gem_id stringlengths 20 25 | id stringlengths 24 24 | title stringlengths 3 59 | context stringlengths 151 3.71k | question stringlengths 1 270 | target stringlengths 1 270 | references list | answers dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gem-squad_v2-train-14700 | 5ad3cb4c604f3c001a3ff109 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians. | What was the extent of Whitehead's noneducation in philosophy? | What was the extent of Whitehead's noneducation in philosophy? | [
"What was the extent of Whitehead's noneducation in philosophy?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14701 | 5ad3cb4c604f3c001a3ff10a | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians. | With what friend and former student did Whitehead not correspond regarding the goals of science? | With what friend and former student did Whitehead not correspond regarding the goals of science? | [
"With what friend and former student did Whitehead not correspond regarding the goals of science?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14702 | 5ad3cb4c604f3c001a3ff10b | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians. | What wasn't Whitehead's opinion of his own knowledge of metaphysics in that correspondence? | What wasn't Whitehead's opinion of his own knowledge of metaphysics in that correspondence? | [
"What wasn't Whitehead's opinion of his own knowledge of metaphysics in that correspondence?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14703 | 5ad3cb4c604f3c001a3ff10c | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead did not begin his career as a philosopher. In fact, he never had any formal training in philosophy beyond his undergraduate education. Early in his life he showed great interest in and respect for philosophy and metaphysics, but it is evident that he considered himself a rank amateur. In one letter to his friend and former student Bertrand Russell, after discussing whether science aimed to be explanatory or merely descriptive, he wrote: "This further question lands us in the ocean of metaphysic, onto which my profound ignorance of that science forbids me to enter." Ironically, in later life Whitehead would become one of the 20th century's foremost metaphysicians. | How did Whitehead eventually become regarded in the field of science? | How did Whitehead eventually become regarded in the field of science? | [
"How did Whitehead eventually become regarded in the field of science?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14704 | 5730938d069b53140083219d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What do philosophers do, in Whitehead's view? | What do philosophers do, in Whitehead's view? | [
"What do philosophers do, in Whitehead's view?"
] | {
"text": [
"make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works"
],
"answer_start": [
336
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14705 | 5730938d069b53140083219e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | Assumptions of how the universe works are difficult to see precisely because of what? | Assumptions of how the universe works are difficult to see precisely because of what? | [
"Assumptions of how the universe works are difficult to see precisely because of what?"
] | {
"text": [
"they remain unexamined and unquestioned"
],
"answer_start": [
468
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14706 | 5730938d069b53140083219f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What did Whitehead ask people to reimagine in order for philosophy to make progress? | What did Whitehead ask people to reimagine in order for philosophy to make progress? | [
"What did Whitehead ask people to reimagine in order for philosophy to make progress?"
] | {
"text": [
"basic assumptions about how the universe works"
],
"answer_start": [
690
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14707 | 5730938d069b5314008321a0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What did Whitehead regard as essential to good science and good philosophy? | What did Whitehead regard as essential to good science and good philosophy? | [
"What did Whitehead regard as essential to good science and good philosophy?"
] | {
"text": [
"metaphysical investigations"
],
"answer_start": [
883
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14708 | 5733349d4776f41900660790 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What quotation of Whitehead's was noted by a student in 1927? | What quotation of Whitehead's was noted by a student in 1927? | [
"What quotation of Whitehead's was noted by a student in 1927?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized.\""
],
"answer_start": [
128
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14709 | 5733349d4776f41900660791 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What was Whitehead's opinion of basic assumptions in metaphysics? | What was Whitehead's opinion of basic assumptions in metaphysics? | [
"What was Whitehead's opinion of basic assumptions in metaphysics?"
] | {
"text": [
"such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned"
],
"answer_start": [
413
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14710 | 5733349d4776f41900660792 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What did Whitehead feel was necessary regarding basic assumptions in metaphysics? | What did Whitehead feel was necessary regarding basic assumptions in metaphysics? | [
"What did Whitehead feel was necessary regarding basic assumptions in metaphysics?"
] | {
"text": [
"people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress"
],
"answer_start": [
646
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14711 | 5733349d4776f41900660793 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What was Whitehead's opinion of metaphysical investigations? | What was Whitehead's opinion of metaphysical investigations? | [
"What was Whitehead's opinion of metaphysical investigations?"
] | {
"text": [
"Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy"
],
"answer_start": [
864
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14712 | 5ad3cb8e604f3c001a3ff125 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What quotation of Whitehead's was noted by a student in 1977? | What quotation of Whitehead's was noted by a student in 1977? | [
" What quotation of Whitehead's was noted by a student in 1977?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14713 | 5ad3cb8e604f3c001a3ff126 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What did Whitehead feel was necessary regarding complex assumptions in metaphysics? | What did Whitehead feel was necessary regarding complex assumptions in metaphysics? | [
"What did Whitehead feel was necessary regarding complex assumptions in metaphysics?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14714 | 5ad3cb8e604f3c001a3ff127 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead was unimpressed by this objection. In the notes of one his students for a 1927 class, Whitehead was quoted as saying: "Every scientific man in order to preserve his reputation has to say he dislikes metaphysics. What he means is he dislikes having his metaphysics criticized." In Whitehead's view, scientists and philosophers make metaphysical assumptions about how the universe works all the time, but such assumptions are not easily seen precisely because they remain unexamined and unquestioned. While Whitehead acknowledged that "philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles," he argued that people need to continually re-imagine their basic assumptions about how the universe works if philosophy and science are to make any real progress, even if that progress remains permanently asymptotic. For this reason Whitehead regarded metaphysical investigations as essential to both good science and good philosophy. | What was Whitehead's opinion of nonmetaphysical investigations? | What was Whitehead's opinion of nonmetaphysical investigations? | [
" What was Whitehead's opinion of nonmetaphysical investigations?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14715 | 5730956e396df919000961c2 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | What idea states that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter? | What idea states that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter? | [
"What idea states that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter?"
] | {
"text": [
"Cartesian idea"
],
"answer_start": [
89
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14716 | 5730956e396df919000961c3 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | Whitehead rejected the Cartesian idea in favor of what? | Whitehead rejected the Cartesian idea in favor of what? | [
"Whitehead rejected the Cartesian idea in favor of what?"
] | {
"text": [
"an event-based or \"process\" ontology"
],
"answer_start": [
243
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14717 | 5730956e396df919000961c4 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | Whitehead believed instead of matter existing independently of each other, it did what? | Whitehead believed instead of matter existing independently of each other, it did what? | [
"Whitehead believed instead of matter existing independently of each other, it did what?"
] | {
"text": [
"interrelated and dependent"
],
"answer_start": [
330
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14718 | 5730956e396df919000961c5 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | Whitehead believed that reality should be regarded as what? | Whitehead believed that reality should be regarded as what? | [
"Whitehead believed that reality should be regarded as what?"
] | {
"text": [
"experiential"
],
"answer_start": [
451
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14719 | 5730956e396df919000961c6 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | Whitehead's system as "philosophy of organism" became widely known as what term? | Whitehead's system as "philosophy of organism" became widely known as what term? | [
"Whitehead's system as \"philosophy of organism\" became widely known as what term?"
] | {
"text": [
"process philosophy"
],
"answer_start": [
937
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14720 | 573338734776f419006607a2 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | What Cartesian concept did Whitehead believe to be erroneous? | What Cartesian concept did Whitehead believe to be erroneous? | [
"What Cartesian concept did Whitehead believe to be erroneous?"
] | {
"text": [
"reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another"
],
"answer_start": [
109
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14721 | 573338734776f419006607a3 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | What theory did Whitehead prefer to the Cartesian concept? | What theory did Whitehead prefer to the Cartesian concept? | [
"What theory did Whitehead prefer to the Cartesian concept?"
] | {
"text": [
"event-based or \"process\" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another"
],
"answer_start": [
246
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14722 | 573338734776f419006607a4 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | How did whitehead define "experience"? | How did whitehead define "experience"? | [
"How did whitehead define \"experience\"?"
