He pulled this from the market and it wasn’t republished until 25 years after his death. Ok, I should go straight to what interests me: Time, which is my #1 subject and I have exhausted many avenues of research through the years and yet never knew of Bergson,who went head to head with Einstein. Duration and simultaneity : Bergson and the Einsteinian Universe Author(s) Bergson, Henri ; Durie, R⍺obin (ed.) General Relativity and Cosmology space and time Henri Bergson (1859 – 1941) introduced new life to French philosophy, examining the non-mathematical sciences from a philosophical stance. He introduced the concept of non-linear time to philosophical investigations of change. Forthis and other work he received the Nobel Prize in 1924. Duration and Simultaneity deals with one of the great Bergsonian themes, time. A central contention is that science and philosophy alike systematically misrepresent the nature of time. Bergson suggests that the traditional association between the model of space and time is incoherent. Unlike space, time is not measurable by objective standard. This contention is tried out here against the major movement in physics of the day; relativity. Tracing the development of the theory from special’ to general’ relativity, Bergson finds that a fundamental requirement of the theory is an impossibility – the assumption that the experiences of two observers moving at different speeds within two different physical systems might be thought of as simultaneous. This is to ignore the limits of possible experience. As with much of Bergson’s thought the book has had a complex reception in both the world of physics and philosophy. This edition is supplemented by a number of extracts bearing on the debate of Bergson’s critique of relativity, including a previously untranslated interview between Einstein and Bergson. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1547302/?ln=fr

He pulled this from
[read full article]
 

None that I know of. The persecution story of conservatives – many of whom prefer to consider themselves “traditional liberal” as they think it sounds better – is common. It often involves making up stories such as: “I used to be progressive but I saw the error of my ways.” or “I got an email this morning from a professor who is in fear of losing his job” and yet there’s no evidence of them being a progressive before, nor does anything ever crop up about a supposed professor living in fear. It’s possible but unlikely. It’s just-so stories. Certain Christian groups you’ll find this in “conversion” stories. Elaborate stories involving wayward kids, abusive situations, being everything wicked and then finding Christ. That’s not to say those conversation stories don’t happen, but that they’re so cookie-cutter makes it suspect. Playing innocent is part of it as well. “Who, little old me who does nothing wrong ever?” Heaping blame on invisible enemies is another. Common buzzwords abound. Pinker has a bit of distancing to do because the Epstein connection. My disregard for his is linguistic in nature as he was anti-connectionist and his telephone switchboard model is only slightly worse than Chomsky’s moving symbols, although at least Chomsky’s is of its time (1950s).

None that I know
[read full article]