What do you think?
Rate this book
Вне критериев. Кант, Уайтхед, Делёз и эстетика
Книга американского философа и культуролога Стивена Шавиро задумана как философская фантазия. Что бы произошло, если место ключевой философской фигуры двадцатого столетия, обусловившей проблематику посмодерной мысли, вместо Мартина Хайдеггера занял бы Альфред Норт Уайтхед, провозгласивший не вопрос о бытии, но вопрос о становлении и производстве Нового?
- GenresPhilosophyTheoryArt
210 pages, Paperback
First published April 3, 2009
15 people are currently reading
335 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 8, 2021
This is one of the better recent works of secondary philosophical literature.
Although its title would suggest that it focuses to a similar extent on Kant, Whitehead and Deleuze, in reality, this is a book about Whitehead. Kant and Deleuze make occasional appearances, but mostly to provide a contrast against Whitehead. The treatment of Whitehead is the best I've seen. Most commentators write about Whitehead either: (1) in an indigestible way, using Whitehead's own own cryptic terminology; or (2) in vague generalisms that make Whitehead sound like an enthusiastic anti-intellectual. Shaviro writes enthusiastically about Whitehead without losing track of the substance and complexity of Whitehead's thought.
By including discussion of Deleuze, Shaviro makes clear that Whitehead's style of thinking was not a one-time thing. Deleuze sought to move metaphysics in a similar direction, but used a different approach. By including discussion of Kant, Shaviro shows that Whitehead's thinking was not radically discontinuous with the history of philosophy. He grappled with similar problems to those Kant grappled with, but arrived at different results.
Among the more interesting topics Shaviro covers in the context of Whitehead's thought are: the relation of ethics to aesthetics (emphasis is obviously on aesthetics); Whitehead's thinking in relation to traditional theology (definitely not a traditionalist); and connections to scientific theories (these are especially interesting and are spread throughout the book).
I'd recommend this book to people still developing an approach to Whitehead. For those more experienced with Process Thought, this book may still prove useful as it provides connections to Deleuze, who has an incredibly rich body of work and can give depth to many of the ideas Whitehead first put forth.
Although its title would suggest that it focuses to a similar extent on Kant, Whitehead and Deleuze, in reality, this is a book about Whitehead. Kant and Deleuze make occasional appearances, but mostly to provide a contrast against Whitehead. The treatment of Whitehead is the best I've seen. Most commentators write about Whitehead either: (1) in an indigestible way, using Whitehead's own own cryptic terminology; or (2) in vague generalisms that make Whitehead sound like an enthusiastic anti-intellectual. Shaviro writes enthusiastically about Whitehead without losing track of the substance and complexity of Whitehead's thought.
By including discussion of Deleuze, Shaviro makes clear that Whitehead's style of thinking was not a one-time thing. Deleuze sought to move metaphysics in a similar direction, but used a different approach. By including discussion of Kant, Shaviro shows that Whitehead's thinking was not radically discontinuous with the history of philosophy. He grappled with similar problems to those Kant grappled with, but arrived at different results.
Among the more interesting topics Shaviro covers in the context of Whitehead's thought are: the relation of ethics to aesthetics (emphasis is obviously on aesthetics); Whitehead's thinking in relation to traditional theology (definitely not a traditionalist); and connections to scientific theories (these are especially interesting and are spread throughout the book).
I'd recommend this book to people still developing an approach to Whitehead. For those more experienced with Process Thought, this book may still prove useful as it provides connections to Deleuze, who has an incredibly rich body of work and can give depth to many of the ideas Whitehead first put forth.
July 11, 2016
An impressive gateway to understanding Whitehead.
Interesting discussion of Whitehead's use of Kant's 'final cause' and 'efficient cause' and his dodge of a noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy.
"Creativity, or the Category of the Ultimate (), replaces the categorical imperative as the inner principle of freedom. It remains the case, under this principle, that “whatever is determinable is determined” according to efficient causality; but at the same time “there is always a remainder for the decision of the subject-superject” (). But rather than being noumenal or external, this decision or final cause is immanent to the phenomenal world. … Thus “actual entities ‘perpetually perish’ subjectively, but are immortal objectively. Actuality in perishing acquires objectivity, while it loses subjective immediacy. It loses the final causation which is its internal principle of unrest, and it acquires efficient causation whereby it is a ground of obligation characterizing the creativity” (). Freedom, or the “internal principle of unrest,” is superseded by causal necessity, or the external conformity of the present to the past. The initiative that created something new in the moment of decision subsists afterward as an “obligation” of “stubborn fact,” conditioning and limiting the next exercise of freedom."
Interesting discussion of Whitehead's use of Kant's 'final cause' and 'efficient cause' and his dodge of a noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy.
"Creativity, or the Category of the Ultimate (), replaces the categorical imperative as the inner principle of freedom. It remains the case, under this principle, that “whatever is determinable is determined” according to efficient causality; but at the same time “there is always a remainder for the decision of the subject-superject” (). But rather than being noumenal or external, this decision or final cause is immanent to the phenomenal world. … Thus “actual entities ‘perpetually perish’ subjectively, but are immortal objectively. Actuality in perishing acquires objectivity, while it loses subjective immediacy. It loses the final causation which is its internal principle of unrest, and it acquires efficient causation whereby it is a ground of obligation characterizing the creativity” (). Freedom, or the “internal principle of unrest,” is superseded by causal necessity, or the external conformity of the present to the past. The initiative that created something new in the moment of decision subsists afterward as an “obligation” of “stubborn fact,” conditioning and limiting the next exercise of freedom."
