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):||8 February 2006|
|PDF File Size:||5.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.31 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Isabelle Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts – PhilPapers
The goal, for her, was to be able to think about the creative power of these sciences — the path of critical epistemology was henceforth closed-— but also about their catastrophic indifference to what they judge “non-scientific. For good intentions and a conciliatory spirit arc not enough. She demonstrates that the implications of Whitehead s philosophical theories and specialized knowledge of the various sciences come yoked with his ixabelle, revisionist take on God.
Keith Robinson – – Deleuze and Guatarri Studies 4 1: He wrote at the same time as Heidegger, Husserl, and Wittgenstein, who are still cited today as refer- ences for thinking about our epoch, it is thus impossible to keep him “at a distance. 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.
Renan Virginio marked it as to-read Nov 04, It is what defines the demands of the environment on which the success of an experimental suggestion depends, and this ability does not exclude the human beings who become active, discuss, and hesi- tate, but thinklng them and mobilizes them around the eventuality of this achievement.
Yet Thinking with Whitehead does not belong, properly thiniing, to the history of philosophy. Unlike the portraitist, whose task is to make the viewers feel, to transfer what was lived and created, but without personally taking over from it, my i.
Soul and World: Fragments written upon reading “Thinking with Whitehead” by Isabelle Stengers
Most interestingly, Stengers describes this interstitial space as a “sacrament” — the “unique sacrament of expression” — that in its “call for a sacramental plurality” conveys Whitehead’s understanding of “the cosmic meaning he confers upon expression and importance” in order to develop “a sociology of life” for which signs are not only functional, but expressive.
The God conceived by Whitehead, and affirmed by the blind man Ork, thus earned him an improbable survival through the intermediary of American theology. On the contrary, he is there to re- mind us of our lost wisdom.
The right answer is “Whitehead” — another philosopher whose name begins with W, to be sure, but one who is vastly more daring, and also, unfortunately, much less studied.
History has proved Descartes wrong. It is sad that a rediscovery of Whitehead hwitehead narrow the creative synthesis down by being dominated by such a negative prehension. In other words, it addresses the thinker stengdrs situ- ated, in the way that the thinker defines his or her situation.
How does a dragon talk? This life “within the world,” divided between public responsibilities, reformist activities, and personal research, should have yielded to peace at the age of retirement, but two years before the fateful date, Whitehead was to receive the invitation that would change the course of his life: And to disarm Grendel’s hatred, it is not enough to deny progress, to reject human greatness.
Stephen Williamson marked it as to-read May 25, Studies in the Philosophy of Creation: To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. If reading Whitehead means accepting to commit oneself to an adven- ture whose” starting point is always the formulation of a problem, with- out the legitimacy of the problem being well-founded, without the pos- sibility of answering it being justified in terms of the right to think, one may rightly wonder if the formulations he attempted are still able to en- gage us today.
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. Because she is herself a philosopher of science who has explored minutely many of the same fields as Whitehead — chemistry, physics, Darwinism, ethology, and psychology but not mathematics nor logic, although she takes very seriously the fact that Whitehead thinks as a mathematician — Stengers’s book can be seen as an effort to test out Whitehead’s most daring concepts on new materials and in new exam- ples.
Thinking with Whitehead — Isabelle Stengers | Harvard University Press
It is an important work, unusual not only for the bold generality with which it tries to characterize Whitehead’s philosophical work in its most important manifestations, but even more importantly, for its effort to present a radical alternative mode of contemporary thinking. Whitehead was born in Kent inthe son of a schoolmaster, later an Anglican pastor, who took personal charge of his education until the age of fourteen.
For him, nihilistic rage is just as absurd as belief, for everything is tied together, everything goes hand in hand, creation and destruction, lies and authenticity.
Thinking with Stengers and Whitehead. And sith choice of this term accentuates a question that polemical constructivisms render sec- ondary.
Among his many misfortunes, Alfred North White- head had the very bad one of provoking too much interest among theo- logians and too little among epistemologists.
Whether in philosophy, theology, science, or literature, his goal was neither to inform nor to cultivate himself, but always and above all to understand. Oxford University Press, This is the type of test that this book, which is written “with” Whitehead, demands. The other is more spatial, since it circles around the excluded middle between the philosophy of science excluding mind and a general metaphysics of all worldsnamely, a cosmology of our real universe.
If there is a weakness in Stengers’ rendering of Whitehead’s work, it is of a more isabellr nature, demonstrating its embeddedness in a wider cultural spirit or zeitgeist. This is why Whitehead can write that the interest of the speculative scheme he has constructed resides in its applications, in the transformations it carries out in our ways of explaining or characterizing our experiences.
No keywords specified fix it.