/lit/ - Literature

>>12208878
Nah he was left on most things

skip whitehead and just read deleuze

Bump

Bump

Hey Whitehead thread guy, why don't you try posting about the contents of the book instead of posting stuff like this
>>/lit/image/bH48iB6HOHVgHRTap6Pi6Q

>>12210035
fuck off i just want to be spoonfed

>>12208892
Yikes

>>12208892
deleuze is cringe

is whitehead a materialist?

Whitehead came to the same conclusions as the Chinese only he was 2500 years late and wasn’t nearly as good as them.

>>12211280
which chinks should i read

Bump

>>12210285
I feel bad for people that get taken by him.

wyndham lewis criticizes him and other 'time-men' very harshly but i haven't read far enough into it

>>12210285
>>12210258
deleuze is the greatest thinker of the 20th century

Where is girardfag?

>>12208878
Yes. All philosophical problems is a problem of the one and the many. The only solution to that is process metaphysics. All is flux, but there's a Logos to the flux, a dialectic behind it.

Heraclitus solved it all a long time ago. A guy that died burying himself in shit solved philosophy, really makes you think huh?

>>12208892
Deleuze was an atheist. Whitehead was a Spinozist.

>>12211989
What are you on about Deleuze is all about Spinoza

>>12211939
he is usually here when you need him :/

>>12208878
Going to read based whitehead. Read Modes of Thought and Religion in the Making. Process and Reality coming right up. Underrated as fuck.

>>12212057
>>12211939
heyo lads. i'm here ofc. took an impromptu trip away from the Reading Bunker, have been doing a deep-dive into taoism & buddhism, hindu stuff too. feeling mighty cozy with it all, fwiw. dem hindus especially. i'm well aware that Uncle Nick has been absolutely slaying it on ufblog as well, i've also enjoyed daily updates from BTC & Philosophy also. in the long run it only strengthens the case for close and daily practice of whatever religion it is that is going to get you through the wasteland

anyways you should mos def read Cozy Al, obviously. really you should read everyone

love to all. stay sane out there

>>12211155
No

>>12208892
>just read deleuze
no thanks

>>12208878
About what?

>>12212241
can you elaborate? he doesnt really seem like an idealist

>>12212248
this

>>12212248
everything

>>12212475
No. He got time completely wrong.

>>12212544
extrapolate

>>12208890
>>12210169
Based.

>>12212183
what tao, buddhist, and Hindu stuff have you bren reading?

>>12212183
>BTC & Philosophy
What do you refer to

>>12213206
>what tao, buddhist, and Hindu stuff have you bren reading?
let's see...i've been reading pic rel pretty much every day. red pine's book on bodhidharma has been good also. i have been talking a high holy shitload about the Journey to the West/Monkey King quite a lot also. Journey to the West really is a kind of alchemical novel, like The Conference of the Birds or The Lord of the Rings. and it makes me wonder also about parallels to the Oresteia, that is - what would have happened if instead of the furies being banished from the polis by Athena, if they had become enlightened instead?

more on that here:
http://www.innerjourneytothewest.com/english/en-resource.html

and also a book of collected essays by Liu Yiming (Thomas Cleary trans.) to confirm that indeed the Way is great and the Way is way cool.

what else...ah yes, a lot of stuff on Shiva. of that i can say this much: Shiva is a legit mindfuck. here's one interesting thing i learned: did you know that 'Dionysus' really just means 'God of Nysa?' pretty cool. there are a lot of parallels between Dionysus and Shiva, and this no doubt is part of what made poor Friedrich Nietzsche's head explode. for learning more about dem hindus i have found Alain Danielou to be completely awesome, so a bunch of stuff by him also, books on yoga, Shaivite religion, and other stuff. reading Aurobindo now again (he's cool) and Yogananda's ginormous book on the Gita (which is aight, but i prefer Danielou).

also some stuff by Chogyam Trungpa, 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism' and others. he's pretty fun. i'm definitely feeling the love for Tibetan Buddhism. re-reading Joseph Campbell as well to be reminded what a cozy old sage Uncle Joe was too. even mixed in some Evola too. and one really interesting book called 'The Hermetic Deleuze,' which is way good and you should definitely check out if you're into that stuff.

