Sadra and Bergson

By:Karim Mojtahedi

All in all, comparing two philosophers, no matter whether they belong to the same time and place, or not is a dangerous task and may lead one to misunderstandings and deviations. Sometimes, a surface similarity between the common expressions they use shows a deep difference between them rather than indicating their similarity in their thoughts. If, in some way, we take philosophy as identical with ‘knowing philosophy’ and if we consider pondering upon sayings and writings of thinkers as the fundamental condition for entering it, in order to obtain a thorough understanding of any of the various philosophers, instead of looking a surface resemblance, it is necessary to discover and unravel their differences and distinctive features. In philosophy, similar to any other cognitive discipline, hastily making uniformity and forming simulations of issues though it may win the preliminary satisfaction of a wayfarer or researcher is not, in any way, a correct step to take. Because the mastery acquired through it is not only worthless but also it may lead one to the fossilization and empowerment of active double ignorance and nothing else can harm the nature of philosophy and its genuineness more than this.

On the other hand, however, it seems that comparing two philosophers, both for knowing each one of them and for teaching their thoughts exactly can be acceptable and useful. Because, in any way, the real researcher of philosophy is actually a person who is not only internally in dialogue with great philosophers, but also causes a dialogue among them and receives great benefits from comparing and contrasting them. In this way, free from becoming outdated, the great philosophers’ thoughts are as if, not just potentially but actually, present in the contemporary culture. Because it is the past philosophers who invite us to deep thinking, and what can build up the future and affect our cultural and intellectual life more than this invitation?

Accordingly, the author of this paper has attempted to make a comparison between the thoughts of Mulla Sadra, who is the symbol of cultural unity of Shi‘ite Iran in the tenth century (A.H), and Bergson, the great French thinker of the first half of the twentieth century (A.D). If, to some extent, the premises of the works of these two thinkers are different, that is, Mulla Sadra pays more attention to the Iranian and Islamic philosophical tradition and has in his mind the educative consequences of philosophy, while Bergson starts with the science and industry affected certain aspects of the nineteenth century, in a sense the objectives of both of them is to get to a kind of deep spirituality which, for Mulla Sadra, manifests in Shi‘ite mysticism and for Bergson, through his special understanding of religion, leads to dynamism and strengthening of the spiritual and mystical aspects of man. Bergson tries to defend the spiritual aspects of man against the inadmissible attacks of his time. 

Generally, in this discussion, two specific issues in the thoughts of these two philosophers will be taken into consideration. This is done with the hope that it can be used as key to the framework of the minds of them. Mulla Sadra has pondered upon knowledge by presence and trans-substantial motion and Bergson firstly talked about intuition, with its special meaning he has in his mind, and the creative evolution through which the perfection of man is intended.

Concerning the latter issues, i.e., trans-substantial motion and creative evolution, both philosophers attempted to fully understand the concept of ‘motion’. Motion, in any form, requires the concepts of ‘time’ and ‘place’ and when motion becomes trans-substantial or creative, there remains a basic question, that is, in what type of time and place does this motion take place?

Before getting to the main argument, it is necessary to note the following preliminary points: Henry Bergson, the French thinker, was born in 1859 and died in 1941. In 1900, he obtained the post of professorship in ‘Collège de France’ and in 1901 he became a member of the Academy of Political and Moral Sciences. In 1927, he won the Noble Prize in literature. Among his works, four books can be named:

1.        Time and Free Will (1889), his doctoral dissertation,

2.        Matter and Memory (1896),

3.        Creative Evolution (1907),

4.        The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932)

A collection of his essays has been published and has received much attention and fame.

Due to the prevailing thoughts in western countries, particularly in France, Bergson’s philosophy in late 19^th century and early 20^th century was quite bizarre. Although he was well-aware of the development of western philosophies and knew all their details and had practically been fed by them, he had established his stance in contrast to them. He bluntly fought against scientism and shallow posivitistic approach, which not only had harmed man’s mystical tendencies and spiritual values but also had caused stagnation and decadence in the very natural sciences and deviated man from having an exact understanding of them. In a sense, he criticized the current traditions of Kantian and Neo-Kantian philosophies on which French posivitists used to rely and also opposed the application of rational and dialectical arguments which led to a cut-off with concert reality and made the unity of the subject and the object impossible. Bergson wanted to get to a thought of a different caliber and was in search of an experience which was not based on a kind of sense-perception and transcendental understanding and conditioned by time and place a priorly as believed by Kant and even Newton. Rather, he resorted to a kind of intuition which was totally internal, while having the aspect of externality as well. This ‘externality’ is a state which is called ‘Extatique’. Is this experience possible? Or it is better to accompany Bergson and ask ourselves why such an experience, i.e., intuition, is impossible.

