The critical problems of the Third Decade of Livy have long been familiar to students. In Books XXI.–XXV. we have only the mutilated Codex Puteanus of the fifth century and later manuscripts derived from it, directly or indirectly, at one or more points in its history. R, C, and most probably M, are copies of P, after it was corrected by P2 and probably P3. Here the problem in the parts in which P is preserved is to correct its numerous (...) corruptions by conjecture as far as possible; and, where it is now defective, by comparing the later MSS. to arrive at their inter-relation and at P's original text, and then subject this text to the same process of criticism. Also a study of the corrections in the earlier of these MSS. may reveal the previous existence of other traditions and of other MSS. now lost—such corrections, e.g., as are made by P4, R2, and M2. (shrink)

" Recourir à la métaphysique est comme lancer une allumette dans une poudrière. Cela fait exploser la scène entière. C'est exactement ce que font les philosophes de la science quand ils sont conduits dans une impasse et convaincus d'incohérence. Aussitôt ils font entrer de force l'esprit et parlent d'entités qui sont selon le cas dans l'esprit ou hors de l'esprit. Pour la philosophie naturelle, toute chose perçue est dans la nature. Nous ne pouvons pas faire le difficile. Pour nous, la (...) lueur rouge du crépuscule est autant une partie de la nature que les molécules ou les ondes électriques par lesquelles les hommes de science expliqueraient le phénomène. Il appartient à la philosophie naturelle d'analyser comment les éléments variés de la nature sont liés ". Whitehead. (shrink)

Whitehead's response to the epistemological challenges of Hume and Kant, written in a style devoid of the metaphysical intricacies of his later works, Symbolism makes accessible his theory of perception and his more general insights into the function of symbols in culture and society.

This new book proposes a way out of the crisis by letting go of the idea that psychology needs ‘new’ foundations or a new identity, whether biological, discursive, or cognitive. The psychological is not narrowly confined to any one aspect of human experience; it is quite literally ‘everywhere’. Drawing on a range of influential thinkers including Michel Serres, Michel Foucault, AN Whitehead, and Gilles Deleuze, the book proposes a strong process-oriented approach to the psychological, which studies ‘events’ or ‘occasions.’.

That process philosophy can be the foundation of the theory and practice of educating human beings is the main argument of this book. The process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) is the particular thinking on which this book is based. Readers are shown that Whitehead's process philosophy provides a frame, a conceptual matrix, that addresses their concerns about education and offers direction for their educative acts. Whitehead theorized that all living entities are connected in some way. (...) Relatedness, connectedness, and holism are recurring themes in this exploration of Whitehead's implied philosophy of education. Whitehead never wrote a philosophy of education, but his writings over a period of nearly thirty years reveal a persistent interest and concern with education. His work, ranging from Introduction to Mathematics (1911) to Adventures of Ideas (1938), is drawn on here to construct, not Whitehead's philosophy of education, but, a Whiteheadian philosophy of education. Whitehead and Philosophy of Education brings to scholars and students of education an understanding of Whitehead as an important figure in philosophy, particularly philosophy of education; an acquaintance with process philosophy; a brief treatment of Whitehead's life and an account of events and experiences that influenced his philosophizing; and an exploration of the educationally salient concepts found in Whitehead's formal and informal philosophy with special attention to Whitehead's ideas about creativity, process, rhythm, wisdom, and knowledge. Whitehead writes of phases of the rhythm of education - romance, precision, and generalization. The book is organized with attention to these three phases. Part One-Romance introduces readers to Whitehead the person, and the change of context for educating from a mechanistic world-view to an organismic one. Part Two-Precision examines Whitehead's writings, as they relate to process philosophy and to educating. Part Three-Generalization is an application of the explorations of Parts One and Two, yielding a construction of a Whiteheadian philosophy of education and suggestions for educational practice. (shrink)

