whitehead

[Anonymous No.21218451]

Maybe you guys don't realize this yet, but Whitehead is the philosopher of the 22nd century. You probably think that he is just a new rehashing of Plato or something. Completely incorrect. Whitehead is a post-Quantum revolution Radical Empiricist Panpsychist, who characterizes reality as an infinite manifold of relating entities.

Materialism right now is basically dead and there's been a philosophical slump because people refuse to let it die. Imagine that Thales was born after the time of Aristotle and Plato yet still held to the hypothesis that the world originated entirely from water and everything is made exclusively of water. You can excuse him for believing that in pre-Aristotle times, but not in post-Aristotle times. Modern Materialists are basically like Thales if Thales had believed in his water theory post-Aristotle. Materialism is a 400 year old theory that has not advanced since Hobbes, Descartes, Newton and Laplace.

What this means is that Materialism is NOT VIABLE in the modern world and the general consensus and the collective psyche of western man is drifting away from materialism and is in many ways already severed from it. This is spurned on by the creation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Quantum revolution. A NEW PSYCHE IS BEING IMPLANTED IN THE POST-QUANTUM WEST and eventually they will have to turn to a philosopher to embody this new psyche, one who has transcended materialism and exemplified entirely the modern man's soul. This philosopher will without a doubt be Whitehead. Whitehead's version of Panpsychism, where Actual Entities entire nature is to Prehend, and everything in the universe and anything that can act as a cause is an actual entity, and the "Prehensions" are actually pure experiences or moments of consciousness (Whitehead constantly says prehensions are "ideas in the Lockean sense" he gets this from William James's essay on "does consciousness exist" where James says that "idea in the Lockean sense" characterizes a monist form of consciousness that he calls pure experience) is the only viable philosophy for modern man. Whitehead will become the Philosopher of our time, as Aristotle was the philosopher of the middle ages (from Aquinas to the Renaissance) and Plato was the philosopher of the Renaissance.

[Anonymous No.21218455]

so true!!!

[Anonymous No.21218465]

>>21218451
>Maybe you guys don't realize this yet, but Whitehead is the philosopher of the 22nd century.

That makes sense, given the highest lifeforms then will be malformed nuke babies with a liquidised sludge of tarmac and former Chinamen for sustenance.

[Anonymous No.21218472]

how does whitehead relate to kant

can i read him right after kant

[Anonymous No.21218474]

>>21218451
>philosopher of the 20th century with typical 20th characteristics is the philosopher of the 22nd century
kek

[Anonymous No.21218489]

>>21218472
Whitehead is a highly anti-Kant philosopher. It is essential to understand the problems that Kant was dealing with and how Kant revolutionized philosophy, but you do not need to have an in depth understanding of Kant to read Whitehead. Whitehead will be a dense read no matter how prepared you are, but you don't need that much preparation and once you get over the initial hump of understanding his categories he isn't that difficult. I would recommend reading Does Consciousness Exist, The Sentiment of Rationality, and The Meaning of Pragmatism by William James before you read Whitehead. He is the biggest influence on Whitehead and they are all short essays that are easy to understand with no major pre-requisites.
>>21218474
We are still behind the developments that occurred in the 20th century including the Quantum revolution. If we weren't behind then half of intelligentsia wouldn't still hold to materialism. The intelligentsia is even behind the common people because most of the plebs have already abandoned materialism.

Your post is kind of stupid, seeing as Plato and the neoplatonists were born a thousand years before the Renaissance, yet their thought characterized the Rennaissance. It also happens to be the case that Whitehead was decades ahead of his time, that is the nature of Genius.

[Anonymous No.21218504]

>>21218451
how does whitehead relate to kant

can i read him right after kant

[Anonymous No.21218521]

>>21218489
There's nothing special about Whitehead; his thought is characteristic of a school of thought that is itself characteristic of the early-mid 20th century. We can observe it in other thinkers like Bergson, Jousse, Peirce, James, Meleau-Ponty, Gendlin, Collingwood, Watts, Rescher, Wilson, Ingold, Connolly, Deleuze and so on.

[Anonymous No.21218539]

>>21218521
yes I'm aware that those other philosophers thought in a similar way, but none come close to Whitehead in depth and expansiveness and none of those provide a way to understand the Quantum revolution. Whitehead explicitly elaborated, expounded upon in depth, and carried to their logical conclusions many extremely important principles that were only germinal and vague in those other philosophers who tend to focus on other ideas that are not as essential to the post-Quantum psyche that is now evolving and becoming general in the modern west.

