*Contents* 02:46 Instinct 03:43 Instinct as an unthinking harmony with life 05:03 Example: The beehive 09:41 Instinct must be ‘felt’ or ‘lived’ 12:18 Example: The wasp 24:58 Intuition 26:29 Definitions 29:04 Feeling 31:54 Meditative insight 33:08 External revelation 34:25 Intuition 1) Unclear 36:25 Intuition 2) Simple 43:28 Intuition 3) The imagination 50:43 Intuition 4) A different _way_ of thinking 55:15 Intuition 5) Rigorous 57:17 Example: Einstein 1:00:06 Intuition 6) Practically useless 1:01:57 Intuition 7) Precedes intellectual analysis 1:04:34 Elements and Parts 1:05:47 Intuition and life 1:07:08 Objection: Swimming 1:08:57 The qualitative leap 1:11:18 ‘Later’ Bergson 1:21:41 Summary
I’ve been listening to your Bergson videos in order, and I can’t thank you enough for how helpful they’ve been. I really respect how much passion you have for Bergson, because as I’ve been reading Matter and Memory (after reading Deleuze’s Cinema books which are heavily influenced by Bergson), a lot of it has been blowing my mind and it’s a good feeling to know I’m not alone in that. I do have a question, how much Christian/Buddhist philosophy have you read before? Because I definitely understand the hesitation you seem to have with the “religious” side that some may see in Bergson, especially in his turn towards it later in life, but I do have to say it does seem like you might be underselling how rigorous certain philosophers in the past (which by definition in a modern context were “religious”) truly were. Especially in Buddhism, where many were much more rigorous/skeptical of metaphysical ideas than even early Bergson/agnostic modern philosophers seem to be. Once again, thank you so much for these videos, and I’m looking forward to listening to the rest!
Thanks a lot Dany. I have heard those Cinema books are heavily Bergsonian. How much Buddhist/Christian philosophy have I read? The short (and somewhat unhelpful) answer to your question is 'enough to know I don't like it.' Maybe 'rigorous' wasn't the right word to use there, now that I think about it... The problem for me is that no matter how 'rigorous' the thought behind a religious text is (Aquinas is always (quite rightly) cited in Western philosophy as an exemplar of rigor), rigor used on behalf of religious/supernatural ideas (God, heaven, souls, enlightenment, karma, 'hungry ghosts,' etc.) is kind of (excuse my bluntness) wasted. Is there one God or a pantheon of Gods? You can 'rigorously' write pages and pages about this defending one claim or the other, but that's the problem. You _can_ write whatever you want because you're no longer constrained by reality, as long as you don't say anything self-contradictory - and even _that_ isn't true; viz. the 3-in-1 Christian God (another topic about which you can write pages and pages). When you say "skeptical" Buddhists, surely you mean Buddhists skeptical of _other people's_ religious/supernatural beliefs while defending their own? In the same way that every Christian is an 'atheist' about every religion except one. Were there really Buddhist monks skeptical about the supernatural/other-worldly _itself_ and _in toto_ (enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, different 'realms' of existence, etc.)? I venture they wouldn't have made very good Buddhist monks if that were true. Again, maybe the word "rigor" was a little misleading. My thinking was that you haven't been particularly rigorous with your ideas/principles (not the defence of them) if those ideas/principles become supernatural or mystical.
For the most part I tend to agree with you about a lot of religious philosophy, especially when you frame it that way, in terms of just proving your own beliefs while rejecting others because they aren’t yours. Especially with a lot of the Christian tradition, even if do have more sympathy for it then you seem to lol. In regards to Buddhism however, I think you’d be surprised with how far certain philosophers (even Siddharta Gautama himself) in the tradition were willing to go in making very few to no metaphysical/supernatural claims. One example, and the philosopher I’ve studied the most about is Nagarjuna, who’s entire “one intuition/idea”, as you mentioned every philosopher having one when talking about Bergson/Heidegger is that all things are devoid on intrinsic nature in the first place, even ideas like “God” and “Buddhism” and etc. And in my opinion, he takes this deconstructionist approach further than I see in modern philosophy. I have been going back and reviewing some things I read while reading through Bergson, because Nagarjuna’s analysis of movement/time is something that Bergson might not agree with fully or anything, but he introduces new ways of thinking about these “classical” terms in the same way Bergson does, with maybe even more rigor than he does. Sorry for rambling lol, and I can’t wait to check out the other videos on your channel as well!
