Cover of Process Studies
>> Go to Current Issue

Process Studies

Volume 41, Issue 2, Fall/Winter 2012
Whitehead and the Analytic Tradition

Table of Contents

Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-14 of 14 documents


articles

1. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Franz Riffert, Ludwig Jaskolla

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
2. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Bogdan Rusu, Ronny Desmet

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The aim of this historically oriented article is to give an account of the methodological similarity of Whitehead and Russell with regard to the logico-mathematicalmode of philosophical analysis, and of Whitehead and Moore with regard to common sense. According to the authors, these similarities, especially when taken together, justify the classification of Whitehead as an analytic philosopher. Because of the doctrinal uniqueness of Whitehead, however, they also hold that he will always remain an atypical analytic philosopher.
3. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Franz Riffert

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This article discusses the characteristics of analytic philosophy and the relationship between these characteristics and Whitehead’s philosophy. In particular,Whitehead’s metaphysical theory building is treated in relation to analytic philosophy and is seen as compatible with the tradition of analytic philosophy as it has developed in recent decades.
4. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Christine Holmgren, Leemon McHenry

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
W.V.O. Quine and A.N. Whitehead shared a dualistic ontology of concrete and abstract objects but differed sharply on the status of properties. In this essay, we explore Whitehead’s reasons for admitting properties into his ontology and Quine’s objections. In the course of examining Quine’s position we demonstrate some deficiencies in his position and conclude that in spite of his claims, neither space-time coordinate systems nor classes can do all the ontological work of properties.
5. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
George W. Shields

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
My purpose in this essay is to provide a critical survey of arguments within recent analytic philosophy regarding the so-called “mind-body problem” with a particular view toward the relationship between these arguments and the philosophy of A.N. Whitehead (and Charles Hartshorne’s closely related views).1In course, I shall argue that Whitehead’s panexperientialist physicalism avoids paradoxes and difficulties of both materialist-physicalism and Cartesian dualismas advocated by a variety of analytic philosophers. However, and I believe that this point is not often sufficiently recognized, analytic philosophy of mind is no monolith, and there are those who have found some form of panexperientialism to be attractive enough to merit serious consideration or even full-fledgedacceptance (David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Ralph Pred, William Seager, and Galen Strawson among them). A critical discussion of such thinkers should beincluded in any adequate survey of the relation between process panexperientialism and the analytic tradition. Moreover, the revisionary strain of the analyticaltradition which looks to natural science for its construction of worldviews (Broad, Russell, Bunge, Carnap, Quine, etc.) would move us in the direction of examining arguments concerning Whitehead’s view and contemporary empirical scientific considerations. (For a discussion of the basic nature of analytic philosophy and the descriptive and revisionary approaches contained within it, see my Process and Analysis, 5-9, 12-13, 57; and McHenry.) Here I shall argue that Whiteheadian panexperientialism very naturally accommodates important aspects of quantum theory, including the top-down causation involved in neuroplastic phenomena under a quantum mechanical interpretation of brain processes and in so-called Quantum Zeno Effect. The overall picture which emerges is that Whitehead’s position is (at the very least) a strongly plausible alternative in philosophy of mind.While I must confess that this essay can only represent the merest sketch—indeed an adequate treatment of the richly complex interpretive, comparative, and substantive philosophical issues here requires at the very least a monograph—I nonetheless hope to present a coherent and useful précis of major arguments and comparative conceptual relationships, especially for the reader who may not be readily familiar with this terrain. I thus hope that this essay will serve as a short expository and critical introduction to the interface between process and analytic philosophy of mind, and a presentation of the several theoretical advantages gained by listening to Whitehead’s theory as it connects with concerns of analytic philosophers.I shall proceed by first working though the main outlines of John Searle’s important and widely reaching “The Recent History of Materialism,” an essay which exposes critical flaws in a variety of materialist theories in ways which Whiteheadians should find especially fitting and congenial. I shall then examine defenses of dualism and the relation of Whitehead to such defenses, followed by a separate section on Chalmers, Nagel, and Pred. I will then consider a number ofimportant objections to process panexperientialism, including objections arising from the work of Jaegwon Kim and John Searle. I close with a discussion of thementioned empirical scientific arguments.

reviews

6. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Adam C. Scarfe

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
7. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Adam Scarfe

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
8. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Douglas Simpson, William Bruneau, Adam Scarfe

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
9. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Leemon McHenry

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
10. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Rosen Lutskanov

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
11. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
Rosemary Radford Ruether

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
12. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2
David Skrbina

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

13. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

14. Process Studies: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2

view |  rights & permissions | cited by