"Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics...

If only Whitehead lived according to his own wisdom. His obstinate refusal to address the Eleatic doctrine is an expression of this same desire to not have one's metaphysics criticized.

>you don't have to thank us, your children's children will
Meanwhile:
>oops we started global warming hehe our children will hate us haha

*dabs*

"Also we must recollect the basis of our procedure. I hold that philosophy is the critic of abstractions. Its function is the double one, first of harmonising them by assigning to
them their right relative status as abstractions, and secondly of completing them by direct comparison with more concrete intuitions of the universe, and thereby promoting the formation of more complete schemes of thought. It is in respect to this comparison that the testimony of great poets is of such importance. Their survival is evidence that
they express deep intuitions of mankind penetrating into what is universal in concrete fact. Philosophy is not one among the sciences with its own little scheme of abstractions which it works away at perfecting and improving. It is the survey of sciences, with the special objects of their harmony,
and of their completion. It brings to this task, not only the evidence of the separate sciences, but also its own appeal to concrete experience. It confronts the sciences with concrete fact."

"Philosophy, in one of its functions, is the critic of cosmologies. It is its function to harmonise, refashion, and justify divergent intuitions as to the nature ofthings.Ithas to insist on the scrutiny of the ultimate ideas, and on the retention of the whole of the evidence in shaping our cosmological scheme. Its business is to render explicit, and — so far as may be — efficient, a process which otherwise is unconsciously performed without rational tests."

Pathetic, did you come here from plebbit because you heard this was the smart board? I’d certainly hate to get in the way of your rant against “muh church”, but you should go back. Anyone with a head on their shoulders would recognize that there has to be an institution to control morals and the majority of people, and it happened to be Christianity for a long while. You know nothing of history outside of Syfy channel documentaries, huh?

I haven't read a lot of Whitehead and am a midwit but here is a passage from Science and the Modern World that I read yesterday which I think addresses this

Thus, in some sense, time, in its character of the
adjustment of the process of synthetic realisation, extends beyond
the spatio-temporal continuum of nature 1. There is no
necessity that temporal process, in this sense, should be
constituted by one single series of linear succession.
Accordingly, in order to satisfy the present demands of scientific
hypothesis, we introduce the metaphysical hypothesis that
this is not the case. We do assume (basing ourselves upon
direct observation), however, that temporal process of
realisation can be analysed into a group of linear serial processes.
Each of these linear series is a space-time system. In support
of this assumption of definite serial processes, we appeal:
(1) to the immediate presentation through the senses of an
extended universe beyond ourselves and simultaneous with
ourselves, (2) to the intellectual apprehension of a meaning
to the question which asks what is now immediately
happening in regions beyond the cognisance of our senses, (3) to
the analysis of what is involved in the endurance of emergent
objects. This endurance of objects involves the display of a
pattern as now realised. This display is the display of a
pattern as inherent in an event, but also as exhibiting a
temporal slice of nature as lending aspects to eternal objects
(or, equally, of eternal objects as lending aspects to events).
The pattern is spatialised in a whole duration for the benefit
of the event into whose essence the pattern enters. The
event is part of the duration, i.e.y is part of what is exhibited
in the aspects inherent in itself; and conversely the duration
is the whole of nature simultaneous with the event, in that
sense of simultaneity. Thus an event in realising itself
displays a pattern, and this pattern requires a definite duration
determined by a definite meaning of simultaneity. Each
such meaning of simultaneity relates the pattern as thus
displayed to one definite space-time system. The actuality
of the space-time systems is constituted by the realisation
of pattern; but it is inherent in the general scheme of
events as constituting its patience for the temporal process
of realisation.

1/?

Notice that the pattern requires a duration involving a
definite lapse of time, and not merely an instantaneous
moment. Such a moment is more abstract, in that it merely
denotes a certain relation of contiguity between the concrete
events. Thus a duration is spatialised; and by ‘ spatialised ’
is meant that the duration is the field for the realised pattern
constituting the character of the event. A duration, as the
field of the pattern realised in the actualisation of one of its
contained events, is an epoch, an arrest. Endurance is
the repetition of the pattern in successive events. Thus endurance requires a succession of durations, each exhibiting
the pattern. In this account c time * has been separated from
4 extension * and from the ‘ divisibility ’ which arises from
the character of spatio-temporal of extension. Accordingly
we must not proceed to conceive time as another form of
extensiveness. Time is sheer succession of epochal durations.
But the entities which succeed each other in this account
are durations. The duration is that which is required for
the realisation of a pattern in the given event. Thus the
divisibility and extensiveness is within the given duration.
The epochal duration is not realised via its successive divisible
parts, but is given with its parts. In this way, the objection
which Zeno might make to the joint validity of two
passages from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is met by
abandoning the earlier of the two passages.
I refer to passages from the section ‘Of the Axioms of Intuition the
earlier from the subsection on Extensive Quantity, and the
latter from the subsection on Intensive Quantity
where considerations respecting quantity in general, extensive and
intensive, are summed up. The earlier passage runs thus

1 :I call an extensive quantity that in which the representation
of the whole is rendered possible by the representation of its
parts, and therefore necessarily preceded by iP. I cannot represent
to myself any line, however small it may be, without drawing it
in thought, that is, without producing all its parts one after the
other, starting from a given point, and thus, first of all, drawing
its intuition. The same applies to every, even the smallest
portion of time. I can only think in it the successive progress
from one moment to another, thus producing in the end, by all
the portions of time, and their addition, a definite quantity of
time.

