/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12663701]

drop wittgenstein, drop heidegger, read whitehead

[Anonymous No.12663730]

>>12663701
His head really is white haha

[Anonymous No.12663733]

>>12663730
haha

[Anonymous No.12663735]

>>12663701
No thanks. He was debunked by pic related

[Anonymous No.12663755]

>>12663735
in what way?

[Anonymous No.12663762]

did that 4 years ago, heh. also read heraclitus instead dilettantes

[Anonymous No.12663889]

based

[Anonymous No.12664002]

>>12663701
more like baldhead, am i right lads?

[Anonymous No.12664005]

>>12663755
Change necessitates non-being.
There is no non-being.
There is no change.
QED

[Anonymous No.12664012]

>>12663701
keep wittgenstein keep heidegger read whitehead also

[Anonymous No.12664014]

>>12664005
wow

[Anonymous No.12664020]

>professor pimple

[Anonymous No.12664045]

>>12664005
That is such a stupid philosophical proof I don’t even know where to begin. Why does no one take themselves seriously on here? I haven’t heard a genuinely thought provoking idea or anything for a little while now.

[Anonymous No.12664067]

>>12664045
I'm just shooting the shit you fucking dork. Everyone should already be familiar with Parmenides' proof for the non-being of change. Evidently you are not becuase you are a faggot.

[Anonymous No.12664085]

>>12664067
the problem is you haven't actually read whitehead, so you don't even know what it is you think you're 'refuting'
really, you're just bleeting into the darkness
mary's gone home, man

[Anonymous No.12664119]

>>12664085
*I'm* not refuting anyone. Parmenides, however, is. If you had read either of the thinkers in any serious capacity, you would understand how one's project negates the other. Evidently, you have read neither. Get absolutely yeeted on my man.

[Anonymous No.12664144]

>>12664119
from process and reality:
>The best rendering of integral experience, expressing in general form divested of irrelevant details, is often to be found in the utterances of religious aspiration. One of the reasons of the thinness of so much modern metaphysics is its neglect of this wealth of expression of ultimate feeling. Accordingly we find in the first two lines of a famous hymn a full expression of the union of the two notions in one integral experience:
>Abide with me;
>Fast falls the eventide.
Here the first line expresses the permanences, 'abide,' 'me' and the 'Being' addressed; and the second line sets these permanences amid the inescapable flux. Here at length we find the complete problem of metaphysics. The philosophers who start with the first line have given us the metaphysics of 'substance'; and those who start with the second line have developed the metaphysics of 'flux.' But, in truth, the two lines cannot be torn apart in this way; and we find that a wavering balance between the two is a characteristic of the greater number of philosophers.

[Anonymous No.12664149]

>>12664119
there is no ego to protect on here, friend. you would have an easier go of it if you learned to accept that.

[Anonymous No.12664161]

>>12664020
lmfao

[Anonymous No.12664227]

>>12664144
>It is fundamental to the metaphysical doctrine of the philosophy of
organism, that the notion of an actual entity as the unchanging subject
of change is completely abandoned. An actual entity is at once the subject
experiencing and the superject of its experiences. It is subject-superject,
and neither half of this description can for a moment be lost sight of.
The term 'subject' will be mostly employed when the actual entity is
considered in respect to its own real internal constitution. But 'subject'
is always to be construed as an abbreviation of 'subject-super ject.'
>>12664149
There is a time time for ego, and a time to forego it. Be aware of this.

[Anonymous No.12664265]

>>12664227
what you intend with that quotation is obscure to me

[Anonymous No.12664311]

>>12664265
If the relvence of the quote in the light of Parmenides' empty ontology (and its negation of Whitehead's) does not gleam forth from it, then perhaps you should re-read On Nature. A hint, however: thought is

[Anonymous No.12664350]

>>12664311
thought does not precede the thinking. the superject is the actualization of the subjective aim, its enjoyment of its own satisfaction. that *is* becoming.

[Anonymous No.12664379]

>>12664045
t. brainlet who can't do anything without polemics
Fuck, Jesus fucking Christ how can you be this dense, never ever post in a philosophical thread ever again. I bet you spent 300+ dollars on your chair you retarded gay nigger

[Anonymous No.12664385]

>>12663701
but most importantly
DROP THE BASS

[Anonymous No.12664391]

>>12663735
Ahem, sorry sweetie. Aristotle already refuted that hack.

[Anonymous No.12664421]

>>12664350
Thought IS thinking, however. There is no 'ing; no present, there is no actualization (emphasis on 'tion). Rather it is "actualize" itself i.e. atemporal. Colloquially; it is what it is.

