Timeline for Motion and contradiction
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:42 | comment | added | Peirceverance | Exactly. Whitehead's response to philosophy of language in Wittgenstein's sense is an important subject to me and I have written on it. He views it rather harshly, but in a way that he can said he has done it--he worked with Russell and seen how it goes down. There is a similar affinity that occurs between Russell and Wittgenstein in that teacher-student dynamic as well. Solid connections, Mozibur!! | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:38 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Jackson: ok, that fits in with Russells dismissal of the Philosophy of Antiquity, and Wittgenstein was Russells student...possibly further impoverishment there. The Tractatus, his early philosophy makes no mention of any antecedents by name, presumably, seeing itself as sui generis; possibly picking up Russells bad habits in relation with the Tradition; Whitehead understands that in mathematics that the aximatic is a contingent, whereas Russell & Wittgenstein take it as an End. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:36 | comment | added | Peirceverance | Yes, several mathematicians have told me Whitehead is straight poetry with a robust mathematics behind it and I can see that. But I'm very fortunate to have had great teachers who helped me struggle with it for years. It is very difficult, especially if you have been trained in so many other areas like myself. In order to read Whitehead it requires breaking a whole lot of bad readings, which were needed so one could grow. Whitehead will not only make you re-read everyone, but with fresh and enlivened eyes. It was well worth the struggle and effort to me! | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:32 | comment | added | Peirceverance | Yep, Whitehead was Russell's teacher and was impressed by the young lad. Although he always had his doubts about the Principia project he was intensely involved until 1910 and the fourth volume never appeared. If you read their correspondence (some of which has been published) you will see Whitehead thinks Russell is dishonest and a terrible philosopher. It's one of the reasons why he read philosophy without knowing any of the secondary literature. Actually, it was Whitehead who warned his student you are ruining philosophical reflection and impoverishing it. They had a funny relationship. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:32 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Jackson: Going back to Whiteheads prose, its helpful to me to see what his prose might mean potentially & philosophically, as you've done. It also illuminates the way current philosophical idiom works too - ie Giviness & Freedom. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:28 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Its puzzling that they were such close collaborators when their philosophies were so different. Or perhaps not - he alludes to atomism too. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:27 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Jackson: Whiteheads prose is hard going, because he assumes philosophical idioms that I'm not familiar with; and presumably its not contemporary idiom either, though the mathematical and physical situation is clear (to the extent it can be clear). Thaks for the book-tip, I'll look it up when I have the chance. I'd be interested to know a little more about the history of philosophy in Europe then, as Russel, Whiteheads partner in the Principia, seems to be a key figure in turning Anglo-Amex philosophy down the analytical road. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:17 | comment | added | Peirceverance | He is dismissive of Hegel but there are obvious connections. Please look at Robert Cummings Neville's chapter on the subject in his book, The Highroad Around Modernism. This is a really good book and Neville is a kind, great philosopher! He is the former dean of the School of Theology at Boston University. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:15 | comment | added | Peirceverance | That is correct! I'm so glad you are making these connections because admittedly I, along with others, struggle to break it all down. I have read a powerful book chapter that makes the textual claim that his mereotopology and theory of space are indeed what you say. Computer scientists are looking into Whitehead's theory of extension has a metaphysical basis for robotic vision, so I'm pretty excited to see these divergent fields in conversation. Yes, I think it was implicit in your response and that's how I read it. I appreciate your work this was another exciting question for me! | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:09 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | I'm not sure if I quite said that, but seeing that I agree with it perhaps it was implicit in my 'discourse', Giveness being what is, and Freedom, being Becoming. And absolute, as they are irreducible to anything less. Does Whitehead link up with Hegels discourse on Becoming, I'm trying to see where his philosophy fits in with the Anglo-American discourse as it seems to stray pretty far whats considered as such now. Seeing that I mentioned pointless topology as a contemporary innovation, it seems Whitehead was its instigator as in mereotopology | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 2:02 | comment | added | Peirceverance | You got it, Mozibur! And that's why I said that I agree with your approach in the question--it's the feasible way to tackle it. You are also right that Whitehead only accepts Givenness and Freedom as "absolute" in the full sense and is on guard against "the notion of one ideal [that] arises from the disastrous overmoralization of thought under the in-fluence of fanaticism, or pedantry. The notion of a dominant ideal peculiar to each actual entity is Platonic [not Plato]" (PR, 84). It's a cool use of Zeno to me because it gives Zeno the credit he deserves while critiquing the conundrum. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:56 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Jackson: okay, I see how he's using Zeno to dismiss the continuity of becoming, presumably this is Descarts idea of something persisting. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:54 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | and its interesting simply because the law of non-contradiction is pretty much an absolute principle as far as actual physical phenomena goes. And here we see it being dispensed with in the simplest motion. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:51 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | The mathematical idea of the infinitesimal line thought temporally is, I think, in line with Whiteheads. He say 'The conclusion is that in every a of becoming there is the becoming of something with temporal extension' but 'that act is not extensive' in that 'it is divisible', well the infinitesimal line points in potentia to the past, and in potentia to the future, and itself is not divisible into anything properly smaller. I think its interesting that, in one line of argument of thinking about this, relies specifically on dispensing with the 'law of non-contradiction'. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:51 | comment | added | Peirceverance | Ohh, okay. Well, he thought that was the common lens through which most understand motion. He complains that Descartes notion of "endurance" has done a lot of damage given its "superficial" meaning. He writes on previous page, "The difficulty is not evaded by assuming that something becomes at each non-extensive instant of time. For at the beginning of the second of time there is no next instant at which something can become." | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:47 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | I was focusing on this part of his exposition 'The extensive continuity of the physical universe has usually been construed to mean that there is a continuity of becoming.' | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:45 | comment | added | Peirceverance | @Mozibur, he specifically says that there is NO continuity of becoming. Therefore, it's not "natural & obvious" in the way there is a becoming of continuity. He follows Locke's notion of "perpetual perishing" to describe the processes of transition and concrescence that makes reality "incurably atomic." This is why he is famous for the explanation that we experience "drops of experience." | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:42 | comment | added | Peirceverance | I revised my answer and added the full quote from Whitehead on Zeno to make it explicit. I think it is a rather cool argument that I hadn't heard until about three years ago. Something to consider at least. Thanks for another great question and I hope the clarification to what Whitehead thought about this as a mathematician and then metaphysician. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:38 | history | edited | Peirceverance | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1616 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2014 at 1:36 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Whitehead speaks as though continuity of becoming is natural & obvios, and Zeno shows that it is not. It would be worth spelling this out in more detail. | |
| Mar 16, 2014 at 23:48 | history | answered | Peirceverance | CC BY-SA 3.0 |