Science and the modern worldWhitehead, Alfred North
Religion
Science and the modern world
Whitehead, Alfred North
Science
The scientific materialism and the Cartesian Ego were both challenged at
the same moment, one by science and the other by philosophy, as
represented by William James with his psychological antecedents; and the
double challenge marks the end of a period which lasted for about two
hundred and fifty years. Of course, ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ both
express something so evident in ordinary experience that any philosophy
must provide some things which answer to their respective meanings. But
the point is that, in respect to both of them, the seventeenth century
settlement was infected with a presupposition which is now challenged.
James denies that consciousness is an entity, but admits that it is a
function. The discrimination between an entity and a function is
therefore vital to the understanding of the challenge which James is
advancing against the older modes of thought. In the essay in question,
the character which James assigns to consciousness is fully discussed.
But he does not unambiguously explain what he means by the notion of an
entity, which he refuses to apply to consciousness. In the sentence
which immediately follows the one which I have already quoted, he says:
“There is, I mean, no aboriginal stuff or quality of being, contrasted
with that of which material objects are made, out of which our thoughts
of them are made; but there is a function in experience which thoughts
perform, and for the performance of which this quality of being is
invoked. That function is _knowing_. ‘Consciousness’ is supposed
necessary to explain the fact that things not only are, but get
reported, are known.”
Thus James is denying that consciousness is a ‘stuff.’
The term ‘entity,’ or even that of ‘stuff,’ does not fully tell its own
tale. The notion of ‘entity’ is so general that it may be taken to mean
anything that can be thought about. You cannot think of mere nothing;
and the something which is an object of thought may be called an entity.
In this sense, a function is an entity. Obviously, this is not what
James had in his mind.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account