THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE FUTURE, #26–Beyond The Mechanistic Worldview I: The Neo-Organicist Worldview.

By Robert Hanna

“FUTUREWORLD,” by A. Lee/Unsplash


It is being made available here in serial format, but you can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text–including the BIBLIOGRAPHY–of THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE FUTURE HERE.

This twenty-sixth installment contains sub-section 2.4.2.


If there is any science humankind really needs, it is the one I teach, of how to occupy properly that place in [the world] that is assigned to humankind, and how to learn from it what one must be in order to be human. (Rem 20: 45)

Natural science will one day incorporate the science of humankind, just as the science of humankind will incorporate natural science; there will be a single science. (Marx, 1964: p. 70, translation modified slightly)




0. Introduction: Science, The Four Horsemen of The New Apocalypse, and The Uniscience

0.0 How Uncritical and Unreformed Science Is Literally Killing The Modern World

0.1 My Aim In This Book

0.2 The Uniscience and Pascal’s Dictum

Chapter 1. Natural Piety: A Kantian Critique of Science

1.0 Kantian Heavy-Duty Enlightenment and The Uniscience

1.1 Kant’s Neo-Aristotelian Natural Power Grid

1.2 Kant, Natural Piety, and The Limits of Science

1.3 From Kant’s Anti-Mechanism to Kantian Anti-Mechanism

1.4 In Defense of Natural Piety

1.5 Scientific Pietism and Scientific Naturalism

1.6 How to Ground Natural Science on Sensibility

1.7 Sensible Science 1: Natural Science Without Natural Mechanism

1.8 Sensible Science 2: Natural Science Without Materialism/Physicalism

1.9 Sensible Science 3: Natural Science Without Scientism

1.10 Frankenscience, the Future of Humanity, and the Future of Science

Chapter 2. This is the Way the World Ends: A Philosophy of Civilization Since 1900, The Rise of Mechanism, and The Emergence of Neo-Organicism

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Wrestling with Modernity: 1900–1940

2.1.1 Six Sociocultural or Sociopolitical Developments

2.1.2 Two Philosophical Developments: Classical Analytic Philosophy and First Wave Organicism

2.1.3 Architectural and Artistic Trends

2.2 The Historical Black Hole, The Mechanistic Mindset, and The Mechanistic Worldview: 1940–1980

2.2.1 Formal and Natural Science After 1945, The Mechanistic Mindset, and The Rise of The Mechanistic Worldview

2.2 The Emergence of Post-Classical Analytic Philosophy

2.2.3 The Two Images Problem and its Consequences

2.2.4 Modernism and Countercurrents in the Arts and Design

2.3 The Philosophical Great Divide, Post-Modernist Cultural Nihilism, and Other Apocalyptic Developments: 1980–2022

2.3.1 The Rise of Po-Mo Philosophy

2.3.2 Po-Mo Architecture: Unconstrained Hybridity

2.3.3 Other Apocalyptic Developments: Crises in Physics and Big Science, and The One-Two Punch

2.4 From The Mechanistic Worldview to Neo-Organicism

2.4.0 Against The Mechanistic Worldview

2.4.1 Seven Arguments Against The Mechanistic Worldview Logical and Mathematical Arguments Physical and Metaphysical Arguments Mentalistic and Agential Arguments

2.4.2 Beyond The Mechanistic Worldview: The Neo-Organicist Worldview

Chapter 3. Thought-Shapers

Chapter 4. How To Complete Physics

Chapter 5. Digital Technology Only Within The Limits of Human Dignity

00. Conclusion: The Point Is To Shape The World


Appendix 1: A Note on The Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem, “Skolem’s Paradox,” and Neo-Organicism

Appendix 2: A Neo-Organicist Approach to The Nature of Motion

Appendix 3: Sensible Set Theory

Appendix 4: Neo-Organicism and The Rubber Sheet Cosmos



2.4.2 Beyond The Mechanistic Worldview: The Neo-Organicist Worldview

(i) the mind-body problem: what explains the existence and specific characters of consciousness, intentionality, mental causation, and rationality, in a purportedly essentially non-mental physical world?,

(ii) the free will problem: what explains the existence and specific characters of real free choice and practical agency, in a purportedly essentially deterministic or indeterministic physical world?, and

(iii) the cosmological fine-tuning problem: what explains the existence and specific characters of the very special initial conditions, natural laws, and causal-evolutionary developments required for the emergence of organismic life, minded animals in general, and rational human minded animals in particular, in a purportedly essentially purposeless physical world?

And here’s how Thomas Nagel has responded to these fundamental problems in Mind and Cosmos:

[R]ational intelligibility is at the root of the natural order. (Nagel, 2012: p. 17)

On a teleological account, the existence of value is not an accident, because that is part of the explanation of why there is such a thing as life, with all its possibilities oif development and variation. In brief, value is not just an accidental side effect of life; rather, there is life because life is a necessary condition of value.

Even though natural selection partially determines the details of the forms of life and consciousness that exist, and the relations among them, the existence of the genetic material and the possible forms it makes available for selection have to be explained in some other way. The teleological hypothesis is that these things [are] determined not merely by value-free chemistry and physics but also by something else, namely a cosmic predisposition to the formation of life, consciousness, and the value that is inseparable from them. (Nagel, 2012: p. 123)

I’m fully onboard with what Nagel is proposing here, which is what I’m calling the new wave organicist, aka neo-organicist, worldview.

In view of the seven arguments I presented in section 2.4.1, it follows that the mechanistic worldview is false. Diametrically to the contrary, according to Nagel and me, the neo-organicist worldview is true. Otherwise put, in order to understand the nature of organismic life, minded animals in general, rational human mind animals in particular, human free agency, and above all human dignity, we need radically to re-think what Whitehead so aptly called our concept of nature itself (Whitehead, 1971), thereby radically re-conceiving the cosmos in neo-organicist terms. More specifically, the neo-organicist worldview says (i) that the cosmos is essentially processual, purposive, and self-organizing, and (ii) that there’s a single, unbroken metaphysical continuity between The Big Bang Singularity, temporally asymmetric/unidirectional non-equilibrium negentropic thermodynamic matter/energy flows, organismic life, conscious minded animals of all kinds including conscious minded human animals, human free agency, human rationality, and human dignity (see also Torday, Miller Jr, and Hanna, 2020). For convenience and simplicity’s sake, I’ll call this the neo-organicist thesis.


Mr Nemo, W, X, Y, & Z, Monday 20 June 2022

Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.

Please consider becoming a patron!



Formerly Captain Nemo. A not-so-very-angry, but still unemployed, full-time philosopher-nobody.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Mr Nemo

Formerly Captain Nemo. A not-so-very-angry, but still unemployed, full-time philosopher-nobody.