Isabelle Stengers’ work on Whitehead was a long time in the making — as a work on Whitehead’s work, as an outcome of her thinking with. Thinking with Whitehead has 23 ratings and 2 reviews. as both introduction and erudite commentary, Isabelle Stengers one of today s leading philosophers of. THINKING WITH WHITEHEAD A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts ISABELLE STENGERS Translated by Michael Chase FOREWORD BY BRUNO LATOUR.
|Published (Last):||6 July 2015|
|PDF File Size:||10.24 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It is said that Whitehead hated to be bored, and elaborated his thought in the presence of his students. He limits himself to lining up, in a way that is perfectly serene, as whiteheaad they were so manv self-evidences, statements liable to plunge serious philoso- phers into abysses of indignant perplexity, if they do not close the book after two pages, qith even seeing how one could attack a thought that is disarming in its naivety and its dogmatism.
Bruno Leclercq – – Logique Et Analyse 54 Most of his philosophical writings have their origin in lectures, which he later worked up. Importance is a Whiteheadian generic notion.
Fordham Univer- sity Press, Yet he did not devote himself to mathematics alone. See 1 question about Thinking with Whitehead…. In a splendid work that serves as both introduction and erudite commentary, Isabelle Stengers one of today s leading philosophers of science goes straight to the beating heart of Whitehead s thought.
Another approach would have been possible: And the dogs are all the more useful in that the caravan in question is transporting only goods that are not very interesting at all: Quite the contrary, one would discern the possible destruction of the experimental adventure if the knowledge econ- omy were to prevail and transform competent colleagues into complacent colleagues, because they share the same dependencies.
Of course, Whitehead reads Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and even Kant as if they were his contemporaries, but he knows that he asks them questions that are not theirs, he knows that he does not respect what matters for them, or what made them think.
Before becoming the scourge of humankind, Grendel met a being much older than himself, the dragon that Beowulf was to fight one day. Amy Karofsky – – Philosophy and Theology 15 2: The tests of an experimental proposition’s reliability are not a goal in themselves; the true verification of a proposition concerns its consequences or the new possibilities that it makes conceivable and which, if they are fruitful, will gather researchers together, whatever epistemologists may say.
In a way, it is not surprising that theology has found Whitehead so congenial, since innovations in theology are few and far between. They are protected by their distance. Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet.
You are commenting using your WordPress. Thinking with Whitehead Thinking with Whitehead today therefore means accepting an adventure from which none of the words that serve as our reference points should emerge unscathed, but whitebead which none will be disqualified or denounced as a vector of illusion. Maybe this is what Deleuze meant by “a free aod wild invention of concepts.
One thus discovers that if Grendel kills men, it is because he is simultaneously the witness, judge, and impotent voyeur of the strange power fiction has over them, and confers upon. Steven Meyer – – Process Studies 37 2: University of Nebraska Press,pp. This requires a conceptual power which can imagine, and a practical power which can effect.
Even when an argument is taken up again, its meaning changes, and the readers shitehead accept the experience of this change. Each “advance” of an objectivity reputed to be scientific has been acclaimed by some as a gain in rational- ity, and condemned by others as an attack on the subject.
The fact that all continuity must be described as an “adventure” creates the possibility of escaping polemics. In other words, it addresses the thinker qua situ- ated, in iabelle way that the thinker defines his or her situation. Instead, we have to stdngers with a veritable cult of the scientific revolution”-a new revolution will come along to solve the questions raised by the preceding one.
Want to Read saving…. The product of thirty years engagement with the mathematician-philosopher s entire canon, this volume establishes Whitehead as a daring thinker on par with Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and Michel Foucault.
The success story of this operation is part of the question “what has hap- pened to us? Maria Jakubik – unknown. One of the reasons that turned me away from this possibility is the ease with which relevance can become a model, that is, a source of answers. And this is an achievement that no theory of knowledge, no epistemology could justify, for it belongs to the order of the event, of what can happen but is witu deserved, and does not correspond to any right.
It does not constitute a vision of the world or a “new paradigm” — indeed, this is prob- ably the worst confusion that can occur with regard to it.
For Whitehead, in contrast, science must be understood as an adventure, and an adventure never en- ables us to draw ageneral lesson. How can it be that America, nay, the Har- vard Philosophy Department, provided a thinkiing to the most important philosopher of the twentieth century and then has utterly forgotten him?
But with Stengers at the helm, the little ship is able to predict with great accuracy where thinknig whale will emerge again, in a few hours. As far as the twelfth camel added to the inheritance is concerned, it illustrates the efficacy proper to the specula- tive proposition.