The use of the symbol ∨for disjunction in formal logic is ubiquitous. Where did it come from? The paper details the evolution of the symbol ∨ in its historical and logical context. Some sources say that disjunction in its use as connecting propositions or formulas was introduced by Peano; others suggest that it originated as an abbreviation of the Latin word for “or,” vel. We show that the origin of the symbol ∨ for disjunction can be traced to Whitehead (...) and Russell’s pre-Principia work in formal logic. Because of Principia’s influence, its notation was widely adopted by philosophers working in logic (the logical empiricists in the 1920s and 1930s, especially Carnap and early Quine). Hilbert’s adoption of ∨ in his Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik guaranteed its widespread use by mathematical logicians. The origins of other logical symbols are also discussed. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:230 Feminist Studies 47, no. 1. © 2021 by Feminist Studies, Inc. Nneka D. Dennie The State and Future of Black Women’s Studies: The Black Women’s Studies Association and the National Women’s Studies Association in Conversation On February 25, 2021, the Black Women’s Studies Association (BWSA) and National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) partnered for one of NWSA’s Kitchen Table Talks—a new initiative spearheaded by NWSA President Kaye Wise (...) class='Hi'>Whitehead to foster dialogue between NWSA and other organizations. The event, titled “Space Making: State/Future of Black Women’s Studies,” featured three panelists and was moderated by Whitehead. The featured speakers were Stephanie Andrea Allen (BWSA conference chair), Jacinta R. Saffold (BWSA co-founder and treasurer), and Erica L. Williams (member of the NWSA Governing Council). Allen is a Black lesbian writer and publisher whose scholarship examines how lesbian literature and film responds to and resists the heteropatriarchal systems that invisibilize Black lesbians; she is a postdoctoral fellow and visiting assistant professor of gender studies at Indiana University. Saffold is an assistant professor of English at the University of New Orleans who researches twentieth- and twenty-first-century African American literature, hip hop studies, and digital humanities. Williams is an associate professor of anthropology at Spelman College, whose work has examined sex tourism and Black feminist activism in Brazil. Together, Whitehead, Allen, Saffold, and Williams explored their hopes for Black Women’s Studies and illuminated the challenges and joys of advancing the field. News and Views 231 The collaboration between BWSA and NWSA is a testament to how far Black Women’s Studies has come over the past fifty years and a promise of where it may continue to go in the future. NWSA was founded in 1977 and has since served as a hub for researchers, educators, and practitioners who interrogate questions of women and gender in their work. For decades, NWSA has been central to the nationwide US institutionalization of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies. By contrast, BWSA is a young organization that is continuing to grow. In 2018, Saffold and I co-founded BWSA in order to provide a community for scholars working in the field of Black Women’s Studies. BWSA is the only professional association specifically designed to bring scholars from a variety of disciplines into conversation about research that centers Black women. We launched BWSA with the goal of ensuring that future generations of scholars can readily access networks and mentorship from researchers who encounter a common question: when your work is simultaneously “too Black” and “too woman” for your field, department, or institution, what do you do? Drawing inspiration from well-established organizations in which we frequently participated, such as NWSA, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH), the Association of Black Women Historians (ABWH), and the African American Intellectual History Society (AAIHS), Saffold and I sought to build a space that cultivated a Black feminist ethic of care for both the research and the researchers. In that spirit, BWSA provides resources to help scholars do their best work, including a mentorship program, a virtual writing community, a calls-for-papers list for publications, and article as well as graduate student paper prizes. It was an honor to join an organization as trusted and respected as NWSA for a dialogue about our shared visions for Black Women’s Studies. Three key themes emerged from the panelists’ conversation with each other. They repeatedly returned to the importance of making financial commitments to Black Women’s Studies, creating conditions to support Black women’s intellectual labor, and practicing self-care. Speakers explored the interplay between the responsibilities that institutions, communities, and individuals have to Black Women’s Studies and Black feminist scholars. They observed that in order for departments and universities to foster interdisciplinary work on Black women, they need to move beyond paying lip service to the idea that diversity, equity, and inclusion matter; there needs to be permanent funding for work on race, 232 News and Views gender, class, and sexuality. Panelists also emphasized that Black women being in community with each other and supporting one another have always been central to... (shrink)

