It was the clash of two intellectual titans that left behind a trail of ambiguity on the scientific and philosophical landscapes of the 20th century. It muddied the waters more than it helped clear the air surrounding the discourse about the nature and meaning of something they disagreed on: time.
Both suffered blows. Albert Einstein lost the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity (he won it for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect). At the Nobel Prize awards ceremony, the jury spokesman alluded to the epic debate: “It’s no secret that the philosopher Bergson has disputed it [the Theory of Relativity] in Paris”.
Henri Bergson, on the other hand, was widely misunderstood in the years succeeding the debate from the evening of 6 April, 1922. For him, its ripple effects were felt in the latter half of his scholarly career.
The intense debate between the Continental philosopher and his physicist counterpart at the Société française de philosophie, Paris, France, may have lasted only about 30 minutes, but the discourse over who trumped whom continues. More than a century has passed, and its final takeaway is still contended, with the gap between science and humanities ever widening.
Two notions of time
Essentially, the prevailing obscurity (concerning the nature of reality), which sparked this infamous debate, could be traced even to ancient Greek philosophy.
Philosophers spanning centuries were confronted with several dualities: mind and matter, the subjective and the objective, the collective and the personal, time and space, and being and becoming, among others.
The essence of this debate, when viewed from this context, reveals that the opposing notions of time put forth are neither wrong nor misled but are to be fitted into a unified framework.
The philosopher took exception only to science taking for granted the rather glaring sovereignty of time. It was to be felt in its passing and not to be mistaken for “movements in space”.
As for the physicist, it was liable to measurement, moving relative to the observer, with its fluidity hinged on a relative frame of reference. The physicist brought out into the external world what the philosopher attempted to grasp from within. This spawned the mighty debate.
Yet, it is to be noted that Dr. Bergson couldn’t fully develop a theory of a “single time” as he himself was confronted with the intricacies of multiplicity and simultaneity.
Perception of time
Dr. Bergson is among the few philosophers who have conducted concerted inquiries into the nature of time and how reality manifests itself. In his doctoral thesis, Time And Free Will: An Essay On The Immediate Data Of Consciousness (1889), he turns against any deterministic approach, positing the theory of dynamism, as against mechanistic methods.
His quest for time was hinged on the impression that the moment being scrutinised would have passed before any mechanistic analysis could produce anything insightful. He went against the common notions of time that gave only “snapshots” of an indivisible whole. What he puts forth instead is a simple and dynamic theory that attempts to grasp the autonomous nature of time as it unfolds.
As a result, time, regaining its autonomy, freed itself from the entanglement of space. He rejected the superimposition or juxtaposition of spacial elements onto time and pointed out that a certain state of mind or the gravity of a situation could influence our experience of time. This is revealed in instances such as a tense moment or when someone paces down a rail platform to catch a train. Our experience of lived time may seem to slow down or accelerate even as the clocks tick as usual, validating the unpredictability of duration.
Besides providing fresh insights into the nature of time, memories, and the mind-matter duality, Dr. Bergson’s works were noted for their rich imagery and imagery. Often, he alluded to elements from the everyday to elucidate complex ideas. This was evident in the case with time too. For instance, he refers to the continuity of a musical melody to highlight the flow of time, with the highs and lows of various states corresponding to the progression of the melody.
Time dilation
It was fairly assumed that Dr. Bergson was proven wrong following the debate. This was partly because he had ostensibly misunderstood the scope of the phenomenon of time dilation, which is an aspect of Dr. Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
Time dilation is a physical phenomenon in which time moves differently, in accordance with the respective states of rest and motion, for different observers.
However, Dr. Bergson contended this concept by pointing out the absence of an absolute frame of reference. For the renowned philosopher, this was more of an abstraction than a phenomenon. Years later, time dilation was experimentally proven, and Dr. Bergson’s arguments couldn’t wield power any longer.
Despite Dr. Bergson being proven wrong in this regard, the nature of time remained a bone of contention between physicists and philosophers and among themselves. Even though time dilation was proven to be physically real, with the twin paradox becoming its flagbearer, the fundamental argument of Dr. Bergson that real time or la durée (duration), unlike whatever was measured by a clock, was more personal and experiential, still held ground.
The twin paradox
According to the twin paradox, the brother who stays behind on Earth would have aged more than his twin who travelled through space.
But neither of the twins feels any remarkable changes in the working of their minds by virtue of the elapsed time and the travelling twin has to return to earth to realise that more time has passed for his brother. Thus, the twin paradox turns out to be observational and not absolutely experiential. This is where the Bergsonian notion of time triumphs.
Moreover, the differences in elapsed time among the twins occur within a common framework, which, in turn, is fleeting.
The common ground
Dr. Bergson accords to the “uninterrupted continuity of an unforeseeable novelty”. This is more in line with the famous quote attributed to Heraclitus: “One cannot enter the same river twice”. The specific time intervals noted by a clock and the dilation experienced happen within the limits of this “fleeting” framework.
Therefore, instead of determining whether the physicist or the philosopher won the 1922 debate, it might be ideal to conceive a comprehensive framework that could fit in both notions — the quantitative and the qualitative — of time, without contradiction.
Even though Dr. Bergson’s philosophy went under the radar over time, at its peak it influenced philosophers in the likes of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Gilles Deleuze, and even had a lasting effect on the works of Thomas Mann and Marcel Proust. However, some of his critics have charged him with the decline of contemporary philosophy.
Recent efforts to revive “Bergsonmannia”, which had once taken the world by storm, have paid off to a certain extent.
While Dr. Bergson steered intellectual discourses at the break of the 20th century, his theories blew over and missed the dawn of the 21st. With every stride made in technology and the scientific world, the works of Dr. Einstein, on the other hand, continue to intrigue.