[ 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: 10 KB, 182x277, processandreality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20883029 No.20883029 [Reply] [Original]

Does it even matter if he is right, how can we actually use this philosophy of organism?

People who claim that it changed their entire world-view, why did this book become important for you?

>> No.20883344

bumping. I only ran across Whiteread recently so I haven't read this but am also interested in these questions.

>> No.20883650

>>20883029
sorry bruh, I got severely filtered by this book.

>> No.20883805

Yeah I'm thinking no one actually read this one.

>> No.20883854

>>20883029
Seems like another philosopher who is all into Becoming. Guenon is all into Being. Plato, again, is the chaddest philosopher who does the best out of all of them to relate Being and Becoming. However, Plato isn't "complete." His inability to overcome Democritus's atomism limits his philosophy.

>> No.20883866

>>20883029
look up footnotes2plato, it's a blog and youtube channel by philosopher Matthew Segal, who wrote his dissertation on Whitehead (and Schelling). He did lots of articles and videos on Whitehead and process philosophy.

>> No.20883877

>>20883866
Every single time I've seen somebody try to synthesize Peirce and Whitehead together, they realize that everything meaningful that Whitehead ever said could be subsumed into Peirce's architectonic categorical system. Just saying. Look it up.

>> No.20884272

>>20883877
And it turns out that Peirce was perhaps the best interpreter of Plato:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/310571
>firstness, secondness, and thirdness galore

>> No.20884899

>>20884272
>>20883877

>> No.20884962

>>20883854
retard

>> No.20884975

>>20884962
seems to be a popular idea among those in the know
https://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2010/05/12/between-whitehead-peirce/

>> No.20885623

bump

>> No.20886189

>>20883854
Compare Whitehead's Process theology with Plato's Timaeus.

>>20883029
Whitehead is fun. Lots of his followers in process theology deviate from him though. I'm thinking particularly of Hartshorne, so I'd advise avoiding him. There's also a tendency to mistake 'creativity' for 'Brahman' when really it is more like shakti.

Read the last page of Process and Reality if you want to get the appeal.

>> No.20886239

>>20886189
>Compare Whitehead's Process theology with Plato's Timaeus.
What in particular did you have in mind?

>> No.20886484

>>20883344
Seconding this

>> No.20887797

>>20883854
Do you really know what you're talking about?

>> No.20887812

>>20887797
Yes I do.

>> No.20888346

>>20883029
Can someone post the bloomer chart for philosophy which features Alfred North Whitehead?

>> No.20889146

bump

>> No.20889270
File: 563 KB, 2582x1412, 1549584186083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20889270

>>20888346

>> No.20889380
File: 15 KB, 321x474, 41AVPNF59QL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20889380

>>20889270
Missing?

>> No.20890351

>>20886189
What should I read if I want to understand Whitehead? Is he the kind of philosopher that one needs to be familiarized with the classics of philosophy?

>> No.20890911

>>20883029
He was retroactively refuted by Guenon

>> No.20891800

>>20883029
Good contemporary philosophers on Whitehead?

>> No.20892419

>>20890911
>Guenon
Literally who?

>> No.20892685

Whitehead’s threads are always bad because, while there is apparently interest in him, nobody has actually read him, therefore anons can’t get introduced the 4chan’s way.

>> No.20892698

>>20889270
Ty bb

>> No.20892702

>>20892685
>Whitehead is bad because...
><Provides no evidence in his work>
>Zero effort post

>> No.20892761

>>20892702
Read the post again, take your time.

>> No.20893013

>>20892702
He didn’t say whitehead was bad he said /lit/ doesn’t actually discuss his work