It is both exciting & unfortunate that 'Panpsychism' has become a life raft for the sinking ship of 'Physicalism/Materialism'. Exciting b/c: Finally moving into an integrative ethos that 1) acknowledges the terribly obvious "hard problem" & 2) tries to naturalize mind/exprnce.
-
Show this thread
-
That's pretty awesome and I welcome it. ^ BUT. alot of the conceptual baggage or artefacts of Physicalism have boarded: naiive realism, substance-attribute mode of thinking, & inability/deep instinctual reluctance to entertain the eternal mystical cry: Mind is Absolute!
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
This is unfortunate b/c the progenitors of contemporary Panpsychism - Whitehead, Peirce, James, Bergson - were not suffering from such vestigial Physicalist neuroses [...]
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
They saw the dawn of a new integrative metaphysic -- understood its necessity and inevitability. They creatively, to the best of their ability, offered novel language to adequately meet the novel modes of thinking that were emerging in the consciousness of philosophic thought.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
They were not saving Physicalism by just sprinkling mind everywhere for logical cleanliness (like now seems common). They were making some fundamental breaks with tradition -- and in a way doing this only because Modernity had made such violent breaks with Premodernity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
In some fundamental way these philosophers seemed to adequately grasp the distinction between the modelling of reality and the reality as actual ongoing creative process of mind. Their philosophies are like microcosmic reflections of this novel advance into the unknown.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
I suggest Panpsychism should respect the scientific and analytic proficiency of the Physicalism schools of thought. But there should be no question about the radical suggestion of Panpsychism: Idealism was correct, but insufficiently quantitative, methodological, & pluralistic.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
I’m fine with this formulation. Whitehead admits that his process-relational ontology takes a different route but ends up in nearly the same place as absolute idealism, only he transforms it onto a realistic basis (PR xiii). His is no naive realism. It is participatory realism.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.