[ 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: 140 KB, 1170x954, mpcgt4j84xa81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21856909 No.21856909 [Reply] [Original]

>It is not accurate to say that Parmenides retroactively refuted Alfred North Whitehead's claims in his book "Process and Reality." Parmenides was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in the 5th century BCE, and his philosophy focused on the nature of reality and being. He famously argued that change is an illusion, and that only what exists in the present moment is real. Alfred North Whitehead, on the other hand, was a 20th-century philosopher who developed the process philosophy, which emphasized the importance of change and becoming in the nature of reality. In his book "Process and Reality," Whitehead developed a metaphysical system that emphasized the importance of process and becoming in the nature of reality. While Whitehead's philosophy may be seen as in opposition to Parmenides' philosophy, it is not accurate to say that Parmenides retroactively refuted Whitehead's claims. Parmenides lived over two thousand years before Whitehead, and his philosophy focused on different questions and issues than those addressed in "Process and Reality." Furthermore, philosophical ideas do not necessarily refute or invalidate one another in a straightforward way. Philosophers often build on and respond to the ideas of their predecessors, but their ideas are not necessarily meant to be refutations or rejections of those earlier ideas. In summary, while Parmenides' philosophy may seem to be in opposition to Whitehead's process philosophy, it is not accurate to say that Parmenides retroactively refuted Whitehead's claims in "Process and Reality." Philosophical ideas are complex and nuanced, and they often build on and respond to the ideas of earlier philosophers in more complex ways than straightforward refutation.
Guénonbros, the AI GOD has talked, what shall we do now?

>> No.21856917

>AI doesn't notice the semantic error, just responds with generalities
lmao

>> No.21857620

>>21856909
so the reason i get posters seething whenever I talk about whitehead is because they are fucking guenon fags? i fucking hate guenonfags so much.

>> No.21857638

Maybe ask it the same thing without saying retroactively like a retard.

>> No.21857739

The AI said nothing of importance.
It's also impossible to understand Parmenides' or any Pre-Socratic's philosophy because we have so little of it. Could you accurately reconstruct Hegel from 20 one liners of his?

>> No.21857793

>>21856909
Ask it to define retroactive refutation, and to give an example of a retroactive refutation.

>> No.21857869

>>21857793
Retroactive refutation is a concept in philosophy that refers to a situation in which a later argument or evidence undermines a previously accepted theory or argument. In other words, retroactive refutation occurs when new information causes us to reevaluate and reject something that was previously accepted as true. An example of retroactive refutation can be seen in the case of Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system. Prior to Galileo, the prevailing theory was that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all other celestial bodies revolved around it. However, Galileo's telescopic observations provided evidence for a heliocentric model, in which the planets orbit the sun rather than the Earth. Galileo's evidence was initially met with resistance from many in the scientific community, as it contradicted the prevailing theory of the time. However, over time, the evidence in favor of the heliocentric model became more and more compelling, and eventually the idea of a geocentric universe was retroactively refuted. In this case, the new evidence provided by Galileo retroactively refuted the previously accepted theory of a geocentric universe, leading to a major shift in scientific thinking and understanding.

>> No.21857874

>>21857869
>Retroactive moving of a red ball is a concept in philosophy that refers to a situation in which a later movement of a red ball causes a ball that was previously in one place to be in another place. In other words, retroactive moving of a red ball occurs when a new movement causes us to see that the ball is in a new place.
THAT'S JUST CALLED "MOVING IT"

>> No.21857876

>>21857638
wdym?

>> No.21857907

>>21857876
Parmenides cannot retroactively refute Whitehead because he was born thousands of years before.
Retroactively is not the word you are looking for.

>> No.21857913

>>21857876
guenonfag meant preemptively but said retroactively

to retroactively refute something makes no sense because the sense of retroactivity is already contained in the sense of refutation

>> No.21858583

>>21857907
newfag

>> No.21858608

>>21856909
It just summarised (to a high school level) the two philosophers and then said they lived far apart and don't necessarily contradict each other. Very weedy analysis.

>> No.21859302

>>21857869
>Retroactive refutation is a concept in philosophy
I'd be curious to know if ChatGPT could give a source for the retroactive refutation, since it's a "concept from philosophy". Shall we take bets on whether or not it provides Parmenides as the source?

>> No.21859460

>>21856909
If AI stays this stupid, then we're all safe.