Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Bergson and the spiritualist origins of the ideology of creativity in philosophy.Giuseppe Bianco - 2020 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28 (5):1031-1052.
    Henri Bergson (1859–1940), the most prominent member of nineteenth-century French spiritualism, is the first philosopher who explicitly defined philosophy as a practice which consists in posing problems anew and in creating concepts. In this article, I will try to reconstruct the progressive importance acquired by the terms ‘problem’ and ‘concept’ in nineteenth-century French philosophy and how they combined in Bergson’s theories about creativity, invention and novelty. I will argue that Bergson’s conception of philosophy as a creative intellectual practice was the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Habit and time in nineteenth-century French philosophy: Albert Lemoine between Bergson and Ravaisson.Mark Sinclair - 2018 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 26 (1):131-153.
    This paper shows how reflection on habit leads in nineteenth-century French philosophy to Henri Bergson’s idea of duration in 1888 as a non-quantifiable dimension irreducible to time as measured by clocks. Historically, I show how Albert Lemoine’s 1875 L’habitude et l’instinct was crucial, since he holds – in a way that is both Ravaissonian and Bergsonian avant la lettre – that for the being capable of habit, the three elements of time are fused together. For that habituated being, Lemoine claims, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • From Habit to Monads: Félix Ravaisson's Theory of Substance.Jeremy Dunham - 2015 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23 (6):1085-1105.
    In this article, I argue that in his 1838 De l'habitude, Félix Ravaisson uses the analysis of habit to defend a Leibnizian monadism. Recent commentators have failed to appreciate this because they read Ravaisson as a typically post-Kantian philosopher, and underemphasize the distinct context in which he developed his work. I explore three key claims made by interpreters who argue that Ravaisson should be read as a Schellingian, and show [i] that these claims are incompatible with the text of De (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations