Scan barcode
A review by alexander0
Bergsonism by Gilles Deleuze
4.0
This is a great read to pick up if you have just read some of Bergson. It puts some perspective on why what he was saying was monumental, and it further situates Deleuze's work in a more earnest way than a lot of other books Deleuze wrote about other philosophers.
Deleuze offers a lot of books in ways that births monstrosities of the philosophers he interprets, but here, I would not say that's exactly the case. Here it seems that Deleuze offers a particular interpretation of Bergson that simply disagrees with Bergson by taking advantage of an ambiguity in Bergsonian thought. Specifically, Deleuze points out that Bergsons' later works are not so quick to avoid differences in degree for differences in kind, and he offers a particular solution to this issue by schematizing Bergson in a particular way. While I like Deleuze's interpretation, and the work that this book offers in explaining Deleuze's own philosophy to his mentor, one who studies Bergson might easily say that Deleuze has stretched Bergson's intentions and assumptions for a personal need to explain an ambiguity in Deleuze's use of Bergson's work.
So, in total, I think this book is a great bridge between Deleuze and Bergson which enables me to connect aspects of Bergsonian duration to Deleuze in a way that is more well developed. This is not a through introduction to Bergson. This is a particularly personal interpretation for Deleuze's personal exposition.
Deleuze offers a lot of books in ways that births monstrosities of the philosophers he interprets, but here, I would not say that's exactly the case. Here it seems that Deleuze offers a particular interpretation of Bergson that simply disagrees with Bergson by taking advantage of an ambiguity in Bergsonian thought. Specifically, Deleuze points out that Bergsons' later works are not so quick to avoid differences in degree for differences in kind, and he offers a particular solution to this issue by schematizing Bergson in a particular way. While I like Deleuze's interpretation, and the work that this book offers in explaining Deleuze's own philosophy to his mentor, one who studies Bergson might easily say that Deleuze has stretched Bergson's intentions and assumptions for a personal need to explain an ambiguity in Deleuze's use of Bergson's work.
So, in total, I think this book is a great bridge between Deleuze and Bergson which enables me to connect aspects of Bergsonian duration to Deleuze in a way that is more well developed. This is not a through introduction to Bergson. This is a particularly personal interpretation for Deleuze's personal exposition.