and the thing is, it's improved by checking in on Uncle Nick and not harmed by it. both of these things - Eastern mysticism, ultra-esoteric Landian Marxism - they kind of work together for me, in some way. i find i am actually more open to Uncle Nick's icy-cold Kantian Capital argument (really, he just wants to talk about Kant) kind of shows why mysticism is good for you, and also those aspects of capital that are simply never going to catch up with Shiva (or the Tao, or Zen, or the Buddha, or much else). we do live in a technical civilization in the West, for sure, but...well. long thoughts, those.

i will probably want to start a new Cosmotech thread again at some point, mainly just for schizo-rambling about all of this stuff, but for now i'm just enjoying soaking in a whole lot of Wisdom from the East and Cryptique (nice neologism, hey?) from our boy in Shanghai, for whom a Purple Sweater is being stitched daily.

>>12213207
http://www.ufblog.net/
most interesting philosopher alive bar none.

>>12213038
He thought time was directly tied to the direction of process, when in reality time is something local to the present epoch.
Surprisingly it's not actually important to the overall validity of his philosophy, but it did cause him to introduce a lot of unneeded fluff.

>>12208878
I am too dumb for this. Whitehead made me restart with the Greeks, and properly this time.

>>12213485
Uncle Nick's dictum, that capital is a computer that processes desire, is pretty fascinating stuff. but of course what makes Desire Desire is obviously not a simple question. one of the things i have realized is that by basically honing in on this i have more or less made precisely the case for paying attention to the Buddhists: that is, desire is precisely what causes you suffering, and so on. it's kind of funny.

and so the Tao is a good way of gently seceding from the craziness of postmodernity - after all, nothing is more nihilistic than the Way, and no one is really more nihilistic than Laozi. and one way or another you find yourself at the Buddha's feet - the basic lesson of the Journey to the West. Wukong winds up in the Buddha's palm precisely because he thinks he can Desire his way out of everything, and in some sense, he can...but he also inadvertently winds up being a patron saint of the martial arts.

and yet behind the Buddhists lie the Hindus, and the world's oldest religion. Yoga itself is an entirely different way of thinking through Desire and immanence. one of the things that has come to my mind recently is Nietzsche's argument: 'we do not yet know what a body can do.' the more i read about India, the more this claim seems silly to me. the Hindus, it seems, would kind of gently smile at this idea: 'really? we do not yet know what a body can do? in fact i think we do know what a body can do, and we have a couple of thousand years of encyclopedic yoga catalogue to prove it. and over in China they have a few ideas as well. ask Ip Man if he knows what a body can do. my guess is that he will say he probably does. or at least he knows what a body *can't* do, which is why he will break your collarbones if he has to...'

so i have mad love for Uncle Nick inasmuch as he wants to re-Kantianize the history of capital, so that we stop going insane with our socialist-protestant desires...and yet i don't share his loathing for all things on the left, because to me socialist-protestant desires seem like cries of existential despair that i also share. i think they are fundamentally rooted more in religion than anything, and the politics of the sacred are what tends to be produced, but these lead to wheels of scapegoating and doom. but trying to get beyond scapegoating and doom are what mysticism does. it is kind of insane to say that 'God is Dead' when India exists. but all of this inclines me to look more sympathetically at Christianity also...

'tis a very complicated world.

@girardfag

any insightful thoughts on whitehead?

>>12213726
tbqh probably not, if only because i'm not reading him deeply at the moment. however you may wish to search the archives of the Mighty Cruffitan (Cosmotech #5 iirc) for some good greentext about him. here's the link:

>>/lit/thread/S11823861

pic rel was the what most of those quotes were taken from. basically all i would have to tell you today is that if you are trying to break the iron grip that postmodernity may have around your throat, Whitehead will work as much as Deleuze or Laozi. then you're off to the races. whether this points you towards unhealthy obsessions with Uncle Nick or Eastern mysticism or whatever else it is that floats your boat (including Fuck Yeah Space Taoism!), none can say, but 'tis all good in the end, so long as the adventure continueth, and you become a cool and interesting space monkey.

or something like that.

>>12211304
Iching (tr. Alfred huang), Analects of Confucius (tr. Ames & Rosemont), Laozi/Tao Te Ching (tr. Ames & Hall), Zhuangzi (tr. Burton Watson), then the earlier classics and other later commentaries if you’re interested.

>>12208892
absolutely yikes

Bump

>*hits bong*
>yea man flux and shit everything is connected bro
what a hack

>>12213758
thanks <3

Bump

>>12212247
>>12213771
retards

is the book in the op a good place to start with him? just read hus wiki page he looks interesting.

