On 12/28/2012 12:10 PM, nominal9 wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Stephen.... Process Philosophy is something new
(as such) to me... so I looked it up in a pretty good Philosophical
encyclopedia....Does the article below do it ("Process Philosophy")
justice, more or less?
Hi N9,
OK to shorten your handle? Yes, the article @
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ is great, hitting
all the notes requires for at least an introduction.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
The "founding" notion seems to be that Process is diverse from
Substance, as a principle of order or organization....
Right. You might also wish to read the article (by the same people)
on Substance: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Very naively on my part.....I ask....and challenge....In seeking to
supplant "Substance" with Process... what happens to all that the
"Substance" folks... thinkers and scientists... have discovered and
learned... about... Physical Matter and .. Thought... ?
What forced me to P.P. is the Hole argument of General Relativity:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ It argues in
powerful ways against the notion of substance as ontologically
primitive. If space-time itself cannot be consistently defined as a
substance and the "stuffness" of my desk vanishes when I examine it
closely enough, as we learn from Quantum Mechanics, what is the point to
the very idea of a ontologically primitive substance? What does
"substance" do, other than act as a "bearer of properties" that some how
binds those properties together? Is there a better way of doing ontology
that allows an epistemology to be constructed that "makes sense" given
what our amazingly accurate physics theories tell us?
Is all that "stuff" useless and for naught?... I mean, I guess, what
do the Processists replace each and every bit of that "learned" stuff
with?
Processes generates "products": relatively invariant patterns of
relations. Ever read any Prigogine or any articles on dissipative
structures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
But, I will look more into it... read the abstract you gave and try to
respond better to your replies, Stephen... At first blush, looking at
the Stanford Encyclopedia article above... it looks to me like Process
Philosophy has much in common (as method, at least) with what
phenomenologists like to do... "Bracketing"
Right. Bracketing is a good way of looking at this as it allows for
the explicit reference to context, boundary and constraints. One reason
I like it is that it helps avoid tacit assumptions of omniscience.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
Personally... I don't much care for phenomenology....just saying... I
think it is too "internal" and cerebrally based... doesn't really look
at the external "thing" (physical thing especially) under examination
for its own explanations of itself (i.e., not "empirical" or inductive
[GOOD IMO] but instead abstractly "logical" and deductive[BAD IMO])
Yes, I agree.
snip
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