It can be said that here Bergson used a kind of negative method. He directed his criticism towards intelligence and its application. Man employs his intelligence as instruments and tools. That is, intelligence has mostly a material source and is the result of evolution in human life and is the means of adapting with the environment and acts to protect him and that is why, it is in the first instance, practical and not theoretical because it is a power for making tools and equipments. Therefore, it only deals with the material world and changes various elements into the things which can be used by man. Even in its theoretical products, man’s intelligence maintains the same practical aspect. Man’s mental categories are, in a sense, tools and instruments, as in Kant’s philosophy, they have applied aspect. Language has the same state. By generalizing and talking in general terms, we transform the already existing facts, which are totally implicational, and consider them in an artificial way. In this way, when thinking about Bergson, we have to keep ourselves away from useless mentalities and return to the forgotten spiritual power.

In his opinion, animals live according to their instinct and instinct is a kind of intuition which has remained in the half way and lacks perfection so that to be expanded to the world of spirituality. As for human beings, however, that elementary force has changed into a kind of direct contact, coincidence and even fusion into the world. As I mentioned earlier, the very interesting point in Bergson’s position is not that intuition is necessarily a kind of introspection, but, on the contrary, what makes Bergson’s philosophy deep and worth pondering upon is that intuition, according to him, is external. It means that in this intuitive unity, man is not imprisoned in himself, rather, if we can say, it is as if man acquires a permission to enter the present world and becomes sympathetic to it. Here, externality is getting away from limitations and frustrations as if man can, in this way, protect his self from the acquired earthly habits and formal abstract knowledge and can achieve true dimensions and the spiritual aspect of man.

Any intuitive action is an absolute start; it can even be known as a kind of mutation and enthusiasm to unite with reality. Intuition is a simple action because there are various ways for unity and connection of the subject with its immediate object. The result of intuition is genuine and innovative and, more than that, it is ineffable.

This intuition, of course, happens quite rarely and unfortunately in order to convey it to others, there is a necessarily a need for concepts. That is why Bergson does not put aside argumentation and logic, rather, he allocates a limited function for them and holds that their validity depend on intuition.

Furthermore, in Bergson’s opinion, not only everything is in motion, but also the motion itself does not have a spatial aspect and it is merely a kind of motive force in itself. Correspondingly, transformation is not based on the successive states distinct from one another, because it is as if pure continuation is not disconnected with its essence. Motion is meaningful only in its qualitative connection and any qualitative breaking down is conventional and artificial. This pure transformation is merely a spiritual matter and replete with spirituality. Accordingly, Bergson’s philosophy is based on a complete motion and receives a dynamic and powerful aspect. In his Creative Evolution, he says that: “the world is the constant manifestation of innovative issues.” He attends to a kind of motion and a pure active life. Meanwhile, he does not join the Heraclitusian world view, who believes in becoming on the basis of non-existence, or the Hegelian dialectic, or even ‘wearing after removing’ in the way Suhrawardí believes. Rather, to some extent, similar to Sadra, he talks about a kind of disconnection and pure continuation and ‘wearing after wearing, and takes it as the base of what he calls mutation and Elan Vital.

Accordingly, Bergson sees a new form of relationship between ‘one’ and ‘multiple’ and calls it a multiplicity which is based on qualitative multiplicity. It means that ‘one’ does not separate itself from ‘multiple’ and not-homogeneous elements intermingle. ‘Time’, in its pure and simple form, is in fact multiplicity in its complete order. Consequently, any real change reveals not only the totality of reality but also its spirit. It is as if he wants to say that motion in substance is the same as the spirit of substance.

This pure continuity coextensive with spirit is an expression of essential freedom, because continuity of the continuum of motion and the past in the present time is what we call memory. Soul or psych is mainly unconscious; pure memory does not require words and continuity, which is the other way of calling it, if we can say, the main content and matter of the soul. Of course, in talking in terms of identity, we have to distinguish between the ‘artificial self’, which is conventional and possibly false, and the ‘deep self’. These two selves stand at low levels of spiritual life. The artificial self is bound to material and social needs, which works according to common sense, impersonal passions, and general concepts. The ‘deep self’, however, is the continuous quality and the continuity of identity of ‘self’ and in this way, it shows our real personality because it shows the most free and the most liberal aspect of our internal life. Personality and liberty are two sides of a single coin, one of which manifests the continuity and connection of the soul and the other one shows pure innovation and creativity.

