What do you think?
Rate this book
Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy
Presents a synoptic, compact, and accessible exposition of this influential and interesting sector of twentieth-century American philosophy.
This is a synoptic, compact, and accessible exposition for readers who want to inform themselves regarding this influential and interesting sector of twentieth century American philosophy.
213 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1996
7 people are currently reading
234 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 8, 2023
This book certainly does the job it's titled with ("An Introduction to Process Philosophy") however the reason I've given it four stars rather than a five (truth be told I was thinking of giving it a three) is for the reason that I think it could've been written better and developed in more depth.
While there is definitely nothing terribly bad about Rescher's prose, in fact it's quite lively and he has a talent for simile and metaphor, it is also quite archaic at times - needlessly so. I think the book could've been improved if there was a substitution for the high-philosophical prose style for something more clear, expository and workmanlike. While this prose style also does have the benefit of being distinct and sometimes entertaining, for an introductory work I think it's a bit more obscure than it need be. (Note: That's not to say the book is unclear, any philosophy undergraduate should be able to read it fine. But the book's clarity does pale in comparison to other introductory books in philosophy.)
The other issue is that the ideas that Rescher introduced and explained, while doing a good job of doing so, could've been pushed further. There's a lot of repetition throughout the book to the point that by the later chapters I began to feel that there wasn't much content per page. For example, Rescher remarks in the Process Theology chapter that it should still be seen as to an extent a continued explanatory approach to more orthodox conceptions of God, rather than a flat out rejection against more orthodox approaches about God itself. It would've been helpful to have remarks and points like these developed more throughout the book in more depth in place of repetition.
In defence of Rescher however, one might broadly defend his approach to the book on the basis that its prose style and refusal to elaborate on issues in more depth is that it suits the book's introductory approach. With that being kept in mind I still think that if the target audience is a philosophy undergraduate - then it would make sense to press the issues in more depth (given that they should be capable of following) and in turn sacrifice the prose style. Perhaps I'm being unfair and that this is a job for a textbook rather than a short introductory book.
With all that being said however, the width of the content that Rescher covers is certainly admirable - going from a basic overview of Process Philosophy's orienting ideas, metaphilosphical reflections on it in the last chapter to issues of identity and universals and more. Rescher does a good job of discussing Process Philosophy's general stances on such topics (his discussion of logic was particularly great) while also being careful to introduce subtle distinctions and points of divergence between individual Process Philosophers themselves. For example, Rescher's decision to think of the difference between Substance-oriented vs Process Philosophy in terms of what each takes as prior and primary over between substances and processes strikes me as particularly useful. Rescher also uses vivid examples well to illustrate his points throughout.
Three particular points that impressed me that Rescher raised were: 1) That Process Philosophy avoids the problematic scepticism that comes with an appearance/reality distinction characteristic of Early Modern Philosophy by simply conceiving of entities in their causal, affective terms such that there's no hidden thing-in-itself or secondary quality. (However, Rescher also seems to walk back this idea when he then discusses how Process Philosophy accepts that there are aspects of things which necessarily remain cognitively inaccessible. Another example of a point on which I wish Rescher devoted more explanation to.)
2) Seibt's argument that a substance conception of identity contains logical principles which lead to a contradiction.
3) The need (and advantage) of Process Philosophy capturing aspects of the world that have troubled philosophers (E.g. Zeno's paradoxes) by way of embracing truth-value indeterminacy.
Nonetheless, I still wonder if there might not be other introductory books on Process Philosophy out there that also do a good explanatory job and covers similar width while also going into issues in more depth and being clearer. (in fairness, perhaps another reason for the lack of going into depth is the lack of critical engagement with the Process tradition, as noted by Rescher himself)
Also the appendix on a Process approach to semantics was very interesting, something which anyone reading this book who has an interest in Philosophy of Language or Logic should check out. He makes quite a big claim that such an approach won't be saddled with problems like a Meinongist ontology or assigning wrong truth-values which he thinks are issues with say Russell's Definite Descriptions. (Been a year since I studied the latter and didn't go into depth with it, so whether he's right I don't know - but it's certainly a striking claim)
TLDR: Good book. Does what it says. Some minor issues with clarity and depth. All around - interesting.
While there is definitely nothing terribly bad about Rescher's prose, in fact it's quite lively and he has a talent for simile and metaphor, it is also quite archaic at times - needlessly so. I think the book could've been improved if there was a substitution for the high-philosophical prose style for something more clear, expository and workmanlike. While this prose style also does have the benefit of being distinct and sometimes entertaining, for an introductory work I think it's a bit more obscure than it need be. (Note: That's not to say the book is unclear, any philosophy undergraduate should be able to read it fine. But the book's clarity does pale in comparison to other introductory books in philosophy.)
The other issue is that the ideas that Rescher introduced and explained, while doing a good job of doing so, could've been pushed further. There's a lot of repetition throughout the book to the point that by the later chapters I began to feel that there wasn't much content per page. For example, Rescher remarks in the Process Theology chapter that it should still be seen as to an extent a continued explanatory approach to more orthodox conceptions of God, rather than a flat out rejection against more orthodox approaches about God itself. It would've been helpful to have remarks and points like these developed more throughout the book in more depth in place of repetition.
In defence of Rescher however, one might broadly defend his approach to the book on the basis that its prose style and refusal to elaborate on issues in more depth is that it suits the book's introductory approach. With that being kept in mind I still think that if the target audience is a philosophy undergraduate - then it would make sense to press the issues in more depth (given that they should be capable of following) and in turn sacrifice the prose style. Perhaps I'm being unfair and that this is a job for a textbook rather than a short introductory book.
