3 ms·

Bergson is pure woo: Nothing but completely subjective, baseless, pseudoscientific nonsense. Here is a sample of how he wrote: "The intellect always behaves as

Bergson is pure woo: Nothing but completely subjective, baseless, pseudoscientific nonsense. Here is a sample of how he wrote: "The intellect always behaves as if it were fascinated by the contemplation of inert matter. It is life looking outward, putting itself outside itself, adopting the ways of unorganized nature in principle, in order to direct them in fact." - Henri Bergson "The pure present is an ungraspable advance of the past devouring the future. In truth, all sensation is already memory." - Henri Bergson "Fortunately, some are born with spiritual immune systems that sooner or later give rejection to the illusory worldview grafted upon them from birth through social conditioning. They begin sensing that something is amiss, and start looking for answers. Inner knowledge and anomalous outer experiences show them a side of reality others are oblivious to, and so begins their journey of awakening. Each step of the journey is made by following the heart instead of following the crowd and by choosing knowledge over the veils of ignorance." - Henri Bergson And here are a few of the more pointed things Bertrand Russell had to say about him (from History of Western Philosophy[1], page 791): "One of the bad effects of an anti-intellectual philosophy, such as that of Bergson, is that it thrives upon the errors and confusions of the intellect. Hence it is led to prefer bad thinking to good, to declare every momentary difficulty insoluble, and to regard every foolish mistake as revealing the bankruptcy of intellect and the triumph of intuition. There are in Bergson's works many allusions to mathematics and science, and to a careless reader these allusions may seem to strengthen his philosophy greatly. As regards science, especially biology and physiology, I am not competent to criticize his interpretations. But as regards mathematics, he has deliberately preferred traditional errors in interpretation to the more modern views which have prevailed among mathematicians for the last eighty years." -Bertrand Russell "In that case, he may be tempted to ask whether there are any reasons for accepting such a restless view of the world. And if he asks this question, he will find, if I am not mistaken, that there is no reason whatever for accepting this view, either in the universe or in the writings of M. Bergson. " -Bertrand Russell Why would anyone think he was qualified to discuss physics? Bergson wrote a book called "Matter and Memory"[2] and his thesis, Time and Free Will[3], where he presented a highly subjective and basically meaningless account of "time." Like others have said, it's sad that his pseudo-intellectual rock throwing was taken seriously. Einstein himself credits Hume and Mach[4] with helping him get past the notion of absolute simultaneity. [1]: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/History of Western Philosophy.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_and_Memory [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_Free_Will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_Free_Will [4]: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf

ErotemeObelus 7y ago
That was a strawman Peeping Tom Bertrand Russell constructed. Henri Bergson based a large portion of his work drawing the distinction between functioning on representation versus functioning on cognition. representation = passive; science isn't assertive. Science is purely passive which is why scientists can never assert something is true but only that it hasn't been disproven. A scientist can say "this is what general relativity says, this is how general relativity maps onto the bending of light, apply it to your work or not. Take it or leave it." scientism = passive-aggressive; it is assertive by asserting "no metaphysical woo" passively using representations provided by science. They're like the coworker who passively expresses how he feels about his boss by little gestures. cognition (what Bergson called intuition) = assertive; it reaches knowledge of truth which is why it can definitely assert something is true. But it isn't forceful so it can't convince other people which is why it only reaches up to your being.
- gjm11 7y ago
  "Peeping Tom"? I assume you're gesturing towards some sort of accusation here; how about making it explicit (and maybe indicating why, if true, it would tell us anything about the validity of Russell's philosophical opinions)?
  - olooney 7y ago
    It's an allusion to a (not very serious) essay Russell wrote called "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish."[1] Like the much more famous "Why I am not a Christian," this is Russell at peak anti-theism. (Russell's most important work came early, on the foundations of mathematics and the theory of descriptions, but like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, he because an increasingly vocal critic of religion over time. This is apparently an occupational hazard for public intellectuals.) The actual bit is quite funny and widely quoted: "Although we are taught the Copernican astronomy in our textbooks, it has not yet penetrated to our religion or our morals, and has not even succeeded in destroying belief in astrology. People still think that the Divine Plan has special reference to human beings, and that a special Providence not only looks after the good, but also punishes the wicked. I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: "Oh, but you forget the good God." Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious." - Bertrand Russell Although it can't be said to really present a cogent argument. I doubt such nuns exist outside of an urban legend. I can't really follow ErotemeObelus's arguments, but he does seem to be familiar with Russell's work. [1]: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/outIntellectRubbish.htm http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings...

ErotemeObelus 7y ago

That was a strawman Peeping Tom Bertrand Russell constructed. Henri Bergson based a large portion of his work drawing the distinction between functioning on representation versus functioning on cognition. representation = passive; science isn't assertive. Science is purely passive which is why scientists can never assert something is true but only that it hasn't been disproven. A scientist can say "this is what general relativity says, this is how general relativity maps onto the bending of light, apply it to your work or not. Take it or leave it." scientism = passive-aggressive; it is assertive by asserting "no metaphysical woo" passively using representations provided by science. They're like the coworker who passively expresses how he feels about his boss by little gestures. cognition (what Bergson called intuition) = assertive; it reaches knowledge of truth which is why it can definitely assert something is true. But it isn't forceful so it can't convince other people which is why it only reaches up to your being.

gjm11 7y ago
"Peeping Tom"? I assume you're gesturing towards some sort of accusation here; how about making it explicit (and maybe indicating why, if true, it would tell us anything about the validity of Russell's philosophical opinions)?
- olooney 7y ago
  It's an allusion to a (not very serious) essay Russell wrote called "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish."[1] Like the much more famous "Why I am not a Christian," this is Russell at peak anti-theism. (Russell's most important work came early, on the foundations of mathematics and the theory of descriptions, but like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, he because an increasingly vocal critic of religion over time. This is apparently an occupational hazard for public intellectuals.) The actual bit is quite funny and widely quoted: "Although we are taught the Copernican astronomy in our textbooks, it has not yet penetrated to our religion or our morals, and has not even succeeded in destroying belief in astrology. People still think that the Divine Plan has special reference to human beings, and that a special Providence not only looks after the good, but also punishes the wicked. I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: "Oh, but you forget the good God." Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious." - Bertrand Russell Although it can't be said to really present a cogent argument. I doubt such nuns exist outside of an urban legend. I can't really follow ErotemeObelus's arguments, but he does seem to be familiar with Russell's work. [1]: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/outIntellectRubbish.htm http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings...