Topic #3 Bergson

Taking advantage of textual evidence, this essay attempts to tease out Bergson's arguments on
the concept of time and duration in addition to observing the wisdom (or lack thereof) of
using analysis as a method to understand time. While underscoring the shortcomings of
analysis we shall also observe the relevance and advantage of the method of intuition.
From the text one may notice that Bergson's take on the real efficacy of time, highlights the
fact that we, as humans, do not perceive life as a series of conscious events but rather as a
continuous flow. Here he attempts to distinguish the 'concept of time' from the 'experience
time'. Bergson introduces us to two ways of 'knowing': through analysis, or intellect, and
through intuition. As Bergson puts it The first implies going all around (a thing), the second
entering it(Bergson, 2004). Furthermore analysis depends upon symbols and point of views
and gives us 'relative' knowledge. Whereas intuition requires no symbols or concepts. It
follows that an absolute can only be given in an intuition, while the rest has to do with
analysis(Bergson, 2004). Intuition enters an object and give us 'absolute' knowledge in
contrast with analysis which demonstrates 'relations' between objects. That is to say, analysis
operates on immobility, while intuition is located in mobility or, what amounts to the same
thing, in duration (Bergson, 2004). And thus Bergson defines the main difference between
analysis and intuition. By duration Bergson refers to an unmeasurable moment or a unified
time which is heterogeneous and continues. Furthermore, he claims we cannot understand
Duration through 'immobile' analysis since duration on its own is fluid. Bergson, additionally,
differentiates between time as humans perceive it, which he calls 'real duration', and time as is
measured by mathematics, which he believes to be an 'illusion'. Time, according, to Bergson is
experienced as a 'duration', or in other words, a continues flow of reality unmarred by 'breaks'.

Bergson fights against displaying time in mathematical, measurable, terms. He claims that 'real'
time 'eludes mathematical treatment'. One must note that by 'mathematical treatment'

Bergson

does not merely means not only numerical measurements but also the process through which
such measurements are revealed to us. That is, through super-positioning of previous
knowledge onto a new one. It is a mingling of parts and it does not acknowledges anything
that cannot be reduced into smaller parts. Its (time's) essence being to flow, not one of its
parts is still there when another part comes along. Superposition of one part on another with
measurement in view is therefore impossible, unimaginable, inconceivable. So, in essence, time
cannot be realized mathematically as the process would require one to conceptualize time as
formed of 'intervals' and breaks. But 'real' time is indivisible and continues, the mere attempt
to measure it falsifies it. This is the underlying shortcoming of analysis, intellectual or
mathematical, approach to understanding time: intellect requires time to be measurable, defined
events instead of being a continues flow.
Analysis is thus a translation, a development into symbols, a representation from successive
points of views...(Bergson, 2004). For this reason this approach will always remain imperfect
and will provide one with false impressions of time. Bergson writes It is understood that
fixed concepts can be extracted by our thought from the mobile reality; but there is no means
whatever of reconstituting with the fixity of concepts the mobility of the real(Bergson, 2004).
As it is, analysis can deliverer only an artificial recomposition of the object(Bergson, 2004).
Bergson tries to highlight this point by saying that even if we were to take photographs of a
city from every possible angle and view point, it will not have the dimensional value of
walking through the streets of the city(Bergson, 2004). Similarly, translating a poem to every
other language may add a subtly different meaning to the words and would surely differ from
the original (Bergson, 2004). Hence, (a) representation taken from a certain point of view, a

translation made with certain symbols still remain imperfect in comparison with the object
whose picture has been taken or which the symbols seek to express (Bergson, 2004). Thus,
according to Bergson, the method of analysis cannot lead us to pure knowledge of time.
Though Bergson accept the need for intelligence in practical and material situation he
maintains that for conceptual situations analysis is but a clumsy tool.
Bergson frowns upon the use of translated knowledge in trying to penetrate reality as it
consists in reasoning on the elements of the translation as though they were parts of the
original (Bergson, 2004). Such an empiricism, Bergson claims, tries to bridge the gap
between the translation and reality by introducing even more symbols (Bergson, 2004). But,
he claims, a true empiricism is the one which purposes to keep as close to the original itself
as possible to, probe more deeply into its life, and by a kind of spiritual
auscultation...(Bergson, 2004).

It can be observed that such a method goes against the

analysis approach. Bergson underlines the need for such a method when he says Metaphysics,
then, is the science which claims to dispense with symbols (Bergson, 2004). This is the
method of intuition and it gives us a clear and immediate picture of reality and duration.
Intuition attempt to understand an objects fully by grasping its capacity to change. It is, for
Bergson, the only way to understand real time.

It is important to note that intuition ,in Bergson opinion, is not anti-intellect but it is a
superior form of experience that allows one to gather knowledge by method of sympathy.
Before we investigate the method of intuition, it is necessary to look at three images that
Bergson provides us for understanding the role of 'unity' and 'multiplicity' in duration (Lawlor
et al, 2004). The images are that of two spools, with a tape going between them, with one
spool unwinding the tape and the other winding it up. This image represents continuity
(Lawlor et al, 2004). The second image is that of a color spectrum representing multiplicity.
Last we have an image of a rubber band being stretched (Lawlor et al, 2004). The act of
stretching represents the continuity and indivisibility of duration. Now all these images have

elements of duration in them but none of them, according to Bergson, represent duration
because as images they have no pure mobility(Bergson, 2004). So essentially the unrolling
of our duration in certain aspects resembles the unity of a movement which progresses, in
others, a multiplicity of states spreading out. Hence, it can be said that duration has
characteristics of both multiplicity and unity (Lawlor et al, 2004). This dual characteristic
cannot be captured by analysis method as is it is immobile. Reality, for Bergson, is pure time
or duration which is in a constant state of change. As the whole is always changing it is
impossible to understand it by grasping at its part. Here intuition plays its role by giving rise
to a certain well defined tension, whose very definiteness seems like a choice between an
infinity of possible durations(Bergson, 2004). Intuition thus captures the whole of duration
rather than focusing on its separate characteristics.

Works Cited
(APA )
Bergson, H. (2004). Time is the flux of duration. In R. Hoy & L. Oaklander, Metaphysics:
classic and contemporary readings (2nd ed., pp. 34 - 43). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub.

Lawlor, L., & Moulard Leonard, V. (2004). Henri Bergson. Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 12
October 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/#2

Samrathbir Singh Randhawa

301168142
Word Count: 1193