Tim Jackson and I just read Whitehead’s 1929 book The Function of Reason together. Here is our discussion:
I begin with historical context about two important biologists who influenced Whitehead at Harvard: Lawrence Henderson and William Wheeler. Henderson, in his 1913 book The Fitness of the Environment, argued for continuity between cosmic and biological evolution, suggesting the universe is fundamentally biocentric. Wheeler, in his 1928 book Emergent Evolution, discussed balancing genetic continuity with evolutionary novelty, arguing that the emergence of life and mind were gradual developments rather than sudden appearances.
Tim points out that gradualism was orthodox Darwinism regarding species change, though Darwin himself was agnostic about the origin of life. We discuss how Whitehead distinguishes between gradualism at the level of matter/life/mind distinctions versus gradualism in speciation, with Whitehead rejecting strict gradualism at the species level. He affirms a deeper cosmological gradualism (or synechism, to borrow Peirce’s term) such that there can be no sudden leaps into life from matter, nor from matter into mind, at least not if matter is conceived of as bits of stuff pushed around by forces obeying fixed laws.
To provide more historical context, I shared that Whitehead was responding to the rise of logical positivism and behaviorism in the 1920s. While some of his specific targets may seem dated, his defense of final causality and immanent aims in nature remains relevant. Whitehead saw purpose as plainly evident in animals and human beings, our behavior becoming entirely inexplicable if its reality is denied. And it is only denied when special scientific methods effective within limited domains are inappropriately generalized.
We discuss Whitehead’s warning against the reduction of reason to merely pragmatic survival value, and his defense of speculative reason as necessary for science to understand itself. Without acknowledging the reality and importance of speculative reason, science risks adopting naive materialism as an unacknowledged metaphysics.
A key point of discussion is Whitehead’s treatment of Spenser’s term “survival of the fittest” and the extent to which we can meaningfully define grades of complexity in evolution. Tim argues that complexity can emerge through niche partitioning and differentiation without requiring a separate principle of upward progress. I suggest Whitehead is making observations about complexity rather than proposing explanatory principles.
The conversation concludes with an exploration of Whitehead’s concept of rhythm and cycles as basic not only to life but to all physical existence. He sees rhythm as involving both repetition and variation, providing a way to understand evolution that balances order and novelty. I tried to connect his idea of cycles to contemporary theories about the origin of life through chemical cycles and the intimate resonances between organisms and their environments (mostly other organisms).
We acknowledge both the dated aspects of his presentation and the continuing relevance of his core insights about reason, purpose, and evolution.
Footnotes2Plato 
What do you think?