Was Whitehead right?

Was Whitehead right?

Attached: 71OsS+ePZFL.jpg (1400x2132, 238K)

Guenon proved him wrong.

This tbqh, any and all processes are always contained within a greater all-encompassing and immutable unity that is One which is itself not characterizable as a process. Process philosophy is only applicable to a certain level of existence but fails as an all-encompassing theory of everything or as a general ontology.

>any and all processes are always contained within a greater all-encompassing and immutable unity that is One
so my dick is literally in your mouth kek

process-kiddies confirmed for closeted fags whose impulsive posts are driven by their homoerotic urges

lol

how can you talk with my dick in your mouth

user literally destroyed you and your thread

I'm not sure if you're aware of how fucking correct you are, but this Pythagorean shit is literal, physiological perversion turned into undead thought.

His dick is also literally in your mouth. Including the penises of pee wee herman , Danny devito and odb

Someone explain what the FUCK he means by existence being this reciprocal process between humanity and God. Why does God's existence necessitate humans?

Attached: IMG_0134.png (500x572, 166K)

Im not part of the Oneness, im chilling outside in the based multiplcity inserting my penis into your gay monism

Your a fag thinking some gay shit cuz your homo SUPRISE

Attached: BECOMING VS BEING.png (2529x1214, 962K)

Esse ist percipi

>unity that is One

And I'm guessing when you refer to "one" you really mean a universal mind, which is based off nothing but image experience interacting with each other

Put it simply, think Whitehead's notion of God as not one of the Christian's kind.

Protestant kind*

Ibn Arabi says the same thing funny enough but from the perspective of non-dualism

Sign language.

Wrong, that corresponds to the Nous of Neoplatonism or the Buddhi of Advaita Vedanta, in both cases those are only emanations of the One, while the One itself is prior to and beyond them. Pure awareness/consciousness is something which is separate from the mind/intellect and their fluctuations.

>*projects by calling the ideas of others perverted as you reject and try to pervert the tradional metaphysics of mankind that expresses itself differently but ultimately in essence is the same in the Platonic and Indian traditions, Sufism, Daoism, Vajrayana Buddhism etc*

Does Guenon say that each process is composed in a particular unity relevant to it, or does he say that there is simply the single great unity.

Also can you point me to any sources that explicitly say
>Process philosophy is only applicable to a certain level of existence but fails as an all-encompassing theory of everything or as a general ontology.

I have to write an essay on process philosophy this summer. Plus my dpeartment is full of process philosophy lecturers and profs and I want to be able to argue with them.

starting to assume nobody on this board has actually read this book

That's because when you spam it with the same "is X right?" threads it drives people away from it

>Also can you point me to any sources that explicitly say X
Not exactly, although there are a few sources I can give you which might be helpful. The first is read On Nature by the pre-socratic philosopher Parmenidies. Secondly, go on Libgen and download "The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy" by Sharma and read the chapter on Advaita Vedanta. In the latter part of the chapter (which reading the entire chapter will help you understand) is listed the logical refutations that Shankara made of various Buddhist doctrines and those of other darshanas like Vaisheshika, Samhkya, Nyaya etc. Included in all these refutations are many refutations of things which might be ascribed as being types of process philosophy. Not all of it is, but reading through the whole chapter and all his refutations should famililarize you with some of the holes in process philosophy and the various ways of debunking or attacking it. Also read Guenon's book 'The Multiple States of the Being', in particular the chapter 'reply to objections drawn from the plurality of beings'. Lastly, I have not yet read Proclus but insofar as he presents a logical and orderly version of Neoplatonism you might find some of the same in his works or in books explaining his ideas.

Parmenides retroactively debunked him. Whitehead's Process doesn't address Parmenides' observation that thought coincides with being.

I just wanna ask you, Do you think Shankara is a process philosopher?

No, not at all. He belongs to the class of people who argue for an all-encompassing unity of a 'One' like the Neoplatonists. Advaita is not a substance ontology like the strawman some people make it out to be and Nirguna Brahman is beyond 'being' but nevertheless he is far from being a process philosopher. In case it wasn't clear from the previous post I was saying that he often critiques stuff that resembles process philosophy.

premium meme

please shut the fuck up and actually read the book

you're not giving us any credible reason to

bump

Before Whitehead was, Parmenides is.

Read Parmenides' poem. Whitehead simply couldn't contend with his discoveries.

I poopy peepy