>>12215806
hello?

>>12213698
>Nietzsche's argument: 'we do not yet know what a body can do.

Love you Girardbro, but I want to point out that this is Spinoza's formulation even though Nietzsche had similar ones, like that play on Shakespeare that went something like "there is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy".

>>12216285
>>12213698
Also, since we're on the topic, the problem of knowing what a body can do is a bit more epistemological as far as I can tell, you might've taken it a bit literally (even though Yoga isn't just a matter of movements and postures). "Body" for Nietzsche had a broader meaning than the human body, it had to do with composites in general and the case is probably similar with Spinoza as well since his entire system is quite complex (modes, attributes, essences and all that). Not knowing what a body can do means that you do not know for example when you've exhausted your knowledge on all the possible relevant interactions a body can have (due to increasing complexity, maybe even emergent properties and theoretically difficult thresholds).

Bump

>>12216285
>Love you Girardbro, but I want to point out that this is Spinoza's formulation even though Nietzsche had similar ones, like that play on Shakespeare that went something like "there is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy".
appreciate it amigo, & point well made.

>>12216316
also interesting. good points all round here too. you are quite correct in this, it's unwise to construe the meaning of 'body' too literally no doubt

you have earned art i was trying to track down for a while and have only found again recently. enjoy anon, thx for the feedback

>>12215806
hellooo???

bump

>>12215806
That's where I started.

Bump

Bump

>>12211989
Spinozism is Atheism

Bump

Bump

>Anglo analytic gets disillusioned with autism philosophy and thinks so hard that he hits continental philosophy from the other side

>>12218520
Jacobi, please be back

>>12220356
Best kek of the day, maybe the week

>>12220356
Absolutely this.
>>12213650
Confirmed for skimming the back of the book. Whitehead thinks himself into phenomena continentals were starting to talk about (being and time was published in '29). Time has a local component but it also extends out to more general phenomena, and forms the internal causal mechanism of all phenomena - including experience(i.e process). To WH everything can be described in terms of an actual occasion. Instead of thinking about time in terms of linear events organized sequentially point.. by.. point (remember Hume says causality is unobservable and not empirical phenomena in this pov), but time is the experience of what's now in the form of the future (intentionality) so that every now is also a going-to, and also an at-once, and also a having-been. In other words actual occassions are the unification it past present and future in an experience. Kinda like Heidegger's temporality which is a way of describing the ordinary way that we experience time on an everyday basis.

But that's just the local exp of time (which happens in the form of an actual ocassion cus everything does to WH. I'm not Whiteheadean (the worst fucking word) but I think his observations are good). You can extend or reduce this notion of time into bigger or smaller (macro or micro) situations. In the same way that you have a history, you're caught up in a history and so on - that's a way of generalizing it up. But non-conscious or natural (words Whitehead would never use) phenomena too enjoy this procedural structure because they're also caught up in the passage up time. So while you experience time in this 3-part structure (the condition of possibility for exp.) Other entities to take part in the grand network of process occurring in different layers of the world. And it's this passage of time that even lets the world come together and for relations to occur, either in molecules making bonds, in the development and growth of an ecosystem, or in the time I waste explaining WH in a kabooki enthusiasts job-search board.

Adventures of Ideas is a lot more lucid than PR. It's actually bizarre to read them side by side because WH shits all over the pages of PR with ideas. Sometimes the end up the chapter should actually be in the front because it's a sinpler explanation than the last 50 pages.

>>12220487
WH would use natural but not non-conscious. My bad

buuump

>>12208878

Him and Berkley are honorary non-Anglos.

>>12210258
>>12210285
>>12212247
>>12213771
"Deleuze and Guattari have developed their notion of ‘Schizoanalysis’ in this book. This approach articulated a new mode of postmodern self organized around concepts of plural and multiple identities and decentred or displaced consciousness. They start from the basis that desire is itself revolutionary and radically subversive. Hence, society has needed to repress and control desire, to ‘territorialize’ it within demarcated areas and delimited structures: ‘To code desire is the business of the socius’ (Anti-Oedipus, p. 139). In this view, the socius or the communal structure within which we live is a repressive system or regime: it organizes social harmony not through enabling collective action to result from rational debate, but by preventing individual and collective desires from being allowed their full potential"

SOURCE: http://abiday.blogspot.com/2014/01/summary-anti-oedipus-capitalism-and_11.html?m=1

Summary: Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia By Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari writen by: Aiman Aslam

this is Deleuse's critique of post-modernism and neo-liberalism

>>12221128
*He and Berkeley

>>12221268
What would Deleuze make of the Woke Capital phenomenon? LGBT ideology encourages people to fully identify with their desires. Where first liberalism claimed the fulfillment of desire as a right, the new story is that you ARE your desires. The denial of someones desire becomes a denial of the person as a whole. The perfect consumer.

