To take another of his "pure" distinctions, we cannot see any necessity
for his formulation of what he terms "Pure Perception." Not only does it
obscure the relation of Sensation to Perception, but it seems to be
quite unknown and unknowable and unnecessary as an hypothesis. As to his
"Pure" Memory, there is more to be said. It stands on a different plane
and seems to be the statement of a very profound truth which sheds light
on many difficult problems attaching to personality and consciousness,
for it is the conservation of memories which is the central point in
individuality. His distinction between the habit of repeating and the
"pure" memory is a very good and very necessary one. In his study of the
relation of Soul and Body, we find some of his most meritorious work--
his insistence on the uniqueness of Mind and the futility of attempts to
reduce it to material terms. His treatment of this question is parallel
to that of William James in the first part of his Ingersoll Lecture at
Harvard in 1898, when he called attention to "permissive" or
"transmissive" function of the brain. Bergson's criticisms of
Parallelism are very valuable.
No less so are his refutations of both physical and psychological
Determinism. Men were growing impatient of a science claiming so much
and yet admittedly unable to explain the really vital factors of
existence, of which the free action of men is one of the most important.
The value placed on human freedom, on the creative power of human beings
to mould the future, links Bergson again with James, and it is this
humanism which is the supremely valuable factor in the philosophies of
both thinkers.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193