Bad with Names: Replacing “Animal” with Whitehead’s Insistent Particularity of Bodies

Process Studies 42 (2):181-199 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the history ofWestern thought the “animal” is a general idea devoid of the details ofparticularity. Whitehead poses a nuanced challenge to us: how to perceive each abstract “animal” as a concrete body. To become “bad with names” is an invitation to exchange reductionist designations with new language for individual creatures that populate the amorphous category of “animal.” Derrida, Deleuze, and Guattari, along with Whitehead, suggest ways in which we might understand the idea that there are no “animals,” only radically particular bodies.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Mind-Body Problem and Whitehead’s Nonreductive Monism.Anderson Weekes - 2012 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 19 (9-10):40-66.
Effability, Ontology, and Method.Fred Wilson - 1983 - Philosophy Research Archives 9:419-469.
Names as tokens and names as tools.M. W. Pelczar - 2001 - Synthese 128 (1-2):133 - 155.
The Remnant-Person Problem.Eric T. Olson - forthcoming - In Stephan Blatti Paul F. Snowdon (ed.), Essays on Animalism. Oxford University Press.
Bodily Thought and the Corpse Problem.Steinvör Thöll Árnadóttir - 2011 - European Journal of Philosophy 21 (4):575-592.
Can Thomas and Whitehead Complement Each Other?Lewis S. Ford - 2002 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (3):491-502.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-05-03

Downloads
45 (#356,447)

6 months
12 (#223,952)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references