A Feud between Creation and Evolution: reviewing the famous work of Henri Bergson

Publié par Abbas Hashmi sur 11 Février 2020, 09:34am

Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution. London: Macmillan.

A Feud between Creation and Evolution: reviewing the famous work of Henri Bergson

Background: A brief sketch of the work

Sketching the Theory of Knowledge

Two orders at large The idea of disorder

The problem of Genera The problems of Laws

The idea of disorder is an oscillation between the later two kinds of orders

Creation and Evolution

The ideal genesis of matter The origin and function of life

The essential and accidental in the vital process (Vital Impetus) and in the

Evolutionary Movement

The life of a body The life of a spirit

The cinematographical mechanism of thought The Mechanistic illusion

Real becoming False Evolutionism

Relation of metaphysical problems to the idea of “Nothing"

Form Becoming

The philosophy of forms and its conception of becoming which has been deduced from the following work

The metaphysical interpretation of the modern science: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz
The criticism of Kant
Evolutionism of Herbert Spencer

Introduction

Bergson has always been clear, when it comes to the belief in God but his writings remained always in the context of belief in God and Free will. He is the only philosopher of the contemporary era, who had laid down open claims to immortality. In the Creative Evolution, he based his conceptual analysis on two grounds: the stream of consciousness and the flow of reality— the Vital Impetus. Basically, scientific laws only construct the artificial reality and in this regard, the whole philosophy of Henri Bergson revolves around two major concepts: Life and time.

In contrast, Bergson rebelled against the Logicians and materialists, who have ascribed themselves to reality without proper foundations. For Bergson, reality only exists in movement and change — that resembles the dynamic change of the society. According to Bergson, if change was real, then Novelty was real, and if Novelty was real then freedom was real. Basically, in the Creative Evolution,Henri Bergson turned to biological consideration, he held that change means growth, growth means creation, and creation means freedom — the discourse of Free will. For Bergson, the real fact of the evolution was to be found, not in the mechanical elimination of the unfit, but in the creative surge of life. In Bergson's opinion, Knowledge lays in invitation, in self immortality and absorbed insights of the poet, saint and the genius.

On the contrary, Bergson has developed his own metaphysics and epistemology of change and indetermination. On the other hand, Bergson prefers memory over matter and in this way he rebelled against the logicians and materialists. For Bergson, it is 'duration' not time that is being measured by the Physicists. Basically, Bergson's theory of time and memory becomes a critique of purposes and ends in the logic and metaphysics of both idealism and mechanism. Evolution of all nature is the expression of a creative emergency. In this way, Bergson has launched a brilliant critique of pure logic and pure mechanism in morals, arts and religion.

According to Bergson, necessity, obligation, and formalism close minds and societies—genius and vision open new roads and new perspective. The ‘Universe’ he says at the close of morality and religion… is a machine for making God. In order to grasp the truth, we must turn our backs on the false secondary power by which we multiply distinction. Basically, Henri Bergson critiqued both intelligence and the scientific methods. Even his critique was applauded by both pragmatists and opponents. Basically, Bergson favored intuition over logic, while mysticism over science.

Through Bergson, various people also rebelled against the formalism in Art, and stability of the thought. With this great work, Bergson launched the anti-intellectual movement. Because to a poet, ‘élan Vital’ is a renaissance, while for barbarians, it is a brute force. It is fact that Bergson’s philosophy was once hailed as the new thing in the world but its elements are very old; its mysticism is as old as Platonus, whom Bergson indebted much of his work.

On the contrary, his Elan Vital also goes back long way too: ultimately to the Dionysiac mysteries, and in the modern world to Schopenhauer. While Romanticism of Henri Bergson, also goes back to Schelling, Fichte, and Rousseau. For Bergson, there are subterranean vital Forces that came to the surface of the world. Moreover, the world is a machine of making devils as well as Gods. Therefore, for Bergson, both intuition and instincts demands education not a blatant trust. Evolution is creative, when men intelligently cooperate; otherwise, it is as event has proved, brutal, fatal, and blind.

In this regard, Bergson’s another famous work ‘Time and Free Will’ mentions all about the psychological aspects of the experience—free will in accordance with duration. In addition, his Creative Evolution is a great contribution to the psychological and biological cause. Basically, Bergson sends the intimate sense of the reality, as life, life as movement, movement as creation; which is one of the Bergson’s central themes of the philosophy. [1]

The Beginning

Basically, the evolutionary theorists have defined evolution as the development of Human thought and intellect. Basically, it was intellect that has made the adjustment of the human body to the environment. For Bergson, the intellect only follows the natural movement, with a lightest possible contact with the experience. The intuition is well justified invariably but our thoughts must represent true context of the human interaction. The other major concept is that part is equal to the whole. In this regard, we must understand the individuality of being. The evolutionist philosophy does not hesitate to the extent of life to the same method of explanation that of a matter. It is the intellect that affects the evolution, which lights up the coming and going of beings.

Basically, it is the power of the conceptual thoughts that leads to the ideal reconstruction of everything. It finally ends in the formidable logic which finally declares that it is not the reality exactly—we are brought to stand before the unknowable.[2] But for the human intellect after too much pride, this is really an excess of humility. A mind is born to speculate or to dream, it can be said that sometimes, our intellect teaches the very border of the absolute but still fails to grasp it. It is because, our intellect prefers doubt over the existing reality and our mind at large speculates the discourse.

