How come whitehead thought it was necessary for his metphysics to have a god but deleuze's didnt need one...

Quoting large text as greentext should be punished by short fall hanging

>wahhh stop making me read

Just post it as plain text you double nigger. All of this green gives me eye cancer.

any deleuzeheads wanna get in on this?

this started off as insightful but turned into disgusting christian apologia halfway through

how so?

Deleuze would probably call God fascist or something and then get drunk

>how come whitehead thought it was necessary for his metphysics to have a god but deleuze's didnt need one?
where whitehead sees order and love where everything fits nicely enough, deleuze sees chaos or to be precise a chaosmos where divergence and incompossibilities are all over the place
where whitehead sees transcendence, deleuze sees the plane of immancence
where whitehead is trying to save god from philosophy, deleuze is trying to save philosophy from god
>a god
>a
sigh
>didnt they have similar metaphysics?
lol
>what does deleuze say about god/religion?
lol

>The problems of the fluency of God and of the everlastingness of passing experience are solved by the same factor in the universe. This factor is the temporal world perfected by its reception and its re-formation, as a fulfilment of the primordial appetition which is the basis of all order. In this way God is com-pleted by the individual, fluent satisfactions of finite fact, and the temporal occasions are completed by their everlasting union with their transformed selves, purged into conformation with the eternal order which is the final absolute “wisdom.” The final sum-mary can only be expressed in terms of a group of antitheses, whose apparent self-contradictions de-pend on neglect of the diverse categories of exis-tence. In each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition into a contrast.

>It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is per-manent and God is fluent.

>It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.

>It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual emi-nently.

>It is as true to say that the World is imma-nent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.

>It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.

>It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.

>God and the World are the contrasted opposites in terms of which Creativity achieves its supreme task of transforming disjoined multiplicity, with its diver-sities in opposition, into concrescent unity, with its diversities in contrast. In each actuality there are two concrescent poles of realization—”enjoyment” and “appetition,” that is, the “physical” and the “conceptual.” For God the conceptual is prior to the physical, for the World the physical poles are prior to the conceptual poles.

you see no similarity in these words to anything in deleuze?

what is the purpose of these potshot posts?
is no one interested in discussion?

bump

Who cares what they think? They are meme philosophers that are so myopically blinded by their modern biases of the post-cartesian worldview that they can never achieve anything of value in metaphysics. The obsession of whitehead with becoming instead of being is nothing more than ideology applied to philosophy, and is present in all elements of modernity that seek to reduce everything to the quantitative.

say more, you seem like you've spent a lot of time with their work.

say more, you seem like you've spent no time with their work and i want to laugh at a moron.

It's up to you whether you say something more or not. I haven't spend any time with their work so it's all the same to me.

plane of immanence is the deleuze's concept that corresponds to whitehead's eternal object, his essential subject to talk god.

bump

You sound like such a fucking ivory tower contratarian pseud. You cant escape ideology you faggot.

>achieve anything in metaphysics
Do you really believe anyone can achieve anything in this field?

>reduce everything to the quantitative.
Oh are you implying we should be more focused on the qualitative?

You like plato huh?

b&rp

whitehead sees beauty in natural order and hierarchy
deleuze could never put marx behind him and resented it to the point of madness

Bump

none and there's a reason deleuze discusses whitehead so rarely
i suggest you stop subscribing to the 'everyone says the same exact thing' school of comparative philosophy if you intend to learn anything

Whitehead is more similar to Chris Langan than Deleuze, with his theory of self-sophisticating tautologies making up process

what has he even said about him?

>i suggest you stop subscribing to the 'everyone says the same exact thing' school of comparative philosophy
It's the same guy who spams Deleuze, Whitehead, Daoism and Montaigne threads daily, he doesn't really care about these thinkers and hasn't read them in-depth but just wants to meme about them

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.shaviro.com/Othertexts/God.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiIhYLhvI7hAhURuJ4KHfY4BEIQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1UiZnna-PwMLGUb-IlFviI
no one here is claiming their views are identical, but there are large and interesting areas of overlap, not only with the notion of god/bWo, but ideas/eternal objects, assemblages/nexūs/societies, and so on. both developed sophisticated non-substance (process) metaphysics, but with different goals in kind for their repective projects. a fruitful dialogue between their readers is always waiting to be had.
i have not read much deleuze, but i've read 'dealeuzeans' like de landa, and i'm ever surprised by the similarities, and curious about the dissimilarities. de landa gravitates toward a 'mechanistic' understanding of processes, even higher-order ones like conscious thought and action, that challenge the 'spiritual' strains in whiteheads cosmology. but it's not a uni-lateral critique, and those concerned with preserving the mental aspect of occasions in a process metaphysics may have useful input for de landa and those of a similar mien.