@@DanyJoshuva Interesting. I have certainly heard of Nagarjuna. And, of course, you're quite right about the Buddha. I forgot how famous he was for refusing to answer 'metaphysical' questions like, "What happens after we die?" I should say that I don't disagree that religions can occasionally hit on deep insights and metaphysical truths (and Buddhism is better at this than most religions, hence my prior interest in it - I even devoted a page on my website to it). I'm just never satisfied with the broader (supernatural/mystical) pictures they wrap these insights up in. Btw: I did a short video series on one contemporary Buddhist philosopher, Yuasa Yasuo, in which some of these concerns come up. You might be interested in that. No worries about rambling. Every single time I finish a video, I feel like I rambled too much in it! I look forward to catching you again in other comments.
Thank you for this series. I've been reading The Creative Mind and I've had some difficulties wrapping my mind around some of these concepts. Your breakdowns have been very helpful and informative!
Thanks Nathan. I may not be with you fully on Darwin's theory of evolution (but have noted you are covering Evolution later) but with the Intuition section I'm completely won over. Obviously watching this I'm engaging first and foremost with you rather than Bergson but I'm happy enough with that. I plan to start on Bergson's greatest hits as soon as I've finished your coverage of him. I especially liked the nebulous imagination that's immersed in the phenomena being studied and thus able to simply grasp the whole unmediated. And of course I totally concur with using metaphor and comparison : using language but leaving it open and not closing it down into concepts. Perfect! Where you talked about parts being independent in themselves, but forming pieces of the whole and elements which aren't independent it brought to mind Husserl. Like Heidegger, Husserl must have been aware of Bergson too. BTW I was interested in you emphasising primary sources over secondary, but it occurred to me that many of the primary sources we are able to read are, to some extent, mediated ie translated. I notice that far more when I read poetry. I like Chinese poetry (particularly from the Tang era) and I often read two or three different translations. They can be quite astonishingly different but very interesting at the same time. From what little I know, Chinese poets meant for this to happen ie they used words in a way so as not to close things down .... to leave things open. Very Bergson, as you have described him in his classical period.
Yes, you're right about primary sources being mediated, although I like to think it isn't quite as bad as that. One important difference is that a philosophical text presents ideas which fit together to make a coherent whole; in other words, the philosopher isn't trying to "leave things open." They have a specific idea they want to convey to the reader. This is much easier to pick up and translate than poetry. I also think academic translators are pretty pedantic (in a good way). The goal is a faithful reproduction, not a 'clever' or 'unique' interpretation. Translators often work with the philosopher him or herself (where possible) or previous students all to make sure their translations are accurate. Secondary sources are problematic for me because they are either too brief (by necessity), watered down versions (to appeal to a broader audience), or deliberate interpretations (as opposed to reproductions) in which the author is _expanding_ on an idea they picked up on in the original. However you look at it, you aren't getting to the heart of the original philosophy. I can't remember if I said this in the video or not, but in my early days of philosophy study I read a lot of secondary material about Sartre and I thought I had a good fix on him and his philosophy. Then I actually read _B&N,_ and realised how superficial my knowledge of Sartre had been. The difference was truly night and day. After reading _B&N,_ I got a feel for how Sartre actually thought, rather than just knowing his ideas.
@@absurdbeing2219 Thanks for your very astute thoughts. Much appreciated. That's a good take on the difference between the way philosophy is translated versus poetry. You put that point about secondary sources rather well too. Watered down interpretations that seek to expand on pet points. I'll be a convert (! 🤭! ) soon.
thanks for ur presentation! it really cleared things up for me! since there is so much confusion about the term intuition why do u think bergson used it instead of 'reflection'? it just sounds like u could easily swap intuition to reflection and the core concept that bergson is using wouldnt change.
Thanks. Great to hear you found it helpful. I hear you on that. The problem with 'reflection,' I think, is that in philosophy that word is so closely bound up with the intellect and cognition. Intuition, while still, strictly speaking, is thought, it is actually thought being used against itself (against its natural tendencies to spatialise, objectify, etc.). Basically, it's a bit of a case of catch 22, I think, but the importance of intuition (especially its opposition to the intellect) may have been lost if he had called it a _special_ kind of reflection.
I'm at 25mins and you've just finished Instinct. Absolutely splendid so far. Thank you. I just wanted to comment at this stage on evolution although I appreciate this is just a small part of what you are discussing. I'm not as convinced that evolution, as it's often explained, is indisputable. I think it has flaws. Definitely all the random mechanical approach and the fact that it looks at parts and not the whole as you say. It's a good enough theory for small adaptations to changes in the environment that may over time become significant within a species but I don't think it explains how one transforms into another. It's not just the random bit that doesn't work. Nor does it's other plank of adapting to the environment to make huge leaps. I mean why would a fish which is perfectly adapted to swimming in the sea decide to venture on to land? Something it is not at all adapted for? And it would need to move to the land in order to adapt to it, right? I think Bergson's approach as you have briefly described it, has far more going for it. I like the lines you used about the whole being primary; that life is experience; that the wasp and caterpillar are not two entities but two activities in one whole. The reason many people cling to Darwin's theory of evolution is because the usual alternative is some amazing designer (aka as god) but then that just begs the question who created god. That (god or other forms of mysticism) is often the result when we start trying to use words to describe the things you mention like wholeness, continuity and so on ie using the intellect to describe reality. You covered that limitation of the intellect and words rather well. When people can't get the words to state what they mean they turn to art, music, poetry (yes, I know, but it's words used so beautifully they can transport you elsewheres) and of course religion, mysticism and what-not. I'm not so bothered as you are by things getting mystical for some folks. If that helps them to read reality and live their lives more contently then fine. For me, like for you, it doesn't really help to grasp reality and often obscures things so I have to find another way. And for me exploring this way, through philosophy, is a thrilling experience altogether.
Yup. I do still think that evolution, as the nuts and bolts, physical, biological description of how life evolves is 100% rock solid. No other theory in science has anywhere near as much evidence in its favour, from the filling in of the fossil record to carbon dating to genomics, and so on. What is missing for me, however, is an understanding of the wider metaphysical framework (whole not parts) within which these nuts and bolts operate, the _driver_ of evolution, if you like. I think random mutation works, but, it works like the old epicycles of Ptolemy or Newton's brute postulate of the fact that gravity is 'attractive' (epicycles dispensed with by realising the Earth is not the centre of the universe; the 'attractiveness' of gravity explained by Einstein's general relativity - both reformulations of the wider framework); i.e. in an ad hoc fashion. It turns out that evolution finds its more elegant expression in Bergsonian metaphysics; Bergson thereby doing for Darwin what Einstein did for Newton.
Wow, he’s saying something along the lines of Nietzsche in his truth and lie in an extra moral sense, and Lacan’s structure of the psyche(minus the intuition part so he’s filling a lot of important gaps!) So you got me excited to read Bergson, how should I use ur series since it’s not distinctly on each of his book rather on his philosophy as a whole? And how did you deal with the development of his philosophy since he was a full blown atheist in time and free will but by the end of life he was not only a Catholic but his philosophy supported a loving deity that intervenes in human affairs?
