Reddit reviews Process and Reality (Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927-28)

We found 5 Reddit comments about Process and Reality (Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927-28). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Check price on Amazon

5 Reddit comments about Process and Reality (Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927-28):

u/Arsonade · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

First of all, I absolutely must also follow in Urbinsanity's suggestion of A.N Whitehead's 'Adventures of ideas' - it is a wonderful book.

I do not know of any 'defining book' on the study of ontology unfortunately, but I would also join in suggesting "Metaphysics an Introduction" along with bitemydickallthetime, given what I've heard on the book.

Also, I'd strongly suggest Process and Reality if you have a few years to spare, or Modes of thought if you have a few weeks (perhaps less!).

And for the more 'interesting'/'strange' stuff, I always go with Leibniz's Monadology.

Oh! and I don't know how well-corroborated this suggestion would be, but I have always found the fiction of Jorge Luis Borges to be ripe with notions strongly involved in metaphysics and ontology. Labyrinths is a great place to look in this regards - especially if you're looking for something a bit 'lighter' than direct works on ontology.

u/augustbandit · 1 pointr/Buddhism

<Blind faith is un-Buddhist.

I don't disagree, but I'm an academic. The understanding of Buddhism I have is academic and my arguments are based in issues of history as I understand it.

<I quote scholars and you quote yourself, as if you are an authority. State your name and your credentials then.

This tells me that my arguments alone are insufficient to identify me as an authority to you- really I wouldn't claim to be on this topic. As I said, I study mostly American Buddhism today- no I will not provide my name because I like to preserve some anonymity on the internet. I have a M.A and am doing PhD coursework. The problem that you are having is that you are not taking an academic view of the discussion.

>Your faith is greater than your wisdom

This is an ad-hominem fallacy at its best. I'm not Buddhist at all. I have no faith because I study the topic. I respect the tradition but I certainly don't worship in it. This is a discussion about historical understanding- something that you have garnered from questionable scholars. Here is a brief reading list of real scholars you can take and read to see what actual authorities in the field are saying.

Don Lopez: Elaborations on Emptiness
Don Lopez: The Heart Sutra Explained this is a series of translated commentaries on the Heart Sutra. Though it uses the long version, which is problematic.

J.L Austin: How to Do Things With Words This will tell you a lot about the linguistic empiricists and how words function in religious settings.

If you want to read the theory that I do you might also read
Alfred North Whitehead: Process and Reality
Also:Whithead's Symbolism: It's meaning and Effect
And
Bruce Lincoln's Authority

For Buddhist histories that are not popularist:

Peter N. Gregory: Tsung-Mi and the Sinification of Buddhism

Gimello's Paths to Liberation
or his Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen

For modern philosophical takes on Buddhism Nancy Frankenberry's Religion and Radical Empiricism though to understand her you need a wider knowledge base than you probably have. Here, let me suggest something for you to read first:

James: The Varieties of Religious Experience
James: The Will to Believe
James: Pragmatism
Rorty: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
Rorty: Consequences of Pragmatism

This one is particularly important for you:
Rorty: Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth

You want to know about the origins of Buddhism? How about Vajrayana?
Snellgrove: Indo-Tibetan Buddhism
Pollock (a great book): The Language of the Gods in the World of Men
For a modern take: Wedemeyer: Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism

Davidson: Indian Esoteric Buddhism
Bhattacharyya: An Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism These last few present conflicting views on the nature of Tantrism, particularly the last one that might fit your "fundamentalist" category.

TO understand American Buddhism better:
Merton: Zen and the Birds of Appetite
Eck: A New Religious America
Tweed (this is one of my favorite books ever) The American Encounter with Buddhism 1844-1912
Neusner (ed) World Religions in America
on individuals: Sterling: Zen Pioneer
Hotz: Holding the Lotus to the Rock Sokei-an was a traditionalist and a near mirror of Thich Nhat Hanh, yet his teachings never took off.
Since you Love Thich Nhat Hanh: Fragrant Palm Leaves: Journals 1962-1966 and the companion to that, Merton's journals
Another of Hanh's Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire This is before he was popular and so is much more interesting than some of his later works.

Also Mcmahan: The Making of Buddhist Modernism

u/SLNapster · 1 pointr/philosophy

Nicely said. Also for those interested, formally metaphysics is at a point of construction, like physics was back in the day. Philosophers/logicians/etc such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred North Whitehead, and Edward Zalta aimed(s) at establishing a consistent and formal means of representation for the discipline.

I refer you to:
anything of Wittgenstein's
Whitehead's Process and Reality: Amazon link
and Zalta's Principia Metaphysica: http://mally.stanford.edu/index.html

u/Neil_le_Brave · 0 pointsr/PhilosophyofReligion

Obligatory wikipedia link to Process and Reality

This book should be read before digging into P&R

Here's the mammoth tome in its entirety on amazon

PDF of the final section of P&R. All the quotes I used come from the section God and the World that starts on page 5 of this document.

Be forewarned, this is really heavy stuff. I've been grappling with it for over 6 years and it's slowly becoming understandable to me even though I have a scholastic background in metaphysics and philosophy.
That said, I encourage you and anyone interested in both science and philosophy of religion to jump right in; it's the most complete metaphysical system I have ever encountered and I consider it to be the pinnacle of speculative philosophy.

u/bunker_man · -1 pointsr/askphilosophy