#Process Philosophy

[noosphe-re]

D.C.: Then art as you define it is a discipline of adaptation to the real as it is. It doesn't propose to change the world, it accepts it as it presents itself. By dint of breaking our habits, it habituates us more effectively. J.C.: I don't think so. There is one term of the problem which you are not taking into account: precisely, the world. The real. You say: the real, the world as it is. But it is not, it becomes! It moves, it changes! It doesn't wait for us to change...It is more mobile than you can imagine. You are getting closer to this reality when you say as it "presents itself"; that means that it is not there, existing as an object. The world, the real is not an object. It is a process.

For the Birds: John Cage in Conversation with Daniel Charles

[demon-girl-izalith]

Hot take, but sometimes I wonder just where the line between fact and fiction is. Why do we have such a binary? Is it possible things are more gray than that? When an artist is possessed by an idea, an urge to create a work, is it not also true to say the art creates the artist? If there is an ouroboros nature to creativity like this, artist makes art and art makes artist, then one could come to the conclusion that perhaps what is reality and what is fictitious is merely a matter of what exists *now*.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Relational Ontology

Relational ontology is a branch of metaphysics that focuses on the idea that entities exist and gain their meaning through their relationships with other entities, rather than being independent and self-contained. It challenges the traditional, substance-based ontology, which views entities as possessing intrinsic properties that define them in isolation. In relational ontology, the essence or identity of things is shaped by the web of relations in which they are embedded.

1. Core Concepts of Relational Ontology

Being-in-Relation: The foundational idea of relational ontology is that entities are defined by their relations rather than their inherent qualities. In this view, no entity exists in isolation; rather, all beings are interconnected, and their existence is shaped by their relationships with others. This contrasts with the traditional substance ontology, which sees entities as having intrinsic, unchanging properties.

Relational vs. Substantial Ontology: Substantial ontology posits that things exist independently and their identity is determined by their internal characteristics. Relational ontology, by contrast, holds that the essence of a thing arises from its relations to other things, making these relations central to the understanding of existence.

2. Historical and Philosophical Roots

Process Philosophy: A key influence on relational ontology comes from process philosophy, especially the work of Alfred North Whitehead. In process philosophy, reality is understood as a series of interconnected events and processes, with entities constantly in flux, shaped by their interactions with others. Whitehead’s concept of actual occasions and the interrelatedness of events is foundational to relational thinking.

Phenomenology and Existentialism: Philosophers like Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty also emphasize the relational nature of existence. Heidegger’s concept of being-with-others (Mitsein) highlights how human existence is fundamentally relational, and Merleau-Ponty explores how perception and embodiment are shaped by our relationships with the world and others.

Eastern Philosophy: Relational ontology is often compared to ideas from Buddhism and Taoism, which emphasize the interconnectedness of all things. The Buddhist notion of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) states that all phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions, denying the existence of independently existing entities.

3. Relational Ontology in Social and Political Philosophy

Identity and Social Relations: In social philosophy, relational ontology is applied to understand how personal and social identity is formed through relations. Feminist philosophy and social constructivism often draw on relational ontology to critique individualistic and essentialist understandings of identity, emphasizing that identity is shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts.

Interpersonal Ethics: Relational ontology informs ethical discussions about the self and others, suggesting that ethical behavior arises not from abstract principles, but from the recognition of our interdependent existence. Philosophers like Emmanuel Levinas argue that ethics is grounded in the relationship between self and the other, where the face of the other demands a response that acknowledges their humanity.

Communitarianism: In political theory, relational ontology is aligned with communitarianism, which critiques liberal individualism. Communitarians argue that individuals are deeply embedded in social and communal relationships, and these relationships are essential for understanding justice, rights, and responsibilities.

4. Relational Ontology in Science and Environmental Ethics

Quantum Physics and Relational Ontology: Some philosophers argue that modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, supports a relational view of reality. Quantum entanglement, for instance, suggests that particles do not have definite properties until they interact with other particles, supporting the idea that entities are defined by their relations.

Ecological and Environmental Ethics: Relational ontology also plays a significant role in environmental philosophy. It challenges the anthropocentric view that humans are separate from nature, emphasizing instead that humans are part of a larger ecological web. Deep ecology and other environmental movements adopt relational thinking to advocate for the intrinsic value of ecosystems and the interdependence of all life forms.

5. Critiques and Challenges

Objectivity and Relational Ontology: Critics of relational ontology question whether it can account for objective knowledge. If entities are only understood through their relations, it may be difficult to establish an objective foundation for truth. Relativism is a potential problem if all meaning is seen as dependent on particular relationships and contexts.