"So you got me excited to read Bergson" - That's music to my ears. How to use the videos? I actually designed this series like I would have structured a course on Bergson, assuming no prior knowledge of him. There is, then (I believe), a logical progression through his ideas, such that each video builds on earlier ones. In short, my suggestion would be to start at the beginning. Also, although I didn't go through any of Bergson's books chapter by chapter, I found it best to follow the basic course he charted anyway, so, should you wish to read him at the same time, you'll find I pretty much move through _Time and Freewill,_ _Matter and Memory,_ and _Creative Evolution_ in that order. Bergson's turn to Catholicism in his later years was, philosophically-speaking, a bit of a crushing blow to me, actually. I was so disappointed after reading _The Two Sources._ Nevertheless, his earlier philosophy stands on its own, and I was heartened to see him make it clear towards the end of that book that he was engaging in pure speculation, moving beyond his earlier, more rigorous, philosophy which was always supported by science. So, his philosophy never gets 'tainted' by (ooh, pejorative) his religion. Just goes to show, I guess, the allure of religious/spiritual/new age "there's got to be more to it than this" is hard to resist even for the best of us.
@@absurdbeing2219 its ironic that while in his earlier years his lecture convinced jacques maritian to not end his life, so his philosophy, wether there is a diety or not, allows for human mystery unlike scientifism. Even though I still consider myself an agnostic athiest, I fully respect and admire when thinkers find their way back to religion in an almost organic manner after having the "there must be a meaning to all this" attitude. Let me start with time and free will!
16:00 There's a book called Purpose and Desire by J. Scott Turner that argues current formulations of evolution do not account for "holistic" concepts like purpose and desire, in much of the same way as you are saying here.
*Contents*
02:46 Instinct
03:43 Instinct as an unthinking harmony with life
05:03 Example: The beehive
09:41 Instinct must be ‘felt’ or ‘lived’
12:18 Example: The wasp
24:58 Intuition
26:29 Definitions
29:04 Feeling
31:54 Meditative insight
33:08 External revelation
34:25 Intuition 1) Unclear
36:25 Intuition 2) Simple
43:28 Intuition 3) The imagination
50:43 Intuition 4) A different _way_ of thinking
55:15 Intuition 5) Rigorous
57:17 Example: Einstein
1:00:06 Intuition 6) Practically useless
1:01:57 Intuition 7) Precedes intellectual analysis
1:04:34 Elements and Parts
1:05:47 Intuition and life
1:07:08 Objection: Swimming
1:08:57 The qualitative leap
1:11:18 ‘Later’ Bergson
1:21:41 Summary
thanks fellow being for sharing awareness and insights out loud
I’ve been listening to your Bergson videos in order, and I can’t thank you enough for how helpful they’ve been. I really respect how much passion you have for Bergson, because as I’ve been reading Matter and Memory (after reading Deleuze’s Cinema books which are heavily influenced by Bergson), a lot of it has been blowing my mind and it’s a good feeling to know I’m not alone in that. I do have a question, how much Christian/Buddhist philosophy have you read before? Because I definitely understand the hesitation you seem to have with the “religious” side that some may see in Bergson, especially in his turn towards it later in life, but I do have to say it does seem like you might be underselling how rigorous certain philosophers in the past (which by definition in a modern context were “religious”) truly were. Especially in Buddhism, where many were much more rigorous/skeptical of metaphysical ideas than even early Bergson/agnostic modern philosophers seem to be. Once again, thank you so much for these videos, and I’m looking forward to listening to the rest!
Thanks a lot Dany. I have heard those Cinema books are heavily Bergsonian.
How much Buddhist/Christian philosophy have I read? The short (and somewhat unhelpful) answer to your question is 'enough to know I don't like it.'