January 10, 2014
I agree with Steen: I skipped through the passage about God, though I'm glad it's there for when I decide to delve into the writings of ANW more deeply. My goal was to better orient myself with approaches to affect and this was a well written and interesting treatment. Really happy to have read it.
November 3, 2013
Although there are passages I struggle with, especially the chapter on God, this book is a wonderful elucidation of Whitehead's aesthetic thought, particularly as it pertains to affect and sensation.
November 29, 2023
Two things really stand out about this book to me. The first is that it does a particularly good job of arguing that Whitehead makes an excellent alternative to Heidegger in many contexts of contemporary postmodernist philosophy, and that Whitehead is adverse to particular ontological hierarchies and transcendental approaches that Heidegger tends to condone. The second thing that stands out to me is that there is a great deal of philosophical work has yet to be done if we are to rewrite philosophy to avoid particularly problematic hierarchies generated in Heidegger's work.
The only serious flaw with this work is how sparse it is. While not a problem in itself (because it motivates the point particularly clearly) this book at times does not go the full way to make the argument. It does argue from the start that this philosophical development is a speculation of sorts. That is, these associations of philosophers are not directly in conversation with each other, and so associating them often appears more strained and metaphorical. In this book's honesty about the fact, it is fairly entertaining and convincing as a method of challenging historic lineages of thought. It's a fun experiment!
The only serious flaw with this work is how sparse it is. While not a problem in itself (because it motivates the point particularly clearly) this book at times does not go the full way to make the argument. It does argue from the start that this philosophical development is a speculation of sorts. That is, these associations of philosophers are not directly in conversation with each other, and so associating them often appears more strained and metaphorical. In this book's honesty about the fact, it is fairly entertaining and convincing as a method of challenging historic lineages of thought. It's a fun experiment!
July 4, 2021
It's like being introduced to a new friend whom you have heard of for a long time, but ended up missing the train to the restaurant.
Didn't read Whitehead before, and more literature is needed to judge this book. However, for now it is really not my type. Found posthumanist reading of Deleuze more interesting than Shaviro's reading of Whitehead.
Didn't read Whitehead before, and more literature is needed to judge this book. However, for now it is really not my type. Found posthumanist reading of Deleuze more interesting than Shaviro's reading of Whitehead.
December 10, 2022
Excellent way to orient Whitehead against Kant and Deleuze. Whitehead's replacing of ethics with aesthetics is pretty rad ngl
July 2, 2024
Not sure how needed the Deleuze stuff is (it often feels like a call for Deleuzians to take Kant and Whitehead more seriously which while admirable isn't my thing) but it is really incredible work.
January 4, 2024
3.5 ⭐️ (Goodreads add half star rating increments, you cowards)
The longest chapter, Shaviro's commentary on the role and understanding of God in Whitehead's thought, was enjoyable and ambitious, but ultimately lacking for me. I appreciate his effort to approach Whitehead's God without reference to "process theology" as it is commonly understand.
I am quite sympathetic to process theology but admit that some of its proponents seem not to take the whole of Whitehead seriously, preferring only a few chapters and aphorisms.
Shaviro, I think, makes a mistake in the opposite direction. It is true that the philosophy of organism was largely motivated by the prospect of metaphysics compatible with advancements in science. It is also true that God is, in part, a logical consequence of Whitehead's project, not a foundation or an ornament. This is good.
The problem arises when we fail to realize that the project aimed to do just to both scientific and religious modes. It is not sufficient to conceive God as a disinterested aesthete when God is understood as "the fellow sufferer who understands."
That Whitehead does not develop his own ethics, or commit to one particular view, should not, in my opinion, suppose an absence of the ethical. That Whitehead endorses the "Galilean" vision of love in Process & Reality seems relevant here. It is only a strictly Kantian definition of morality that seems to be rejected.
Criticisms aside, this is a good book. I still don't understand half of the Deleuze stuff but all of the Whitehead and Kant stuff is worth considering.
The longest chapter, Shaviro's commentary on the role and understanding of God in Whitehead's thought, was enjoyable and ambitious, but ultimately lacking for me. I appreciate his effort to approach Whitehead's God without reference to "process theology" as it is commonly understand.
I am quite sympathetic to process theology but admit that some of its proponents seem not to take the whole of Whitehead seriously, preferring only a few chapters and aphorisms.
Shaviro, I think, makes a mistake in the opposite direction. It is true that the philosophy of organism was largely motivated by the prospect of metaphysics compatible with advancements in science. It is also true that God is, in part, a logical consequence of Whitehead's project, not a foundation or an ornament. This is good.
The problem arises when we fail to realize that the project aimed to do just to both scientific and religious modes. It is not sufficient to conceive God as a disinterested aesthete when God is understood as "the fellow sufferer who understands."
That Whitehead does not develop his own ethics, or commit to one particular view, should not, in my opinion, suppose an absence of the ethical. That Whitehead endorses the "Galilean" vision of love in Process & Reality seems relevant here. It is only a strictly Kantian definition of morality that seems to be rejected.
Criticisms aside, this is a good book. I still don't understand half of the Deleuze stuff but all of the Whitehead and Kant stuff is worth considering.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews