Not exact matches
He happily leaps from the
philosophical mountain into the muck below, where he coolly
follows his
principles to their logical ends.
I can not discuss them all here, but the
following references are a start: Theodore de Laguna, review of The
Principles of Natural Knowledge in
Philosophical Review, 29 (1920), 269; Bertrand Russell, review of Science and the Modern World in Nation and Athenaeum, 39 (May 29,1926), 207; Charles Hartshorne, Creativity in American Philosophy (New York: Paragon House, 1984), 5,32,279 - 280; and even though Stephen Pepper believes both Whitehead and Bergson are mistaken in their views, he believes they are extremely similar: see Pepper, Concept and Quality: A World Hypothesis (LaSalle: Open Court, 1967), 340 - 341.
His analysis of the writings of Michel Foucault, who died in 1984, shows how a secular
philosophical principle has expanded in the years
following to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of faith.
Having stated his thesis that one must begin with Whitehead's diagnosis, Rorty quotes him as
follows: «The difficulties of all schools of modern philosophy lie in the fact that having accepted the subjectivist
principle, they continue to use
philosophical categories derived from another point of view» (PR 253; WEP 134; italics mine).
This is the way
followed by some thinkers, for example, A. N. Whitehead in a series of books, The
Principles of Natural Knowledge, The Concept of Nature, and Science and the Modern World; by Milic Capek in his The
Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics; and by C. F. von Weizsäicker in his recent Die Einheit der Natur, as well as other books of his — this list is intended as illustrative, not exhaustive.