there are more than just me and space taoist on this board interested in whitehead, and i don't believe either of us spams anything. i have started only three threads on whitehead, but i don't mind that they pop up more often.

langan is pure logicism and semantic voodoo, as far as i can tell. logical relations are always abstractions as far as whithead is concernes, and even the so-called laws of nature are epochally contingent. a transcendent super-code for all being is totally alien to whiteheads thought.

Whitehead is cherished by Yea Forums how fucking dare you

Attached: npiFgNv.png (638x443, 392K)

he's a NATIONAL TREASURE

Attached: download.jpg (247x139, 7K)

This, laughed when it got to love and living in the present moment.

read a little more carefully

Whitehead, Alfred. Nobody takes his mystical didacticism seriously. At his worst, as in his Edinburgh lectures, he is a worthless writer; at his best, with Russell, he is incomparable and inimitable. Loathe his moralistic slant, am depressed and puzzled by his inability to describe the present, deplore his obsession with religion.

you've been a little inconsistent but this one was pretty good

how is it christian apologia? looks more like critiscm to me
you have him wrong desu

Lol shut the fuck up.

"The ultimate evil in the temporal world is deeper than any specific evil. It lies in the fact that the past fades, that time is a 'perpetual perishing.' Objectification involves elimination. The present fact has not the past fact with it in any full immediacy. The process of time veils the past below distinctive feeling. There is a unison of becoming among things in the present. Why should there not be novelty without loss of this direct unison of immediacy among things? In the temporal world, it is the empirical fact that process entails loss: the past is present under an abstraction. But there is no reason, of any ultimate metaphysical generality, why this should be the whole story. The nature of evil is that the character of things are mutually obstructive. Thus the depths of life require a process of selection. But the selection is elimination as the first step towards another temporal order seeking to minimize obstructive modes. Selection is at once the measure of evil and the process of its evasion. It means the discarding the element of obstructiveness in fact. No element in fact is ineffectual: Thus the struggle with evil is a process of building up a mode of utilization by the provision of intermediate elements introducing a complex structure of harmony. The triviality in some initial reconstruction of order expresses the fact that actualities are being produced, which, trivial in their own proper character of immediate 'ends,' are proper 'means' for the emergence of a world at once lucid, and intrinsically of immediate worth.
"The evil of the world is that those elements which are translucent so far as transmission is concerned, in themselves are of slight weight; and that those elements with individual weight, by their discord, impose upon vivid immediacy the obligation that it fades into night. 'He giveth his beloved - sleep.'"

Attached: 1551172822335.png (354x181, 80K)

was whitehead a racist?

>He was presently saying that historically the best civilizations seem to come from racial mixtures: the Normans with the French, the Norman-French with the Anglo-Saxons, the Dorian invaders in Attica with [Greek here: the autochthonous; sons of the soil], "the people sprung from land itself." --"Where the racial strain is 'pure' they are likely to be pretty stupid people until their blood is mingled with a more vivid strain. I suspect there was a largish mixture of Semitic with Ionian, which produced that brilliant mainland culture.

there's another section that i'm having trouble finding right now where someone asks whitehead if america hasn't suffered somewhat from it's ethnic mixing, to which he responds to the contrary, that it is the blending of different cultural backgrounds, and the tensions and innovations that arise from that, that has been one of america's greatest 'native' assets. we would recognize this as 'melting pot' rhetoric today, but this was from a conversation in 1942, so--

Bump

Yeah and the ethnic mixing he is talking about is ethnic mixing of ethnicities that come from Europe and the west, not of negroid and middle east or asia. He is right, the US did do farely well from the italian and irish immigrants it took in and mixed with the german and anglo colonist that had already came and established the country. Look at the ethnic mixing now and how its destroyed our country, and is now harboring a police state and borderline shithole. Nothing good has come out of the states in a long long time, pretty much since before 1965.

bump

re: delanda
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zqisvKSuA70&time_continue=425
>the geology of morals
wise guy

right away you can hear in this language, in the 'expressiveness' of crystals and atoms and so on, deep resonances with whitehead. for what else is an atom's 'expression' of its 'identity' then the 'realization of its subjective aim'--its 'satisfaction'.