[Anonymous No.21218557]

>>21218489
>half of intelligentsia wouldn't still hold to materialism
Most of the intelligentsia subscribe to forms of unconscious discourse idealism, which finds its roots in post-structuralism, or empirical realism. Those who take the question seriously haven't found much use in process thinking, and instead have found greener pastures in the form of OSR, transcendental realism and the like.

[Anonymous No.21218591]

>>21218557
>unconscious discourse idealism
>OSR
>Transcendental realism
I have never even heard of any of this. Post-structuralism is too rooted in Marxism and absurd French sociology/anthropology/social criticism etc and isn't amenable to the modern psyche that is now developing. That is all shit in the past just like materialism, that is all already dead and will be replaced by the future culture that is developing.

[Anonymous No.21218618]

>>21218591
>Post-structuralism is too rooted in Marxism
The rootedness of post-structuralism in Marxism is a critical one. It obviously doesn't put forth a materialist ontology like Marxism does

[Anonymous No.21218628]

>>21218618
of course not, but what academia sees in post-structuralism is not amenable to the modern culture. Academia is a parasitic divergence that is retarding the Growth of western society. They are completely out of touch with the organic growth occurring in civilization and they are completely out of touch with the advances that have been made in STEM.

[Anonymous No.21218744]

>>21218451
>You probably think that he is just a new rehashing of Plato or something
Not Plato, but Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.21218775]

>>21218744
there's no universal operative, guiding principle (logos) in Whitehead, all causes are due to the interactions between individual actual entities themselves. The guiding principle of humanity is humanity. Your guiding principle is yourself. The causes forced upon you are your relations to the other things in the world and they are unique to you. Everything is relative. This precludes Whitehead being a Heraclitean because Heraclitus saw the Logos as the universal guiding principle of the universe.

[Anonymous No.21219061]

>>21218539
What did Whitehead contribute to metaphysics that was not already present in the works of other philosophers like Heraclitus, Schelling, Hegel, or Nietzsche?
How does Whitehead deal with non-existent dead-and-alive cats in boxes and collapsing wave functions?
How does Whitehead help us formulate possible answers to questions about local hidden variables and alternate universes?
Why is Whitehead more important than any other philosopher who ever dealt with the concept of change and uncertainty?

[Anonymous No.21219071]

>>21218744
every pseud imagines themselves like that pic when they read philosophy lmao

[Anonymous No.21219093]

>>21219061
why are trying so hard to dismiss whitehead when it's obvious you have never read him?
>Heraclitus
see>>21218775
>Nietzsche
Not a metaphysician
>Hegel, Schelling
Whitehead is not a Hegelian and did not espouse any form of Absolute Idealism, Hegel did not anticipate the ideas of Process and Reality in any way. Hegel was primarily concerned with self-reflection of Spirit, totally different area than Whitehead.
>How does Whitehead deal with non-existent dead-and-alive cats in boxes and collapsing wave functions?
>How does Whitehead help us formulate possible answers to questions about local hidden variables and alternate universes?
There is Rovelli's relational interpretation of QM, but Whitehead's speculative philosophy can provide a framework to understand the implications of QM, which are that physics has discovered by investigating matter than matter is actually a product of our own spirit and only exists in relation to us. There are also attempts to explain consciousness in terms of QM (e.g. Orchestrated Objective Reduction) but Whitehead's philosophy explains consciousness much better as I said in my OP post about his version of panpsychism.
>Why is Whitehead more important than any other philosopher who ever dealt with the concept of change and uncertainty?
I don't have a problem with you not having read Whitehead since obviously I don't except everyone who wants to talk about something to be an expert on it but this view is so reductive it reveals your complete lack of intellectual honesty

[Anonymous No.21219708]

>>21218591
>>21218628
>dead
>organic growth
Not a refutation. Philosophy isn't determined by culture but vice versa. If Whitehead is to be the philosopher of the future, all previous systems such as Marx, the post-structuralists, Kant, and so on, must be dismantled in a way that's readily acceptable to the intelligentsia, rather than merely a change in the tide of the collective unconscious.

[Anonymous No.21219714]

>>21218775
How does Whitehead relate to Husserl and Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.21219720]

bump

[Anonymous No.21219749]

>>21218451
>Panpsychist
Atheist mysticism, my rule of thumb is to ignore anyone who labels themselves like this.

