we bergsonians: the kyoto manifesto - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue Parrhesia : A Journal of Critical Philosophy Année : 2020

we bergsonians: the kyoto manifesto

Elie During

Résumé

Of the philosophers working today, who deserves to be regarded as a true Bergsonian? Conferences and seminars devoted to “Bergson studies” may not be the best testing ground. When Aristotle paid tribute to his master in the famous section of the Metaphysics on the doctrine of forms (“We, Platonists...”), it was to develop his ideas in new directions. The result, as we all know, was a different philosophical system entirely. It would be astonishing if re-thinking the doctrines of durée, becoming and genuine novelty were not similarly capable of yielding new insights and pointing to new directions beyond Bergson’s work: not merely a return to Bergson, a neo-bergsonism, but a philosophy for our own times. A philosophy, however, cannot be instituted by decree; it needs to be actually created. Now it may well be possible to be a Bergsonian despite Bergson, and—at least up to a point—against Bergson, but if the distinguishing trait of bergsonism is its methodology, we first need to ensure that this methodology continues to be of genuine use. We need to explore what this methodology can deliver today, with regard to the problems that we are currently confronted with. In this regard it is obvious that Bergson scholars aren’t themselves always very Bergsonian when it comes to the concrete forms of philosophical inquiry. As Gilson aptly put it: “The true Bergsonians are not those who merely repeat Bergson’s conclusions. Rather, they are those who—following his example—make these conclusions their own, and in different areas succeed in doing something analogous to what Bergson did.”1 We, Bergsonians, have read and re-read Bergson; we have studied the complex ways in which his philosophy has been received. We have defended him against his detractors; we have corrected misunderstandings, provided the overlooked context of his oeuvre, and felt the singularity and force of his theses, the subtlety of his way of thinking: demanding and “difficult,” as Bergson himself acknowledged, misleading in its apparent informality (“How on Earth did anyone miss that?”, he wonders). All this was necessary. But now is not the time to give a second youth to Bergson’s “philosophie nouvelle.” Bergson is already amongst us, and he is not lacking in friends. The question we find ourselves confronted by is how best to harness the impetus of his philosophy, even if this involves directing it along new lines. Bergsonism has been interpreted in various ways: the point is to change it and put it to work in the context which is manifestly very different from Bergson’s own. We are setting out the case for an expanded bergsonism.

Mots clés

Fichier non déposé

Dates et versions

hal-04051231 , version 1 (29-03-2023)

Identifiants

  • HAL Id : hal-04051231 , version 1

Citer

Paul-Antoine Miquel, Elie During. we bergsonians: the kyoto manifesto. Parrhesia : A Journal of Critical Philosophy, 2020, 33. ⟨hal-04051231⟩
22 Consultations
0 Téléchargements

Partager

Gmail Mastodon Facebook X LinkedIn More