Revisiting Whitehead’s Abstractive Hierarchy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic represents a somewhat technical and very small subset of current work on Whitehead, although it’s connected to bigger themes.  The secondary literature on this specific topic is very small: the author references one paper by R.M. Martin and a short 4-page paper by G.W Roberts.  The article is based on an interpretation of one chapter, “Chapter X: Abstraction”, in Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World (SMW), a chapter not usually given very careful attention in the literature and more often ignored. Indeed, the author quotes Martin on the difficulty of the ideas in this chapter and how even the ablest Whiteheadians claim they haven’t understood it. However, some think this chapter is the basic text for understanding what Whitehead calls ‘eternal objects’ (Whitehead introduces the term in this chapter), which have a very important role in Whitehead’s metaphysics. Others think that what Whitehead says in this chapter is superseded by what Whitehead says in Process and Reality (PR), which is regarded as his magnum opus and his central work in metaphysics. The editors will need to decide whether this is the right journal for this type of work, and whether the journal’s readers will be interested in it.

The paper is concerned with Whitehead’s attempt to rethink the abstract. In order to show that, the author claims we need to ‘revisit’ Whitehead’s notion of abstractive hierarchy. The author argues that there are two approaches to the idea of abstractive hierarchy in the scholarship, the logical and the metaphysical. The author claims that the logical approach, “representing the mainstream view” , with R.M. Martin as the one representative, is “fraught with controversies, exposing the current inadequacies in the study of Whitehead’s event theory” (lines 408-409). This leads the author to give an interpretation of the metaphysical approach. This interpretation is concerned with primarily showing that in an abstractive hierarchy becomingness and abruptness are necessary, and that complexity and abstraction are not congruent.

It's not clear to me that there is a ‘traditional’ or ‘mainstream’ view of abstractive hierarchy (based on the very small literature), and the idea that a critique of this supposed traditional account exposes the “current inadequacies in the study of Whitehead’s event theory” is hyperbole. There are numerous accounts of Whitehead’s event theory that work with metaphysical conceptions of abstraction in the author’s sense of not being based on a logic of types. These accounts are different from the author’s, don’t need to revisit or pass through abstractive hierarchy, and tend to rely on the conceptual structures laid out in PR. Some have argued that the disappearance of abstractive hierarchy after SMW is because Whitehead simply abandoned the idea. The author claims that abstractive hierarchy becomes the ‘extensive continuum’ in PR. That’s interesting, but would need to be rigorously demonstrated.

Overall, I think the paper is well-written and the summary of the main points of Whitehead’s chapter X in SMW is clear and accurate.  As a summary and critique of R. M. Martin’s article the paper works well. However, I think the author inflates the significance of their critique of Martin in relation to the study of Whitehead’s event theory, and arguably overestimates the importance of abstractive hierarchy in Whitehead’s rethinking of abstraction. I encourage the author to reconsider some of their claims. For example, that Martin’s view “represents the mainstream academic understanding” (342); or, that as a result of their critique of Martin, they are “exposing the current inadequacies in the study of Whitehead’s event theory” (408).

Author Response

Comment 1: It's not clear to me that there is a ‘traditional’ or ‘mainstream’ view of abstractive hierarchy (based on the very small literature), and the idea that a critique of this supposed traditional account exposes the “current inadequacies in the study of Whitehead’s event theory” is hyperbole.

Response 1： I agree with your comments, so I have added some more recent literature and connected them through a common topic: considering abstraction as a purely intellectual activity. This can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 47-81.

Comment 2: I think the author inflates the significance of their critique of Martin in relation to the study of Whitehead’s event theory, and arguably overestimates the importance of abstractive hierarchy in Whitehead’s rethinking of abstraction.

Response 2: I did not sufficiently explain the significance of Martin's research in the manuscript, nor the importance of abstractive hierarchy. I elaborated on the significance of Martin's work in the introduction, blending it with the literature review. These can be found in lines 47-65 and 83-87. As for the latter issue, I have largely revised the concluding section of the article, hoping to clarify the importance of abstractive hierarchy in Whitehead's metaphysical thought. This can be seen in lines 402-466.

