Process philosophy is characterized by an attempt to reconcile the diverse intuitions found in human experience (such as religious, scientific, and aesthetic) into a coherent holistic scheme.
Process philosophy seeks a return to a neo-classical realism that avoids subjectivism. This reconciliation of the intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity, with a concern for scientific findings, produces the explicitly metaphysical speculation that the world, at its most fundamental level, is made up of momentary events of experience rather than enduring material substances.
Process philosophy speculates that these momentary events, called “actual occasions” or “actual entities,” are essentially self-determining, experiential, and internally related to each other.
Actual occasions correspond to electrons and sub-atomic particles, but also to human persons. The human person is a society of billions of these occasions (that is, the body), which is organized and coordinated by a single dominant occasion (that is, the mind). Thus, process philosophy avoids a strict mind-body dualism.
[...]
1. What Counts as Process Philosophy
a. The Perennial Process Tradition
Process philosophy argues that the language of development and change are more appropriate descriptors of reality than the language of static being. This tradition has roots in the West in the pre-Socratic Heraclitus, who likened the structure of reality to the element of fire, as change is reality and stability is illusion. Heraclitus is famous for the aphorism that one can never step in the same river twice.
In Eastern traditions, many Taoist and Buddhist doctrines can be classified as “process.” For example, the Taoist admonition that one should be spontaneously receptive to the never ending flux of yin and yang emphasizes a process worldview, as do the Buddhist notions of pratyitya-samutpada (the inter-dependent origination of events) and anatma (the denial of a substantial or enduring self).
More recently on the continent, one finds process philosophers in Hegel, who saw the history of the world as processive and dialectic unfolding of Absolute Spirit and in Gottfried Leibniz, Henri Bergson, Nikolai Berdyaev, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Even David Hume (insofar as he rejected the idea of a substantial self in favor of a series of unconnected perceptual “bundles”) can be considered a process philosopher.... — IEP - Process Philosophy
I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it. — Darkneos
There is a strong tendency to overlook process and to think we simply live in world full of separate things. We use nouns, which indicate some kind of stable entities — what in the philosophical tradition have been called “substances.” It’s quite normal to think of the world as a thing, filled with other things — rivers, mountains, lions, mosquitos, people, all sort of things. It’s also quite normal to think of these individual things as distinct from other things, which they are not. The fish is not the river. It is in the river. The river is not the river valley. It flows through the valley. The valley is not the region. But it is a part of a region. Objects are parts of bigger objects still. Wholes are parts of other wholes. [...]
We cannot understand the things mentioned without understanding the processes in which they are involved. Process philosophers tend to emphasize these processes that interlink these various things, and they emphasize that the things themselves have fuzzy boundaries and are also characterized by their processes.
The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital. [...]
...the first four characteristics that Rescher views as basic tendencies of process thinkers. In Rescher’s words:
1. Time and change are among the principle categories of metaphysical understanding.
2. Process is a principle category of ontological description.
3. Processes are more fundamental, or at any rate, not less fundamental than things for the purposes of ontological theory.
4. Several, if not all, of the major elements of the ontological repertoire (God, nature as a whole, persons, material substances) are best understood in process terms.
5. Contingency, emergence, novelty, and creativity are among the fundamental categories of metaphysical understanding. (5-6) — The Basics of Process Philosophy - Reason and Meaning
the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entries — Darkneos
Ecology
With its perspective that everything is interconnected, that all life has value, and that non-human entities are also experiencing subjects, process philosophy has played an important role in discourse on ecology and sustainability. — Wiki - Process philosophy
I asked the question on Stack Exchange: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it — Darkneos
[emphasis added]1
Uhhh…what does that mean exactly? I know that things change but what exactly does that mean and what does that mean for what I’m saying about people and society? –
BoltStorm
Your question, "I'm wondering I guess how would such a worldview function if it stopped seeing living things as "things". ... From an understanding of semiosis, you would not see people as discrete, concretely bounded 'things'. You would see each person as an amazing manifestation of what their genetic, epigenetic, and cultural influences autopoietically combined to form what you recognize as their form and identity. ... Think of a dust devil, and how just the right combination of circumstances came together to create a fleeting form. This is probably not the best analogy but please consider. –
Sarah C Tyrrell
At a glance it seems to think that what individuals are is a collection of processes, though to me that would appear to have serious ethical implications since it seems kinda dehumanizing to just label people as just processes. Would that change our view of "people" and would it be for the better? I'm wondering I guess how would such a worldview function if it stopped seeing living things as "things".
Sorry for the confusion but I guess it just highlights my lack of comprehension of the subject. I've met maybe two people who subscribe to it and seem to live regular lives, though when I asked them to explain they couldn't, which gave me doubts about it.
I just seems like it would be a bad philosophy if one is concerned with well being and things like that, thoughts?
Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static — punos
I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!
How the mind loves to classify, and no mind more so than the philosopher's! And if something, or someone does not fit neatly into the compartments one has, then a new compartment must be created, named, and defined. — unenlightened
Now I can relax! I still know everything! — unenlightened
↪Amity's citation is a good effort, but it makes the definition appear to be in terms of Whiteheadian terminology, but then massively expands it with applications to other, earlier areas of thought. — Count Timothy von Icarus
There is "process theology," "process metaphysics," etc. The term is most used to apply to metaphysics. Nicholas Rescher's introductory book is the best text I've found introducing it because it explains the benefits and aims of the process view without doing injustice to contrary views, making clear arguments, and most importantly, not using a ton of foreign terminology. Rescher also takes a broad view, so he looks back to process views in Aristotle, Neoplatonism (e.g. exitus and redditus), Hegel, etc. instead of just 20th+ century continental philosophy and its main precursors. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The lable is very diffuse and is applied in different ways by different people — Count Timothy von Icarus
...if everything is changing, even the meanings of our words and change itself, how shall we ever say anything true about anything? How does this affect our intuition that certain things won't change (e.g. Napoleon will never become the first president of the USA)?
One can posit "stabilities" in change, but this does not good if such stabilities are themselves subject to unrestricted flux, as well as what it even means to be stable or enduring. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I asked the question on Stack Exchange: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it — Darkneos
In this enlightening video, we unwrap the philosophical gift of process metaphysics, a perspective that sees the foundation of reality not as a collection of static entities, but as a dynamic collage of processes and happenings. We delve into the essence of change and contemplate the notion that change is not merely an occurrence within the universe but the very fabric of the universe itself. [...]
As we navigate the moral whirlwind of advancements in genetic engineering, process metaphysics offers a framework to consider the implications of our actions as processes with trajectories that shape humanity's course. We also examine how culture, through literature and storytelling, channels the spirit of process metaphysics, with narratives that reflect transformation and moral awakening.
In our current discourse on climate change and social justice, process metaphysics challenges us to consider the spectrum of possibilities that unfold over time, prompting critical thinking about the patterns of development we weave into our collective future.
This video is not just a philosophical exploration; it is an invitation to reflect on how seeing the world as a series of processes can change your perspective. It encourages you to ponder your contributions to these processes and to consider what verse you will add to the grand symphony of life.
IMHO, by reductive conceptual conflation of (e.g.) Heraclitean flux + Democritean ceaselessly swirling atoms in void + Spinozist conative infinite & finite modes (sub specie durationis) + Schopenhaurian Will + Bergsonian élan vital + Peircean-Deweyan truth as inquiry ... A.N. Whitehead produces a baroque panpsychist teleology he calls (the) "process" as the fundamental property, or ground, of reality – there are only happenings ("occasions of (possible?) experience") and their inter/relations (i.e. "complexes", or patterns of events); there aren't any static or unrelated 'things' (i.e. Aristotlean substances (or unmoved mover)). Yeah, okay. So an explicit "process philosophy" seems to me preposterously redundant (re: predecessors), and almost Heideggerian in its obscurant ponderings and neologisms (or Hegelian prolixity). But I'm a quixotic pandeist so what the hell do I know? :smirk:What exactly is Process Philosophy? — Darkneos
Years ago, I too, got lost in Whitehead's complex & convoluted abstract & abstruse explication of Process and Reality. So, although the general gist seemed to be agreeable to my own Holistic & Information-based amateur worldview, I couldn't answer your question. Therefore, I was prompted to do a Google search on : "process philosophy compared to what?"But the answers I get make even less sense than the wikipedia entries on it and so I figured I'd try to ask it on here to see if anyone knows what it is and what it means, because I just get more lost on it. — Darkneos
Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static. Everything moves, and is made of things that move, that are made of things that move, that are made of things that move. At the very bottom it's just space, or the vibrating void. If a thing were to truly stop moving, then it would simultaneously cease to exist, and it will no longer be a thing. — punos
First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun! — Amity
The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital. — The Basics of Process Philosophy - Reason and Meaning
So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static. — Amity
Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe. — unenlightened
This video is not just a philosophical exploration; it is an invitation to reflect on how seeing the world as a series of processes can change your perspective. It encourages you to ponder your contributions to these processes and to consider what verse you will add to the grand symphony of life.
Alfred North Whitehead is a philosophical work that presents a system known as "process philosophy," arguing that reality is fundamentally a process of becoming rather than a collection of static objects, where the core concept is "creativity" as the driving force behind this ongoing process of actual entities coming into existence; it emphasizes the interconnectedness and relational nature of all things within the universe, with each "actual occasion" (moment of experience) drawing from past events and contributing to future ones, essentially viewing the world as a dynamic flow of becoming rather than a fixed state. — Gnomon
Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist. — Darkneos
So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static.
— Amity
Except from what I gather they are, I posted something about teleonomic matter which seems to say the same. We care about individuals not processes. — Darkneos
First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun!
— Amity
I dunno, why is anything important? — Darkneos
In a world that often feels hurried and chaotic, finding solace in simple, rhythmic activities can be a gateway to peace and mental well-being. Knitting, a timeless craft cherished across generations, emerges not just as a creative hobby but as a surprising ally in the quest for mindfulness and relaxation. From the gentle click of needles to the tactile pleasure of yarn, knitting is more than just a means to create; it’s a meditative journey that offers a unique blend of focus, repetition, and creativity. — Therapeutic effects of knitting - a guide to mindfulness and relaxation
Processism: a philosophy characterised by the prioritising of 'happens' over 'is'; of event over object; of doing over being. Now I can relax! I still know everything! — unenlightened
What is a substance. What is a process? Which one is more difficult to define?Here's the response from Google A.I. Overview : "Process philosophy is often compared to substance metaphysics, which is the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy. Process philosophy differs from substance metaphysics in its focus on becoming and change, rather than the static nature of being." — Gnomon
It's not saying that at all. It's saying that individuals are processes. You are a process. Your mind is a process. Your body is a process, or relation between organs. Your organs are a process, or relation between molecules. Molecules are a relation between atoms, and atoms a relation between protons and electrons, and protons a relation between quarks. It's possible we could go on for infinity as we continue to dig deeper. The point is that when we try to get at actual objects we are actually getting at relations between smaller objects, which are themselves relations.Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist. — Darkneos
Whitehead's Process philosophy is over my head. But it seems to be describing a worldview that is similar to my own. For example, reductive physical Science tends to use the word "substance" to mean composed-of-static-stable-immobile-Matter. But quantum Science has found that Matter is fundamentally a process of energy & form exchanges*1. So Aristotle's definition of "substance"*2 may be more appropriate for our understanding of Nature's fundamentals. On the sub-atomic level of reality, nothing stands still, and formless Energy (causation ; E=MC^2) is the essence of the material substances we see & touch, and depend-on to stay-put when we leave them alone.Here's the response from Google A.I. Overview : "Process philosophy is often compared to substance metaphysics, which is the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy. Process philosophy differs from substance metaphysics in its focus on becoming and change, rather than the static nature of being." — Gnomon
What is a substance. What is a process? Which one is more difficult to define?
We've discussed our ideas before and I think we share a lot in the way we view the world. I would add that process and relations can be used interchangeably here, and information is another relation or process - a causal process/relation.
I personally do not like to invoke the term, "becoming" as that seems to imply some sort of goal, or intent, and nothing lasts forever, so becoming nothing would essentially be the case for everything and "becoming" becomes meaningless. — Harry Hindu
Whitehead invokes God as a fundamental part of his metaphysical system which, I believe, is why he uses the term, "becoming" in describing the behavior of processes.Whitehead's Process philosophy is over my head. But it seems to be describing a worldview that is similar to my own. For example, reductive physical Science tends to use the word "substance" to mean composed-of-static-stable-immobile-Matter. But quantum Science has found that Matter is fundamentally a process of energy & form exchanges*1. So Aristotle's definition of "substance"*2 may be more appropriate for our understanding of Nature's fundamentals. On the sub-atomic level of reality, nothing stands still, and formless Energy (causation ; E=MC^2) is the essence of the material substances we see & touch, and depend-on to stay-put when we leave them alone.
