@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Whitehead process philosophy makes as much sense as Walt Disney on Sunday...I don't give 2 farts about rejecting materialism per se which anyone honest would agree is enough of an obscure concept. Other than that his process philosophy is a bunch of bull.
Well, i'm as unprepared to be a full-scale Whitehead apologist as i am to figure out your Disney reference. i mostly suggested reading Whitehead, in the context of this thread, because it seemed like a fruitful line of inquiry for the OP's purposes.
That being said, ANW was a complex, subtle, tradition-divergent thinker. Many of his ambiguous statements were deliberate, some represent the clumsiness indicative of a fresh method of inquiry (and, of course, some were just misguided). i'm surprised you're not more sympathetic...
Fil Albuquerque wrote:I don't give 2 farts about rejecting materialism per se which anyone honest would agree is enough of an obscure concept. Other than that his process philosophy is a bunch of bull. A contradiction in terms. There is no X, Y, Zed to talk about processing. Relations without relators, without foundation are as good as phenomenology being confused with noumenology...the kind of crap that appeals to ya am I right?
Well, ANW didn't reject materialism, he
was a materialist, of a certain stripe. What he critiqued was
substance ontology. Nor did he reject "relators"; he was a pluralist. He merely thought that the "relators" themselves were dynamic processes interacting with more of the same. As one that eats, breathes and shits i have a hard time disputing that.
There are areas of his φ that i find problematic, but, yeah, this sort of crap does appeal to me.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace