首页> 外文期刊>Ethics, Place and Environment >Process Sub-politics: Placing Empirical Flesh on Whiteheadian Thought
【24h】

Process Sub-politics: Placing Empirical Flesh on Whiteheadian Thought

机译:流程次政治:将经验性的肉体放在怀特海思想上

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This paper is more explorative than programmatic. It attempts to place empirical flesh on some of Alfred North Whitehead's speculative thoughts on concrete apprehensions. The challenge lies in the fact that Whitehead was vague on the subject. While Whitehead offers numerous thoughts on why we mistake the abstract for the concrete he wrote considerably less on how we can get ourselves to think more concretely. I therefore examine an empirical case and work 'backwards', showing its affinities with process thought. A largely invisible phenomenon within the social/political theory literature is the empirical subject of this paper: the agricultural field day (though the events examined are not of the conventional variety). The paper begins with an overview of Whitehead's critique of abstraction and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Attention then turns directly to the case study to empirically ground Whitehead's thoughts on doing more concrete abstractions.
机译:本文比程序设计更具探索性。它试图将经验丰富的东西放在阿尔弗雷德·北·怀特海(Alfred North Whitehead)关于具体忧虑的投机思想上。挑战在于,怀特海在这个问题上含糊不清。虽然怀特海德(Whitehead)对于为什么我们将摘要误认为是具体的问题提出了许多想法,但他对如何使自己进行更具体的思考的论述却少得多。因此,我研究了一个经验案例,并进行了“后退”工作,显示了它与过程思想的联系。在社会/政治理论文献中,一个很大程度上看不见的现象是本文的经验主题:农田日(尽管所考察的事件并非常规事件)。本文首先概述了怀特海(Whitehead)对抽象的批判和放错了具体性的谬误。然后将注意力直接转向案例研究,以经验为基础将怀特海的思想立足于做更具体的抽象。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Ethics, Place and Environment》 |2009年第2期|187-203|共17页
  • 作者

    MICHAEL S. CAROLAN;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, B236 Clark, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1784, USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 02:22:23

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号