[Anonymous No.21219786]

>>21218451
>A NEW PSYCHE IS BEING IMPLANTED IN THE POST-QUANTUM WEST and eventually they will have to turn to a philosopher to embody this new psyche, one who has transcended materialism and exemplified entirely the modern man's soul.
Medieval ontology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith

[Anonymous No.21220872]

>>21218451
I still don't get the relation between Creativity and God. Is this similar to Nirguna Brahman (Creativity) and Saguna Brahman (God)? The former being the the metaphysical ultimate as God without attributes/limits and the latter God with attributes? But I've also read that Creativity doesn't cause/create God because that's not how causality works in Whitehead. But then I've read that Creativity doesn't exist alone, so its just an undescribable activity underlying things yet God is the first creature of Creativity but God created itself? What the fuck? Is Creativity Nirguna Brahman or more like Shakti?

[Anonymous No.21220878]

>>21219749
My impression is Whitehead was agnostic but leaned closer to believing in God, but maybe his cause is just a demiurge, which would be offensive to most believers.

[Anonymous No.21220998]

>>21220878
God is the central crux of Whitehead's philosophy, calling him an atheist is laughable. He also attended church weekly, unlike the LARPer son here.

>>21220872
Creativity is God's given power to finalize any transformation from potential to actual (I'm skipping Whitehead's terms here for simplicity). It's an immanent power in the universe. It's a force. It's how the potentials become actuals.

I have no idea how you can relate that to Hinduism.

>>21218775
This is why you have to actually look things up before having an opinion on them.
>there's no universal operative, guiding principle (logos) in Whitehead
In Whitehead, God is the logos, anon.

>Everything is relative
Correct, Whitehead, like all Christians, believes that everything is relative to God. What you actually are accusing him of believing is that everything is subjective. Whitehead did not believe this.

[Anonymous No.21221028]

>>21218451
The philosopher of the 22nd century will be Moldbug

[Anonymous No.21221036]

>>21220998
I think his point is that there's no design separate from God.

[Anonymous No.21221037]

>A NEW PSYCHE IS BEING IMPLANTED IN THE POST-QUANTUM WEST
Source: dude trust me
I'm ribbing you but seriously, expound on this claim if you want me to take your thread more seriously

[Anonymous No.21221041]

>>21220998
God doesn't predetermine everything that happens like the Logos does though
>An entity is actual, when it has significance for itself. By this it is meant that an actual entity functions in respect to its own determination.
>The Category of Freedom and Determination. The concrescence of each individual actual entity is internally determined and is externally free. This category can be condensed into the formula, that in each con- crescence whatever is determinable is determined, but that there is always
Actual entities determine themselves. God is just one example of an Actual Entity, albeit a primordial one.

[Anonymous No.21221046]

>>21221041
whoops didn't add the rest of the second quote
> The concrescence of each individual actual entity is internally determined and is externally free. This category can be condensed into the formula, that in each con- crescence whatever is determinable is determined, but that there is always a remainder for the decision of the subject-superject of that concrescence. This subject-superject is the universe in that synthesis, and beyond it there is nonentity. This final decision is the reaction of the unity of the whole to its own internal determination. This reaction is the final modification of emotion, appreciation, and purpose. But the decision [42] of the whole arises out of the determination of the parts, so as to be strictly relevant to it.
I take this to mean that the conjunctive nature of reality is determined by the self determined nature of the set of disjunctive actual entities.

[Anonymous No.21221050]

>>21221041
An actual entity cannot achieve concrescence in absence of God. It has freedom, but only in relation to God. To put this another way, yes, things are free to do as they like, but they are utterly dependent upon God for that freedom and actually doing anything. Their freedom is only possible because of God. This is the whole point of creativity.

[Anonymous No.21221052]

>>21221050
my point is Heraclitus's Logos doesn't allow that. The Logos determines the actions of the entities of the world, God just makes their actuality possible.

[Anonymous No.21221094]

>>21221052
That's fair enough. I suppose this is an important aspect of the Christianity of Whitehead's thought, as he's very committed to Free Will (which is necessary for sin to make sense), while at the same time taking God-as-mechanism to the greatest heights possible (bordering on a sort of occasionalism). Heraclitus seems (if anything can be said about Heraclitus seeming to believe something coherent) to be more interested in describing how the universe works than explaining certain facets that he holds before the explanation.

