Henri Bergson on Religion

[@thomassimmons1950]

Michael me lad...Big Bergson fan here [Creative Evolution] in my top 10. Wasn't aware of this particular book. Been reading Owen Barfield's SAVING THE APPEARANCES; it has stirred up many thoughts on language, myth and representation. Highly recommend Barfield old boy. Goes quite well indeed with this Bergson chap. God save the 👑...

[@nicolascostello7276]

Bergson is a wonderful thinker. It's beautiful watching his thought evolve from the largely psychological 'Time and Free Will' toward the metaphysics of 'Creative Evolution'. 'The Two Sources of Morality' rests atop these works so I would definitely recommend digging into his earlier books and essays before making a full assessment. It's here that he starts to define what he means by terms like 'tendency', 'instinct', 'intellegence', the different sorts of 'difference'. Deleuze wrote a fantastic book on Bergson titled 'Bergsonism'.

[@lbucky1349]

Great stuff Michael 👍

[@Masqued1]

I have The Creative Mind and Time and Free Will and it's mind-blowing and extremely complex stuff- Bergson is essentially a Time Lord.

[@joeruf6526]

Interesting. Wonder how he squared this with his conversion. Would be interested in Maritan and Edith Stein (Edith Stein and Heidegger were both students very close to Husserl)

[@assemblyofsilence]

Can we get a definition of religion and intelligence here? The only way I see these formulations having any validity is with a one dimensional rendering of those terms.

[@Vhvjdow0ajsbcdhcuei3o22-om4sm]

FOR REAL! This explanation boils itself down to: religion is an intelligent reaction to nature, as well as an instinctual reaction to intelligence, which henri bergson believes is just coping. It comes off as very condescending. Religion for many is something that must be followed, it is genuine, not some crackpot coping mechanism.

[@maxwellbliss]

Rene Girard would have a lot to say about this

[@balderbrok6438]

Rene Guenon too

[@k.s.9400]

Not familiar enough with his work to know if he covers this, but I think this misses a deeper connection, which is how religion shapes the form of intelligence in the first place. Charles Taylor’s work sort of covers this, in how it’s a reciprocal relationship between our beliefs and then the way they manifest themselves in the world. For a more concrete example, just think how different our political system would be if our religion was not monotheistic, but more “unified” in an animist sense, and how that would impact things like the personal computer.

[@LabelsAreMeaningless]

I've always felt that religion is what fills in the gaps of missing knowledge; giving people guidance about matters they don't yet understand the truth of. It's the answer when people can't answer the question of why. I don't think what is often labelled as intelligence, is intelligent though. Your example of intelligence was the creation of birth control, but I feel that creation was short sighted. The decoupling of sex and procreation lead to degradation of the act. A removal of meaning and purpose. I don't find that to be wise. There is an argument to be made that that degradation was the intended effect. True that would make the idea intelligent, but immoral and destructive for the sake of a personal agenda.

[@fromthesouthofafrica6815]

Interesting how you reached the Catholic Church's view of sex.

[@vihakurjategija]

If religion fills the gaps, then the knowledge is not missing.

[@RainbowDevourer]

​@@vihakurjategija May I suggest the book Phantoms in the Brain? It is written by an neurologist and doctor who specializes in odd brain conditions. It explains the process of the brain filling in gaps, and it is deeply interesting and probably relevant to this subject matter. (spoilers: the brain makes up a coherent narrative on-the-fly, and is capable of completely altering perception AND memories of what you thought earlier, and that can also reverse, where you completely forget that you ever changed your mind and be 100% sure you never did (even if there is records of it)) It will make you really think about what "you" are, and whether any soul actually exist.

[@rideforever]

This is not correct. Intelligence is Not distinct from instinct. Talking is distinct from instinct. And what you call "intelligence" is simply talking, or pleasure words. Intelligence properly defined is the ability to do things. Not to talk. When you do things then you are in the real of engineering and craft and action - then you are one with instinct. Talking is yes distinct because it is empty. Talking is the coffee shop pleasure of and Jewish spirit of Bergson and European people of that era.