Post philosophers you almost agree with

[Anonymous No.19113702]

pic related. I feel that if you cut away the panentheism and other weird doctrines process metaphysics is actually pretty compatible with more classical Neoplatonism.

[Anonymous No.19113717]

>>19113702
There is no panentheism (or pantheism) and it's not compatible with Neoplatonism.

[Anonymous No.19113741]

>>19113717
Whitehead absolute is panentheistic, but I'd be interested to hear why you disagree. Also, given that they share a common source in Plato it seems a little pessimistic to think that no amount of adjustment could allow us to salvage anything from process philosophy and apply it to Neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.19113805]

>>19113741
Panentheism means God includes and interpenetrates the universe and is greater than it. For Whitehead creativity is what is ultimate. Actual entities and their societies have their own teleology. So he is not a pantheist or a panentheist.
Whitehead converts Plato from idealism to empiricism.

[Anonymous No.19113836]

>>19113702
I think Baudrillard is right about him in the Mirror of Production, but otherwise he got literally not one thing wrong. I guess if Heinrich's reading of him is correct then he's even impervious to the Baudrillard thing.

[Anonymous No.19113865]

>>19113836
He's not Baudretard has an awful reading of Marx

[Anonymous No.19113916]

>>19113805
doesn't Whitehead conceive of creativity as beyond God though?

[Anonymous No.19113937]

>>19113836
>but otherwise he got literally not one thing wrong

You've really not read any critiques of Marx, have you?

[Anonymous No.19113940]

>>19113916
also, from what little I know of him he came across as quite the idealist to me.I know he references science a lit but he didnt seem like an empiricist when i read him

[Anonymous No.19113952]

>>19113702
Too architectonic. Felt like Kant all over again

[Anonymous No.19113956]

>>19113916
That's what I said

[Anonymous No.19113958]

>>19113937
They are all bad.

[Anonymous No.19113965]

>>19113952
Kant mistakes the self-evident reality of consciousness for a self-grounding substance. The circularity of "I think, therefore I am" does not necessarily imply the mind is self-generated, independent of its ground.

This is where Whitehead comes in and tries to do justice to "man as part of nature", man as an integral part of a mind-independent reality. He's like a Kantian who is also an anti-Kantian. He believes there is no universe that is not perceived just like Kant (subjects are spatializations/temporalizations of a field or domain that pre-exists them, not spotlights in a noumenal darkness), but unlike Kant, he doesn't believe that the structure of the mind is enough to prove that, somehow, the mind also generates itself. As he puts it, the transcendental facts of cognition are not enough to "authorize" cognition as the author of nature.

The mind is emergent within a larger totality: nature. More to the point, it's an extremely complex output of that field, but again, just one output out of many, human consciousness doesn't have ontological priority over the "prehensive centers" of simpler organisms.

[Anonymous No.19114011]

>>19113965
yeah I liked Whitehead in terms of what he was getting at but an absolute chore to read compared to others who think in a similar vein like Spinoza or Bergson or William James

[Anonymous No.19114027]

Alfred North Whitehead had an extremely disagreeable physiognomy

[Anonymous No.19114043]

Alfred North Whitehead had an extremely comfy physiognomy

[Anonymous No.19114049]

>>19113956
Ah my apologies I misread you post

[Anonymous No.19114054]

>>19114027
>>19114043
Both of these are true, it just depends on which photo of him you're looking at

[Anonymous No.19114703]

>>19113836
he's not

[Anonymous No.19114864]

>>19113702
Can't agree with this dude ever since he got retroactively refuted