] | {
"text": [
"He used the term \"experience\" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience"
],
"answer_start": [
522
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14723 | 573338734776f419006607a5 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | How did Descartes' distinguish types of existence? | How did Descartes' distinguish types of existence? | [
"How did Descartes' distinguish types of existence?"
] | {
"text": [
"two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental"
],
"answer_start": [
725
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14724 | 573338734776f419006607a6 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | How did Whitehead identify his system of metaphysics? | How did Whitehead identify his system of metaphysics? | [
"How did Whitehead identify his system of metaphysics?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"philosophy of organism\""
],
"answer_start": [
869
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14725 | 5ad3cbbe604f3c001a3ff12b | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | What Cartesian concept did Whitehead believe to be correct? | What Cartesian concept did Whitehead believe to be correct? | [
"What Cartesian concept did Whitehead believe to be correct?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14726 | 5ad3cbbe604f3c001a3ff12c | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | What theory did Whitehead not prefer to the Cartesian concept? | What theory did Whitehead not prefer to the Cartesian concept? | [
" What theory did Whitehead not prefer to the Cartesian concept?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14727 | 5ad3cbbe604f3c001a3ff12d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | How did whitehead define "inexperience"? | How did whitehead define "inexperience"? | [
" How did whitehead define \"inexperience\"?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14728 | 5ad3cbbe604f3c001a3ff12e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy." | How did Whitehead identify his system of math? | How did Whitehead identify his system of math? | [
" How did Whitehead identify his system of math?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14729 | 573096d2396df919000961d4 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work considered? | In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work considered? | [
"In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work considered?"
] | {
"text": [
"the most difficult to understand"
],
"answer_start": [
148
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14730 | 573096d2396df919000961d5 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | Who also struggled to follow Whitehead's writings? | Who also struggled to follow Whitehead's writings? | [
"Who also struggled to follow Whitehead's writings?"
] | {
"text": [
"professional philosophers"
],
"answer_start": [
215
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14731 | 573096d2396df919000961d6 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | When did Whitehead delivery the Gifford lectures? | When did Whitehead delivery the Gifford lectures? | [
"When did Whitehead delivery the Gifford lectures?"
] | {
"text": [
"1927–28"
],
"answer_start": [
426
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14732 | 573096d2396df919000961d7 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | Following Arthur Eddington's lectures, what did Whitehead publish? | Following Arthur Eddington's lectures, what did Whitehead publish? | [
"Following Arthur Eddington's lectures, what did Whitehead publish?"
] | {
"text": [
"Process and Reality"
],
"answer_start": [
536
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14733 | 57333a74d058e614000b579e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in philosophy? | What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in philosophy? | [
"What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in philosophy?"
] | {
"text": [
"generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon"
],
"answer_start": [
115
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14734 | 57333a74d058e614000b579f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | What lectures did Whitehead present in 1927-28? | What lectures did Whitehead present in 1927-28? | [
"What lectures did Whitehead present in 1927-28?"
] | {
"text": [
"Gifford lectures"
],
"answer_start": [
406
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14735 | 57333a74d058e614000b57a0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | Under what name were those lectures later published? | Under what name were those lectures later published? | [
"Under what name were those lectures later published?"
] | {
"text": [
"Process and Reality"
],
"answer_start": [
536
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14736 | 5ad3cbf4604f3c001a3ff133 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in math? | What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in math? | [
"What is the general opinion of the difficulty level of Whitehead's work in math?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14737 | 5ad3cbf4604f3c001a3ff134 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | What lectures did Whitehead not present in 1927-28? | What lectures did Whitehead not present in 1927-28? | [
" What lectures did Whitehead not present in 1927-28?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14738 | 5ad3cbf4604f3c001a3ff135 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | Under what name were those lectures first published? | Under what name were those lectures first published? | [
" Under what name were those lectures first published?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14739 | 5ad3cbf4604f3c001a3ff136 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | This is not to say that Whitehead's thought was widely accepted or even well-understood. His philosophical work is generally considered to be among the most difficult to understand in all of the western canon. Even professional philosophers struggled to follow Whitehead's writings. One famous story illustrating the level of difficulty of Whitehead's philosophy centers around the delivery of Whitehead's Gifford lectures in 1927–28 – following Arthur Eddington's lectures of the year previous – which Whitehead would later publish as Process and Reality: | In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work never considered? | In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work never considered? | [
"In all of the western canon, what is Whitehead's work never considered?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14740 | 5730976a069b5314008321b9 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | Who was frustrated in Whitehead's books but still interested? | Who was frustrated in Whitehead's books but still interested? | [
"Who was frustrated in Whitehead's books but still interested?"