Maybe 'rigorous' wasn't the right word to use there, now that I think about it... The problem for me is that no matter how 'rigorous' the thought behind a religious text is (Aquinas is always (quite rightly) cited in Western philosophy as an exemplar of rigor), rigor used on behalf of religious/supernatural ideas (God, heaven, souls, enlightenment, karma, 'hungry ghosts,' etc.) is kind of (excuse my bluntness) wasted. Is there one God or a pantheon of Gods? You can 'rigorously' write pages and pages about this defending one claim or the other, but that's the problem. You _can_ write whatever you want because you're no longer constrained by reality, as long as you don't say anything self-contradictory - and even _that_ isn't true; viz. the 3-in-1 Christian God (another topic about which you can write pages and pages).
When you say "skeptical" Buddhists, surely you mean Buddhists skeptical of _other people's_ religious/supernatural beliefs while defending their own? In the same way that every Christian is an 'atheist' about every religion except one. Were there really Buddhist monks skeptical about the supernatural/other-worldly _itself_ and _in toto_ (enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, different 'realms' of existence, etc.)? I venture they wouldn't have made very good Buddhist monks if that were true.
Again, maybe the word "rigor" was a little misleading. My thinking was that you haven't been particularly rigorous with your ideas/principles (not the defence of them) if those ideas/principles become supernatural or mystical.
For the most part I tend to agree with you about a lot of religious philosophy, especially when you frame it that way, in terms of just proving your own beliefs while rejecting others because they aren’t yours. Especially with a lot of the Christian tradition, even if do have more sympathy for it then you seem to lol. In regards to Buddhism however, I think you’d be surprised with how far certain philosophers (even Siddharta Gautama himself) in the tradition were willing to go in making very few to no metaphysical/supernatural claims. One example, and the philosopher I’ve studied the most about is Nagarjuna, who’s entire “one intuition/idea”, as you mentioned every philosopher having one when talking about Bergson/Heidegger is that all things are devoid on intrinsic nature in the first place, even ideas like “God” and “Buddhism” and etc. And in my opinion, he takes this deconstructionist approach further than I see in modern philosophy. I have been going back and reviewing some things I read while reading through Bergson, because Nagarjuna’s analysis of movement/time is something that Bergson might not agree with fully or anything, but he introduces new ways of thinking about these “classical” terms in the same way Bergson does, with maybe even more rigor than he does. Sorry for rambling lol, and I can’t wait to check out the other videos on your channel as well!
@@DanyJoshuva Interesting. I have certainly heard of Nagarjuna. And, of course, you're quite right about the Buddha. I forgot how famous he was for refusing to answer 'metaphysical' questions like, "What happens after we die?"
I should say that I don't disagree that religions can occasionally hit on deep insights and metaphysical truths (and Buddhism is better at this than most religions, hence my prior interest in it - I even devoted a page on my website to it). I'm just never satisfied with the broader (supernatural/mystical) pictures they wrap these insights up in.
Btw: I did a short video series on one contemporary Buddhist philosopher, Yuasa Yasuo, in which some of these concerns come up. You might be interested in that.
No worries about rambling. Every single time I finish a video, I feel like I rambled too much in it!
I look forward to catching you again in other comments.
You can use intuition to success if you can see it as an object and move towards it. But intellect is a part of it.
Thank you for this series. I've been reading The Creative Mind and I've had some difficulties wrapping my mind around some of these concepts. Your breakdowns have been very helpful and informative!
Excellent! Thanks for leaving a comment.
Thanks Nathan. I may not be with you fully on Darwin's theory of evolution (but have noted you are covering Evolution later) but with the Intuition section I'm completely won over. Obviously watching this I'm engaging first and foremost with you rather than Bergson but I'm happy enough with that. I plan to start on Bergson's greatest hits as soon as I've finished your coverage of him.
I especially liked the nebulous imagination that's immersed in the phenomena being studied and thus able to simply grasp the whole unmediated. And of course I totally concur with using metaphor and comparison : using language but leaving it open and not closing it down into concepts. Perfect!
Where you talked about parts being independent in themselves, but forming pieces of the whole and elements which aren't independent it brought to mind Husserl. Like Heidegger, Husserl must have been aware of Bergson too.
BTW I was interested in you emphasising primary sources over secondary, but it occurred to me that many of the primary sources we are able to read are, to some extent, mediated ie translated. I notice that far more when I read poetry. I like Chinese poetry (particularly from the Tang era) and I often read two or three different translations. They can be quite astonishingly different but very interesting at the same time. From what little I know, Chinese poets meant for this to happen ie they used words in a way so as not to close things down .... to leave things open. Very Bergson, as you have described him in his classical period.
Yes, you're right about primary sources being mediated, although I like to think it isn't quite as bad as that. One important difference is that a philosophical text presents ideas which fit together to make a coherent whole; in other words, the philosopher isn't trying to "leave things open." They have a specific idea they want to convey to the reader. This is much easier to pick up and translate than poetry.
I also think academic translators are pretty pedantic (in a good way). The goal is a faithful reproduction, not a 'clever' or 'unique' interpretation. Translators often work with the philosopher him or herself (where possible) or previous students all to make sure their translations are accurate.
Secondary sources are problematic for me because they are either too brief (by necessity), watered down versions (to appeal to a broader audience), or deliberate interpretations (as opposed to reproductions) in which the author is _expanding_ on an idea they picked up on in the original. However you look at it, you aren't getting to the heart of the original philosophy.
I can't remember if I said this in the video or not, but in my early days of philosophy study I read a lot of secondary material about Sartre and I thought I had a good fix on him and his philosophy. Then I actually read _B&N,_ and realised how superficial my knowledge of Sartre had been. The difference was truly night and day. After reading _B&N,_ I got a feel for how Sartre actually thought, rather than just knowing his ideas.
@@absurdbeing2219 Thanks for your very astute thoughts. Much appreciated.
That's a good take on the difference between the way philosophy is translated versus poetry.
You put that point about secondary sources rather well too. Watered down interpretations that seek to expand on pet points.
I'll be a convert (! 🤭! ) soon.
thanks for ur presentation! it really cleared things up for me! since there is so much confusion about the term intuition why do u think bergson used it instead of 'reflection'? it just sounds like u could easily swap intuition to reflection and the core concept that bergson is using wouldnt change.
Thanks. Great to hear you found it helpful.
I hear you on that. The problem with 'reflection,' I think, is that in philosophy that word is so closely bound up with the intellect and cognition. Intuition, while still, strictly speaking, is thought, it is actually thought being used against itself (against its natural tendencies to spatialise, objectify, etc.).
Basically, it's a bit of a case of catch 22, I think, but the importance of intuition (especially its opposition to the intellect) may have been lost if he had called it a _special_ kind of reflection.
Intuition can become personification. I think that bases of religion of alot ways. Enters into symbolism. As we perceive the whole.
I'm at 25mins and you've just finished Instinct. Absolutely splendid so far. Thank you. I just wanted to comment at this stage on evolution although I appreciate this is just a small part of what you are discussing.
I'm not as convinced that evolution, as it's often explained, is indisputable. I think it has flaws. Definitely all the random mechanical approach and the fact that it looks at parts and not the whole as you say. It's a good enough theory for small adaptations to changes in the environment that may over time become significant within a species but I don't think it explains how one transforms into another.
It's not just the random bit that doesn't work. Nor does it's other plank of adapting to the environment to make huge leaps. I mean why would a fish which is perfectly adapted to swimming in the sea decide to venture on to land? Something it is not at all adapted for? And it would need to move to the land in order to adapt to it, right?
I think Bergson's approach as you have briefly described it, has far more going for it. I like the lines you used about the whole being primary; that life is experience; that the wasp and caterpillar are not two entities but two activities in one whole.
The reason many people cling to Darwin's theory of evolution is because the usual alternative is some amazing designer (aka as god) but then that just begs the question who created god.
That (god or other forms of mysticism) is often the result when we start trying to use words to describe the things you mention like wholeness, continuity and so on ie using the intellect to describe reality. You covered that limitation of the intellect and words rather well.
