Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) was a British mathematician, philosopher, and logician whose ideas have left a significant mark on modern philosophy and metaphysics. Whitehead is best known for his development of process philosophy, also known as the philosophy of organism. His work presents a radical departure from traditional philosophical systems, which often focus on static substances, objects, and fixed entities. In contrast, Whitehead proposed that reality is composed of processes and events, not fixed substances. This view challenges the classical mechanistic perspective that had dominated Western thought since Descartes, and it provides an alternative way of thinking about the nature of existence.

Briefly explain Whitehead’s metaphysical view (his “philosophy of organism”). Include his view of process over substance, eternal objects, and panexperientialism. Why do you think he wants to create an entirely new scheme? Do you think a radical new metaphysical system like this is needed? Why or why not?

The development of the field of Metaphysics before Whitehead supported a conception of reality made of some form of physical substance—matter as the foundation of existence as demonstrated through many of the Ancient Greek philosophical ideas. With the development of more early modern philosophy, there was the development of mind-body dualism to deal with metaphysical skepticism as seen in Descartes for one. Whitehead’s philosophy of Organism seeks to meld the distinction between mind and matter and break down the idea of substance as fundamental. More accurately, his philosophy presents a schema of metaphysics where the distinction between mind and matter doesn’t actually exist because it can be broken down into derivative ideas (more simple ideas). While previously, metaphysical reality was thought to be made of substance; such as the substance which encompassed matter and respectively the mind, Whitehead favors a view of reality where processes are integral to understanding reality and where the boundaries that make up concepts such as mind, matter, and substance break down into different scopes of process. For this reason, in “Process and Reality” Whitehead creates a whole new language to more accurately define this more derivative schema of metaphysical reality.

In Whitehead’s schema, he breaks down the processes that make up reality into different categories of what exists—defining what exists to be anything real or thought-of and in any categorized scope. One way to conceptualize Whitehead’s new schema of process is through his definition of real. That which is fundamental (more derivative) is more real to Whitehead, and he believes “quanta” and “actual occasions” are more derivative. Quanta are the chemical and quantum processes which are most fundamental, while actual occasions are subjective experiences (experiences not being limited to humans but rather ranging in any scope). To Whitehead, entities are made of events or snapshots in processes, such as a human experience that, from a subject-object based view of reality, would be explained as a human experiencing reality. In Whitehead’s schema of organisms, this conception of a human experiencing reality can be broken down into a derivative explanation which is that the reality is in the process of the past transitioning into the future for that defined experience (in this case a human experience). What constitutes something real is thus a defined scope having subjective experience with the quality of having a certain momentum (in this case, movement from the past into the future). This can be seen as a snapshot of a process with a certain scope of the process of a reality constituting itself from past to future. This view of reality also bases itself around subjectivity, and lends this subjectivity to not just conscious beings such as humans. Panexperientialism is what people call this metaphysics because in this philosophy, reality consists of the experience of all the different scopes of reality.

It seems like Whitehead created this new schema because he believed the old metaphysical conceptions of reality weren’t accurate or nuanced enough. I would argue that this schema of organisms is necessary as a concept but not useful to be expressed through human language, or possibly not even accessible to humans (at least not in a useful way). We can see this in how complex Whitehead’s terminology is, and while a new set of definitions can help one understand the nuance of specific topics better, I would argue that it is still inherently limited to humans’ way of experiencing reality.

Whitehead says that his view is “internally determined and externally free”. How does this apply to actual entities? How does this apply to the overall world of human experience? Do you agree with Whitehead in this regard? Why or why not?

For Whitehead, the actual entities (foundational things) are actual occasions. What this means is that Whitehead views the foundational building blocks of reality to be actual occasions. Actual occasions are like events; they aren’t substances acted upon but rather a substance experiencing a movement from past to future. These actual occasions aren’t limited to humans and animals but expand to all levels and scales of matter such as small molecules and atoms (quanta), and the universe on a larger scale.

When Whitehead talks about “internally determined and externally free,” this is in reference to actual entities (real and foundational beings) and what can have subjective experience. Whitehead asserts that the only real entities are actual occasions—meaning that there is nothing real other than subjective experiences where “experiences” extend to any scope and scale of what exists. Whitehead asserts that these actual occasions of experience are self-constituting, that in the act of experiencing, they are real, and thus externally free—or free from external causation. Whitehead explains how these actual occasions are not necessarily free from other causation but that other causation isn’t what makes actual occasions real—rather self-constitutes themselves by experiencing movement based on the past.

Given this interpretation of reality to be true, it would mean that human experience is not only an actual occasion but that human experience makes us actual entities. This metaphysical explanation places the realness of reality on experience. Thus, what one experiences as a human is what is objectively real. But this also makes us not unique in constituting reality. The quantum world such as the process of particles is also constituting reality as is experience, change, and process at every level. Thus, humans are just one entity that is making what is real, real.

I think that this is a fascinating take on metaphysics and determining what is real. While previous thinkers found a basic substance or set of foundational substances that underlie their various metaphysical theories, Whitehead rejects the idea of matter and substance instead turns to movement, process, and experience to explain what is real. I believe this view is more nuanced in that its process, change, and movement are at every level of the universe. I also would argue that change distilled to cause and effect is one of the most foundational ways to understand the universe and what is real. When it comes to what Whitehead’s interpretation means for human experience, this is where my stance becomes somewhat fuzzier. Whitehead argues that humans are self-constituting reality.

I would argue that a weakness of Whitehead’s philosophy is his assertion that subjects cannot be evolved from a world only consisting of objects. In Whitehead’s definition, quanta, or the fundamental elements of reality, cannot be purely objective—meaning that these fundamental elements cannot be purely matter. This insistence on reality being based on subjective experience of actual occasions, while at the same time having this view of self-constitution being a chain reaction of cause and effect seem to clash at least on some level. Purely cause and effect need matter for this chain reaction yet subjective experience doesn’t as an abstract concept. One way to make sense of this is if subjective experience was a way of affirming this chain reaction of matter and in this way acts as the key to determine realness.