] | {
"text": [
"Mathews"
],
"answer_start": [
9
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14741 | 5730976a069b5314008321ba | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What school recognized the importance of Whitehead's work? | What school recognized the importance of Whitehead's work? | [
"What school recognized the importance of Whitehead's work?"
] | {
"text": [
"Chicago's Divinity School"
],
"answer_start": [
154
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14742 | 5730976a069b5314008321bb | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | Who was invited to the Chicago Divinity school as one of Whitehead's only experts? | Who was invited to the Chicago Divinity school as one of Whitehead's only experts? | [
"Who was invited to the Chicago Divinity school as one of Whitehead's only experts?"
] | {
"text": [
"Henry Nelson Wieman"
],
"answer_start": [
361
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14743 | 5730976a069b5314008321bc | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | When was Henry Nelson Wieman invited to the Chicago Divinity school? | When was Henry Nelson Wieman invited to the Chicago Divinity school? | [
"When was Henry Nelson Wieman invited to the Chicago Divinity school?"
] | {
"text": [
"1927"
],
"answer_start": [
301
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14744 | 5730976a069b5314008321bd | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What happened after Henry Nelson Wieman gave a lecture about Whitehead? | What happened after Henry Nelson Wieman gave a lecture about Whitehead? | [
"What happened after Henry Nelson Wieman gave a lecture about Whitehead?"
] | {
"text": [
"hired"
],
"answer_start": [
499
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14745 | 57333c754776f419006607b6 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What affect did Matthews' opinion of the difficulty of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them? | What affect did Matthews' opinion of the difficulty of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them? | [
"What affect did Matthews' opinion of the difficulty of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them?"
] | {
"text": [
"Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest"
],
"answer_start": [
9
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14746 | 57333c754776f419006607b7 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | How did many philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School view Whitehead's work? | How did many philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School view Whitehead's work? | [
"How did many philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School view Whitehead's work?"
] | {
"text": [
"perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications"
],
"answer_start": [
185
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14747 | 57333c754776f419006607b8 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to explain Whitehead's ideas? | What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to explain Whitehead's ideas? | [
"What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to explain Whitehead's ideas?"
] | {
"text": [
"Henry Nelson Wieman"
],
"answer_start": [
361
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14748 | 57333c754776f419006607b9 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What was the result of that lecture? | What was the result of that lecture? | [
"What was the result of that lecture?"
] | {
"text": [
"Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years"
],
"answer_start": [
444
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14749 | 5ad3cc25604f3c001a3ff13b | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What affect did Matthews' opinion of the ease of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them? | What affect did Matthews' opinion of the ease of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them? | [
"What affect did Matthews' opinion of the ease of Whitehead's works have on his interest in them?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14750 | 5ad3cc25604f3c001a3ff13c | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | How did many philosophers and theologians at Illinois Divinity School view Whitehead's work? | How did many philosophers and theologians at Illinois Divinity School view Whitehead's work? | [
"How did many philosophers and theologians at Illinois Divinity School view Whitehead's work?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14751 | 5ad3cc25604f3c001a3ff13d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to reject Whitehead's ideas? | What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to reject Whitehead's ideas? | [
"What expert on Whitehead delivered a lecture at the school to reject Whitehead's ideas?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14752 | 5ad3cc25604f3c001a3ff13e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | However, Mathews' frustration with Whitehead's books did not negatively affect his interest. In fact, there were numerous philosophers and theologians at Chicago's Divinity School that perceived the importance of what Whitehead was doing without fully grasping all of the details and implications. In 1927 they invited one of America's only Whitehead experts – Henry Nelson Wieman – to Chicago to give a lecture explaining Whitehead's thought. Wieman's lecture was so brilliant that he was promptly hired to the faculty and taught there for twenty years, and for at least thirty years afterward Chicago's Divinity School was closely associated with Whitehead's thought. | Who was amused in Whitehead's books but still interested? | Who was amused in Whitehead's books but still interested? | [
" Who was amused in Whitehead's books but still interested?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14753 | 573098542461fd1900a9cedb | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | Which publication is considered the most impressive metaphysical text? | Which publication is considered the most impressive metaphysical text? | [
"Which publication is considered the most impressive metaphysical text?"
