/lit/ - Literature

>In Creative Evolution, Bergson starts out by criticizing mechanism as it applies to the concepts of life and evolution. The mechanistic approach would preclude the possibility of any real change or creativity, as each development would be potentially contained in the preceding ones.
What's wrong with each development being potentially contained in preceding developments? Why does he say it can't be?

Most underrated thinker of the last 150 years.

What does /lit/ think of this nigga? Is he worth reading?

Why does he make so many people seethe? Also why is his thought sometimes blamed for allowing fascism?

in what order should i read this chad?

Why did Bergson give a strange answer to Zeno's paradox? Didn't math explain it all?

How do I get started with Henri Bergson?

You niggas need some Bergson in your lives

Interested in this guy, is he worth a read? If so what? I saw someone say Proust #rekt him about time so i'd like some opinions before I just pick something.

Is it wrong to experience all works as being people fundamentally trying to express the same thing, with different creators reaching different degrees of the same truth based on how far they’re willing to go? If so, is “how far you’re willing to go” a measure of how much one’s willing to understand oneself and others?

>>15582068
consciousness exists in the duration which transcends the deterministic and materialistic world of causation. time cannot be translated into spacial terms and free will cannot be represented accurately through cause and effect, physical mechanisms and pathways, etc.

and beyond this, strict materialism is reductionist. free will leads back to the problem of consciousness which in essence remains somewhat as a mystery.

>I am forgotten

So what’s the deal with this guy? Should I read him?

What about him?

What’s lead to most analysis being awful, with people broadly/ambiguously talking over works, making comparisons, and so forth, as opposed to actually honing in on the work? Why is there so much attention and praise given to this poor kind of analysis (like most video essays)? Is it just because people need to make a living and end up putting barely any effort into the analysis to be able to churn them out?

If nazis wanted to exterminate the jewish race why would they leave off it's intellectuals?

Is it possible to be against individualism and collectivism as a means of analyzing people? Is it possible to support the notion of, say, a collectivist society where the collectives people fulfill are understood to only be a small part of who they are?

Should I read bergson before reading delueze? (Particularly cinema) if so what should I read? I'm already a Peirceian btw if that helps.
Should I read Bergson for it's own sake, what does he have to offer me? I consider myself something of a metaphysical animist, but I'm also obviously a pragmatist and perfer to have my ideas (especially about life) grounded in empiricism. Is Bergson worth it just for the interesting comparison to daddy Peirce?
To reiterate is Peirce enough to understand deleuze? Maybe only reading Peirce as a preliminary could be beneficial in some way?

What does /lit/ think of him

>>12214460
Shit

Should I read bergson before reading delueze? (Particularly cinema) if so what should I read? I'm already a Peirceian btw if that helps.
Should I read Bergson for it's own sake, what does he have to offer me? I consider myself something of a metaphysical animist, but I'm also obviously a pragmatist and perfer to have my ideas (especially about life) grounded in empiricism. Is Bergson worth it just for the interesting comparison to daddy Peirce?
To reiterate is Peirce enough to understand deleuze? Maybe only reading Peirce as a preliminary could be beneficial in some way?

>trying to understand time with spatial metaphors

Stop quantifying everything.

Henri Bergson is dangerously underappreciated on here.