>>12221725
Deleuze analyses woke capital in the first 25 pages of Anti-Oedipus. Diversification of wants (Capitalism as growth of abstract value).

That's why Gold Man's Sack flies the Transflag.

>>12221732
of course that could be Guattari too, it was a co-written book so i dont know. maybe its d&g

>>12221732
Thank you!

>>12221740
I was really taken back how lucid the analysis was. Honestly recommend reading it.

>>12221725
Deleuze was against identity (and identifying) of any kind in favor of becoming.

From Letter to a Harsh Critic:

> The question's nothing to do with the character of this or that exclusive group, it's to do with the transversal relations that ensure that any effects produced in some particular way (through homosexuality, drugs, and so on) can always be produced by other means. We have to counter people who think "I'm this, I'm that," and who do so, moreover, in psychoanalytic terms (relating everything to their childhood or fate), by thinking in strange, fluid, unusual terms: I don't know what I am--I'd have to investigate and experiment with so many things in a non-narcissistic, non-oedipal way—no gay can ever definitively say "I'm gay." It's not a question of being this or that sort of human, but of becoming inhuman, of a universal animal becoming—not seeing yourself as some dumb animal, but unraveling your body's human organization, exploring this or that zone of bodily intensity, with everyone discovering their own particular zones, and the groups, populations, species that inhabit them.

Keep in mind that Deleuze was heavily influenced by Nietzsche and for Nietzsche there is no metaphysical "you", it's always a composite, a struggle and a becoming. Deleuze would say that it's a matter of connections being more than their terms: these are "your" desires, what "you" do with them is already something new and something changing "you" at each moment. Even to advocate for some fluidity like it's an imperative is a new connection and one which must be differentiated from other connections which are more complex (and more liberating as a result).

>>12221763
This is patently obvious in the first pages of AO too.

AND ANOTHER LAND THREAD GOT DELETED

WHY THE FUCK DO MODS DO THAT SHIT

What happened to the Cosmotechnics/Acceleration general?

>>12221770
And you, who are you?

>>12221770
Landfags are creepy memers with little to contribute in terms of actually discussing nonessentialism

An old prof of mine at Harvard thought Whitehead went off his rocker when he stopped doing math and started doing metaphysics. There's an odd turn towards realism in continental phil under the various names of object-oriented philosophy, speculative realism, critical realism, etc., and I believe Whitehead is beloved by philosophers in this niche.

On the analytic side, what most resembles process philosophy is "perdurantism" in the philosophy of time, which just emphasizes objects as occupants of four-dimensional spacetime. Not anything close to as totalizing as Whitehead's process metaphysics, though.

>>12221860
Girardfag (Thiel) is traveling so he isn't making them.

And mods have deleted like 2 Nick Land threads in the past day.

>>12221908
You could delete 90% of lit threads based on that, or move them to /pol/ or /his/

>tfw sophomore-enticing deleuzian poststructuralism will forever outshadow the based process theology

Has Nick Land read Whitehead

>>12221763
Where to start with Deleuze? This looks interesting and I've had similar thoughts about identity.

>>12222234
I had never read him before and I started with AO. Only thing I knew of him was what Land had referred to. Very fun read.

That stuff about identity in the post you quoted is in the first chapters of AO by the way.

>>12222242
>Only thing I knew of him was what Land had referred to. Very fun read.
this is why deleuze is cringe and ANW is based

>>12222264
Well sorry for not going through some elitist gatekeeping course to the good stuff.... im only a stupid fucking retard dropout high school 30 year old idiot who wants to die

>>12222234
The best way to start with Deleuze is with his second book called Nietzsche & Philosophy. If you want to go chronologically, his first book on Hume is okay as well, but the Nietzsche one was his turning point. You could read Letter to a Harsh Critic beforehand as an intro as well. Here's the pasta:

A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

His essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts. As for the books, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro to the English translation by Michael Hardt even if you don't read the book in English). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/


A decent bibliography:
https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

>>12222281
Hey I have De Landa's history book.