] | {
"text": [
"Process and Reality"
],
"answer_start": [
40
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14754 | 573098542461fd1900a9cedc | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | Who thought Process and Reality was little-read because the reader has to separate them from normal thought? | Who thought Process and Reality was little-read because the reader has to separate them from normal thought? | [
"Who thought Process and Reality was little-read because the reader has to separate them from normal thought?"
] | {
"text": [
"Isabelle Stengers"
],
"answer_start": [
236
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14755 | 573098542461fd1900a9cedd | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What philosophy in the west was challenged by Whitehead? | What philosophy in the west was challenged by Whitehead? | [
"What philosophy in the west was challenged by Whitehead?"
] | {
"text": [
"how the universe works"
],
"answer_start": [
444
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14756 | 573098542461fd1900a9cede | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What was Whitehead's philosophy able to anticipate for the 21st century? | What was Whitehead's philosophy able to anticipate for the 21st century? | [
"What was Whitehead's philosophy able to anticipate for the 21st century?"
] | {
"text": [
"scientific and philosophical problems"
],
"answer_start": [
534
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14757 | 573098542461fd1900a9cedf | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What was the outcome of anticipating the scientific and philosophical problems Whitehead proposed? | What was the outcome of anticipating the scientific and philosophical problems Whitehead proposed? | [
"What was the outcome of anticipating the scientific and philosophical problems Whitehead proposed?"
] | {
"text": [
"novel solutions"
],
"answer_start": [
584
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14758 | 57333dc4d058e614000b57ae | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | How has "Process and Reality" been described? | How has "Process and Reality" been described? | [
"How has \"Process and Reality\" been described? "
] | {
"text": [
"\"arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century,\""
],
"answer_start": [
76
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14759 | 57333dc4d058e614000b57af | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What did Isabelle Stengers say is the reason that "Process and Reality" is not commonly read and understood? | What did Isabelle Stengers say is the reason that "Process and Reality" is not commonly read and understood? | [
"What did Isabelle Stengers say is the reason that \"Process and Reality\" is not commonly read and understood?"
] | {
"text": [
"it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – \"that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus.\""
],
"answer_start": [
220
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14760 | 57333dc4d058e614000b57b0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What effect did Whitehead have on the future of metaphysics? | What effect did Whitehead have on the future of metaphysics? | [
"What effect did Whitehead have on the future of metaphysics?"
] | {
"text": [
"he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions."
],
"answer_start": [
484
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14761 | 5ad3cc51604f3c001a3ff14d | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | How has "Process and Reality" been rejected? | How has "Process and Reality" been rejected? | [
"How has \"Process and Reality\" been rejected?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14762 | 5ad3cc51604f3c001a3ff14e | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What did Isabelle Stengers say is the reason that "Process and Reality" is commonly read and understood? | What did Isabelle Stengers say is the reason that "Process and Reality" is commonly read and understood? | [
"What did Isabelle Stengers say is the reason that \"Process and Reality\" is commonly read and understood?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14763 | 5ad3cc51604f3c001a3ff14f | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | What effect did Whitehead have on the past of metaphysics? | What effect did Whitehead have on the past of metaphysics? | [
" What effect did Whitehead have on the past of metaphysics?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14764 | 5ad3cc51604f3c001a3ff150 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Wieman's words proved prophetic. Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus." Whitehead questioned western philosophy's most dearly held assumptions about how the universe works, but in doing so he managed to anticipate a number of 21st century scientific and philosophical problems and provide novel solutions. | Which publication is considered the least impressive metaphysical text? | Which publication is considered the least impressive metaphysical text? | [
"Which publication is considered the least impressive metaphysical text?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14765 | 5730991d2461fd1900a9ceed | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | Concepts such as quality, matter, and form fail to account for what? | Concepts such as quality, matter, and form fail to account for what? | [
"Concepts such as quality, matter, and form fail to account for what?"