Comment 3: I encourage the author to reconsider some of their claims. For example, that Martin’s view “represents the mainstream academic understanding” (342); or, that as a result of their critique of Martin, they are “exposing the current inadequacies in the study of Whitehead’s event theory” (408).

Response 3: Thank you very much for your patient response and constructive suggestions! I agree with your perspective, so I have removed the content that might be contentious.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The goal of the paper is to show that R.M. Martin’s logical reading of Leibniz’s theory of abstraction is mistaken. As an alternative, the author defends a ‘metaphysical’ reading. The text is well-written and has a clear goal.

 But there are some problems:

1)      The author does not make clear in what he/she means by a ‘logical’ and a ‘metaphysical' approach. Why is Martin’s reading in terms of a theory of types ‘logical’ and why is the author’s reading 'metaphysical'?

2)      It is not clear why this critique of Martin’s interpretation is valuable. Martin’s interpretation is 50 years old and not really relevant any more in the field of Whitehead studies. The interpretation that the author defends (that abstraction lies in simplicity rather than complexity) is quite widely accepted. Therefore, again, I don’t see the importance of this text.

3)      There is not enough interaction with secondary literature. And, with one exception, the literature that is mentioned is very old. Specifically, the work of Chis van Haeften is missing. He has two important articles on the theme of abstraction: “Abstraction Revisited” (2003); “Eternal Objects: Their Multiplicity and the Structure of Their Realm”. More recently, the article by Florian Vermeiren (2021), “Whitehead and the Immanence of Extension", also deals with Whitehead’s theory of abstraction.

When we take this more recent literature into consideration, I feel that the text of the author does not have anything to add.

4)      In fact, the reconstruction of the theory of abstraction is sometimes too simplistic: Two crucial elements are missing:

-          The fact that there are two meanings to the word “abstraction” (only briefly mentioned at the end of the text). There is abstraction from actuality and abstraction from possibility. These processes have an opposite direction.

-          The fact that there are two meanings to the word ‘complexity’. The relational essence of an eternal object does not amount to real relationality but only to relations of possibility. The most abstract (i.e., most abstracted from actuality) eternal objects (‘red’ for example) have the most complex relational essences because they have the possibility to be related to a lot of different eternal objects (you can have red squares, red apples, red light, etc). But these very abstract eternal objects have a very simple individual essence (simply ‘red’). When an eternal objects gains complexity in its individual essence (e.g., the eternal object ‘red racing car’) its relational essence becomes more simple.

Because of the two meanings of abstraction and the two meanings of complexity the author’s discussion of whether abstraction is corresponds to complexity or simplicity is often confused.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author does not make clear in what he/she means by a ‘logical’ and a ‘metaphysical' approach. Why is Martin’s reading in terms of a theory of types ‘logical’ and why is the author’s reading 'metaphysical'?

Response 1: Your question strikes at the heart of the matter. Considering that the secondary distinction between "metaphysical" and "logical" is complex and offers little additional value, I no longer emphasize this opposition between "metaphysical" and "logical," modifying the title and abstract accordingly, and revised related expressions in the main text. These can be found in lines 2, 10-12, 16-17, etc..

Comment 2: It is not clear why this critique of Martin’s interpretation is valuable. Martin’s interpretation is 50 years old and not really relevant any more in the field of Whitehead studies. The interpretation that the author defends (that abstraction lies in simplicity rather than complexity) is quite widely accepted. Therefore, again, I don’t see the importance of this text.

Response 2: I partly agree with your comment. I have to admit that I did not sufficiently explain the significance of Martin's research in the manuscript. Therefore, I elaborated on the importance of Martin's work in the introduction section, blending it with the literature review.  These can be found in lines 47-65 and 83-87. As for the latter question, it seems to be more of an academic disagreement between us. I don't believe we should introduce the term "simplicity" into the discussion, as it is never mentioned in the chapters “Abstraction” and “God”.

Comment 3: There is not enough interaction with secondary literature. And, with one exception, the literature that is mentioned is very old. Specifically, the work of Chis van Haeften is missing. He has two important articles on the theme of abstraction: “Abstraction Revisited” (2003); “Eternal Objects: Their Multiplicity and the Structure of Their Realm”. More recently, the article by Florian Vermeiren (2021), “Whitehead and the Immanence of Extension", also deals with Whitehead’s theory of abstraction.