[Anonymous No.12664498]

>>12664379
This t b h. "Whiteheadians" (cringe) take themselves way too seriously. Philosophy is supposed to be fun guys. "Woah man dialectical monism *hits blunt* being = becoming woah there's no way a bunch of Greek homos and Indian poos came up with this idea 2500 years before us."

[Anonymous No.12664519]

>>12664144
Fuck Whitehead had gorgeous thought.

"The four symbolic figures in the Medici chapel in Florence -- Michelangelo’s masterpieces of statuary, Day and Night, Evening and Dawn -- exhibit the everlasting elements in the passage of fact. The figures stay there, reclining in their recurring sequence, forever showing the essences in the nature of things. The perfect realization is not merely the exemplification of what in abstraction is timeless. It does more: it implants timelessness on what in its essence is passing. The perfect moment is fadeless in the lapse of time. Time has then lost its character of ‘perpetual perishing’; it becomes the ‘moving image of eternity’."

[Anonymous No.12664569]

>>12664498
There's not a single person on /lit/ who understands Whitehead well enough to call themselves a "Whiteheadian"

[Anonymous No.12664578]

>>12664421
oy.
you're just diddling the semantics, not actually grappling with the concepts.

[Anonymous No.12664580]

>>12664569
Hence ""Whiteheadian""

[Anonymous No.12664608]

>>12664578
Im not though. It's Parmenides conceptualization of thought (and its convergence with temporality) where the real negation of Whitehead occurs. He makes Whitehead appear "common sense" in comparison. There's a reason why I linked that quote.

[Anonymous No.12665023]

based

[Anonymous No.12665119]

>>12664608
i know where your coming from, but whitehead not only anticipates, but seriously contends with the problem of change. it's not just a settled fact. zeno poses a genuine challenge, and he takes him on. i think he succeeds.
you cannot simply dismiss an element of actual experience with a sophisticated argument around the meanings of certain concepts. however, the conceptual or schematic inconsistency revealed by the counter-intuitive remains in spite of its obvious failure when held to account in our experience. so, we must root out inconsistency.
this is what the chapter on the extensive continuum is about--proving the logical possibility of actual transition without reference to 'points'--or, in a different phraseology, between 'here' and 'nowhere'.

[Anonymous No.12665399]

>>12663735
This. Sorry lads. Plato has a good go at it, but Philosophy never really recovered from Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.12665545]

>>12665399
say more.

[Anonymous No.12665940]

>>12664519
I like pictures such as the one you posted and this one. Does anyone know how I can find more of them? Maybe a blog? Good pictures of girls wearing things like dresses out in nature are hard to find.

[Anonymous No.12665958]

Process newfag here

Did whitehead shave his head to fill the prophecy foretold in his name, or did they call him whitehead *because* he was bald?

[Anonymous No.12666408]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12666433]

>>12663701
since blackface is controversial I think Whitehead too should be banned

we are all equal

[Anonymous No.12667064]

>>12664005
>There is no non-being.

[Anonymous No.12667920]

bump

[Anonymous No.12667933]

>>12663730
haha

[Anonymous No.12668035]

[Anonymous No.12668041]

>>12663701
>drop whitehead
do blackface

[Anonymous No.12668552]

>>12663701
Which of his works should I read?

>>12665958
And someone answer this

[Anonymous No.12668616]

>>12663730
he's bald haha

[Anonymous No.12668708]

>>12663730
yeah xD

[Anonymous No.12668724]

byron vindicated

[Anonymous No.12668736]

[Anonymous No.12668841]

>>12664144
>You need to eat more vegetables
>If you want to live a long life

what depth of nuance
in the weight watchers guide book
I have found today

[Anonymous No.12668934]

>>12668841
i don't really understand the mockery and hostiliy, where it's coming from

[Anonymous No.12669079]

>>12663701

What are some prerequisites to read before him? Or secondary literature or other books by Whitehead that get me on the path of understanding?

[Anonymous No.12669691]

>>12669079
start with science and the modern world. you'll get a feel for his style while being introduced to some of his unique terminology and his more developed metaphysical thinking. if you're still interested after finishing, you can think about starting process and reality, a much more demanding work.
as far prereqs, i don't know what would be especially helpful beyond the standard history of philosophy fare. hume, locke, and descartes are recurring touchstones, as is plato. spinoza and leibniz come up less frequently, even though whitehead's system shares features of both.

[Anonymous No.12670432]

>>12669691

Thank you, any secondary lit worth reading?

[Anonymous No.12670447]

Quine is God. Note the capital 'G'.

[Anonymous No.12670535]

>>12670432
isabelle stengers' thinking with whitehead is fantastic, covers everything.
most everything else is just bits and bobs

[Anonymous No.12671053]

>>12663730
haha