BERGSON

Henri Bergson (1859-1941) is widely recognized to be France’s greatest philosopher of the modern period. He was the author of four classic texts of philosophy, three of them characterized by a combination of exceptional philosophical gifts and impressive mastery of extensive scienti…c literature. Each text offers readers a number of theoretical innovations. Time and Free Will (1889) provides a novel account of free will by showing that time is not space and that psychic states do not lend themselves to treatment as magnitudes. Matter and Memory (1896) provides a non-orthodox (non-Cartesian) dualism of matter and mind, seeking to show that whilst the difference between matter and perception is one of degree (unless we construe it in these terms the emergence of perception out of matter becomes something mysterious and inexplicable), that between perception and memory is one of kind (unless we construe it in these terms memory is deprived of any autonomous character and is reduced to being a merely diluted form of perception, a secondary perception as we …nd in Locke). Matter and Memory offers an extremely rich and novel account of different types of memory that philosophical psychology is still catching up with today. In Creative Evolution (1907) Bergson endeavours to demonstrate the need for a philosophy of life in which the theory of knowledge and a theory of life are viewed as inseparably bound up with one another. In the text Bergson seeks to establish what philosophy must learn from the new biology (the neo-Darwinism established by August Weismann) and what philosophy can offer the new theory of the evolution of life. It is a tour de force, a work of truly extraordinary philosophical ambition. In The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932), his …nal text, and where the engagement with scienti…c literature is not as extensive, Bergson outlines a novel approach to the study of society (sociology) with his categories of the “closed” and the “open” and the “static” and the “dynamic.” He advances a criticism of the rationalist approach to ethics that merits being taken as seriously as Nietzsche’s critique of attempts to establish ethics on a rational foundation (Nietzsche 1998: §186). Finally, there are two important collections of essays: Mind Energy and Creative Mind. Bergson’s philosophy has a number of unique features to it. He has an impressive grasp of the history of science and of new scienti…c development such as thermodynamics

and neo-Darwinism. His ambition was to restore the absolute as the legitimate object of philosophy and to accomplish this by showing how it is possible to think beyond the human condition. Although he contests Kant’s stress on the relativity of knowledge to the human standpoint in a manner similar to Hegel, his conception of the absolute is not the same. This is the surprise of Bergson, and perhaps explains why he appears as such an unfamiliar …gure to us today: he seeks to demonstrate the absolute – conceived as the totality of differences in the world, differences of degree and differences of kind – through placing man back into nature and the evolution of life. That is, he uses the resources of naturalism and empiricism to support an apparently Idealist philosophical program. Indeed, Bergson argues that “true empiricism” is “the real metaphysics” and held that the more the sciences of life develop the more they will feel the need to reintegrate thought into the very heart of nature (Bergson 2007a: 22). In his own day he was read primarily as an empiricist whose thinking amounted, in the words of his former pupil and later harsh critic, Jacques Maritain, to a “wild experimentalism.” Maritain accused Bergson of realizing in metaphysics “the very soul of empiricism,” of producing an ontology of becoming not “after the fashion of Hegel’s panlogism” but rather “after the fashion of an integral empiricism” (Maritain 1943: 65). Julien Benda vigorously protested against Bergson’s demand for new ways of thinking and new methods in philosophy and called for a return to the hyper-rationalism of Spinoza (see Benda 1954). Bergson does not readily …t into the two main camps that de…ne the contemporary academic institution of philosophy: neither the continental one which insists on keeping apart philosophy and science and regards any interest in science as philosophically suspect, nor the analytic one which cheerfully subsumes philosophy within the ambit of the natural sciences and renders metaphysics otiose. In histories of modern philosophy it is standard to place Bergson alongside Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) as a philosopher of life and to portray him, along with Nietzsche, as an irrationalist (see Grogin 1988: 73-6, Lehan 1992: 324-5; on Bergson and irrationalism see Höffding 1915: 232; Maritain 1943: 57-61; Schwartz 1992: 289-91). This standard criticism of Bergson amounts to a caricature. As in Nietzsche, reason is promoted by Bergson; what is subjected to critique is a self-suf…cient reason and intellectualism. Bergson is not anti-rationalist but anti-intellectualist (see Gutting 2001: 73). Like Nietzsche, Bergson wants a philosophy that can do justice to contingency, to particularity, to individuality, to spontaneous forces and energies, to the creation of the new, and so on. A philosophy of history is found in neither and Hegel’s panlogism is anathema to both. Nietzsche famously advocates translating the human back into nature (Nietzsche 1998: §230); we …nd this echoed in Bergson when he argues in favor of a genetic approach to questions of morality and religion that places “man back in nature as a whole” (Bergson 1979: 208). Those phenomena that have been denied a history and a nature must be given them back. What stands in the way of our intellectual development and growth? Bergson’s answer is the same as Nietzsche’s: the prejudices of philosophers with their trust in immediate certainties and penchant for philosophical dogmatizing (Nietzsche 1998: Preface and 43; Bergson 2007a: 40). Both accuse Schopenhauer’s will to life

of being an empty generalization that proves disastrous for science. For Nietzsche, Schopenhauer’s doctrine can only result in a “false rei…cation” since it leads to the view that all that exists empirically is the manifestation of one will (Nietzsche 1986: Vol. 2, pt 1, §5). For Bergson, the “will to life” is an empty concept supported by a barren theory of metaphysics (Bergson 1979: 115). It is impossible, he argues, to cite a biological discovery due to pure reasoning, whilst all the molds in which we seek to force the living crack, being too narrow and too rigid for what we try to put into them. Both thinkers practice historical philosophizing and identify this with the intellectual virtue of modesty. Both insist on the need to provide a genesis of the intellect as a way of ascertaining the evolutionary reasons as to why we have the intellectual habits we do. At certain points in his development Nietzsche is willing to sacri…ce metaphysics to history and hands over to science the task of coming up with a history of the genesis of thought and concepts (Nietzsche 1986: Vol. 1, §§10 and 16; Vol. 2, pt 1, §10). For Bergson this is a task that can only be adequately performed by a reformed metaphysics that proceeds via a new method of intuition. This is, in essence, Bergson’s response to Kant’s Copernican Revolution. In 1878 Nietzsche insists that there is only representation (Vorstellung) and that no hunch can take us any further. By 1886, however, Nietzsche commits himself to the view that there is, in fact, a dimension of the world outside of representation – the will to power as a pre-form (Vorform) of life – but insists that this is to be approached through the “conscience of method” (Nietzsche 1998: §36), a critical project which, like all others in Nietzsche, denotes the method of the “intellectual conscience” that seeks to replace the theological motivations of Kant’s critical project with properly scienti…c ones (Nietzsche 2005b: §12). Bergson’s response to Kant is equally critical and focuses attention on the soundness of the decisions Kant has made about the nature and extent of theoretical knowledge. There are two main criticisms that have traditionally been advanced against the kind of project undertaken by Bergson. One is that naturalism cannot account for differences in kind insofar as it reduces modes of existence to differences of degree, especially between the human and the rest of nature. The other is that Bergson’s thinking is guilty of the error of biologism (a criticism also leveled at Nietzsche’s work), that is, of making an illegitimate extension of the biological to all spheres of existence such as the moral and the social (on biologism see Heidegger 1987: 39-48; Troeltsch 1991: 55). This criticism is, in effect, implied in the …rst concern. In the course of this essay I shall suggest that neither point has purchase when applied to Bergson.