The Problem of Individual Autonomy: Another critique focuses on the implications for individual autonomy. If entities, including persons, are fully constituted by their relationships, critics argue that this could undermine the idea of personal freedom and responsibility. Relational autonomy attempts to address this by emphasizing that autonomy itself is relational, shaped by social interactions and dependencies.

6. Relational Ontology in Contemporary Philosophy

Poststructuralism and Deconstruction: In poststructuralism, relational ontology resonates with philosophers like Jacques Derrida, who emphasize the instability of meaning and the play of differences. Deconstruction challenges the notion of fixed identities and emphasizes the relational nature of language, meaning, and existence.

New Materialism: In new materialist thought, relational ontology influences discussions about the agency of matter and the interconnectedness of human and non-human entities. Philosophers like Karen Barad draw on quantum physics to argue that matter itself is relational, challenging the traditional divide between subjects and objects.

7. Relational Ontology in Religion and Theology

Theology and Relationality: In theology, relational ontology has been influential in discussions of the nature of God and divine action. Process theology builds on the relational ideas of process philosophy to argue that God is not a distant, unchanging entity, but is dynamically involved in the unfolding of the world through relationships with creation.

Interfaith Dialogue and Relational Being: Relational ontology also plays a role in interfaith dialogue, where understanding religious differences requires an appreciation of the relational context in which beliefs and practices develop.

Relational ontology challenges the traditional notion of independent entities with fixed identities, proposing instead that existence and meaning are fundamentally shaped by relationships. This approach has profound implications across philosophy, from metaphysics and ethics to politics, science, and theology. By focusing on interconnectedness, relational ontology offers a framework for understanding the complexity of identity, ethics, and existence in a world defined by interaction and interdependence.

[footnotes-2-plato]

Whitehead, God, and Eternal Objects (Dialoguing with Darren Iammarino)

Darren and I had an intense geek out session exploring some of Whitehead’s categoreal scheme. Key points include: The complex nature of eternal objects in Whitehead’s philosophy and the lack of consensus on the subject among scholars. The interaction between eternal objects and actual occasions, and how this relates to the primordial and consequent natures of God. The idea that the Eternal is…

[thetrinitarianmystery]

Cycles of Faith and Doubt

I am asking my way out of nothingness, through cycles of assertion and doubt. In this process, I must privilege an interior in order to exist at all—that is, to be an object of apparent knowing. And so I conceive of self and not-self, or Other. Their ongoing relationship is in principle the whole of Reality, or Self-as-process. I am this one, ongoing Self-as-process. The Self-as-process becomes…

[demon-girl-izalith]

Some people become stuck with this Cartesian view of reality, of animals and of the philosophy of mind. I choose to see reality as being meaning-laden,or perhaps moreso as being capable of building meaning and relationships at differing levels. Every individual bit of matter or energy has it's own little "life", and when you get large groups of these things together they get even more lively, they become atoms, then proteins, then cells, then organisms. And these things can form relationships of all levels of complexity and that's beautiful. They evolve and feel, maybe the feel pain or hunger or maybe they just exhibit attraction or charge, but when they get "lively " enough they also take comfort in becoming and in existing. I'd even like to believe that all things find aesthetic "love" in that, not just animals.

I think the view that humans and animals or even reality is just some automaton running on cosmic gears clunking along is outdated at best, and harmful at worst. Maybe being a dualist who ascribes clockwork to the cosmos and automaton minds to animals made sense in the past, but I'm not even sure if it did then either... Life is more complicated than that. We have literature and philosophy, we have relationships of all kinds. Maybe in the mere fact of existing in itself everything automatically builds it's own meaning, maybe by becoming and living we are that meaning, and maybe the minds of even the smallest creatures are capable of becoming in their own ways too? Who are we to draw the line at mammal or vertebrae? Why must humans be the only ones capable of making meaning and experiencing some kind of love? I'd like to think that's what everything is doing at some level.

Sure you can scoff at my soft panpsychist cosmology if you want, but to me it is the most valid and elegant solution to not only the problem of mind, but also the problem of nihilism, and so is personally fulfilling to see love as a process of building and creating meaning by existing and making things exist. And I think all creatures and things, from spiders to jellyfish to people are able to create and make meaning.

In short- yeah, I think my weird pet jellyfish can love me back in its own way. And if you disagree I'll chock that up to a lack of creativity, or perhaps meaning, in your own life.

[franeridart]

The Housecat Philosophy - Ep 37

Ep 00 || < Prev || Next >

Read the next four episodes on Patreon || support me on ko-fi~✨

[philosophybits]

[Man] loves the process of achieving, but does not really like to have achieved, and that is, of course, terribly funny. In a word, mankind is a comical construction; there’s a big joke in all of this, obviously.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground

[noosphe-re]

One should remain a process, one should never become a thing. That is intelligence.

