may be surprised to hear.

The other way of looking at the world is to say that individual states are primary. This is nothing if not Whitehead’s central claim. Actual entities do not become, they simply perish. Why do they simply perish? Because an actual entity is completely concrete, completely defined by all of its positive and negative prehensions, and once those pretensions shift in even the slightest manner (as they do constantly) then the previous actual entity is deceased, and replaced by a close successor. There is only perishing, no becoming, because there is nothing left over that could become. The word “process” and haggling over terms such as “subjective aim” cannot be allowed to obscure the basic fact, central to Whitehead’s philosophy, that it is a philosophy of perishing, not of becoming. In other words, an instant is ontologically self-contained for Whitehead. This is the occasionalist tradition of “continuous creation” of the world in every instant, which could hardly have less to do with Bergson and Deleuze (and with Aristotle, for that matter).

Them

>>14316681
Like I said, you don't know what materialism entails. You just think its just "meaningless dead stuff :(" when the truth is it has become more wonkier over the past century.

>Im a Processist Anarchist Vegan
What type of person do you imagine?

Become a Vegan Processist Anarchist

What do I need to read before I tackle the final bosses of philosophy?

Throw out Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Derrida, and all linguistic turn and deconstructivist thinkers in the trash and pick up Whitehead and Deleuze and prepare for the Speculative Revolution.

Now that the rage over Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Derrida has finally died out, let's get to the real geniuses of the 20th century and commence the Speculative Revolution.

When in the Speculative Revolution commencing? This neoliberal hellscape is boring and unaesthetic as fuck.

When is the Speculative Revolution commencing? This boomer neoliberal hellscape is boring and unaesthetic as fuck.

Drop Heidegger and Derrida. Pick up Whitehead and Deleuze. The 21st century will be the beginning of the Speculative Revolution.

We need philosophy more than ever in this day and age. Scientists can't be trusted as the bearer of so called objective fact and we need philosophy to reorder our current abstractions so that they are more in line with our concrete experience to create an ecology of practices which will help us get out of this neoliberal hellscape that we are currently in.
Take the Cosmopolitics pill

>From Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory to Stephen Hawking’s belief that we “would know the mind of God” through such a theory, contemporary science—and physics in particular—has claimed that it alone possesses absolute knowledge of the universe. In a sweeping work of philosophical inquiry, originally published in French in seven volumes, Isabelle Stengers builds on her previous intellectual accomplishments to explore the role and authority of science in modern societies and to challenge its pretensions to objectivity, rationality, and truth.

>For Stengers, science is a constructive enterprise, a diverse, interdependent, and highly contingent system that does not simply discover preexisting truths but, through specific practices and processes, helps shape them. She addresses conceptual themes crucial for modern science, such as the formation of physical-mathematical intelligibility, from Galilean mechanics and the origin of dynamics to quantum theory, the question of biological reductionism, and the power relations at work in the social and behavioral sciences. Focusing on the polemical and creative aspects of such themes, she argues for an ecology of practices that takes into account how scientific knowledge evolves, the constraints and obligations such practices impose, and the impact they have on the sciences and beyond.

>This perspective, which demands that competing practices and interests be taken seriously rather than merely (and often condescendingly) tolerated, poses a profound political and ethical challenge. In place of both absolutism and tolerance, she proposes a cosmopolitics—modeled on the ideal scientific method that considers all assumptions and facts as being open to question—that reintegrates the natural and the social, the modern and the archaic, the scientific and the irrational.

Who did it better?

Who did it better?

Stop reading Postmodern Neomarxists. I want you to grab every single book by a Postmodern Neomarxist that you own and burn them NOW. Grab your Deleuze, Foucault, Whitehead, Derrida, Nietzsche, Marx, Lyotard, Butler, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Virilio, Zizek, Adorno, Benjamin, Debord, Lefebvre, and every other book by someone that tried to destroy the Western civilization and throw them in the FUCKING fire.

Philosophy is a creative task

Who did it better?

Were they right?

God=The Body Without Organs
http://www.shaviro.com/Othertexts/God.pdf

Whiteheadian Deleuzians rise up

tests to see if a thinker is worth their salt
>proposes linear history
>bifurcates nature
>anthropocentric
>proposes a philosophy of interiority and transcendence
>correlationist
if they pass any of these they should be thrown in the garbage

are they /lit/ memes or are they worth reading? what will I learn from reading them?

tests to see if a thinker is worth their salt
>proposes linear history
>bifurcates nature
>anthropocentric
>proposes a philosophy of interiority and transcendence
>correlationist
if they pass any of these they should be thrown in the garbage