] | {
"text": [
"change"
],
"answer_start": [
151
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14766 | 5730991d2461fd1900a9ceee | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | What concepts overlook the experiential nature of basic elements? | What concepts overlook the experiential nature of basic elements? | [
"What concepts overlook the experiential nature of basic elements?"
] | {
"text": [
"quality\", \"matter\", and \"form\""
],
"answer_start": [
45
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14767 | 5730991d2461fd1900a9ceef | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | What are the concepts quality, matter, and form considered? | What are the concepts quality, matter, and form considered? | [
"What are the concepts quality, matter, and form considered?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"classical\" concepts"
],
"answer_start": [
99
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14768 | 5730991d2461fd1900a9cef0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | Instead of being a single person, what does Whitehead view a person as? | Instead of being a single person, what does Whitehead view a person as? | [
"Instead of being a single person, what does Whitehead view a person as?"
] | {
"text": [
"continuum of overlapping events"
],
"answer_start": [
425
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14769 | 5730991d2461fd1900a9cef1 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | What does Whitehead call experiences that are progressively connected? | What does Whitehead call experiences that are progressively connected? | [
"What does Whitehead call experiences that are progressively connected?"
] | {
"text": [
"society"
],
"answer_start": [
692
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14770 | 57333fbad058e614000b57d2 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | What basic concepts did Whitehead believe were questionable? | What basic concepts did Whitehead believe were questionable? | [
"What basic concepts did Whitehead believe were questionable?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"quality\", \"matter\", and \"form\""
],
"answer_start": [
44
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14771 | 57333fbad058e614000b57d3 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | Why did he believe those concepts were inaccurate? | Why did he believe those concepts were inaccurate? | [
"Why did he believe those concepts were inaccurate?"
] | {
"text": [
"These \"classical\" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world."
],
"answer_start": [
93
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14772 | 57333fbad058e614000b57d4 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | How did Whitehead classify what is usually seen as an individual person? | How did Whitehead classify what is usually seen as an individual person? | [
"How did Whitehead classify what is usually seen as an individual person?"
] | {
"text": [
"a continuum of overlapping events"
],
"answer_start": [
423
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14773 | 57333fbad058e614000b57d5 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | How did Whitehead refer to the combination of a person's separate experiences? | How did Whitehead refer to the combination of a person's separate experiences? | [
"How did Whitehead refer to the combination of a person's separate experiences?"
] | {
"text": [
"a \"society\" of events"
],
"answer_start": [
689
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14774 | 57333fbad058e614000b57d6 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | How did Whitehead define the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"? | How did Whitehead define the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"? | [
"How did Whitehead define the \"fallacy of misplaced concreteness\"?"
] | {
"text": [
"By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete"
],
"answer_start": [
712
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14775 | 5ad3ccb6604f3c001a3ff155 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | What basic concepts did Whitehead believe were not questionable? | What basic concepts did Whitehead believe were not questionable? | [
" What basic concepts did Whitehead believe were not questionable?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14776 | 5ad3ccb6604f3c001a3ff156 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | Why did he believe those concepts were accurate? | Why did he believe those concepts were accurate? | [
" Why did he believe those concepts were accurate?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14777 | 5ad3ccb6604f3c001a3ff157 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | How did Whitehead refer to the combination of a person's not separate experiences? | How did Whitehead refer to the combination of a person's not separate experiences? | [
"How did Whitehead refer to the combination of a person's not separate experiences?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14778 | 5ad3ccb6604f3c001a3ff158 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | How did Whitehead classify what is usually seen as a nonindividual person? | How did Whitehead classify what is usually seen as a nonindividual person? | [
"How did Whitehead classify what is usually seen as a nonindividual person?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14779 | 5ad3ccb6604f3c001a3ff159 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | In Whitehead's view, then, concepts such as "quality", "matter", and "form" are problematic. These "classical" concepts fail to adequately account for change, and overlook the active and experiential nature of the most basic elements of the world. They are useful abstractions, but are not the world's basic building blocks. What is ordinarily conceived of as a single person, for instance, is philosophically described as a continuum of overlapping events. After all, people change all the time, if only because they have aged by another second and had some further experience. These occasions of experience are logically distinct, but are progressively connected in what Whitehead calls a "society" of events. By assuming that enduring objects are the most real and fundamental things in the universe, materialists have mistaken the abstract for the concrete (what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"). | How did Whitehead define the "fallacy of well placed concreteness"? | How did Whitehead define the "fallacy of well placed concreteness"? | [
" How did Whitehead define the \"fallacy of well placed concreteness\"?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14780 | 57309b8f396df91900096206 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | The idea that people are unchanging and stay the same even through changes is considered what? | The idea that people are unchanging and stay the same even through changes is considered what? | [
"The idea that people are unchanging and stay the same even through changes is considered what?"
] | {
"text": [
"defining essence"
],
"answer_start": [
68
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14781 | 57309b8f396df91900096207 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally exist? | In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally exist? | [
"In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally exist?"
] | {
"text": [
"occasions of experience"
],
"answer_start": [
518
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14782 | 57309b8f396df91900096208 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | Where do occasions of experience overlap? | Where do occasions of experience overlap? | [
"Where do occasions of experience overlap?"
] | {
"text": [
"time and space"
],
"answer_start": [
571
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14783 | 57309b8f396df91900096209 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | In Whitehead's view, identities do not define people, but what? | In Whitehead's view, identities do not define people, but what? | [
"In Whitehead's view, identities do not define people, but what?"
] | {
"text": [
"people define identities"
],
"answer_start": [
913
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14784 | 57309b8f396df9190009620a | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | Instead of having an enduring essence, what does Whitehead believe? | Instead of having an enduring essence, what does Whitehead believe? | [
"Instead of having an enduring essence, what does Whitehead believe?"
] | {
"text": [
"all things flow\""
],
"answer_start": [
1060
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14785 | 573344744776f419006607dc | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | Regarding the idea that individuals or objects don't fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is? | Regarding the idea that individuals or objects don't fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is? | [
"Regarding the idea that individuals or objects don't fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"defining essence\" or a \"core identity\""
],
"answer_start": [
67
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14786 | 573344744776f419006607dd | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | In that line of thinking, how are changes described? | In that line of thinking, how are changes described? | [
"In that line of thinking, how are changes described?"
] | {
"text": [
"qualitative and secondary to their core identity"
],
"answer_start": [
292
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14787 | 573344744776f419006607de | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | What did Whitehead believe were essentially the only things that truly exist? | What did Whitehead believe were essentially the only things that truly exist? | [
"What did Whitehead believe were essentially the only things that truly exist?"
