What am I in for?

>eternal, motionless, directionless, now-ness.
This has been debunked by modern science and is a totally inaccurate way of viewing the world. No one/nothing experiences the universe this way. It is literally the equivalent of talking out of one's ass. Whitehead is much more helpful and has more application to shit.

Very funny user.

Again I must say I am about to read Parmenides so I must ask how exactly did Parmenides justify the simultaneity of thought and being? And in defence of what I now understand of Whitehead in juxtaposition to Parmenides could an argument not be made that Whitehead is rather the true valuing nature of man, or psyche and will rather than a necessary 'metaphysical' (as in relation to being) of what is literally taken as a self mistake?

Here is a synopsis
philosopher.eu/a-n-whitehead-summary/

I think he means that, - as Gadamer spoke of - our entire existence is in a sum zero point of perception. Historicity, through which this perception understands, and has an understanding of itself hence a Whiteheadian multiplicity of actualisation. Specifically talking language here. Though in a very literal sense existence and the ontological ultimatum never exceeds this zero-point existence. That is as long as mind is not the fundamental as we ourselves understand our own existence, Spirit understands eternity as its own.

You must understand when we say understanding by historicity there exists that which is, and shall always be, learnt through the individual. However there exists that collectively inherited level of historicity. And that is instinct and archetype. We so often lose ourselves in this - to us - complete certainty and we begin to perceive it as a being, over becoming. And we must perceive it as such for our understanding is the finite characterisation of eternity, this inheritance being our own eternity. Of which Whitehead himself says "though if we look beyond it to its external effects, it may represent an aesthetic failure. Even within itself, it may represent the conflict between a lower success and a higher failure."

So we're stuck unable to prove Whitehead or Parmenides thanks to that of the power of presupposition. I enjoyed this user.

Attached: The Madonna of the Roses - William-Adolphe Bouguereau.jpg (413x600, 38K)

Thanks user, I appreciate it. Will read.

>Whitehead understood perhaps mor sharply than anyone else that the creative evolution of nature could never be conceived if the elements composing it were defined as permanent, individual entities that maintained their identity throughout all changes and interactions. But he also understood that to make all permanence illusory, to deny being in the name of becoming, to reject entities in favor of a continuous and ever-changing flux meant falling once again into the trap always lying in wait for philosophy - to "indulge in brilliant feats of explaining away." - Order Out of Chaos

He might be the philosopher, the only one philosopher who correctly saw what Science and Mathematics really is, and how philosophy should do if philosophy want to be like those.
Spending over 300 pages to prove 1+1=2, definitely never thought of when they planned, that absurdly difficult rambling, really made him different.

Bump

You're going to put them on your shelf and never read them and you know it.

Stop posting this you nigger.
It's the same thread every few days

a lot of books which you probably won’t finish

Where to start with Whitehead? girardfag convinced me to read him

the golden bowl will expose the tunnel for being an overwrought turd despite have a character named fanny assingham

Why?

Modes of Thought>Science and the Modern World>Adventures of Ideas>Process and Reality

I got The Tunnel on my shelf. I’m looking forward to diving into that one. Love Gass’s criticism, opinions on things, etc. I’m hoping it translates well into his fiction.

Pretty decent.

>Golden Bowl
Mandatory (if a bit tedious) reading for that "Proper Victorian Romantic Novel" feel.
>Musil
Mandatory reading for that "industrial output of Austria-Hungary just before ww1" feel.
>The Tunnel
Mandatory reading for that "hitler is mai fuhrer" feel.

>Whitehead
Mostly pseud garbage.

Whitehead is based fuck off

I swear he's like a totem pole to pseuds, just consider:
>Point out that most of classical metaphysics is incoherent rambling by walking children through the blatantly obvious language fallacies.
>But why stop at critique? Let's reinvent incoherent rambling of our own, but this time with the fallacies better obscured in language gymnastics!

That's some class-A pseud move. Don't take my word for that, I just have a disdain for western philosophy in general. Reminder this is primarily a Yea Forums board, the whole philosophy circlejerk needs to stop aside from the traditional ones like land/schopenhauer circlejerks because they're at least endlessly hilarious and with some merit as literature alone. Good philosophers are the ones who don't take themselves too seriously and make for an entertaining read.

>>Point out that most of classical metaphysics is incoherent rambling by walking children through the blatantly obvious language fallacies.
He literally never said that.

Bump

Bump

Bump

important background reading/familiarity for Whitehead?

ie like would good knowledge of Plato make up for shit math skills?