John Hick’s revolutionary, “Copernican” approach to religious diversity received a great deal of criticism in his lifetime from more conservative theologians and philosophers of religion, many of whom were seeking to preserve a unique place of pre-eminence for Christianity amongst the world’s faiths. Critical responses to Hick’s Pluralistic Hypothesis have also emerged, however, from amongst his fellow religious pluralists, who have sought either to build upon or to go beyond his pivotal and groundbreaking work. In the same spirit as the (...) responses given by this latter group, this chapter will seek to look beyond Hick’s important work, certainly not in an unfriendly fashion, but with the understanding that Hick is the proverbial “giant” upon whose shoulders subsequent generations of pluralists are standing as we seek to advance pluralism even further than he did in his work. Specifically, this chapter will draw on the Jain concepts of anekāntavāda, nayavāda, and syādvāda, as well as the thought of Alfred North Whitehead and his successors in the movement of process philosophy, to reconceptualize the Real, not on a Kantian foundation, as is done in the Pluralistic Hypothesis, but on the basis of a robust metaphysical realism. The aim of this approach to pluralism is to capture more fully the sense of mystics from diverse religious traditions that they have actually perceived the Real as such, and not merely one of its phenomenal appearances. (shrink)

Fifty or sixty years ago anyone fluttering the pages of one of the many magazines which then catered for the cultivated and intelligent English reader would have been fairly certain to come upon an article bearing somewhat the same title as that of the present paper. The author would probably be an eminent scientist, such as Huxley or Clifford; a distinguished scholar, such as Frederic Harrison or Edmund Gurney; or a politician of cabinet rank, such as Gladstone or Morley. Whichever (...) side he might take, he would write with the moral fervour of which Englishmen at that time had an inexhaustible supply. Nowadays the so-called “conflict between Religion and Science,” which was then appetizingly hot from the oven, has acquired something of the repulsiveness of half-cold mutton in halfcongealed gravy. There seems to be a widespread opinion that Sir Arthur Eddington and Sir James Jeans, with some highly technical and not readily intelligible assistance from Professor Whitehead, have enabled the lion to lie down with the lamb. Well, I have no wish to pipe a discordant note in this scene of Messianic harmony. But I cannot help reflecting that psychology, anthropology, and psychical research have made considerable advances as well as mathematical physics; and that they seem prima facie much more likely to be relevant to religion. Even the ordinary common sense of the lawyer and the historian may still have something useful to say on such topics. (shrink)

Whitehead's remarks on man, social problems, education, religion, and history have been extracted from his technical works and placed side by side to form an account in familiar terminology of Whitehead's theory of civilization. In context, occurring almost as afterthoughts illustrating abstract metaphysical principles, these remarks constitute brilliant flashes of humanistic insight; abstracted from context, they become platitudinous. Only when, in the final chapter, Johnson adumbrates their metaphysical setting, does one feel any of the excitement of seeing the (...) values of Western democracy emerge from a speculative account of the nature of things. --D. W. S. (shrink)

Leclerc's systematic introduction is predicated upon the thesis that "Whitehead's basic problems belong to the great tradition of philosophical inquiry first opened up by the Greeks." A lucid discussion of the traditional problems surrounding "being" leads simply and logically to a consideration of the categories in terms of which Whitehead reformulates the traditional approach to "that which is." The great merit of this progression is that it dispels the illusion, so overwhelming on an initial glance at Whitehead (...) himself, that his terminology is arbitrary and completely disassociated from traditional usage.--D. W. S. (shrink)

This volume follows by eighteen years Mays's earlier study, which was titled simply The Philosophy of Whitehead. The strongly stated, controversial working hypothesis behind that work was that even though Whitehead introduces a fiercely complicated vocabulary in his later books, especially in Process and Reality, "the ideas contained in his later work are much simpler than is usually assumed, since he is working out some of his earlier ideas on a larger philosophical canvas". In short, the 1959 book (...) by Mays was based upon a sharp denial that Process and Reality involves "a radical departure from [Whitehead's] early writings". (shrink)

This book offers a comprehensive critical survey of issues of historical interpretation and evaluation in Bertrand Russell's 1918 logical atomism lectures and logical atomism itself. These lectures record the culmination of Russell's thought in response to discussions with Wittgenstein on the nature of judgement and philosophy of logic and with Moore and other philosophical realists about epistemology and ontological atomism, and to Whitehead and Russell’s novel extension of revolutionary nineteenth-century work in mathematics and logic. Russell's logical atomism lectures have (...) had a lasting impact on analytic philosophy and on Russell's contemporaries including Carnap, Ramsey, Stebbing, and Wittgenstein. Comprised of 14 original essays, this book will demonstrate how the direct and indirect influence of these lectures thus runs deep and wide. (shrink)