On the other hand, an idea is necessarily artificial and symbolical, since it makes the total activity of life to the forms of a certain human activity—which is potential manifestation of life. The evolutionary movement not necessarily grasps the evolution of the intellect because mind has the same function of the matter. If the other forms of consciousness are brought together with the intellect, then it would be the wider consciousness of life. Basically, it is the intellect that produces vision through consciousness. Moreover, it is said that we do not transcend our intellect and it is through our intellect, we see the other form of consciousness. The theory of life and the theory of knowledge have always been different. But the theory of life does not accompaigned the theory of knowledge.

Similarly, the theory of knowledge, which does not replace the intellect in general evolution of life does not tells us how that frames the knowledge are constructed and how to go beyond it.

Therefore, both the theory of knowledge and the theory of life must join together in order to fade away the general confusion of life. To position everything in advance, that must explain everything at the core of the understanding. Various philosophical systems failed to grasp the actual understanding of the creation and evolution of life. In a nut shell, we could say that in order to be brought together both the theory of knowledge and the theory of life; we need to transcend philosophy that must remove the confusion between creation (a matter of theology) and Evolution (a matter of science).

There is a requirement of the history of systems together with the analysis of two greatest illusions of the human intellect—in order to speculate the reality. In this regard, the idea of life as a transcendent teleology or the mechanism is as far as an idea to doubt about. Basically, there are four broad narratives that open the discourse of illusions.

The pre-existing parts
Spatiality
Distinct multiplicity
Real duration

Evolution of Life

For every object we have notion that is external or superficial while ourselves, our perceptions are internal and profound. Basically, the very word ‘Exist’ is a contention of debate and discourse. In this regard, my existence is divided among the sensation, feelings, violations, and emotion. These are the forces that drive my existence in the world. On the contrary, the mental state of our beings depends upon the ‘duration’. Here duration resembles change and change is radical in every context. Because, when it comes to mind, my memory is over there to convey something of the past to the present. Our ‘state’ only changes with repositioning of ourselves at different points. Basically, truth that we change without ceasing and the state itself is nothing but change.

On the contrary, it is the transition that continues without imagination—it happens and varies at different instant. There is always a discontinuity in our physical state that varies in every duration and each state various at larger scale. Basically, the discontinuity occurs because of different acts at different instants. Our physical life is full of the unseen. Our whole physical existence defines the pattern of our pleasure, emotions and in general sensation.[3]

If there is no existence, then there is always a indetermination and this indetermination shows our unstable psychical state. Sometimes, there is a continuity, which never unfolds itself in every course of the psychical state. In the latter context, memory has no proper faculty that works intermittently. On the contrary, there is a problem of differentiation sometimes, we perceive the past as our present. Basically, it is this differentiation that creates a lots of trouble in the domain of persuasion.

Our duration is irreversible because we perform a special different task at each duration. Even a superman intelligence would not have been able to foresee the simple indivisible form , which gives to these purely abstract elements their concrete organizations. We are seeking only precise meaning that our consciousness gives to this word ‘Exists’. For the conscious being, to exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature means to go on creating oneself endlessly. Should same be said about the existence in general?

Basically, there is a need of displacement of the parts because the displacement of parts will isolate the very phenomenon of the whole. Besides the fact, there is no history of the displacement of the parts. [4] The material object changes because of the eternal force and our idea of change is in the displacement of parts, which themselves do not change. Thus, nothing is created neither form nor matter—basically, the whole problem lies within the arrangement of parts. Likewise, we cannot count the intervals in seconds and thus, the real problem lies with the interval not time.

Moreover, the real problem lies with the material history and the history of matter has spread spontaneously in the space and it cannot be trace so easily. There are no objective foundations for closing of a system—matter does not go to the end and the isolation is never complete. Sometimes the isolation becomes absolute but here the problem does not lie with the isolation rather with the projection. In addition, it is not easy to trace the immense duration of the whole universe—the more we study time, the more we comprehend duration. Both the duration and form of existence is attached to system and it is science that re-integrates the system into science. Likewise, it is not easy to confront or contest the reality and the problem lies within our sense of understanding.

Basically, matter consists of the portion of extension, which is the intimate part of the whole. Actually, it is the same subject of physical and chemical laws that govern each and every part of the matter. In addition, it is hard to decide in the organized world, what is an individual and what is not? There is nothing like a completed reality and the problem of individuality have been always there along with the incomplete sense of understanding of reality. Likewise, the definition of sharp individuality lacks the very context of the wholeness. It is because; we divide the whole system into wholes and parts.

On the contrary, it is not easy to understand the very crude fact of the matter, because it exists in the domain of totality. E.g. A hydra whose pieces become so many fresh hydras; a sea urchin eggs, whose fragments develop a complete embryo; whereas then we are asked was the individuality of hydra, egg or worm.

In this regard, there is a simple law for the unorganized bodies; the law is:

‘The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in the effect was already in cause’

Basically, we divide the living part into two halves; which completes the essence of individual. Moreover, it is the completeness of the individual that justifies and describe the parts. The whole is incomplete without the inclusion of parts. In the meantime, the living organisms have their own identification in every context. Individuality has never been perfect and it is sometimes very difficult to talk about ‘what is an individual?’ Therefore, if the universe is an organism then we must understand that it resembles the totality of matter.

[1] What Bergson said: “Reality being a line in the drawing… he claimed this through his metaphysical calculations.

[2] Human evolution was nothing but the evolution of human intellect but we still stand before the unknowable and our intellect still failed to grasp it.

[3] Our vision differs from duration, nevertheless, by keeping the same position and the same angle in each duration.

[4] For the artificial imitation and the intellectual life, there is a requirement of logic and language.