Response 3: I agree with your comment and acknowledge that there were deficiencies in my literature review. I have now added the mentioned literature, which can be found in lines 47-65 and 443-461. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention; these references have been very helpful.

Comment 4:  In fact, the reconstruction of the theory of abstraction is sometimes too simplistic: Two crucial elements are missing:

①The fact that there are two meanings to the word “abstraction” (only briefly mentioned at the end of the text). There is abstraction from actuality and abstraction from possibility. These processes have an opposite direction.

②The fact that there are two meanings to the word ‘complexity’. The relational essence of an eternal object does not amount to real relationality but only to relations of possibility. The most abstract (i.e., most abstracted from actuality) eternal objects (‘red’ for example) have the most complex relational essences because they have the possibility to be related to a lot of different eternal objects (you can have red squares, red apples, red light, etc). But these very abstract eternal objects have a very simple individual essence (simply ‘red’). When an eternal objects gains complexity in its individual essence (e.g., the eternal object ‘red racing car’) its relational essence becomes more simple.

Because of the two meanings of abstraction and the two meanings of complexity the author’s discussion of whether abstraction is corresponds to complexity or simplicity is often confused

Response 4: I don't agree with your view, but it has some merit to a certain extent. Our disagreement remains academic. I don't believe that "abstraction from possibility runs in the opposite direction to an abstraction from actuality" implies that the term “abstraction” has two meanings, but rather that there are two different structural forms of abstractive hierarchies. However, I find your emphasis on this point constructive, so I have optimized the article structure and headings, extracting the content related to "Abstraction from possibility and abstraction from actuality" into a separate section. (lines 208, 268, 328-400, 401)

Regarding the two meanings of the term "complexity" you mentioned, I haven't found corresponding evidence in Whitehead's texts. This is a term defined by the abstractive hierarchy, and its description is quite clear. I don't think that the word "complexity" has two meanings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article does not demonstrate any significant issues with English at the level of orthography or correctness, but, as I have stated in my comments, it does quite frequently rely on overly complex sentence constructions and a highly specialized jargon, both of which obscure meaning.

Author Response

Comment 1: The large issue that I find comes around ll. 45ff. (p. 2), where the author invokes R.M. Martin to articulate a gap in our understanding of Whitehead. But the immediate follow-up question is: so what? What’s at stake here? What does not understanding “abstractive hierarchy” cost us?

Response 1: I agree with your comment that I did not sufficiently explain the significance of Martin's research in the manuscript. Therefore, I elaborated on the significance of Martin's work in the introduction, blending it with the literature review. These can be found in lines 47-65 and 83-87.

Comment 2: I would like to see some sort of brief literature review in order to   show how the author’s claim is contributing to an ongoing discussion.

Response 2 : Your request is very reasonable, and I indeed had some oversights in the relevant aspects. I have added some more recent literature and connected them through a common topic: considering abstraction as a purely intellectual activity. This can be found in the revised manuscript on lines 47-81.

Comment 3:  I would like to see the author front-load the argument   more in order to give the reader a roadmap for what is to come; this will give both reader and   author a set of signposts to which they can return later in the paper, to know where we are in the argument.

Response 3: Your comment is very constructive. I agree with your point and believe that such an arrangement is beneficial. I have added a roadmap for this article at the end of the Introduction section, which discusses the general content of each section. You can find the roadmap in lines 82-94.

Comment 4: As is, I can imagine only a handful of scholars equally steeped in Whitehead would be able to follow this reasoning; for this article to be accessible to a wider audience, a serious effort to translate, simplify, and speak plainly (i.e., with less subordination, more active constructions, etc.) needs to be made.

Response 4: Your suggestion is very pertinent. I indeed did not take into account those outside the relevant field in my language use. I accept your proposal and have enhanced the language throughout the article to improve readability. (lines 10-12, 97-100, 329-332, etc.)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has clearly improved. There is more discussion with contemporary scholarship and the argument is formulated in more clear terms.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A much improved version! Rhetorically much clearer than the previous draft; this one really brings out the insight of your argument.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would recommend one more pass for copyediting; I notice a handful of noun/verb agreement issues, some misplaced commas, a few missing plurals, etc., particularly in the newly added material. Easily remediable.