With all that being said however, the width of the content that Rescher covers is certainly admirable - going from a basic overview of Process Philosophy's orienting ideas, metaphilosphical reflections on it in the last chapter to issues of identity and universals and more. Rescher does a good job of discussing Process Philosophy's general stances on such topics (his discussion of logic was particularly great) while also being careful to introduce subtle distinctions and points of divergence between individual Process Philosophers themselves. For example, Rescher's decision to think of the difference between Substance-oriented vs Process Philosophy in terms of what each takes as prior and primary over between substances and processes strikes me as particularly useful. Rescher also uses vivid examples well to illustrate his points throughout.
Three particular points that impressed me that Rescher raised were: 1) That Process Philosophy avoids the problematic scepticism that comes with an appearance/reality distinction characteristic of Early Modern Philosophy by simply conceiving of entities in their causal, affective terms such that there's no hidden thing-in-itself or secondary quality. (However, Rescher also seems to walk back this idea when he then discusses how Process Philosophy accepts that there are aspects of things which necessarily remain cognitively inaccessible. Another example of a point on which I wish Rescher devoted more explanation to.)
2) Seibt's argument that a substance conception of identity contains logical principles which lead to a contradiction.
3) The need (and advantage) of Process Philosophy capturing aspects of the world that have troubled philosophers (E.g. Zeno's paradoxes) by way of embracing truth-value indeterminacy.
Nonetheless, I still wonder if there might not be other introductory books on Process Philosophy out there that also do a good explanatory job and covers similar width while also going into issues in more depth and being clearer. (in fairness, perhaps another reason for the lack of going into depth is the lack of critical engagement with the Process tradition, as noted by Rescher himself)
Also the appendix on a Process approach to semantics was very interesting, something which anyone reading this book who has an interest in Philosophy of Language or Logic should check out. He makes quite a big claim that such an approach won't be saddled with problems like a Meinongist ontology or assigning wrong truth-values which he thinks are issues with say Russell's Definite Descriptions. (Been a year since I studied the latter and didn't go into depth with it, so whether he's right I don't know - but it's certainly a striking claim)
TLDR: Good book. Does what it says. Some minor issues with clarity and depth. All around - interesting.
August 12, 2018
This book takes a wide view of process metaphysics and does not clearly base itself on any particular historical author (like Bergson or Whitehead). The first chapter gives a brief historical overview after which the basics are given, then the book examines the different topics where process metaphysics has been applied in chapters on particulars, universals, philosophy of nature, persons, logic and epistemology, science, theology, and philosophy.
Process metaphysics in general, and in this book too, often defines itself in opposition to its greatest competitor: substance metaphysics. It sees the world in processes, which are intrinsically temporal, stretching from past to future, whereas 'thing'-like substances only exist in time, the concept requiring in addition processual thought to allow for change (Aristotle needs two books so to speak, the Categories and the Metaphysics, to explain the world). I like to think of it in terms of physics: a process has a velocity as it were, there is a rate of change associated with it, a derivative in mathematics. It does not fall prey to Zeno's paradoxes, which substance metaphysics would have a great deal of trouble explaining if relying on substance only.
Furthermore, process has no clear borders and is interconnected, relational. My body is a temporarily stable confluence of processes that uphold a relational structure between its parts and is not clearly distinguished from the surrounding environmental processes. Atoms go in and out in an orderly fashion while the total arrangement of atoms is maintained. Where environment ends and body begins is not at all clear at the micro-level. Clearly, this way of looking at the world is more aligned with scientific insights (and also inspired by them), notably the theory of evolution and physics at the smallest scales, where even particles lose their substantiality.
And while substance has been prominent in the past and is so at present in the (in my opinion) largely sterile metaphysics departments, process-thought has gained popularity among the physical sciences and the philosophy of physics, which is (again, in my opinion) the only place where any real understanding in these matters will ever come from.
Process metaphysics in general, and in this book too, often defines itself in opposition to its greatest competitor: substance metaphysics. It sees the world in processes, which are intrinsically temporal, stretching from past to future, whereas 'thing'-like substances only exist in time, the concept requiring in addition processual thought to allow for change (Aristotle needs two books so to speak, the Categories and the Metaphysics, to explain the world). I like to think of it in terms of physics: a process has a velocity as it were, there is a rate of change associated with it, a derivative in mathematics. It does not fall prey to Zeno's paradoxes, which substance metaphysics would have a great deal of trouble explaining if relying on substance only.
Furthermore, process has no clear borders and is interconnected, relational. My body is a temporarily stable confluence of processes that uphold a relational structure between its parts and is not clearly distinguished from the surrounding environmental processes. Atoms go in and out in an orderly fashion while the total arrangement of atoms is maintained. Where environment ends and body begins is not at all clear at the micro-level. Clearly, this way of looking at the world is more aligned with scientific insights (and also inspired by them), notably the theory of evolution and physics at the smallest scales, where even particles lose their substantiality.
And while substance has been prominent in the past and is so at present in the (in my opinion) largely sterile metaphysics departments, process-thought has gained popularity among the physical sciences and the philosophy of physics, which is (again, in my opinion) the only place where any real understanding in these matters will ever come from.
January 24, 2025
O autor não queria explicar a doutrina de nenhum autor em específico. Acabou um livro tão abrangente que não saímos com nada de substancial.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews