Drop wittgenstein, drop heidegger, read whitehead

wow

>professor pimple

That is such a stupid philosophical proof I don’t even know where to begin. Why does no one take themselves seriously on here? I haven’t heard a genuinely thought provoking idea or anything for a little while now.

I'm just shooting the shit you fucking dork. Everyone should already be familiar with Parmenides' proof for the non-being of change. Evidently you are not becuase you are a faggot.

the problem is you haven't actually read whitehead, so you don't even know what it is you think you're 'refuting'
really, you're just bleeting into the darkness
mary's gone home, man

*I'm* not refuting anyone. Parmenides, however, is. If you had read either of the thinkers in any serious capacity, you would understand how one's project negates the other. Evidently, you have read neither. Get absolutely yeeted on my man.

from process and reality:
>The best rendering of integral experience, expressing in general form divested of irrelevant details, is often to be found in the utterances of religious aspiration. One of the reasons of the thinness of so much modern metaphysics is its neglect of this wealth of expression of ultimate feeling. Accordingly we find in the first two lines of a famous hymn a full expression of the union of the two notions in one integral experience:
>Abide with me;
>Fast falls the eventide.
Here the first line expresses the permanences, 'abide,' 'me' and the 'Being' addressed; and the second line sets these permanences amid the inescapable flux. Here at length we find the complete problem of metaphysics. The philosophers who start with the first line have given us the metaphysics of 'substance'; and those who start with the second line have developed the metaphysics of 'flux.' But, in truth, the two lines cannot be torn apart in this way; and we find that a wavering balance between the two is a characteristic of the greater number of philosophers.

there is no ego to protect on here, friend. you would have an easier go of it if you learned to accept that.

lmfao

>It is fundamental to the metaphysical doctrine of the philosophy of
organism, that the notion of an actual entity as the unchanging subject
of change is completely abandoned. An actual entity is at once the subject
experiencing and the superject of its experiences. It is subject-superject,
and neither half of this description can for a moment be lost sight of.
The term 'subject' will be mostly employed when the actual entity is
considered in respect to its own real internal constitution. But 'subject'
is always to be construed as an abbreviation of 'subject-super ject.'
There is a time time for ego, and a time to forego it. Be aware of this.

what you intend with that quotation is obscure to me

If the relvence of the quote in the light of Parmenides' empty ontology (and its negation of Whitehead's) does not gleam forth from it, then perhaps you should re-read On Nature. A hint, however: thought is

thought does not precede the thinking. the superject is the actualization of the subjective aim, its enjoyment of its own satisfaction. that *is* becoming.

t. brainlet who can't do anything without polemics
Fuck, Jesus fucking Christ how can you be this dense, never ever post in a philosophical thread ever again. I bet you spent 300+ dollars on your chair you retarded gay nigger

but most importantly
DROP THE BASS

Attached: 1470644579540-0.gif (320x192, 1.08M)

Ahem, sorry sweetie. Aristotle already refuted that hack.

Thought IS thinking, however. There is no 'ing; no present, there is no actualization (emphasis on 'tion). Rather it is "actualize" itself i.e. atemporal. Colloquially; it is what it is.

This t b h. "Whiteheadians" (cringe) take themselves way too seriously. Philosophy is supposed to be fun guys. "Woah man dialectical monism *hits blunt* being = becoming woah there's no way a bunch of Greek homos and Indian poos came up with this idea 2500 years before us."

Fuck Whitehead had gorgeous thought.

"The four symbolic figures in the Medici chapel in Florence -- Michelangelo’s masterpieces of statuary, Day and Night, Evening and Dawn -- exhibit the everlasting elements in the passage of fact. The figures stay there, reclining in their recurring sequence, forever showing the essences in the nature of things. The perfect realization is not merely the exemplification of what in abstraction is timeless. It does more: it implants timelessness on what in its essence is passing. The perfect moment is fadeless in the lapse of time. Time has then lost its character of ‘perpetual perishing’; it becomes the ‘moving image of eternity’."

Attached: 448e973af1a989d54e70a575b0d32fc2.jpg (500x334, 31K)

There's not a single person on Yea Forums who understands Whitehead well enough to call themselves a "Whiteheadian"

oy.
you're just diddling the semantics, not actually grappling with the concepts.

Hence ""Whiteheadian""

Im not though. It's Parmenides conceptualization of thought (and its convergence with temporality) where the real negation of Whitehead occurs. He makes Whitehead appear "common sense" in comparison. There's a reason why I linked that quote.

based

i know where your coming from, but whitehead not only anticipates, but seriously contends with the problem of change. it's not just a settled fact. zeno poses a genuine challenge, and he takes him on. i think he succeeds.
you cannot simply dismiss an element of actual experience with a sophisticated argument around the meanings of certain concepts. however, the conceptual or schematic inconsistency revealed by the counter-intuitive remains in spite of its obvious failure when held to account in our experience. so, we must root out inconsistency.
this is what the chapter on the extensive continuum is about--proving the logical possibility of actual transition without reference to 'points'--or, in a different phraseology, between 'here' and 'nowhere'.

This. Sorry lads. Plato has a good go at it, but Philosophy never really recovered from Parmenides.

say more.

I like pictures such as the one you posted and this one. Does anyone know how I can find more of them? Maybe a blog? Good pictures of girls wearing things like dresses out in nature are hard to find.

Attached: 7206878.jpg (500x707, 128K)

Process newfag here

Did whitehead shave his head to fill the prophecy foretold in his name, or did they call him whitehead *because* he was bald?

Attached: whitehead.png (354x181, 80K)

Bump

since blackface is controversial I think Whitehead too should be banned

we are all equal

Attached: blackface-290x217.jpg (290x217, 14K)

>There is no non-being.

Attached: 1551130756695.jpg (1579x1600, 506K)

bump

haha

Attached: 20190226_105401.jpg (1440x2560, 2.18M)

>drop whitehead
do blackface

Which of his works should I read?

And someone answer this

he's bald haha

yeah xD

byron vindicated

Attached: 20190226_124128.jpg (1440x2560, 2.08M)

Attached: 20190226_124151.jpg (1440x2560, 2.41M)

>You need to eat more vegetables
>If you want to live a long life

what depth of nuance
in the weight watchers guide book
I have found today

i don't really understand the mockery and hostiliy, where it's coming from

What are some prerequisites to read before him? Or secondary literature or other books by Whitehead that get me on the path of understanding?

start with science and the modern world. you'll get a feel for his style while being introduced to some of his unique terminology and his more developed metaphysical thinking. if you're still interested after finishing, you can think about starting process and reality, a much more demanding work.
as far prereqs, i don't know what would be especially helpful beyond the standard history of philosophy fare. hume, locke, and descartes are recurring touchstones, as is plato. spinoza and leibniz come up less frequently, even though whitehead's system shares features of both.

Thank you, any secondary lit worth reading?

Quine is God. Note the capital 'G'.

isabelle stengers' thinking with whitehead is fantastic, covers everything.
most everything else is just bits and bobs

haha