Naar
aanleiding van het verschijnen van een nieuwe vertaling van
Henri
Bergson, De creatieve evolutie.
Vertaald door Joke van Zijl. Leusden: ISVW Uitgevers, 2019 - zie daarover Mark
Leegsma “Waarom Bergson?" in de nieuwe i-Filosofie
#44 - PDF
breng
ik graag dit blog ter aanvulling op het blog van 08-07-2014: "Henri Bergson (1859 -1941)
had ambivalente houding t.o.v. Spinoza." Aan de aldaar gegeven
bibliografie voeg ik graag het volgende toe:
Gregory
Dale Adamson reviewde Henri Bergson: Evolution,
time and philosophy. In: World
Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research, Vol 54 [1999], #2, 135-162
Abstract: Evolutionary
theory is hindered by the conflict between the apparently antagonistic
principles of its two founding figures, Darwin and Lamarck. Bergson's Creative
Evolution outlines the means of transcending this impasse. If the evolutionary
process is conceived as enduring then the atomistic model of static genetic
states is never fully realisable. In the light of this, Bergson considers the
germ‐plasm to be essentially “fluid.” If there is to be influence on the
germ‐line it will be primarily in terms of the manner in which the genetic data
is unfolded. In order to designate this influence Bergson introduces the
concept of the “tendency.” The tendency will be explicated in relation to
contemporary evolutionary biology. However, as the concept signifies that which
is given only in the duration in which information is elaborated, it is
precluded from representation. Bergson demonstrates that it is the evolutionary
principle of continuous transformation which constitutes the limit to any
scientific of view. For this reason, science needs to be complemented by a
philosophical account of the duration of process.” [cf. tandfonline, cf. PDF op BookSC]
Hiernaar
verwijs ik daar een jaar later van dezelfde auteur verscheen:
Gregory
Dale Adamson, “Bergson's spinozist tendencies,” in: Philosophy Today 44 [2000], #1, 73-85 [cf.] Het artikel begint aldus:
In a letter to Léon Brunschvicg declining an invitation
to attend a conference commemorating the 250th anniversary of the death of
Spinoza, Bergson wrote: "One could say that all philosophers have two
philosophies: their own and that of Spinoza."1 It could be said
that Bergson's "own" philosophy is the reconception of time following
the emergence of evolution as a science and the discovery of entropy as an irreversible
process. As the above quotation suggests, however, Bergson's thought on time
must be seen as taking place from "within" Spinozism. In this
respect, his entire oeuvre can be regarded as an effort to rethink
"substance" as an evolving or, in Bergson's terms,
"enduring" thing. In accordance with this, in The Creative Mind Bergson describes duration as; "substantial,
indivisible insofar as it is pure duration" but adds that "the
permanence of substance [is] ... a continuity of change."2
Broadly speaking, Bergsonism can be seen as the reconfiguration of Spinozism post Darwin and in the light of
Boltzmann: that is, as thinking immanence given evolution, entropy, and
irreversible time.
With the introduction of change as the only
"eternal" aspect of substance, the Spinozian conception of immanent
causation, as the expression of invariant causes, requires revision. Bergson
provides this with his concept of the virtual "tendency." The
tendency signifies an immanent, productive mode of causality where change
itself is causa sui. This
transformation, however, alters both the relation between Spinoza's natura naturata (nature according to its
products or modes) and natura naturans
(nature itself as a "thinking thing" [SIC]), and the relation between
the attributes of extension and thought. Bergson suggests that if time is
incorporated into substance the effect for him on Spinozism is to accept
"his philosophy as it is, on the side of Extension, but to mutilate it on
the side of Thought."3 Departing from Spinoza, Bergson draws a
qualitative distinction between extension and thought, defining them as the
antagonistic tendencies of persistence and change. As thought and extension are
no longer "parallel," Bergson distinguishes two equally qualitatively
differing forms of "common notions": those derived from extension and
those expressed in duration.
