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.
|Country:||Central African Republic|
|Published (Last):||7 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||18.4 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.16 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Some, such as interstices and infection, are not even included in the Whiteheadian indices, while others are not properly Aith. Yet it is much harder to give voice to a nonhuman knowledge, more ancient than humankind, able to see farther than the insignificant ripple they create in the river of time.
William James, “Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist? To ask other readers questions about Thinking with Whiteheadplease sign up. Gardner needed Whitehead to give voice both to the priest and to the dragon because he needed statements that, in two different modes, separate Grendel from what makes him a monster. The first fourteen chapters that discuss the “temporal” development of Whitehead’s thought “From the Philosophy of Nature to Metaphysics” begin with a hermeneutical invitation to the reader to view the Whiteheadian adventure of thought as a dislocation from all commonly held beliefs and theories about nature and the world in general because it asks “questions that will separate them from thinnking consensus.
Although the book is a close reading, in chronological order, of the major books of Whitehead, and although it makes good use of the body of existing scholarship, it does not simply try to explain or popularize the history of Whitehead’s thought.
In The Invention of Mod- ern Sciences, I suggested that what unites experimenters, what forces them to become active wih to think together, is a question that can only be asked in the laboratory: On the contrary, he is there to re- mind us of our lost wisdom. I have stebgers felt that Whitehead-watching had a lot to do with whale-watching as it is practiced, for instance, on the coast of San Diego in the winter.
The point is not to declare war on the conventions that bind us, the habits that enable us to be characterized. It is the job of scientific communities to test the relevance of the problematic definitions that make them work.
Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts
It is said that Whitehead hated to be bored, and elaborated his thought in the presence of his students. Since we are organisms surrounded by many other organisms, nature has not bifurcated. The question for him is not what we can know, but what wc know.
Some of these interventions will be “cries,” others elaborations, in which thought is “put to work” in real time, but still others are genuine operators of brutal bifurcation.
The whole book turns around the most arduous question of Whitehead, without making any attempt either to avoid the difficulties or to obfus- cate his philosophy by bringing in new irrelevant conundrums. Barbara Weber – – Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 2: Leibniz, Essais de theodicee Paris: It is in this context that “Whitehead’s metaphysical God does not recognize his own, he does not read our hearts, he does not understand us better than we do ourselves, he does not demand our recognition or our gratitude, and we shall never contemplate him in his truth.
The ability to resist the accusation of “being a mere construction,” in the sense of a merely human social, linguistic, technical, subjective fab- rication, is thus no longer the privilege of the experimental procedure, but its key element. Living actuality is not a given, but an achievement won at the cost of alternatives, and maintained at the cost of the robbery of other actualities of their life.
Another testimony to this choice is the absence in the index of the “great Whiteheadian concepts.
Full text of “Isabelle Stengers – Thinking With Whitehead (Foreword & Introduction)”
The two parts of the book roughly bring to light the development of Whitehead’s thought and its shifting points of gravity, circling around two of its major developments.
The concepts are required by the transfor- mation of experience, but it is this disclosure that has, and always will have, the last word. Jeffrey Tallane rated it it was amazing Oct 03, A homage of philosophy to fiction, John Gardner grasped the strange character of this audacity quite precisely: Henceforth, American “Whitcheadians” arc recruited among both phi- losophers and theologians, and the palette has been enriched by practi- tioners from the most diverse horizons, from ecology to feminism, prac- tices that unite political struggle and spirituality with the sciences of education.
Far from psychologizing everything, Whitehead sees in James — and especially in his celebrated essay on consciousness — the thinker who has ended all the pretensions of the mind.
For a European like me, a stranger to the theistic tradition, the true interlocutors make their appearance with Ivor Leclerc and William A. At the end of Process and Reality, the same author seems to have ex- ploded all the limits that modern good manners impose upon thought. Such simplistic definitions, which mutilate questions, would be the price to pay for an approach that would finally be rational.
It is not that these philosophers rejected proximity with theistic concerns, but that their interest focused on the conceptual coherence proper to the work, not its contribution to thinkibg.
If there is one position that denies the finitude of the human condition, it ts the one that claims to put a stop to the adventure of thought, and supposes that we know what is imposed by that condition.
This is not a matter of psychology, for if one questions botanists, they will speak of vegetal proliferation, of the thorny questions raised by each type of classification, in short, of an ad- venture that confronts one with plants. Such a question could, of course, be raised with regard to every philosopher, and it is the greatness of the history of philosophy that it succeeds, sometimes, in giving what one could call, with Gilles Deleuze, a “portrait of the philosopher with his problem.
The roles have been distributed, with the scientists on the side of innovation, and those who dispute their proposition on the side of inertia, habits, and what will eventually give in, for “you can’t stop progress. sith