When people can't get the words to state what they mean they turn to art, music, poetry (yes, I know, but it's words used so beautifully they can transport you elsewheres) and of course religion, mysticism and what-not.
I'm not so bothered as you are by things getting mystical for some folks. If that helps them to read reality and live their lives more contently then fine. For me, like for you, it doesn't really help to grasp reality and often obscures things so I have to find another way.
And for me exploring this way, through philosophy, is a thrilling experience altogether.
Yup. I do still think that evolution, as the nuts and bolts, physical, biological description of how life evolves is 100% rock solid. No other theory in science has anywhere near as much evidence in its favour, from the filling in of the fossil record to carbon dating to genomics, and so on.
What is missing for me, however, is an understanding of the wider metaphysical framework (whole not parts) within which these nuts and bolts operate, the _driver_ of evolution, if you like. I think random mutation works, but, it works like the old epicycles of Ptolemy or Newton's brute postulate of the fact that gravity is 'attractive' (epicycles dispensed with by realising the Earth is not the centre of the universe; the 'attractiveness' of gravity explained by Einstein's general relativity - both reformulations of the wider framework); i.e. in an ad hoc fashion. It turns out that evolution finds its more elegant expression in Bergsonian metaphysics; Bergson thereby doing for Darwin what Einstein did for Newton.
1:18:52 "Society for Psychical Research"
That's the one. Thanks.
In tuition I use my intuition to intuit the ion.
U rule!
Wow, he’s saying something along the lines of Nietzsche in his truth and lie in an extra moral sense, and Lacan’s structure of the psyche(minus the intuition part so he’s filling a lot of important gaps!) So you got me excited to read Bergson, how should I use ur series since it’s not distinctly on each of his book rather on his philosophy as a whole? And how did you deal with the development of his philosophy since he was a full blown atheist in time and free will but by the end of life he was not only a Catholic but his philosophy supported a loving deity that intervenes in human affairs?
"So you got me excited to read Bergson" - That's music to my ears.
How to use the videos? I actually designed this series like I would have structured a course on Bergson, assuming no prior knowledge of him. There is, then (I believe), a logical progression through his ideas, such that each video builds on earlier ones. In short, my suggestion would be to start at the beginning.
Also, although I didn't go through any of Bergson's books chapter by chapter, I found it best to follow the basic course he charted anyway, so, should you wish to read him at the same time, you'll find I pretty much move through _Time and Freewill,_ _Matter and Memory,_ and _Creative Evolution_ in that order.
Bergson's turn to Catholicism in his later years was, philosophically-speaking, a bit of a crushing blow to me, actually. I was so disappointed after reading _The Two Sources._ Nevertheless, his earlier philosophy stands on its own, and I was heartened to see him make it clear towards the end of that book that he was engaging in pure speculation, moving beyond his earlier, more rigorous, philosophy which was always supported by science. So, his philosophy never gets 'tainted' by (ooh, pejorative) his religion.
Just goes to show, I guess, the allure of religious/spiritual/new age "there's got to be more to it than this" is hard to resist even for the best of us.
@@absurdbeing2219 its ironic that while in his earlier years his lecture convinced jacques maritian to not end his life, so his philosophy, wether there is a diety or not, allows for human mystery unlike scientifism. Even though I still consider myself an agnostic athiest, I fully respect and admire when thinkers find their way back to religion in an almost organic manner after having the "there must be a meaning to all this" attitude. Let me start with time and free will!
If you read Jung through Bergson you'll see the image of 2 sources of morality
Maybe becose life is more then facts about things, with intuitiv thinking you have to go beond.
Definitely agree with that!
16:00 There's a book called Purpose and Desire by J. Scott Turner that argues current formulations of evolution do not account for "holistic" concepts like purpose and desire, in much of the same way as you are saying here.
Oh nice. Thanks.
@@absurdbeing2219The podcast DemystifySci just interviewed the author of the book I mentioned :)
ua-cam.com/video/I20Sk5w4lOg/v-deo.html