Those of us who cut our teeth on Lowe's Understanding Whitehead felt a special loss at his death in 1988. That sense of loss is magnified by the realization that he did not live to complete the second volume of his Whitehead biography. The published text is composed of 11 chapters that were fairly complete when Lowe died, and part of a twelfth chapter. Two of these dealing with Whitehead's philosophy of physics, chapters five and six, were (...) authored principally by Leemon McHenry. (shrink)

From A. N. Whitehead, his senior collaborator in the classic work on mathematical logic which established his philosophical reputation, Bertrand Russell once provoked the exasperated remark: “Bertie, you’re an aristocrat, not a gentleman”. To-day having matured in the lived experience of eighty-five years and having spanned this century with widely-publicised books, articles and lectures, Russell remains a living paradox in whom the cool logician, the social prophet and the tantalising polemist have yet to achieve integration. Issuing from an established (...) intellectual family with a precociously questioning mind and a moral courage equal to the assertion of any truth, educating himself to a razor-keen mind and a mastery of lucid prose, he has adopted the public role of a witty sophist as well as an iconoclast angry with conservative convention in moral, social and religious conduct. Theoretically practical conduct is a realm of private feeling and not of objective truth in his philosophy, which he implements with literal freedom. Nevertheless he must be conscious that his polemic often falls short of the standard of a disciplined respect for truth, though he might explain away this defect by referring to the accepted rules of the game which he plays…hard. Yet his biographer notes that he resents criticism of his moral and social writings more than of his purely academic work. And his aim, as expressed in a letter from Brixton prison in 1918 where an embarrassed government confined his biting pacifism, is constructive: “There is a little wisdom in the world; Heraclitus, Spinoza, and a saying here and there. I want to add to it, even if only ever so little”. (shrink)

Considered together, Butler and Whitehead draw from a wide palette of disciplines to develop distinctive theories of becoming, of syntactical violence, and creative opportunities of limitation. The contributors of this volume offer a unique contribution to and for the humanities in the struggles of politics, economy, ecology, and the arts.

This is the second edition of a somewhat unusual account of the philosophy of Jaspers. The "Introduction" contains an historical survey of Existentialism which is rather out of date. It associates Heidegger and Sartre together, and as philosophers of the absurd--a mistake for which by now there is no excuse. It sees a "way out of this barren desert" of the philosophy of absurdity in Jaspers--which is a misleadingly religious way to introduce Jaspers. The body of the work contains chapters (...) on the foundations of Jaspers' thought in Kant, on the concept of philosophical faith, a comparison of Jaspers with some contemporaries, such as Whitehead, and a final comparison of Jaspers' "ciphers" with Maimonides' negative theology. The 79-page long text is heavily punctuated with citations and so does not make for smooth reading. This is followed by nearly half that many pages of notes, some of which are rather interesting and which provide the whole with extensive documentation.--J. D. C. (shrink)

The articulation of critical dialects of psychology has typically involved a questioning of the foundational assumptions of the so-called mainstream. This has included critiques in the name of more adequate scientific foundations, but more recently these have been accompanied by critiques in the name of an absence of foundations altogether, and critiques that suggest a rethinking of the concept of foundation. These latter versions are usually influenced by the great 20 th Century non-foundational philosophies of figures such as Bergson, (...) class='Hi'>Whitehead, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, or by related thinkers such as Deleuze, Serres, Luhmann, Butler and Stengers. In foregrounding themes of process and multiplicity such thinkers provide potent tools for critically rethinking psychological questions. Less positive has been a tendency amongst critical psychologists to polarise natural and social scientific issues and to associate the former with negative images (all that is static, mechanistic, essentialist and conservative). This can lead to a formulaic criticality in which arguments for nature are bad, and those for culture are good. Deconstruction comes to appear simply as an assertion of ‘the discursive construction of’ whatever phenomenon is under scrutiny. To counteract this trend, the proposed paper will discuss a process approach to ontology that welcomes contributions from the natural sciences as well as the humanities and social sciences. (shrink)