A.N. Whitehead's Metaphysics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

First post-er here!

Can anyone direct me (or otherwise enlighten) on the process metaphysics of Whitehead? I’ve read Science & the Modern World. And I’ve now read two secondary texts, which are Sherburne’s “A Key to Whitehead’s Process & Reality” and LeClerc’s “Whitehead’s Metaphysics”. Now, I’m not an academic philosopher, just a reasonably intelligent seeker and thinker. Yet, I find even the secondary so-called ‘explanatory’ texts nearly as opaque as the magnum opus.

I seem to get much of it, or at least enough to think he was/is on to something. If anyone is a Whiteheadian or can direct me to more light in this regard, I shall be grateful.

Sapere Aude,
Goethelives.

2

I’m not a whiteheadian, but his philosophy does have something in common with that of Yi Yulgok, a favourite of mine. I’ve only read secondary sources on Whitehead, comparing the two.

What is it, exatically, that you don’t understand? The idea of process philosophy itself, or something more specific? I imagine having read those texts it is something more specific which I may not be able to help with.

Try giving me (us) an explanation of how you think it works and I’ll see if I can’t help you out a little. Disclaimer: I might take you down a wrong path because of my own philosophic background, which greatly affects my interpretation of Whitehead.

Edit1: Goethe is a good time. The Sorrow of Young Werter is much better than Romeo and Juliet.

Edit2: You might want to see if a nearby library (clearly you have a very good one nearby) has this book The first chapter is a very nice description of process philosophy and the author is a very clear Whiteheadian since she spends a lot of time trying to warp the materialist perspective of Fuzhi into a form which is by-and-large compatible with the Whiteheadian notion of God.

3

…what I struggle with I suppose is the neologisms, the new ‘language’ he develops to explain his philosophy of organism. I know philosophy is all about abstraction, but my mind comprehends better when concrete examples are utilized. Whitehead never does this.

I also don’t quite get where “God” comes in – as an actual entity but not an actual occasion. That creativity is the underlying reality? If creativity is before God, is not then God an actual occasion? I know Whitehead must explain this, but I just can’t grip it well.

Frankly, I’m a seeker and philosopher in that sense, but just not that bright from an intelligence quotient standpoint. I see enough in Whitehead and Hartshorne for example to think there really is something to this pan-entheism…but couldn’t explain it to my wife or next door neighbor if asked. That bothers me. I keep reading secondary literature because I find Whitehead’s primary text, Process & Reality, completely obscure.

Sorry, not a great response to your thoughtful reply to my query. Thank you for the book recommendation. I’ll look it up.

Sapere aude.

4

Well, think about how time works in Whitehead. In process philosophy, physicality becomes almost tangential to existence or at least the person themselves. Right?

So, while I think most people can agree that something that is outside the realm of the physical is a somewhat absurd concept. I mean, everything has a physical aspect to it, so something being outside the physical world, ummm, isn’t.

Likewise, everything in the physical world changes. The me that is right now isn’t the me that was five seconds ago, let alone five years ago! It would be the fallacy of misplaced concreteness to believe otherwise. We can’t have logical fallacies, now can we? Terrible terrible things.

But I still feel like I’m the same person that I was five years ago. Even though I am not the same person physically. Nor am I the same person mentally, I mean my ideas have changed, my relations have changed, ect ect.

So, what is it that remains between now and then? Not the physical, heck, how much skin have I sloughed off between now and then? Well, if I think and therefore am, then it makes sense that there is something else. This thing ties into his ideas on transcendence. More importantly, there is an idea of will. This thing that endures, that transcends physicality is will.

Because everything is physical, and things endure throughout time, that suggests that everything has, to some degree, will.

At least that is my understanding of it so far, would you say that you agree? A lot of my knowledge of process philosophy is influenced by Prof. Ames at the University of Hawaii, as opposed to primary sources, hence my ignorance of the primary sources.

I say that as a bridge because Ames and his students are, for the most part, decidedly non-theistic. So I have difficulty grafting the idea of God onto this because it normally isn’t done in the sources that I read.

However, I think that God is the entity that exists outside of time and allows the will to exist outside of time (because will is tied to God). Without a notion of God, how could we have something that exists outside of time, since everything in time is physical?

That’s my guess, after quickly skimming a couple of essays on God and Whitehead on the 'net with my Ames-influenced understanding. Does that make sense? I’ve been meaning to crack open some of the primary lit, so when I get to it, I can get back to you. Unless someone else has more information.

5

Can you find Process and reality: an essay in cosmology?
I’ve been investigating Whitehead too – have not read the book yet.

6

Thank you, your response is helpful. I’m reading simultaneously (well, not technically all at the same moment), Sherburne’s “A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality”, Kraus’ “The Metaphysics of Experience”, LeClerc’s, “Whitehead’s Metaphysics”. The second one, Elizabeth Kraus’ book is meant to be read in stages alongside P&R - - which I’m trying also. I struggle with all of them (due to time, job, kids, and generaly intelligence quotient deficiency) but have an intuitive sense of the merits of the Process philosopy of “organism” over materiality or ‘substance’.

Maybe this is wildly incongruent, but I also wonder if anyone out there knows - - since Whitehead’s philosophy is a clear return to pre-subjective modes of thought (e.g. pre-Kant) to Objectivity, to everything, i.e. our sensa, etc…, having its reason in an ‘actual entity’ or a derivative of such – whether there is any compatibility with Popper’s evolutionary view of Objective knowledge. I’ve not read Objective Knowledge, but what little Popper I’ve read (collected essays) appeals.

7

Out of my depth man. I should read Popper, but I haven’t gotten around to it.

My interest in philosophy tapers off pretty quickly when it stops being related to Confucianism. A vice, I know.