Henri Bergson (15) - Science / Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 сер 2024
- In this video, we look at Bergson’s thoughts about science and philosophy. Contrary to popular thought, science, rather than revealing the essence of things, actually only facilitates action on them. It is therefore practical, and achieves its aims through the substitution of signs for the thing. Philosophy, on the other hand, pursues a disinterested understanding of the thing itself, and the method it uses in pursuit of this is intuition.
Finally, we look at how modern science differs from its ancient counterpart.
Website: www.absurdbeing.com
Twitter: / absurdbeing
Patreon: patreon.com/user?u=84430098
*Contents*
00:28 Science
06:19 The purpose of science
11:35 Science proceeds by leaps
12:54 Philosophy
19:46 Should philosophy begin after science?
26:54 Modern vs Ancient Science
27:39 Genera and laws
29:16 Conception of time
32:32 What is the ‘time’ of science?
38:06 Why is everything not given all at once?
43:38 Analogy: Child with a jigsaw puzzle and an artist
46:40 Why we think the future is knowable
48:22 Sam Harris and AI
50:49 How science can make predictions if the future is unpredictable
52:24 Summary
This a great video, thank you for putting it together!
Thanks, Oliver. Glad you liked it.
Very, very nice. Thank you so much. I'm so pleased I found this series of yours.
The points I noted from this episode:
* Locking Galileo in a room and telling him to come up with ideas faster, the AI way! No consideration of lived experience being essential to creativity and duration being essential for that as the future isn't here.
* the unfolding of the future is where organic growth (and creativity) takes place. This is real freedom. Without duration there is no change, no growth, no freedom.
*Science gives us well-being. Philosophy gives us joy. 😊
* Science creates a world of its own by breaking up reality into parts and then measuring everything it can.
It even creates its own language to describe this with funny squiggles that make up equations. Looks very, very clever. Which it is, but then physicists and mathematicians actually believe that the world they have created is the real world.
* The real world however is accessible via intuition.
Thanks also for that sneak preview into Bergson's ideas of evolution. I understood you to say that the theory only gives us snap shots and does not explain how life transforms itself through various stages. I feel this is my objection. It may be that people have taken what Darwin said and made it do some heavy lifting that it wasn't designed for, but it's that which makes me feel it's a theory that applies very well to changes/adaptations within a species but not to major transformations. I'm thoroughly looking forward to your episode on Evolution. I think the Bergsonian view will add a lot to my understanding of it.
Well, the thanks go both ways for this. From my end, to you for engaging with the material so thoughtfully. It's great to see someone getting into Bergson with the same level of enthusiasm I have for him.
I think I would agree that evolution "does not explain how life transforms itself through various stages", but within the context of my last comment on this. It doesn’t _fully_ explain the progression of life because it doesn’t have the big (metaphysical) picture. The nuts and bolts, on the other hand - the actual physical mechanism of how that progression plays out - still work for me (and Bergson, I believe). The only problem I have with evolution is its recourse to _random_ mutation as the driver (a kind of 'brute force' approach which it is forced to suppose because it is trying to understand by parts-based thinking what is fundamentally a whole - of course, this isn't to suggest there is a _design_ or planned element to the evolution of life).
I mean, if you are prepared to deny the plethora of evidence (fossil record, developmental biology, vestigial features, etc.) that support change both within species and "major transformations", I’m not sure how else you can explain life on Earth short of a Creator (which isn’t really an explanation at all because a Creator is even harder to explain than the evolution of life itself!).
P.S. In the interest of not getting your hopes up too high here, as I hinted at above, let me caution that I don't think Bergson is going to question evolution in the way I think you might be hoping. Nevertheless, I will be interested to hear your thoughts afterwards, either way.
@@absurdbeing2219 Oh, I'm glad of that. I thought you might consider my comments a bit tiresome especially as I'm no philosopher.
Fear not. I'm not expecting Bergson (or anyone) to have completely worked out evolution. It is, after all, an evolving theory, a work in progress. The theory as I understand it has some parts that work really well for me and others make little sense.
I will just enjoy any light that Bergson is able to shed and on what I hope will be his slightly different approach to the topic.
again thanks for the share and energy and effort you put out here fellow being
Thanks Domenic.
@@absurdbeing2219 always my fellow student in death and life
Could you please add the captions like the previous videos?
Hi Rebanta. I just took a look, and I can see subtitles on this video. You are talking about the 'cc' option, right? I don't know why they wouldn't be showing for you.
@@absurdbeing2219 Sorry, I can see it now. Actually I downloaded the video the moment you uploaded it. I think that was causing the issue. Thanks!
@@reb_o_lution Ah ha, that rare problem of being too eager!
@@absurdbeing2219 Yes sir!😅