How did he 'retroactively' debunk Whitehead?

What does this even mean?

Guenon was directly initiated into a Vietnamese Taoist Triad of Chinese origin. How ironic that the sinophile process philosophy poster doesn't even know that the man he attacks as an Islamaboo understood Taoism at a deeper level than you ever will

You mean proactively

Thank you. I personally am very sick of people saying things like Aristotle's Metaphysics or Plato's Parmenides were 'wrong'.

Absolute trash. :3

Bumping

Aristotle's Metaphysics were wrong tho'

He made a number of predictions, most of which turned out to be false

It means he was retroactively btfo, user

How the hell does Eleatic """observation""" of the coincidence of thought and Being ruin his concepts on actual occasion?

Not that user but I'm guessing it has something do with the idea that there can't be process if movement isn't ontologically real

>initiated
god i hate you fucking guenonposters think you’ve stumbled onto some cult of supreme knowledge. it’s fucking philosophy. either it’s a coherent concept or it’s not.

Not him, but I would say that Parmenides proves the Oneness of time. There can be no process, constant change if there is only One - an undivided eternity.

Or in other words, process itself is nothing more than a process of the One.

Attached: Zeno_Arrow_Paradox.png (1050x500, 16K)

When discussing books, it is important to name specific details and list specific arguments, otherwise no one else has nothing to work with.

Please specify :3

But if it interpreted that naively, I can easily come up with this near first prose in Process and Reality and see why it's tiresome to apply like that:

>It will also be noticed that this ideal of speculative philosophy has its
rational side and its empirical side. The rational side is expressed by the terms 'coherent' and 'logical'...
>The empirical side is expressed by the terms 'applicable' and 'adequate.' But the two sides are bound together by clearing away an ambiguity which remains in the previous explanation of the term 'adequate.' The adequacy of the scheme over every item does not mean adequacy over such items as happen to have been considered.
>It means that the texture of observed experience, as illustrating the philosophic scheme, is such that all related experience must exhibit the same texture.

>it’s fucking philosophy. either it’s a coherent concept or it’s not.
No it's not, because there are important aspects and teachings which are only revealed to initiates. Stop trying to shoehorn Taoism into your understanding of 'philosophy'. There is a massive difference between having the ability to read Chinese and being initiated into a Taoist lineage (both of which apply to Guenon) and being some jackoff ordering English translations of Taoist texts online, the latter is only able to gain a relatively surface level understanding.

cont. in the Part 1 in Process and Reality:
>The difficulty has its seat in the empirical side of philosophy. Our datum is the actual world, including ourselves; and this actual world spreads itself for observation in the guise of the topic of our immediate experience. The elucidation of immediate experience is the sole justification for any thought; and the starting-point for thought is the analytic observation of components of this experience.

and this is might be helpful on how whitehead reacted to Eleatic School's pursuit of (logic and) certainty and the denial of experience:

>The other form of overstatement consists in a false estimate of logical procedure in respect to certainty, and in respect to premises. Philosophy has been haunted by the unfortunate notion that its method is dogmatically to indicate premises which are severally clear, distinct, and certain; and to erect upon those premises a deductive system of thought.
>But the accurate expression of the final generalities is the goal of discussion and not its origin. Philosophy has been misled by the example of mathematics; and even in mathematics the statement of the ultimate logical principles is beset with difficulties, as yet insuperable.

>Philosophy destroys its usefulness when it indulges in brilliant feats of explaining away. It is then trespassing with the wrong equipment upon the field of particular sciences. Its ultimate appeal is to the general consciousness of what in practice we experience. Whatever thread of presupposition characterizes social expression throughout the various epochs of rational society must find its place in philosophic theory. Speculative boldness must be balanced by complete humility before logic, and before fact. It is a disease of philosophy when it is neither bold nor humble, but merely a reflection of the temperamental presuppositions of exceptional personalities.

When he talks about the Sun and the planets being made of eternal substance.

Those aren't 'predictions', you moron, those are 'statements'. :3

so you admit you can't understand it and you're retarded

seething

Nah. They are phrased as predictions, as corollaries of his (incorrect) model, in opposition to other models models which (correctly), he says, predict the Sun and the planets are not eternal. Not even Aristotle was so arrogant to make a definite statement about something he didn't know.

