I. In “Whitehead’s Theory of Becoming," V.C. Chappell asserts that Whitehead’s “epochal theory of time or becoming is both untenable and unnecessary”. It is untenable, he argues, because “ … the theory itself is unintelligible, and … … the Zenonian argument on which the theory is founded, even in its amended, Whiteheadian version, is invalid”. Although it is not clear to me that Whitehead’s use of Zeno’s arguments is unsound, our concern here will be limited to the first of these (...) two claims. I will attempt to show that Chappell’s demonstration of the unintelligibility of Whitehead’s theory begs the question. His purpose is to present us with a reductio ad absurdum of the epochal theory of time, but he succeeds only in demonstrating that if we substitute other premises for Whitehead’s own, his conclusions will not be consistent with these substitute premises. (shrink)

So far as I know, only two readers have paid much attention to my 1953 proposal. G. K. Plochmann was quick to point out its limitations, since the definition of "System" I was using seemed not to apply to the major work of modern philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries. More recently, Donald Sherburne has suggested that the project is a fine idea, and one that should be carried out. His enthusiasm has persuaded me to resume the discussion.

At the outset, the philosopher being challenged hopes that the whole question rests on a false assumption. Maybe one can in fact fit together all of the doctrines of major philosophers in a single system which will be consistent, and so prove that there is no contradiction? But that plan hits a snag almost at once: for there are types of philosophic system so related that whenever a given proposition is true in one, its contrary is true in the other. (...) Sextus Empiricus was particularly ingenious at arranging these dual positions in parallel column, but even without his help, brief experiment shows that a simple conjunction rule will not answer the skeptic’s question. (shrink)