Henri Bergson is underrated. The fact that he was largely disregarded by philosophers in the second half of the twentieth century is evidence of this. Neither the postmodernists nor the die-hard positivists could handle him.
Bergson appreciation thread.
Jose Martin
just read Whitehead faggot
Justin Long
Deleuze tho
And even a few Italian thinkers and anthropologists, especially Ernesto De Martino, utilized his ideas every once in a while - though I myself am not familiar with his works, only with a few of the key words and concepts.
Jaxon Jones
I know Deleuze wanked over him, but I don't think he interpreted him correctly. Otherwise, not many were into the Bergson
Mate, I've got Whitehead right on my shelf. I was exaggerating Bergson's obscurity but you gotta admit his philosophy kind of disappeared compared to the superstar status he enjoyed in his lifetime.
Matthew Jackson
The time of the Philosophers does not exist.
Michael Bailey
Merleau-Ponty also liked him. Besides, he supposedly lost a lot of popularity still in hia lifetime after his debate with Einstein (to which was referring to).
Deleuze wasn't trying to interpret him accurately, but to create his own version. Bergson was a weirdo either way, but he does bring many original concepts to philosophy. His idea of the ontological past, as strange as it might be, did get me wondering about those very few people who have perfect memory (remembering everything they ever did). Deleuze himself admitted that Bergson's philosophy attracted a very strange crowd, which made his reputation even worse.
Isaac Ramirez
Bergson literally invented the phenomenologists, what are you talking about?
Daniel Scott
Is Bergsonism (Deleuze's book) a good intro to him?
Ayden Ward
No.
Grayson Torres
He had an important correspondence with William James, and influenced Deleuze.
Dylan Parker
He isn't underrated. He was just a misguided fool to reinclude metaphysics in an age where matter is the sole dominator of human minds.
Ayden Mitchell
vitalism went into the trashcan when life-processes became accountable chemically
Justin Baker
No. It isn't even a good intro to Deleuze's Bergson (Deleuze wrote two additional articles about Bergson, both very difficult and still not good as intros).
Kevin Carter
Bergsonian vitalism maybe, but there is still some meaning to it in a non-organic (in the ordinary sense) life. This is probably why Deleuze liked Bergson despite the two of them being very different on matters of psyche and freedom among other things.
Charles Sullivan
>Bergson literally invented phenomenology Isn't Husserl the founding father of phenomenology?
Nicholas Miller
He meant Bergson had a great influence on them. It is certainly true for Merleau-Ponty, bit I don't know about the rest.
Kevin Campbell
mind-blowing genius who didn't borrow ideas from anyone
Robert Morales
Wait, is that sarcasm? He had plenty of influences.
Andrew Gonzalez
This. Deleuze wrote his movies about cinema using Bergson as his philosophical foundation, and those books have been read by virtually ever film student in the last 50 years.
Luis Sullivan
You're thinking of Fichte.
Logan Hall
Plus Proust and Burroughs
Try Kolakowski's maybe.
I cannot for the life of me grasp Time & Free Will.
Luis Martinez
Like Gibbon, de Maistre, Schopenhauer, and his own countryman, Bachelard, Bergson along with a few score others can be appreciated for his literary qualities-- manner of expression, clarity, engaging content, etc. That he was ever a philosopher is of little moment now; fact is, he was a great writer and is therefore worth reading. This is not to imply that some philosophers of earlier centuries have lost their value AS philosophers..
Jaxon Lopez
Angry at this post
Various reasons
Easton Phillips
Or Kant pretty much.
Samuel Clark
Yeah, Kant is pretty much ground zero of the phenomenological explosion, or the Poetic Big Bang, thereof.
Evan Evans
You've clearly never read him, since a whole bunch of his work is devoted to dealing with this issue.
Parker Thomas
Hence, my point.
Camden Butler
He was wrong about almost everything. What he was not wrong about was just plain obvious. His only redeeming quality is the that his prose is pretty good.
Julian Adams
Prolly gona have to go all the way back to Descartes, boys.
Bentley Bailey
>he is not well known >therefore, he is gud
this, this right here is what is wrong with you people
William Russell
This is correct. Phenomenological bracketing-off procedure started here.
Bergson is good stuff. I have Creative Evolution on my to-read list.
Colton Reyes
Even further, back to the sophists Protagoras and especially Gorgias.
David Clark
I wasn't being sarcastic. There is a difference between borrowing ideas and being influened. Deleuze borrows heavily from Bergson and other philosophers. Bergson may have been influened by the phenomenological tradition, but I don't think he borrows anyone's ideas.
Luke Nelson
*influenced
Kevin Martinez
Nor did I mean to imply that Bergson himself is of zero use. If he's readable, he, like Gibbon, is usable. But, though I've read around way too much in philosophy, I am primarily a literature person, which, to me, means Good Books. From a philosophical orientation, then, maybe he is of some modern value. But IF he is, I'm not aware of it. I do know he influenced more than a few authors I like-- the James brothers, for instance.