Abstract
When I first read Science and the Modern World I had high hopes that Whitehead was going to produce a general theory of organism which might link the physical and the biological sciences. I was excited by his saying that ‘Biology is the study of the larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of the smaller organisms’. That was many years ago; reflecting on his later work I was partly encouraged, but also disappointed. He called this later work The Philosophy of Organism; it was a view of organism in which a kind of psycho-physiology seemed to have taken over the physical sciences.1
Keywords
Living Organism Actual Entity Biological Time Morphogenetic Field Gaia Hypothesis
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 2.See B.C. Goodwin, ‘Structuralism in Biology’, in Science Progress, Vol. 74 (1990, pp. 227–44)Google Scholar
- and ‘Organisms and Minds as Dynamic Forms’, Leonardo, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1989).Google Scholar
- 7.Whitehead called attention to this general principle in Science and the Modern World, (Cambridge, 1926) p. 155.Google Scholar
- 13.An excellent account of how such theories produced in effect a revolution in physics is given by P.M. Harman in Energy, Force and Matter: the Conceptual Development of Nineteenth Century Physics (Cambridge, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.This change of view has been documented by Lewis Ford, and he gives a summary of it in his paper “The Concept of ‘Process’: From ‘Transition’ to ‘Concrescence’”, in Whitehead und der Prozessbegriff, eds H. Holz and E. Wolf Gazo. Freiburg: Alber, 1984.Google Scholar
- 19.Also V. Lowe ‘Whitehead’s Philosophical Development’, in The Library of Living Philosophers, (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, 1941), p. 95;Google Scholar
- and Whitehead’s paper ‘Time’ in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Philosophy (Harvard, 1926).Google Scholar
- I owe the point that Whitehead’s Subjectivist Principle could be taken as token reflexivity to Richard Rorty’s paper ‘The Subjectivist Principle and the Linguistic Turn’ in Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on his Philosophy, ed. G.L. Kline (Prentice Hall, 1963).Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Dorothy Emmet 1992