IS that OK

>>12222281
> webdeleuze dot com

yikes

Big D on Whitehead
>"he stands provisionally as the last great Anglo-American philosopher beforeWittgenstein's disciples spread their misty confusion, sufficiency, and terror."
lmao why did D hate Witty?

>>12222286
DeLanda is quite good for explaining Deleuze's relation to science and maths as well as some stuff on language, but he is rather unconventional as a Deleuzian in that he does his own thing, he's not merely explaining Deleuze. In fact some stuff that's crucial in Deleuze himself is glanced over in DeLanda afaik, such as the connection between pluralism and evaluation/interpretation.

>tfw all Whitehead, Spinoza and Bergson threads devolve into Deleuzeposting

>>12222293
>tfw

>>12222313
Hating rationalism is popular among commies, for no surprising reasons

>>12222357
>amoung commies
neetchan hated rationalism as well

>>12222369
Neetzchan had rational reason for hating rationalism.

Commies just cope because they can't math.

Do you follow any philosophy blogs or mags?

>>12221927
>An old prof of mine at Harvard
le dropped

professional professionals can't into real philosophy/metaphysics.

>>12222411
>professional professionals can't into real philosophy/metaphysics.

t. Nassim Arab Taleb

are whitehead and delsuze materialists? I am confused

>>12222641
transcendental empiricists

>>12222816
what does that mean

>>12222840
simple location and material simply does not exist; that which is grasped into reality as here and now is not the actual entity, but rather, a perspective of said entity over there from a unifying standpoint 'here' as it exists as a separate location

>>12222885
autism

>>12208878
Inductionism is false. Whitehead, alone amongst thinkers, has finally shown us why we can believe in induction, memory, and--most notably--other minds. The process, reality itself, is one seamless substance, an indivisible net of enjoyments. So we cannot help but know other minds, for we must build our unique souls out of the identical stuff. 'I' is you and you is 'we'.

Deleuze is a “Kantian”, albeit a non phenomenologist one. Another reason to disregard the frenchman and read Whitehead instead

>>12222924
>Deleuze is a “Kantian”

In what way? Most of the time he criticizes Kant whenever he talks about him.

>>12211989
this

>>12222924
>Deleuze is a Kantian

>>12222967
Deleuze philosophy is autonomous legislation, the creation of the superior forms of what is; it is not speculative comprehension

>>12222991
what

>>12222967
Deleuze is, pace Brassier, a correlationist.

>>12222641
Matter is a process for them, like a set of relations forever changing. They can be called materialists, but you have to mention some things to distinguish them from previous materialists. For example Deleuze was a pluralist so rather than having one unified substance or matter, in his system you have a plurality of relations constantly differentiating from themselves and from one another in a perpetual becoming.

Process philosophy is CHIM

>>12222911
You mean I am he as you are me as you are he and we are all together?

>>12222991
>Deleuze philosophy is autonomous legislation, the creation of the superior forms of what is; it is not speculative comprehension

Fair, but is that enough to make him a Kantian? For Kant the form of the law was pretty much constant even if the contents had to be determined. It's not really a categorical imperative if you can come up with your own rules for it to the point of making its universality worthless.

>it is not speculative comprehension
Maybe, but there are some elements both of comprehension and of speculation there, you make it sound like he denies all knowledge and all realism.

>>12222998
Could you elaborate a bit? I haven't read much Brassier, but intuitively Deleuze is closer to some kind of metaphysical realism than to correlationism (in which most of the philosophical tradition fits).

chad whitehead vs virgin deleuze

>>12222924
Also, what makes Whitehead's approach better than Deleuze's? I haven't read Whitehead yet, but Deleuze seemed to like him.

>>12222998
>Brassier received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of North London in 1995
>Nick Land received his Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Essex
what is with these speculative realists studying/working at very crappy universities?

deleuze has a cooler name than fucking whitehead

>>12223067
Whitehead merely credits Kant with originating philosophical constructivism. As a constructivist, Whitehead is very much a post-Kantian thinker rather than the pre-Kantian throwback that he is sometimes taken to be. Whitehead is basically what people 'think' Deleuze is.

>>12223074
low iq?

>>12223092
SO WHAT IS WHTEHEAD???? WHAT DOE HE SAY?!?!?!

>>12223074
Can you imagine a 'theorist' like Land successfully defending his thesis at Oxford

>>12223108
He'd just quote Moldbug's Cathedral and Puritan Communist taxaonomy at any libturd objection.

>>12223106

>>12223092
Interesting take, but it's not clear to me how you reached this conclusion. What makes one pre-Kantian and the other post-Kantian specifically?

>>12223115
> everything is philosophy process

yeah nah nuh i dont buy '1 thing explains it all' stuff

>>12223115
Honestly I blame Deleuze for starting this fashion of making charts about everything. Most of the time the charts, sketches and tables just made things more confusing.

>>12223143
Actually now that I think about it many at the time were doing it, especially Lacan.

>>12223160
> psycho babble scribble scrabble

we've achieved new level of say-nuffin here

>>12223124
deleuze's misplaced (abstract) concreteness mainly

>>12223074
Whitehead studies Mathematics at cambridge, he was a genius

>>12223292
That's still a bit vague. Do you think he's too blunt with his "there are no metaphors" thing, connecting assemblages to materiality too quickly or something along those lines?

>>12223292
>>12223496

Or, an even more important and precise question, how does Whitehead manage to be post-Kantian while still doing metaphysics? What did he get right that Deleuze didn't in this regard?

>>12223520
not him but whitehead was more intelligent

According to Whitehead (or Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Heidegger) the metaphysical reality is not primarily of being, but of becoming. Whitehead's position is Neutral Monism (like Chalmers), where the building blocks of reality are neither physical nor mental. He calls them Actual Entities, which are not enduring substances but processes of becoming, or "drops of experience" (not necessarily conscious).

>>12223143
ever heard of structuralism u friggin ignoramus?

>>12222315
Deleuze books are really good on toast with some eggs and mushrooms.

itt: dogmatic image of thought

>>12223641
would an actual entity be something like an electron bumping into another electron?

>>12223535
How many points of IQ are we talking about?

>>12223644
Fair enough. I wonder if any French thinker of that period actually made good use of drawings though, most of them (structuralist or poststructuralist) were easier to understand without their sketches.

>>12223782
170 IQ

>>12223690
no

>>12223843
ok give examples

>>12223849
It's hard to describe. What sort of entities are nexus? What is their ontological status? The text of Process and Reality suggests different answers. It is however difficult to see why prehensions, nexus, propositions, multiplicities and contrasts should be described as "categories of existence." They are surely rather modes in which actual entities and eternal objects can be together.

Did you know my girlfriend is taking a class in intro to women's studies and they had her read an article written about those obfuscative hacks like Rosi Braidotti and Giles Deleuze without even mentioning Whitehead whom they built upon and stemmed from what the flying fuck is this

>>12223074
real shit starts at the periphery, not in institutions everyone wants to be in - oxbridge/ivy - which is where the milquetoast cocksuckers nest

>>12223899
nah

>>12223641
sounds confused as fuck

>>12223910
Let's look at a couple more important contemporary philsophers:

Adrian Johnston - University of New Mexico
Graham Harman - American University in Cairo
Karen Barad - University of California
Catherine Malabou - Kingston University

>>12223964
neverheard

what do they have to say

>>12223964
graham harman is wack and would be kicked out of oxbridge or the ivy league

>>12224158
dint know him but that counts as. good thing

>>12223520
Whitehead did it better.

he is based

where do i start with him?

>>12211280
process philosophy is longwinded taoism

>>12224746
You will need a thorough grounding in Set Theory and Mathematical Logic (as practiced 100 years ago!). Don't bother (unless you have to do a PhD on it); Process and Reality is a flawed book. Important as it was in the development of Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, there are far better, and much more recent books on logic than P&R.

Having said that, a degree in Mathematics will help you considerably.

>>12226065

Aren't you mistaking PR for Principia Mathematica?

I agree with the mathematical part, but you need Sheaf and Category Theory. Which hadn't been invented in Whitehead days, that's why he couldn't formalize his metaphysics.

>>12222885 >>12208878
I'm not seeing much info here that would suggest anything more than a return to basic ethical questions, how to live the good life, a qualification of some pluralistic truth that is more in working with a competitive structure that seeks a villain in ideology to identity the sacred. I think you locate the hegemony of instantaneous reality in the sufferings of philosophers whose grasp of it is itself both a question of epistemology and one of identity. Math may alleviate this condition, but it seriously seems to have not brought mathmaticians closer to the present, but rather more to the point well rounded. More and more I am in agreement with everyone here about my ignorance and my servitude to the ignorant.
---
Sounds like our projections are delayed. Still doesn't disqualify those projections. If maths have always produced accurate examples of how we can interact in the world and yet show themselves to be not completely compatible, we accept their refinement on the basis that these are the tools we have to work with and if not for them, we would have no agency, no control, no grasp on the moment, the pertinent reality. So why do we not see consciousness as the same, other than that we are deep down afraid of refining consciousness, removing the filters, becoming conscious of the projection and yet able to refine it however to a degree in which some aspects of reality can be contemplated as they are and not as humanity simplifies them. It seems pretty apparent that all is flux is an oversimplification that is easy to move along to the next brain, but where does this information come to a halt and how, how how how how how howling to the moon how?

Top tier: I and the father are one.

High tier: I am contained by the father.

Mid tier: I am I and father is father.

Low tier: I am and father is not.

Shit tier: Father is but I am not.

Was Whitehead secretly an antisemetic antifeminist capitalist nazi? Click here to read more

>>12226629
Click

Bump

>>12226629
click

>>12208878
Apparently not, because he had to be corrected.

>>12227852
more like censored

redpill me on whitehead

whitepill me on redhead

>>12228674
I havent actually read him yet but his memeing on here made me want to read his wiki page and look up some videos
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NUebEP-gDJU

>>12223964
Ludwig Wittgenstein - Cambridge
Marurice Merleau-Ponty - ENS
J L Austin - Oxford

>>12223115
So I have to read Clemens, Origenes, maybe Plato, maybe the stoics, Hegel, Bradley, and Wordsworth in order to understand Whitehead.. Am I right? :)

>>12226629
He was a white male, so yes, yes he was a Nazi. At the very least he benefitted greatly from white privilige, the exploitation of the 3rd world, of blacks, muslims, and other indigenous peoples, and the theft and appropriation of non-white culture and technology. At the very least him and the rest of the Anglo fuck alive at that time (and today) should have all their "property" (really just shit that they stole or otherwise gained unfairly) confiscated and redistributed to Africans, Muslims, and minorities living in the west. Ideally they would be forced to work for the rest of their lives to pay of the debts they owe to the non-white races for oppressing them for centuries and stealing their land and culture and destroying their way of life. No white man is "innocent". Sure their are probably some, maybe even a decent number, who parade themselves as being "woke" or whatever, and they might not outwardly express or acknowledge their racism views and feelings, but at the end of the day, all white are guilty of participating in and perpetuating the Western facist system that serves to prop up lazy, uncultured white "people" at the expense of the rest of the world.

>>12229402
wittgenstein managed to convince the cambridge admissions board that his complete nonsense was genius and beyond them

>>12229520
t. butthurt logical positivist who's sad because Wittgenstein wont be his bf

>>12229445
white person here, can confirm. only wanted to add what this anon left out, which is that the path of repentance is found only with Oral-B Essential Floss

>>12220356
>>12220487
>>12220378
He was literally never an analytic philosopher. He was a mathematician who worked in algebra and logic and eventually became a philosopher, but decided to go in a different direction from the analytics. Also there's nothing wrong or "autistic" about analytic philosophy.

Bump

Bump

>>12208878
Imagine thinking that Truth is pseud-psychobabble. Just do whatever mannnnn, lmao. It'll come out in the wash and emerge.

>>12230420
>Also there's nothing wrong or "autistic" about analytic philosophy
Let's say I have cock up my ass. I know it's some BBC wrecking my tight anus, but I happened to take a white guy home who had some super rare genetic disease and I don't know about it. Is true justified believes dripping out of my anus? Totally not autism

>>12234607

Not really. It’s like having one of the hottest chicks in the world as your wife. Super smart and gives you three children and maintains her fit body throughout. That’s extremely rare. But it doesnt many you wouldnt get off on fucking your wrinkly piggy secretary because some perverted corner of your mind tells you’re lording it over her loser secretary husband. This is the andrea-lewis effect. It leads to divorce and the piggy and male secretary husband being publicly humiliated by the superior power couple.