Open philosophy or closed mind?

Elan vital in action!

Today, the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941) is more or less forgotten. However, he was an important person during most of his lifetime, and even something of a celebrity. He met the US president Woodrow Wilson and participated in the creation of the League of Nations, heading its cultural and educational branch. In 1927, Bergson was awarded the Nobel literature prize by the Swedish Academy, ostensibly because of his philosophy books, but (I guess) really as a form of general recognition. During World War Two, when France was occupied by the Nazis, the fascist Vichy regime offered to exempt Bergson from the anti-Semitic laws (he was part-Jewish), an offer the aged philosopher turned down, no doubt as a protest against anti-Semitism and Nazism. However, some people still believe that Bergson converted to Catholicism in secret during the war.

The most well known book by Bergson is, of course, "Creative Evolution". Being something of a non-conformist, I decided to start by reading Bergson's last and most controversial work, "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion", published in 1932 (in English in 1935). Bergson's philosophy took an explicitly religious and mystical turn with the publication of this book. It's difficult to label Bergson, but pantheistic mysticism might be the best description. At the same time, he is very sympathetic to Christianity, in particular Christian mystics.

Unfortunately, Bergson's book is very difficult to read: he takes a hundred pages or more to get to the point, and when he finally makes it, he ruminates the same point for another hundred pages! Frankly, "The Two Sources" could have been half as long. The work also feels like an intellectual roller coaster ride. Sometimes, Bergson hits the nail squarely on the head. At other times, he sounds nebulous or...well, religious.

Bergson believes that what we call "morality" are really two entirely different phenomena. They can and do blend, to the extent that we don't recognize their distinctiveness in daily life. Yet, the two kinds of "morality" have different origins. None of them come from human reason. "Closed morality" (in-group morality) is a product of nature and regular evolution. It's a system of societal sanctions and obligations, enabling (and sometimes forcing) humans to co-operate and survive. Philosophers often imagine that this kind of morality is eminently reasonable, can be deduced from categorical imperatives, and that somehow it's intrinsically motivating. Not so, says Bergson. "Closed" morality works only because it has the sanction of society behind it, a sanction the individual has more or less internalized. That's why it looks "reasonable" to him, but without the material sanction, humans would be egoists. This is obviously a criticism of Kantians, but Bergson also waxes sarcastic over utilitarians, at one point saying that "only a subtle utilitarian philosopher" would refrain from being egoistic in a world where reason isn't backed up by societal sanctions.

But there is also an "open" morality, a morality that sees beyond the in-group, transcends its limitations, and reaches to embrace all of humanity. This morality has no connection to reason either. Nor is it derived from "nature" as we usually understand the term. It's source is spiritual, mystical and religious. The ultimate source of "open" morality is the élan vital, the life force that permeates the entire cosmos. I must admit that I never really understood what exactly this élan vital is supposed to *be*, and yet it was a central tenet of Bergson's philosophy almost from the start. In "The Two Sources", at any rate, the concept is clearly religious in character. Élan vital (sometimes translated "vital impulse") is the later Bergson's equivalent to Brahman. In opposition to Hinduism, however, Bergson imagines the pantheistic deity to be active rather than passive. The vital impulse creates matter, takes hold of it, and forces it to evolve into more and more complex forms. There is no preconceived plan, so in that sense the entire universe is "open". Suffering is inevitable, but so is creativity, freedom and the unexpected - and, in the end, some kind of joyful life after death (although Bergson says very little about this). As civilization progresses, "closed" and "open" forms of morality are combined, but unless humanity creates a world community, "closed" morality will always remain somewhere. Bergson points out that Western nations nominally believe in "the brotherhood of man", even on the morrow of destructive wars! The process towards a completely "open" morality isn't completed.

Bergson also makes a distinction between "closed" and "open" religion. This part of the book is quite boring, as Bergson strides into comparative religion and anthropology, speculating about the exact origins of this or that superstitious belief. His main point is that "closed" religion is nature's response to human intelligence. It's essentially a way of constraining intelligence. Without the superstitions and taboos of "closed" religion, humans would feel lost in the immensity of space, not to mention the fact that we would constantly fear our own deaths. Also, we would become egoists without "closed" religion lending sanction to "closed" morality. Thus, "closed" religion is a psychological and sociological phenomenon, and hence unreal. Bergson calls it absurd, hallucinatory, and so on. By contrast, "open" religion is the religion that bases itself on mystical experiences, and justifies "open" morality.

The high point of both "open" morality and "open religion" is Christianity, especially the Sermon on the Mount and various Christian mystics. Bergson is more critical of Buddhism. As for Hinduism, he is sympathetic to Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, but believes that they represent a recent phase of Hindu evolution (he is right in Vivekananda's case). In a footnote, he actually mentions Evelyn Underhill, pointing out that she appropriated some of Bergson's own ideas!

Bergson further believes that "open" morality and religion become influential due to the charismatic power and example of strong personalities. Thus, it's not simply mystical experiences that moves the crowds to accept "open" morality. Apparently, it can be spread by external means as well, but in Bergson's opinion, this is not group pressure, but rather a kind of instinctive sympathy which makes men follow strong, saintly persons. For rather obvious reasons, this part of Bergson's work is very hard to swallow. Charismatic leaders, as we all know, can have quite another effect on people than moral ones!

There are other problems with "The Two Sources" as well. Bergson's work suffers from internal inconsistencies. He rejects teleology, seeing it as determinist, and instead favours the unbounded freedom to create of the élan vital. But he also regards humans and social insects (!) as the end points of evolution, the one having perfect intelligence, the other being endowed with pure instinct, both being social. This implies that there is a kind of teleology after all, although our author graciously allows that ants and bees might be an alternative goal of creative evolution. (Overall, Bergson seems fascinated by bees and ants.) There is also an obvious tension between the superstitions of the "closed" religions, which Bergson almost contemptuously rejects, and his own "open" religion, which might also be accused of serving purely psychological and sociological needs, as when Bergson writes that although there is a lot of suffering, there is also hope that it will cease one day, etc.

Finally, I note that while Bergson was condemned by the Catholic Church during his lifetime, this edition of "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion" is published by Notre Dame Press, and has a positive blurb from the magazine Catholic World (and also from the Protestant Christian Century). It seems his pantheistic mysticism has been "opened" after Vatican II! Still, I don't think Bergson is very influential today, although Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sri Aurobindo may have said something similar. But Bergson himself seems to have been forgotten.

"The Two Sources of Morality and Religion" probably doesn't contain the solution to the world riddle. Still, it might be of some passing interest to students of philosophy, theology or comparative religion. Open philosophy or closed mind? That is the question.