Can you delete this and post again with removed spacing

The second passage runs thus:
This peculiar property of quantities that no part of them is
the smallest possible part (no part indivisible) is called continuity.
Time and space are quanta continua, because there is no part of
them that is not enclosed between limits (points and moments),
no part that is not itself again a space or a time. Space consists of spaces
only, time of times. Points and moments are only limits, mere places of
limitation, and as places presupposing always those intuitions which
they are meant to limit or to determine. Mere places or parts that
might be given before space or time, could never be compounded
into space or time.

I am in complete agreement with the second extract if
“time and space” is the extensive continuum; but it is
inconsistent with its predecessor. For Zeno would object
that a vicious infinite regress is involved. Every part of
time involves some smaller part of itself, and so on. Also
this series regresses backwards ultimately to nothing; since
the initial moment is without duration and merely marks
the relation of contiguity to an earlier time. Thus time
is impossible, if the two extracts are both adhered to. I
accept the later, and reject the earlier, passage. Realisation
is the becoming of time in the field of extension. Extension
is the complex of events, qua their potentialities.
In realisation the potentiality becomes actuality. But the potential
pattern requires a duration; and the duration must be
exhibited as an epochal whole, by the realisation of the
pattern. Thus time is the succession of elements in themselves divisible and contiguous. A duration, in becoming
temporal, thereby incurs realisation in respect to some
enduring object. Temporalisation is realisation. Temporalisation is not another continuous process. It is an atomic
succession.

Thus time is atomic [t.e. epochal), though
what is temporalised is divisible. This doctrine follows
from the doctrine of events, and of the nature of enduring
objects. In the next chapter we must consider its relevance
to the quantum theory of recent science.
It is to be noted that this doctrine of the epochal
character of time does not depend on the modern doctrine
of relativity, and holds equally—and indeed, more simply
—if this doctrine be abandoned. It does depend on the
analysis of the intrinsic character of an event, considered
as the most concrete finite entity. In reviewing this argument, note first that the second
quotation from Kant, on which it is based, does not depend
on any peculiar Kantian doctrine. The latter of the two
is in agreement with Plato as against Aristotle 1. In the
second place, the argument assumes that Zeno understated
his argument. He should have urged it against the current
notion of time in itself, and not against motion, which
involves relations between time and space. For, what be¬
comes has duration. But no duration can become until a
smaller duration (part of the former) has antecedently come
into being [Kant’s earlier statement]. The same argument
applies to this smaller duration, and so on. Also the in¬
finite regress of these durations converges to nothing—and
even to the Aristotelian view there is no first moment.
Accordingly time would be an irrational notion. Thirdly,
in the epochal theory Zeno’s difficulty is met by conceiving
temporalisation as the realisation of a complete organism.
This organism is an event holding in its essence its spatiotemporal relationships (both within itself, and beyond itself) throughout the spatio-temporal continuum.

sorry i can't i am too lazy. it is pages 157-160 though if you want to get a pdf and if it is really bothersome for you to read it like that

This has been posted before. It's an addressing of Zeno, not the Eleatic doctrine of the coincidence of thought and being.

what coincidence of thought and being?

Is this difficult to read for anyone else or am I just a brainlet?

Have you read On Nature?

A. Zeno is eleatic. I would argue he is the most constructive Eleatic philosopher in argument - why do you abandon, take it off such an important guy from Eleatic like AA battery
B. That paragraph is often considered as Whitehead's opinion on his conception of Space and Time. you can see he took the epochness of time so his view on process can be well applied - so you would react this as a part of his coherent theory of metaphysics - and much more effort to refute it.
C. If you took out Zeno then there's no much left then. There is a one who try to improve by "well Parmenides said sphere but it should be not sphere" - and that's much it for Eleatic.
Then only one left - Parmenides. However, one of the most INFAMOUS feature of Parmenides is the fact that everyone takes a different interpretation on him, and that interpretation is so different that it doesn't even get improved even in right now. 2500 years passed and their scholars still debate on whether his book is about cosmology or ontology.
I just don't get whose interpretation is that - and what even "coincidence of being" is related on any of Parmenides - can you cite On Nature directly to where he made this claim?

that's due to a lack of understanding of ethics, not metaphysics

metaphysics=ethics=aesthetics
also you literally can't escape metaphysics. it literally shapes your entire frame of thought and how you experience the world.

The existance of the doctrine of the simultaneity of thought and being is well attested and almost universally affirmed as speaking of ontology (there's a reason why Parmenides is said to be the first ontologist-proper). You evidently haven't read On Nature. I suggest you do, it's relatively short. See Robin Waterfield for commentary. I believe Greg Sadler recently released a video on the matter too.

