Before you read ABOUT Bergson, you should READ Bergson in his own words. From there, you will gain the clearest understanding of him and his ideas. More fundamental than the concept of time is the concept of 'duration'. Bergson's discussion of duration in Chapter Two of Time and Free Will explains together both memory AND time. Special Relativity's 'time' completely ignores memory and the consciousness that goes with it! Science makes its first mistake when it ignores the consciousness through which everything measured is filtered. Einstein would explain consciousness by first defining time/space. Bergson would take the opposite approach: explaining time/space by first defining consciousness...!

Conclusion: She is not a thinker but simply a historical archivist. She is not penetrating the ideas (even en historienne), merely giving the historical circumstances of the ideas and the headlines and the anecdotal highlights.

The rift between physicists and philosophers has progress in areas such as physical cosmology. We should allow questions that cannot be answered and reject the dogmatic answers that cannot be questioned. Anyone who has read “Science at the Crossroads. A Rational Scrutiny of the Clock Paradox in Einstein’s Relativity” by emeritus professor Sir Herbert Dingle FRS will understand my point. In my presentation “ On the Nature of Time and Simultaneity Part 1” I provide an answer to Dingles' question which I use as proof by contradiction. I congratulate Jimena for writing one of my favourite books, which I also refer to.

Disappointing

Canales never explains the scientific critique of philosophy nor the philosophic, or Bersonian critique of science. But this is the core of Bergson's attempt to get beyond, to transcend the limitations of mechanism, of de-humanizing modern materialism - following after the devastating attacks by Nietzsche. She never comes to grips with the fundamental issues at stake. She barely mentions Heidegger, which brief mention is actually the best part of her discussion. Her affirmation at the conclusion that the history of philosophy is important is contradicted by both non-philosophic science (Positivism) and the philosophies (Vitalism, Existentialism) she mentions. The real problem goes back to Bacon. Bacon's attack on Sokrates and Aristotle would have to be re-opened and reconsidered, sine ira et studio. As side point: she is also too impressed by popular success stories of books and their writers, the celebrities.

For a recent discussion of this famous debate, check out the book “The blind spot”. It analyses in which ways both Bergson and Einstein were right and in which ways they were wrong.

I wonder if the "Don Juan" to which Bergson was compared to isn't the famous character, but rather the tolteic master described in the books of Carlos Castañeda. That would ruin a funny joke tho.

I wrote a song called: Did Einstein Really Care What Time It Was? And another song called: Dr. Einstein's Clocks.

I think there could have been nothing more damning than to have cozied up to the Catholic church, which is something one of my favorite writers Bergson did in his later years, and also to have begun arguments with physicists, which is also something Bergson also seems to have done later in life, but I do think his legacy is still relevant because everyone feels like quantum physics is basically beyond comprehension, and the counter-intuitive resultants of modern physics all seem like such exotic novelties, fit for science fiction. We are left in our little suburbs of meaning, wondering what to do with ourselves, whether to take action into our own hands or just lean back and accept our role as consumers. Our solipsism has been fed to the point of gluttony by this. We know projects such as the Large Hadron Collider are meaningful and awe-inspiring and totally worth it, but their impact on our lives still feels limited to objects that bring us only comfort, lulling us to sleep with the momentary joy of "likes" shoveled into our mouths by way of quantum-riding electronic limelight. Entertainment art has gone from occupying the humble space of novels we read and imagine, to occupying the stages and "Gesamtkunstwerk"s of opera, to reaching its zenith in the form of movies, which have gone on to be diminished in the form of TV programs, which have in turn diminished into personal computers, then to smartphones, and now: most of us spend hours a day scrolling up and down and infinite feed of very dull text, with the occasional thumbnail picture or video content. We are now at the very edge of minimalism of expressiveness in our entertainment and consumption, and I fear that, without some curious inquiry into Bergson's otherwise entirely modern world view (and a heavy dose of acid, you know, something to cut the phlegm), we will be left with a society of rebels without causes, full of persons whose 15 minutes of fame will consist of suicide bombing what remains of the city after sea levels have risen.

Einstein losing the Nobel prize for relativity could have had more to do with internal politics in the Nobel prize committees than that particular debate between Bergson and Einstein. According to the archives, in those days there was a power struggle between theoretical and experimental physicists within the committee. Einstein had been nominated several years in a row, for his theory of relativity, before he eventually won the prize for the photoelectric effect in 1922. Svante Arrhenius, a physical chemist from Sweden, was in the comittee and sided with the experimentalists, trying everything in his power not to let Einstein win, and succeeding to do so. He did this by writing a document of some 50 pages long where he wrote down every known criticism of the theory of relativity, which had a strong influence on the committee. The debate with Bergson may have have been part of this document, but the real force against Einstein winning was Arrhenius. Thus, in the end, the committee was convinced by the theory of relativity not being true, but due to overwhelming amounts of nominations, and an eventual turn around of Arrhenius, Einstein still won the Nobel prize, be it for a different topic.

Hi I am Janet Tooby discovering Bergson has been a revelation to me as a writer of education his influences matter for children in this era. His work shows a particular alignment with ancient philosophical insights including first nations people's. Those enduring patterns he reveals is well placed for exploring evidence from neuroanatomist and Psychologists Stephen Porges showing 3 zone's of awareness in the central nervous systems that are devoid of epistemology. Thankyou so much for the lecture Jemina

Bolonga sounds like a fun place to visit

Wonderful. Wish to hear the rest of th Q&A

Thankyou I am grateful for watching lecture about Bergson

Thank you, I really enjoyed this.

Thank you - interesting to be an historian of time itself.

47:00

Really articulated and well researched talk

Wow, just searched for "bergson einstein" and this is what I get. Just perfect. Thank you for the presentation, just bought the book.

Excellent talk.