I apologize for my rudeness in the initial post btw.

[Anonymous No.21222025]

>>21220998
>Creativity is God's given power to finalize any transformation from potential to actual (I'm skipping Whitehead's terms here for simplicity). It's an immanent power in the universe. It's a force. It's how the potentials become actuals.

So you're saying he's Shakti. But how does that jive with Whitehead saying God is Creativity's first creature? It really sounds like Creativity is slightly above God or at least precedes God.

[Anonymous No.21222029]

>>21222025
god engages in self creation

[Anonymous No.21222044]

>>21222025
creativity does not create anything because only actual entities can be causes. creativity is just the principle of actual entities.

[Anonymous No.21222079]

>>21222044
So Creativity isn't anything but an abstract principle invented by Whitehead to explain the basic state of reality and there's no reason to see it as the first or highest principle in Whitehead's system?

I think this is a good thing but a lot of commentators seem to want to make Whitehead into something of a Buddhist and give me the impression that Creativity is a sort of Sunyata at the very summit of Whitehead's system. What you're saying is more that Creativity is Shakti and should be only considered as existing alongside but not above things, in other words it's closer to Shakti than Sunyata or Nirguna Brahman. If you're right then I agree and think this is based.

[Anonymous No.21222119]

>>21222079
Idk if I would say it’s just an invention, I think the whole point is that creativity is “the ultimate” because the entire character of actual entities and all the categories is supposed to follow from the category of the ultimate. But at the same time the entire point of the “coherency” of his system is that anything in the system follows from anything else, so you could really look at almost anything you wanted as the “highest principle” in his system as long as you don’t remove any important parts of it because the whole rest of the system will be contained in that one part.
>invented by Whitehead to explain the basic state of reality
Whitehead himself said that the whole purpose of his speculative philosophy was to be able to coherently and consistently interpret and explain anything in reality so I guess you could think of it that way. But at the same time as a realist I think he would probably say his “abstract principles” are real parts of reality and accurate to the true nature of reality even if they are his own invention.

[Anonymous No.21222133]

>>21222119
I think I agree with you if I'm understanding correctly. The point I'm making is that Creativity isn't a thing/concept above God or other things, but just a way to describe the way the universe/metaphysics works. God isn't subordinate to Creativity.

[Anonymous No.21222155]

>>21222133
Yes it’s correct to say God is not “subordinate” to creativity. At the same time you could say Creativity defines God’s nature because it is part of the nature of everything. But there is no “Shakti” directing what things create.

[Anonymous No.21222649]

Is Modes of Thought the best place to start with Whitehead or can I just jump into Process and Reality?

[Anonymous No.21223022]

>>21222155
I find it interesting how philosophy, at the highest levels, always does a full circle back to primordial mythology.

[Anonymous No.21223184]

>>21219093
>Hegel was primarily concerned with self-reflection of Spirit
That's what Hegel's Philosophy of Spirit deals with, but not what his Logic is about. Hegel's Logic stands apart from any epistemological idealism and is both metaphysical and logical, without necessarily making any claims on what the grounds for true knowledge are.
If you had actually read Hegel's Logic or if you'd read any metaphysical interpretation of Nietzsche (such as Deleuze's book on Nietzsche), you'd understand how these thinkers develop ways of understanding change as coming about due to the confrontation of opposing forces, and that all becoming is tied to Being standing against Nothing, which is, plainly speaking, neither realist nor idealist, but merely a statement of what "change" in itself is.
There is no need to embrace any form of panpsychism or monism to understand Hegel. In fact, there is no "One" or "Absolute" in Hegel except for the "allness" that every single existing being spans together with all other beings.
Hegel's Philosophy of Spirit and his Philosophy of Religion depend upon his Logic, but it is not necessary to accept the former due to having accepted the latter.
Let us ask this question again:
what does Whitehead offer us that Hegel and Nietzsche had not given us previously?

[Anonymous No.21223194]

I mentioned Whitehead in the Old School RuneScape general on /vg/, but I got 0 replies. No one cares about this guy.

[Anonymous No.21223998]

>>21218451
I didn't get it, so Whitehead was a pansexual or something like that?

[Anonymous No.21224003]

>>21220998
>I have no idea how you can relate that to Hinduism.
Probably because you are mentally malformed.

[Anonymous No.21224364]

>>21224003
He comes the angry Guenonian manchild.