Lately, I've been reading (and tweeting about) Whitehead. I'm about 100 pages into Stengers' book. It's fantastic. Thinking with Whitehead — Isabelle Stengershttps://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674416970#.XriIp5Ekn2I.twitter …
Stengers, Thinking With Whitehead, pp. 179-84 analyzes Whitehead's refusal of classical perspectivism (because it leaves out felt interest) but also his not taking up a Nietzschean/postmodern perspectivism
-
-
Thanks a lot. And also if you allowed me, his notion of causality seems to be clasical, thats is to say newtonian. Linear dynamical. Causes of the past determin the present but not wholly, thats Joe he preserves free will. Once again a litle bit inconsistent
-
[1] He rejects the idea of nature as a continuum of instantaneous positions & values (which, for him, are reified abstractions) with actual atomistic durations vs potentials.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Would you not agree that Whitehead is confronted with an unyielding either or. Either we retain the prínciple of persoectivism or we must finally reject it in favor of a God who is able to transcend or overcome that principle to vitiate it?
-
I don't yet have a good grasp on Whitehead's unique conception of God, so I can't say. It's not the aspect of his thought that most interests me, though I'm impressed to see Stengers fully embrace the need to think it through carefully
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.