The aim of what follows will be to read Bergson beside
Spinoza, not only to reveal his indebtedness to Spinoza but, in accordance with
the intricate nature of Spinoza's ontology, to indicate a far greater
complexity and coherence to Bergson's thought than has been observed by most
commentators thus far. Problems such as the exclusivity of the intellect and
intuition, the conflict between science and philosophy and the supposed dichotomy
of matter and memory, can all be dispelled when they are seen as attributes of
a single enduring substance. Further to this, in reading Bergson next to
Spinoza, the beginnings of the first ontological understanding of the
implications of Darwin's intuition that nature thinks itself can be discerned. If Spinoza presents the problem of
the immanence of substance to thought, Bergson adds the further complication of
the immanence of change within thought itself. And, as Bergson repeatedly
stated, this is the great "unthought" of both philosophy and science.
For what the limits of scientific and philosophical deduction reveal is that
nature does not think like us. The "revolution" that Bergson insists
philosophy must undertake is to relinquish the quest to grasp the movement of
change in thought and to conceive the apprehension and expression of change as
thought.
Essential
Freedom
The term "tendency" is first employed in Time and Free Will as a means of
critiquing the idea of "free will" without resorting to either
determinism or chance. For the most part, Bergson's critique replicates
Spinoza's. In the Ethics Spinoza
refutes the Cartesian idea of a will distinct from, and governing, the body.
His argument is primarily ontological: where Descartes' held that the mind and
body are two distinct "substances," the former determining, or acting
on the latter, Spinoza conceived of a single substance which expresses its
modifications (affectiones) through
the attributes of "extension" and "thought. …[cf.]
Tenslotte
wijs ik op:
Lionel
Astesiano, Joie et Liberté chez Bergson
et Spinoza. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2016. - 458 pp.
En affirmant que « tout philosophe a deux philosophies
: la sienne et celle de Spinoza », Bergson exprime avant tout que le philosophe
se doit de rompre avec une pensée dogmatique qui n’a plus lieu d’être et que
Spinoza incarne tout particulièrement. Le spinozisme manifeste la pente de
l’intelligence lorsqu’elle suit sa logique propre sans être rectifiée par le
recours à l’expérience. Or, c’est cette démarche systématique que la
philosophie doit désormais abandonner.
Bergson est néanmoins hanté par la pensée de Spinoza et le rapport qu’il entretient avec lui, en particulier dans ses cours au Collège de France, met en évidence un lien bien plus complexe et subtil qu’un simple rapport d’opposition. Contre la tendance à la clôture et à la systématicité, Bergson va alors privilégier chez Spinoza la tendance à l’ouverture et au mysticisme. En mettant en lumière cet aspect, cet ouvrage montre la sympathie intellectuelle qui réunit ces penseurs autour des notions de joie et de liberté. C’est pourquoi la figure du Christ va constituer un modèle non seulement éthique mais ontologique. Le terme de mysticisme, chez ces deux auteurs, ne désigne ni le refus de l’expérience ni celui des sciences positives mais renvoie à un rationalisme élargi jusqu’à l’amour du réel.
Bergson est néanmoins hanté par la pensée de Spinoza et le rapport qu’il entretient avec lui, en particulier dans ses cours au Collège de France, met en évidence un lien bien plus complexe et subtil qu’un simple rapport d’opposition. Contre la tendance à la clôture et à la systématicité, Bergson va alors privilégier chez Spinoza la tendance à l’ouverture et au mysticisme. En mettant en lumière cet aspect, cet ouvrage montre la sympathie intellectuelle qui réunit ces penseurs autour des notions de joie et de liberté. C’est pourquoi la figure du Christ va constituer un modèle non seulement éthique mais ontologique. Le terme de mysticisme, chez ces deux auteurs, ne désigne ni le refus de l’expérience ni celui des sciences positives mais renvoie à un rationalisme élargi jusqu’à l’amour du réel.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten