Henri Bergson is underrated. The fact that he was largely disregarded

File: Alfred_North_Whitehead.jpg (24KB, 285x320px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 285x320px

just read Whitehead faggot

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.

>>9255964
I know Deleuze wanked over him, but I don't think he interpreted him correctly. Otherwise, not many were into the Bergson

>>9255958
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.

The time of the Philosophers does not exist.

>>9255984
Merleau-Ponty also liked him. Besides, he supposedly lost a lot of popularity still in hia lifetime after his debate with Einstein (to which >>9256022 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.

Bergson literally invented the phenomenologists, what are you talking about?

Is Bergsonism (Deleuze's book) a good intro to him?

>>9256947
No.

>>9255948
He had an important correspondence with William James, and influenced Deleuze.

>>9255948
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.

>>9255948
vitalism went into the trashcan when life-processes became accountable chemically

>>9256947
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).

>>9256970
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.

>>9256937
>Bergson literally invented phenomenology
Isn't Husserl the founding father of phenomenology?

>>9258333
He meant Bergson had a great influence on them. It is certainly true for Merleau-Ponty, bit I don't know about the rest.

>>9255948
mind-blowing genius who didn't borrow ideas from anyone

>>9260217
Wait, is that sarcasm? He had plenty of influences.

>>9255964
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.

>>9258333
You're thinking of Fichte.

Plus Proust and Burroughs

>>9256947
Try Kolakowski's maybe.

I cannot for the life of me grasp Time & Free Will.

>>9255948
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..

>>9261483
Angry at this post

Various reasons

>>9260755
Or Kant pretty much.

>>9261689
Yeah, Kant is pretty much ground zero of the phenomenological explosion, or the Poetic Big Bang, thereof.

>>9256957
You've clearly never read him, since a whole bunch of his work is devoted to dealing with this issue.

>>9258333
Hence, my point.

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.

>>9261689
Prolly gona have to go all the way back to Descartes, boys.

>>9255948
>he is not well known
>therefore, he is gud

this, this right here is what is wrong with you people

>>9261986

This is correct. Phenomenological bracketing-off procedure started here.

Bergson is good stuff. I have Creative Evolution on my to-read list.

>>9261986
Even further, back to the sophists Protagoras and especially Gorgias.

>>9260740
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.

>>9263801
*influenced

>>9261492
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.