I always thought this was the weakest aspect of Whitehead. Rational speculations dont exist outside experience, and by proxy neither do their products i.e. Parmenides experienced the One insofar as he intuited it within experience; how would he otherwise? Whitehead seems to want to just assimilate experience with the mundane.

This is wrong though

It's boring discussing actual philosophy with Islamic larpers, the don't seem to have an interest in understanding something if it doesn't tie back to their (impossible to discuss as it's not a skeptical matter for them) dogmatic Islamism. It's like trying to have a perceptive dialogue about what an apple is when your interlocutor is like a hungry child trying to grab the apple out of your hand.

Oh and I'm still not sure what their point is anyway

you wish

But thought itself is also an immediate experience. Why make a division between senses and thought?

#
>Whitehead wants to assimilate experience with the mundane
If you've read Whitehead you would know that his metaphysics was influenced by the Romantic poets who instilled beauty into the passing everyday world and was reacting against scientific materialism and its "solid cold hard bare facts" and the bifurcation of nature which disregarded live animated concious experience

>Parmenides experienced the One insofar as he intuited it within experience
... any citation on that? In The Way of Truth he commands you should find truth not on deceitful experience, but only by "logoi", the logic in the head. Doxa is doxa.

Summary of Whitehead
philosopher.eu/a-n-whitehead-summary/

lol. entry level occultism.

what the fuck are you on about, nobody is talking about Islamism in this thread

user is making a veiled reference to guenon and traditionalism

fucking western mystic larpers who cant hold their own for a second in a real analysis of ideas. the same sophistry socrates fucked all of western philosophy up trying to dismantle. the same theosophy lite bullshit that makes you out to be a bunch of john cage fanboys flipping coins and reciting cosmic fairytales in a self-justiying loop. chuangzi would shit himself blind.

What does that mean

> theosophy lite
thats exactly what you are when you insist occultism is all 'philosophy' and is all about the metaphysical analysis of a 'good life'. theres a non political side which you clearly see as the whole and the political underground you dismiss as 'cosmic fairytales'. from your own words, maybe you should realize not all occultism is aimed at comfy feeling west east dichotomy pleb shit.
>john cage fanboys flipping coins
thats some highly specific strawmna projection you got there

Bump

Socrates believed in cosmic fairy tales, moron.

>an undivided eternity.
evidence for this

No he didnt you entry level faggot. He devised them to keep pleb fucks like you busy while smuggling in a nuanced value theory, deconstructive method, and fascist political system to eliminate (or at least restrain) brainlets like yourself.

>strawman
confirmed: user follows mystic cosmotech threads on Yea Forums to compensate for his lack of genuine engagement with the rigors of systematic thought. take a fucking intro to logic course before slinging terms around.

What type of evidence? I already posted one (two if you are able to interpret my position).

Is "logic in the head" not a form of experience? Or is it somehow grasped without being experienced in one's mental theatre.

I get what you're saying about Islam in general but it doesn't apply to either Guenon or his fanboys in this thread.

dont try and escape the question, i didnt see it, just answer it

OK, I mistranslated that, there is no "head" in the text. it is "logoi", which means logic or Reason. Crucial point is that he command you you should not believe on experiences.
or maybe you are just criticizing Parmenides, which can be a valid one.

Yeah I'm criticizing Parmenides and Whitehead by proxy. Basically there's nothing outside experience, including mental activities and their products.

How is that criticizing Whitehead?

>Implying there's more than one Guenon fanboy on Yea Forums who keeps spamming to make it seem like there's more than one guy who cares about it.

>Not realizing that this is yet another thread created by Guenonfag to try to promote his shitty philosopher by manufacturing a controversy.

Parmenides is unwares acting from within experience. He's unwares affirming it. He's not a denier of experience as Whitehead would claim.

What the fuck are you talking about?

nice projection Whiteheadfag, the Guenon and Trad threads on Yea Forums regularly reach 200-300 replies with 60-80 unique IPs while the constant threads you shill about whitehead never get more than 30 replies

How do you know it is unique IP?

63 replies and still none related to OP

Attached: madlad.png (112x112, 14K)

>>>/reddit/