I'm a STEMfag in a biology/chemistry field and I think all of those idiots are bunch of twats

>I'm the raging retard in all my classes that no one likes
>p-please let me play with you humanities types since my own rejected me
pathetic. don't give these philosofags an inch.

even if you're a mediocre STEMfag, you're still superior to all of these "feelz > realz" majors and your work is more important.

Stop bifurcating nature

General question: Is the concept of the noumenon inherently a metaphysical concept?

>science did this, so scientific metaphysics can’t be criticized
Argument from accomplishment
Also
>all religious atrocities were metaphysics
Cringe

Attached: A07FEF20-7273-4557-A6EB-FE1FDBB9E16E.jpg (720x588, 33K)

This is actually hard to read

Yes, and a epistemological concept as well

Every concept is a metaphysical concept.

Many philosophers would agree that noumenon is indeed metaphysical concept, but if someone brought up near identical themes such as Tractatus 6.544 "There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical." Then many philosophers would viciously deny this as a metaphysical concept.
In one sentence, "metaphysical" is incredibly vague term

I was top in my class, only behind one autistic perfectionist girl. Stop projecting, retard.

Post report card

Scientific discoveries and inventions don't come out of no where. Metaphysics shapes the frame of thought of every epoch. This is a good passage claiming what the task of philosophy is

Give me your facebook. I ain't posting private shit on Yea Forums of all places.

>doxing myself
Cringe

Whitehead is based as fuck I wonder why he isnt as widely read as some other thinkers. I heard the Chinks have picked up on his thought quite recently though pairing him with ecology and Marxist thought which sounds based. Too bad I can't read their material

Attached: 1565711428831.jpg (507x537, 162K)

He's been popular in the newage community for a while now

His writing is very cold and academic so I highly doubt that lol

Lol you obviously don't know very much about the newage community then. Either way, that's where I've seen his ideas getting the most exposure.

I highly doubt these types of people have any understanding of what he says then.

footnotes2plato.com/
This guy is one of the most prominent Whitehead scholars on the web. He has a professorship and has written a book on Whitehead. He seems to have a pretty good understanding of his philosophy and believe it's commensurable with his newage views.

I've watched this guy's videos and there is nothing wrong with him. He is a well read person.

Guenon was retroactively defeated by Parmenides' conception of Whitehead

>belief in skydaddy who hates it when two men kiss
wrong
>inquisitions that subsequently burned such men alive and anyone researching anything that could pose a threat to the Papacy
blatant myth
>aimless obfuscating "yu cant know nuffin not ecen that you cant know nuffin and u cant know that -- am i being profound yet, daddy Hegel?"
reductionism
>everything is in the mind
what's everything? what's "mind"?

>the computer you're using to stream hentai on right now
>air travel
>space travel
>the technologies that allow you to be a fat virgin NEET while robotics makes the economy more and more efficient and higher standards of living more stable
>so, literally almost everything you touch
Why do these discredit the necessity of involving yourself with the former? How do we go about understanding scientific knowledge? What is the "mechanism" of a self-correcting scientific methodology?

Also
>metaphysics
What is that?

I never said anything was wrong with him. He's 100% a newager though youtu.be/o6Gf5Q6EwOo

kek, good bait

things that science has accomplished us with until our own inevitable self destruction
>nuclear bombs
>dwindling of resources due for the need for a rapid technological changes
>fears of overpopulation due to modern medicine
>the further acceleration of climate change
>Cern aka the devils gate

Most of these guys aren't proper scientists, they are moreso sci-phi advocates. Good to get discussion going.

I like sam and hitchens to some degree. think they are tools when it comes to religion though, its not smart to argue against the lowest common denominator as they wont change their minds. instead engage like peterson does and understand that some of those lessons are useful and get rid of the detail like sam advocates for.

Apparently Dawkins' new book is full of poorly researched historical inaccuracies. So much for academic rigour.

You can gain wisdom from the teachings of all the major religions.

But as a source of objective fact, what exactly makes Christianity more valid than all the rest? How is Christianity more correct in its claims about the world, morality, and the afterlife than all other religions which make similar claims?

Genuinely curious.

>skydaddy
Fuck you almost got me kek

>Observation: No human is omniscient
>Conclusion: Personal immortality, brought to you by Jebus Inc.

All in all I prefer the graveyard scene in Hamlet. Do what you want.

Guenon actually helped to provide fuel for positivism by asserting the eternal form that truth takes, meaning that if there could be a truth, it would have to be consistently proven and accepted only by the same means through which it could've been judged by the primitive man, which would be not by a priori structures or logic, but rather only by experience on its own.

still better sourced, more accurate, and "academically rigorous" than the new testament.

also, do you have a source on that?

Fucking cringe. You guys make me regret doing cancer research because I wish y'all would die of cancer

>but if metaphysics conflicts with homosexuality, how can it be true?
Anti-homosexual memes are a very useful, evolutionary adaptation and as such, reality, they do not require metaphysical backing.

I wish I would die too

I always hope a post like this is conscious parody
and even if it is, off yourself for posting it

Attached: 1543177377093.jpg (921x640, 100K)

>Good to get discussion going.
They're good for absolutely nothing and are a plague on any avenue of discourse they attach themselves to