Abstract
According to the currently fashionable interpretation of Whitehead he was a „process“ philosopher. It is the view of Professor Hartshorne, surely, and it is the view of those who publish the journal which is devoted to Hartshorne’s version of Whitehead’s Process Studies.1 There is some truth in the view; it is not entirely false, but, I submit, it is not entirely true, either. I hope to show that the classification does some injustice to what Whitehead himself called „the philosophy of organism.“
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (New York 1942, Simon and Schuster), p. 288.
Louis de Broglie, Physics and Microphysics ,M. Davidson, trans. (London 1955, Hutchinson’s), p. 167.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1974 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feibleman, J.K. (1974). Why Whitehead is not a “Process” Philosopher. In: Whittemore, R.C. (eds) Studies in Process Philosophy I. Tulane Studies in Philosophy, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9808-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9808-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1574-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-9808-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive