Henri Bergson Quotes

Pelo temor que o riso inspira, reprime as excentricidades, mantém constantemente despertas e em contato mútuo certas atividades de ordem acessória que correriam o risco de isolar-se e adormecer; suaviza, enfim, tudo o que puder restar de rigidez mecânica na superfície do corpo social.

Pour un être conscient, exister consiste à changer, changer à se mûrir, se mûrir à se créer indéfiniment soi-même.

What philosophy has lacked most of all is precision.

To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.

One currently and perhaps imprudently calls “reason” this conservative logic which governs thought in common; conversation greatly resembles conservation. It is there that it is at home. And there it exercises a legitimate authority. Theoretically, in fact, conversation should bear only upon things of the social life. And the essential object of society is to insert a certain fixity into universal mobility. Societies are just so many islands consolidated here and there in the ocean of becoming.

If my views were generally judged to be paradoxical when they made their appearance, some of them are commonplace today; others bid fair to become so. Let us admit that they could not at first be accepted. It would have meant tearing oneself away from deeply-rooted habits, veritable extensions of nature. All our ways of speaking, thinking, perceiving imply in effect that immobility and immutability are there by right, that movement and change are superadded, like accidents, to things which, by themselves, do not move and, in themselves, do not change. The representation of change is that of qualities or states, which supposedly follow one another in a substance. Each of these qualities, each of these states would be something stable, change being made of their succession: as for substance, whose role is to support the states and qualities which succeed one another, it would be stability itself. Such is the logic immanent in our languages and formulated once and for all by Aristotle: the intelligence has as its essence to judge, and judgment operates by the attribution of a predicate to a subject. The subject, by the sole fact of being named, is defined as invariable; the variation will reside in the diversity of the states that one will affirm concerning it, one after another.

Thus I repudiate facility. I recommend a certain manner of thinking which courts difficulty; I value effort above everything. How could certain people have mistaken my meaning? To say nothing of the kind of person who would insist that my “intuition” was instinct or feeling. Not one line of what I have written could lend itself to such an interpretation. And in everything I have written there is assurance to the contrary: my intuition is reflection. But because I called attention to the mobility at the base of things, it has been claimed that I encouraged a sort of relaxing of the mind. And because the permanence of substance was, in my eyes, a continuity of change, it has been said that my doctrine was a justification of instability. One might just as well imagine that the bacteriologist recommends microbic diseases to us when he shows us microbes everywhere, or that the physicist prescribes the exercise of swinging when he reduces natural phenomena to oscillations. A principle of explanation is one thing, a maxim of conduct is another. One could almost say that the philosopher who finds mobility everywhere is the only one who cannot recommend it, since he sees it as inevitable, since he discovers it in what people have agreed to call immobility. But the truth is that in spite of the fact that he views stability as a complexity of change or as a particular aspect of change, in spite of the fact that in some way he resolves stability into change he will none the less, like everybody else, distinguish stability and change. And for him, as for everyone, will arise the question of knowing to what extent it is the special appearance called stability, to what extent it is change pure and simple that he must recommend to human societies. His analysis of change leaves this question intact. If he has any common sense at all, he, like everyone else, will consider necessary a permanence of what is. He will say that institutions should furnish a relatively invariable framework

Si régulière que soit une physionomie, si harmonieuse qu'on en suppose les lignes, si souples les mouvements, jamais l'équilibre n'en est absolument parfait. On y démêlera toujours l'indication d'une grimace possible, enfin une déformation préférée où se contourneraient plutôt la nature. L'art du caricaturiste est de saisir ce mouvement parfois imperceptible, et de le rendre visible à tous les yeux en l'agrandissant. Il fait grimacer ses modèles comme ils grimaceraient eux-mêmes s'ils allaient jusqu'au bout de leur grimace. Il devine, sous les harmonies superficielles de la forme, les révoltes profondes de la matière. Il réalise des disproportions et des déformations qui ont dû exister dans la nature à l'état de velléité, mais qui n'ont pu aboutir, refoulées par une force meilleure.

Ora se enunciará o que deveria ser fingindo-se acreditar ser precisamente o que é. Nisso consiste a ironia. Ora, pelo contrário, se descreverá cada vez mais meticulosamente o que é, fingindo-se crer que assim é que as coisas deveriam ser. É o caso do humor. O humor, assim definido, é o inverso da
ironia. Ambos são formas da sátira, mas a ironia é de natureza retórica, ao passo que o humor tem algo de mais científico. Acentua-se a ironia deixando-se arrastar cada vez mais alto pela idéia do bem que deveria ser. Por isso a ironia pode aquecer-se interiormente até se tornar, de algum modo, eloqüência sob pressão. Acentua-se o humor, pelo contrário, descendo-se cada vez mais baixo no interior do mal que é, para lhe notar as particularidades com mais fria indiferença. Vários autores, entre os quais Jean Paul, observaram que o humor gosta dos termos concretos, dos pormenores técnicos,, dos fatos rigorosos. Se nossa análise estiver certa, não se trata de um feitio casual do humor, mas nisso consiste a sua própria essência. O humorista é no caso um moralista disfarçado em cientista, algo como um anatomista que só faça dissecação para nos
desagradar; e o humor, no sentido restrito que damos à palavra, é de fato uma transposição do moral em científico.

All the pieces have been arranged with a view to the best possible funk

Time is invention and nothing else.

[W]ithin our ego, there is succession without mutual externality; outside the ego, in pure space, mutual externality without succession.

The general intelligence which is the faculty of arranging concepts “reasonably” and handling words suitably, must therefore aid in the social life just as intelligence in the narrower sense of the word, which is the mathematical function of the mind, presides over the knowledge of matter. It is the first of these we have in mind when we say of a man that he is intelligent. By that we mean that he has the ability and the facility for combining the ordinary concepts and for drawing probable conclusions from them. One can hardly take issue with him on that account, as long as he confines himself to things of every-day life, for which the concepts were made. But one would hardly admit of a man who was merely intelligent undertaking to speak with authority on scientific questions seeing that the intellect, made precise in science, becomes a mathematical, physical and biological attitude of mind, and substitutes for words more appropriate signs. All the more should one forbid him to meddle in philosophy when the questions raised are no longer in the domain of the intelligence alone. But no, it is agreed that the intelligent man is on this point a competent man. Against this I protest most vigorously. I hold the intelligence in high esteem, but I have a very mediocre opinion of the “intelligent man,” whose cleverness consists in talking about all things with a show of truth.

So science and art introduce us into the intimacy of a matter which the one thinks and the other manipulates. From this standpoint the intellect would, in principle, finally reach an absolute. It would then be completely itself. Vague at the outset because it was only a presentiment of matter, it takes shape more clearly the more precisely it knows matter. But precise or vague, it is the attention that mind gives to matter. How then could mind still be intellect when it turns upon itself? We can give things whatever names we choose and I see no great objection, I repeat, to knowledge of the mind by the mind still being called intelligence, if one insists. But then it will be necessary to specify that there are two intellectual functions, the one the inverse of the other, for mind thinks mind only in climbing back up the slope of habits acquired in contact with matter, and these habits are what one currently calls intellectual tendencies. Is it not better to designate by another name a function which certainly is not what one ordinarily calls intelligence? I call it intuition. It represents the attention that the mind gives to itself, over and above, while it is fixed upon matter, its object. This supplementary attention can be methodically cultivated and developed.

All the living hold together, and all yield to the same tremendous push. The animal takes its stand on the plant, man bestrides animality, and the whole of humanity, in space and in time, is one immense army galloping beside and before and behind each of us in an overwhelming charge able to beat down every resistance and clear the most formidable obstacles, perhaps even death.