According to Bergson, free action based on liberty can never be absurd; however, it is always meaningful and a manifestation of the whole ‘self’. Meanwhile, it never depends on any determination and necessity. Even when it has a relation with its past, it never relies on it and always keeps its initial freshness. In other words, it is as if creation has an unfinished aspect, i.e., the essential possibilities of the present world have no completely come into being. That is why all world, both macrocosm and microcosm, is constantly in active motion and there will be no confusion between the creator and the created. Transcendent matter is different from earthly matters although all components of the world are in a way, on the basis of a special vital joy, moving towards the main origin. Though every individual is sensitive towards his God, a wayfarer, if he is genuine, gets to an extent that he himself becomes the manifestation and a clear example of that joy and he completely benefits from that which is called ‘Divine Love’.

Bergson discusses all his key points from two perspectives. For example, as it was mentioned earlier, concerning subject, he puts the ‘deep self’ in contrast to the ‘shallow self’; pure memory in contrast to material and habitual memory; open justice in contrast to closed justice; and dynamic religion in contrast to static religion. According to him, this kind of talking is not contradictory because the real time is the same as duration which is meanwhile, through memory constitutes our identity and the real justice is the same as loving our fellow-people, and the real religion is the same as its inward, i.e. mysticism. On the other hand, if we take into account the historical order of his works, it seems that his philosophy, which was initially based on the primary data of consciousness, gradually got to the philosophy based on vitalism. Later, through contemplating the essence of life and its inevitable breaking down promoted to a kind of spiritualism. Though Bergson’s philosophy cannot be summarized under one heading and in one single conceptual, static, and systematic policy, meanwhile, according to his opinion, spirit is actualized according to its intrinsic renewal as if spirit is in a gradual formation. His philosophy can be called the philosophy of spiritualism. According to him, in a sense, the whole world is formed of an essential motion and gets its renewal and flourish from an everlasting source of existence which has, at the same time, a perfect aspect.

Due the to shortage of time, I do not get into many issues in Bergson’s philosophy but I would like to say that, based on Bergson’s thoughts, we can have a new and up-to-date reading of Mulla Sadra’s thoughts. It is also possible to deeply understand Bergson’s philosophy by referring to the special position Mulla Sadra has. In any way, establishing a dialogue between these two philosophers can always be useful and instructive.

The similarity between what Bergson calls continuity and the intuition which understands its depth with Mulla Sadra’s knowledge is undeniable. In addition, considering Bergson’s philosophy, Mulla Sadra’s trans-substantial motion can be interpreted as a kind of renewal which Bergson calls mutation and vital joy, particularly when according to neither one ‘evolution’ does not have a material meaning. Also, taking into consideration some of Bergson’s thoughts, we can say that cause and effect in the Sadraian type of discussions do not belong to two separate and independent phases; however, they are meaningful when they are taken together and along each other. In this respect, if, based on causality, we consider creation, we have to say that there is a pure creative power which never stops and, in fact, creation is not ‘all at once’; rather, it is gradual and Bergson’s ‘creative evolution’ is identical with ‘perpetual creation’. That is, the creative cause and the subsisting cause are not necessarily separate from each other and the very subsisting cause indicates that the creative cause moves the existent to its perfect possibilities. Trans-substantial motion is the subsisting cause which ultimately clarifies and reveals the meaning of the creative cause.

On the other hand, Mulla Sadra has called the relationship between ‘the changing’ and ‘the non-changing’ eternity, and Bergson talks of some kind of delicate time (to some extent synonymous with the term Qaèí S‘aíd Qumí has used), which manifests a portion of eternity. According to both thinkers, this leads to the final bliss of the spirit. This is what usually called ‘mystical love’, but only a few can really understand its rhythm and movement direction.

In the end I think it is necessary to mention one point that although there are many undeniable differences between Mulla Sadra and Bergson, considering their motives and objectives , the two can be in a sense considered as belonging to one philosophical family who fall within the Plotinism tradition who have deeply thought about the possibilities of man’s spiritual perfection.

 

© Copyright 2006 SIPRIn. All Rights Reserved.