Louis Proyect wrote:
> For example, when Whitehead writes, "Nature is always about the
> perpetual exploration of novelty," you lose the other side of the equation
> which is about crisis and destruction.
Agreed -- this fits my memory of Whitehead, whom I haven't read in
almost 40 years.
> History moves forward, but not in
> the linear fashion envisioned by thinkers such as Leibniz and Whitehead.
What you are saying here is that Whitehead believed in Progress -- and
that the doctrine of Progress as developed in the 18th/19th centuries is
metaphysical. I agree. (Ted might be able to argue against this -- but at
least he has to argue and it gets us out of the unfruitful exchange of
compliments.)
>
> . . . . Whitehead is basically a
> theist. He may not believe that God split the Red Sea, but his attempt to
> wed science, metaphysics and religion is probably more dangerous when you
> get down to it.
Possibly -- but this is then a reason either to argue carefully or simply
to ignore him. If his position is dangerous, it shouldn't be dismissed
flippantly. And it is historically interesting that "the last gasp" (if that
is the correct designation) of Western Philosophy should be an
attempt to keep a grip on the content the sciences *and* on a sense
of change (however unmarxian).
> With Whitehead and Bergson, to a lesser extent, you get the last gasp of
> Western Philosophy trying to develop a metaphysical worldview. To
> Whitehead's credit, he largely stayed aloof from the great clashes of the
> 20th century even though logically he would have seemed logically to end up
> on the opposite side of the barricades from Marxism.
But as you and I both know (and I suppose Ted agrees) history does
not follow propositional logic and all slippery slopes don't slip.
Carrol
> From a class
> standpoint, he belongs to the grand tradition of Victorian progressives who
> sought a more civilized version of England than the one that existed. It is
> the world of the Bloomsbury group and Fabian socialism.
>
> In any case, if there is any confusion about what Marx stood for and what
> Whitehead stood for, I urge people to read Whitehead and not rely on dribs
> and drabs. He is a generally lucid writer and thinker and nowhere near as
> bad as somebody like Unamuno or other post-Nietzshean reactionaries.
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