Osho, Intelligence: The Creative Response to Now

[snoozingbear]

ursula le guin’s afterword to the farthest shore

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of the Philosophy of Chemistry

The philosophy of chemistry encompasses various theories and perspectives that seek to understand the nature of chemistry as a scientific discipline and its relationship to other areas of inquiry. Here are some prominent theories within the philosophy of chemistry:

Reductionism: Reductionism in the philosophy of chemistry posits that chemical phenomena can ultimately be explained by reducing them to the behavior of atoms and molecules at the micro-level. This approach seeks to understand complex chemical processes in terms of the interactions and properties of individual particles.

Emergence: In contrast to reductionism, emergentism suggests that chemical properties and behaviors emerge at higher levels of organization and cannot be fully explained by reduction to fundamental particles alone. Emergentist theories emphasize the novel properties that arise from the interactions of chemical substances and complex systems.

Structural Realism: Structural realism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the importance of the structure of theories in understanding the nature of reality. In the context of chemistry, structural realists argue that chemical theories capture the underlying structural relationships among chemical substances and properties, even if the theoretical entities themselves may not directly correspond to observable entities.

Operationalism: Operationalism is a philosophical approach that defines scientific concepts in terms of the procedures or operations used to measure or manipulate them. In chemistry, operationalism emphasizes the importance of experimental techniques and procedures in defining chemical concepts and theories.

Ontological Pluralism: Ontological pluralism acknowledges the existence of multiple ontological levels or domains of reality, each characterized by its own set of entities and properties. In the philosophy of chemistry, ontological pluralists may argue for the coexistence of different ontological frameworks, such as molecular, macroscopic, and emergent levels of description.

Instrumentalism: Instrumentalism is a philosophical view that regards scientific theories as tools or instruments for predicting and explaining observable phenomena, rather than providing literal descriptions of reality. In chemistry, instrumentalists may view chemical theories as pragmatic frameworks for organizing and interpreting experimental data, without necessarily committing to the ontological status of theoretical entities.

Process Philosophy: Process philosophy emphasizes the dynamic and relational nature of reality, viewing entities and phenomena as processes or events unfolding over time. In the philosophy of chemistry, process philosophers may emphasize the importance of chemical reactions and transformations as central to understanding the nature of chemical substances and properties.

Holism: Holism is a philosophical perspective that emphasizes the importance of understanding systems as wholes, whose properties cannot be fully explained by analyzing their individual parts in isolation. In chemistry, holists may argue for the importance of considering the systemic and contextual factors that influence chemical phenomena, rather than focusing solely on the behavior of individual molecules or particles.

These are just a few of the many theories and perspectives within the philosophy of chemistry, each offering unique insights into the nature of chemical science and its relationship to broader philosophical questions.

[footnotes-2-plato]

Review of "The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience"

Review of The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience (MIT Press, 2024) by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson By Matthew David Segall In The Blind Spot, Frank, Gleiser, and Thompson offer an urgent philosophical intervention into humanity’s all but doomed technoscientific civilizational project. The authors argue cogently that our contemporary scientific culture has…

[thepersonalwords]

The love for books is a paradise.

Lailah Gifty Akita, Think Great: Be Great!

[bolithesenate]

ik she's not an oc but she should belong to you! 🖊 for komari??

you know what? you are so right 😌✊🏻

*yoinks all the character rights away from canon*

anyways, you know what I want for Komari? That she isn't technically a *good* Jedi, but that she is a terrifyingly *efficient* one.

Yoda's words were 'do or not do, there is no try', so I like to imagine Komari as a true force of nature because she does not doubt herself at any point. At least not truly.

She just does.

Does she do it because it makes her feel cool and admired? sure. but people around her (and she herself) have learned to direct that energy into a direction that more or less serves the greater good. The way I see Komari is that she truly likes being a Jedi and that she has found her niche amongst the Order to live her dream. She might not exactly do it for selfless reasons like many of her peers do, but that doesn't diminish the good she does.

it's also what makes her the ultimative hype-man.

she lives unapologetically and is her happiest self, so she encourages everyone around her to also do that. social anxiety and fomo? she's never known them.

Also, out of her entire lineage, Komari is the one most firmly rooted in the Cosmic Force. Dooku himself leans heavily towards it too, but he's also got a strong Unifying influence in his life through Sifo-Dyas, so it's a bit muddled.

Komari tho is, in fact, *such* a Cosmic Force baby that she often doesnt realize it is working through her. She just does Her Thing TM because It Feels Good TM not really questioning *why* it does that.

It's a very simple mindset, technically, but also very effective

[hamhus]

MAN HORSE, Chapter 1. My comic.

[wahroh]

It's a delicate balance.