] | {
"text": [
"discrete \"occasions of experience\" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing"
],
"answer_start": [
508
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14788 | 5ad3cd00604f3c001a3ff171 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | Regarding the idea that individuals or objects fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is? | Regarding the idea that individuals or objects fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is? | [
"Regarding the idea that individuals or objects fundamentally change, what terms can be used to describe what an object or individual actually is?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14789 | 5ad3cd00604f3c001a3ff172 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | In that line of thinking, how are changes never described? | In that line of thinking, how are changes never described? | [
" In that line of thinking, how are changes never described?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14790 | 5ad3cd00604f3c001a3ff173 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | What did Whitehead believe were not essentially the only things that truly exist? | What did Whitehead believe were not essentially the only things that truly exist? | [
"What did Whitehead believe were not essentially the only things that truly exist?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14791 | 5ad3cd00604f3c001a3ff174 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | The idea that people are changing and stay the same even through changes is considered what? | The idea that people are changing and stay the same even through changes is considered what? | [
"The idea that people are changing and stay the same even through changes is considered what?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14792 | 5ad3cd00604f3c001a3ff175 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | To put it another way, a thing or person is often seen as having a "defining essence" or a "core identity" that is unchanging, and describes what the thing or person really is. In this way of thinking, things and people are seen as fundamentally the same through time, with any changes being qualitative and secondary to their core identity (e.g. "Mark's hair has turned gray as he has gotten older, but he is still the same person"). But in Whitehead's cosmology, the only fundamentally existent things are discrete "occasions of experience" that overlap one another in time and space, and jointly make up the enduring person or thing. On the other hand, what ordinary thinking often regards as "the essence of a thing" or "the identity/core of a person" is an abstract generalization of what is regarded as that person or thing's most important or salient features across time. Identities do not define people, people define identities. Everything changes from moment to moment, and to think of anything as having an "enduring essence" misses the fact that "all things flow", though it is often a useful way of speaking. | In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally dont exist? | In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally dont exist? | [
"In Whitehead's cosmology, what are the only things that fundamentally dont exist?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14793 | 57309dbb8ab72b1400f9c5f0 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | What did Whitehead believe was a culprit in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking? | What did Whitehead believe was a culprit in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking? | [
"What did Whitehead believe was a culprit in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking?"
] | {
"text": [
"limitations of language"
],
"answer_start": [
25
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14794 | 57309dbb8ab72b1400f9c5f1 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | Why couldn't each moment of each person's life be given a different proper name? | Why couldn't each moment of each person's life be given a different proper name? | [
"Why couldn't each moment of each person's life be given a different proper name?"
] | {
"text": [
"limitations of language"
],
"answer_start": [
25
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14795 | 57309dbb8ab72b1400f9c5f2 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | Whitehead's main philosophy on humans changing is what? | Whitehead's main philosophy on humans changing is what? | [
"Whitehead's main philosophy on humans changing is what?"
] | {
"text": [
"each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago"
],
"answer_start": [
462
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14796 | 57335187d058e614000b5854 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking endured? | What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking endured? | [
"What did Whitehead believe was one of the biggest reasons materialistic thinking endured?"
] | {
"text": [
"limitations of language"
],
"answer_start": [
25
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14797 | 57335187d058e614000b5855 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to materialistic thinking? | Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to materialistic thinking? | [
"Why did Whitehead think people continued to subscribe to materialistic thinking?"
] | {
"text": [
"it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things"
],
"answer_start": [
317
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14798 | 57335187d058e614000b5856 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that limit people's understanding of his concepts? | What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that limit people's understanding of his concepts? | [
"What did Whitehead believe regarding factors that limit people's understanding of his concepts?"
] | {
"text": [
"should not prevent people from realizing that \"material substances\" or \"essences\" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum"
],
"answer_start": [
584
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-14799 | 57335187d058e614000b5857 | Alfred_North_Whitehead | Whitehead pointed to the limitations of language as one of the main culprits in maintaining a materialistic way of thinking, and acknowledged that it may be difficult to ever wholly move past such ideas in everyday speech. After all, each moment of each person's life can hardly be given a different proper name, and it is easy and convenient to think of people and objects as remaining fundamentally the same things, rather than constantly keeping in mind that each thing is a different thing from what it was a moment ago. Yet the limitations of everyday living and everyday speech should not prevent people from realizing that "material substances" or "essences" are a convenient generalized description of a continuum of particular, concrete processes. No one questions that a ten-year-old person is quite different by the time he or she turns thirty years old, and in many ways is not the same person at all; Whitehead points out that it is not philosophically or ontologically sound to think that a person is the same from one second to the next. | What did Whitehead state about the belief that a person is exactly the same from moment to moment? | What did Whitehead state about the belief that a person is exactly the same from moment to moment? | [
"What did Whitehead state about the belief that a person is exactly the same from moment to moment?"
] | {
"text": [
"it is not philosophically or ontologically sound"
],
"answer_start": [
940
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.