Therefore, our world is not a finished product, but an evolving process. Yet classical Newtonian*3 Physicists tend to dislike the notion of progression toward some future goal, as in Teleology. I don't know what that final denoument will be, but I doubt that the end-state of this process will be heat-death. That's because disorderly Entropy is off-set by a tendency toward order (Negentropy) that I call Enformy*4. And the root of Enformy is Information : knowledge of inter-relations as both frozen snapshots and dynamic movies. — Gnomon
I still have not completely bought into the Big Bang theory. How do we know that the rate of expansion has been the same through time? How do we know if the universe has ever undergone contraction during its history? The "expansion" could be the effect of something else "outside" our universe interacting with our universe. Could it be multiverses, or something in this universe in different dimensions than what we can't perceive (dark matter/energy) causing the expansion?The Big Bang universe is typically portrayed as an open-ended expansion from almost nothing (singularity) to a lot more of nothing {image below}. But my Enformationism thesis describes it as Progression {image below} instead of just Expansion. That's because the original Singularity of big bang theory is an immaterial mathematical concept, so where did all the organized Matter and sentient Minds come from? Some scientists think the Big Bang ex nihilo notion is erroneous --- implying a Creation event and Teleonomy --- but so far no other First Cause concept has taken its place as a scientific Theory of Everything. — Gnomon
What is the scope of evolutionary space when the human species has left the planet and can live in space? I don't like the term, "physical". Evolutionary forces are natural forces. Predator and prey are forces acting on each other. The dynamic environment is a force acting on the organism and the organism is itself part of the environment. Gravity is a force that plays a role in the shape and structure of organisms as well as the shape and structure of planets, stars and galaxies.*3.Newtonian forces push and pull physical bodies in specifiable spatiotemporal directions. But, in an important sense, evolutionary forces do not “act” like physical Newtonian forces. Evolutionary forces push and pull populations of organisms (not bodies) in evolutionary space, not in space and time. — Gnomon
It seems to me that the sun's energy is the biggest player in the battle against entropy, here in our local area of the universe. The sun won't last forever. I do hope Elon succeeds in his plans to colonize Mars. I hope we go much further because when the Sun goes nova, or a major solar flare occurs, even Mars won't be safe. I hope humans are destined to become a star-faring species. We should not keep our eggs all in one basket.The dominance of information-sharing humans on Earth is merely one sign of Enformy at work, converting world-destroying Entropy into a world-conquering species of Information consumers and Entropy expellers. Purpose is the paddle by which we propel ourselves into the future (telos). Enformy is the fuel of Progress and Entropy is the exhaust. Elon won't make it to Mars --- in his dissipative rockets --- if he surrenders to Entropy. :wink: — Gnomon
I too, postulate a philosophical god-like First Cause*1 as an explanation for the something-from-nothing implication of Big Bang theory. The Multiverse hypothesis just assumes perpetual causation, with no beginning or end. But what we know of physical Energy is that it dissipates. So, I find the open-ended Big Bang theory to be adequate for scientific purposes.Whitehead invokes God as a fundamental part of his metaphysical system which, I believe, is why he uses the term, "becoming" in describing the behavior of processes. — Harry Hindu
Yes. I interpret the use of "acausal" in quantum physics to mean simply "no known cause". On the macro scale, sudden Phase Transitions, such as water to ice, also seem mysterious because there is no instantaneous change in the gradual inflow or outflow of energy. So, the potential to transform a liquid to a solid or gas state may be inherent to the geometry of the system, not to a particular cause. :nerd:Faster processes will appear as blurs of change (waves?) and may appear to have no cause at all from our perspective. — Harry Hindu
Some scientists object to the Big Bang theory, primarily because of its implication of a creation event. But they have not yet found a better alternative. The current rate of expansion can be measured, and is called the Hubble Constant. Yet some scientists hypothesize that the early rate of inflation was faster than the speed of light, then suddenly slowed down to its current leisurely pace of "67.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec." But the exponential inflation rate is theoretical, not measurable. :grin:I still have not completely bought into the Big Bang theory. How do we know that the rate of expansion has been the same through time? — Harry Hindu
Evolutionary "forces" are metaphors*3 based on the physical forces of nature. And the "mechanisms" --- mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection --- are also metaphors, not directly observable procedures. Would you prefer to call them "meta-physical"? :wink:I don't like the term, "physical". Evolutionary forces are natural forces. — Harry Hindu
Yes. The sun is a blob of stored energy from the big bang, and is the source of anti-entropy (Enformy) for our local system, including Life & Mind. Since Sol's stores of energy are finite, those living & thinking beings may need to find a new home in about 5 billion earth years. So, Elon Musk needs to step-up the pace of his Starship program. :joke:It seems to me that the sun's energy is the biggest player in the battle against entropy, here in our local area of the universe. The sun won't last forever. — Harry Hindu
I admit it does take some stretching of the imagination, but one should expect to do so when learning new things. What part of my description do you take issue with, or is it the whole thing? — punos
So, here is where the process can go off on another tangent, away from a response which would reveal something specific. What would it matter if replies to your question didn't satisfy you? Is it that you just want to talk? See what others think? What motivated this question, other than other questions...
Is it 'turtles all the way down'? — Amity
It's not saying that at all. It's saying that individuals are processes. You are a process. Your mind is a process. Your body is a process, or relation between organs. Your organs are a process, or relation between molecules. Molecules are a relation between atoms, and atoms a relation between protons and electrons, and protons a relation between quarks. It's possible we could go on for infinity as we continue to dig deeper. The point is that when we try to get at actual objects we are actually getting at relations between smaller objects, which are themselves relations. — Harry Hindu
Dunning-Krugers are in full effect. :zip: — 180 Proof
In quantum field theory particles are excitations of underlying quantum property fields rather than discrete, static objects. — punos
Really great post! — PoeticUniverse
Do the one-third charges of quarks make them suspect of not being elemental/fundamental? — PoeticUniverse
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.