Revisiting Whitehead’s Abstractive Hierarchy

Philosophies 9 (5):158 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In Whitehead’s theory of “events”, the primary focus is on the critical assessment of abstraction. Modern science’s heavy reliance on abstraction has resulted in what Whitehead calls “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness”, where the abstract is mistaken for the actual. To address this issue, Whitehead replaces the traditional category of abstraction with eternal objects and defines the abstractive hierarchy. He aims to clarify the metaphysical status of abstraction and concreteness while dissolving their binary opposition. It is important to note that there are two possible approaches for interpreting an abstractive hierarchy. The differences between these approaches stem from the question of whether abstraction and complexity should be considered identical concepts. Based on their respective understandings, the abstractive hierarchy will exhibit different structural features, as well as varying positions for the concepts of abstraction and eternal objects within Whitehead’s metaphysical thought.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-10-23

Downloads
4 (#1,807,317)

6 months
4 (#1,269,568)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A problem in Whitehead's doctrine of abstractive hierarchies.George W. Roberts - 1968 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 28 (3):437-439.

Add more references