Salomon Maïmon argues that the formal determination of experience in Kant’s first Kritik insufficiently answers the question ‘quid juris?’. As an alternative to Kant’s theory, he develops a genetic transcendentalism in which experience is completely determined a priori. Discussing this genetic approach, I focus on how the spatiotemporal determinations of conscious experience are traced back to pure ideal relations. Relying on Leibniz and his theory of space and time, I explain how the extensive magnitudes of consciousness are founded in intensive (...) magnitudes of what Maïmon calls ‘pure thought’. As the latter is the transcendental ground for both sensibility and the understanding, Maïmon’s theory contains a radical form of immanence, much like the philosophy of Spinoza and Gilles Deleuze. (shrink)

A central claim of Deleuze's reading of Bergson is that Bergson's distinction between space as an extensive multiplicity and duration as an intensive multiplicity is inspired by the distinction between discrete and continuous manifolds found in Bernhard Riemann's 1854 thesis on the foundations of geometry. Yet there is no evidence from Bergson that Riemann influences his division, and the distinction between the discrete and continuous is hardly a Riemannian invention. Claiming Riemann's influence, however, allows Deleuze to argue that quantity, in (...) the form of ‘virtual number’, still pertains to continuous multiplicities. This not only supports Deleuze's attempt to redeem Bergson's argument against Einstein in Duration and Simultaneity, but also allows Deleuze to position Bergson against Hegelian dialectics. The use of Riemann is thereby an important element of the incorporation of Bergson into Deleuze's larger early project of developing an anti-Hegelian philosophy of difference. This article first reviews the role of discrete and continuous multiplicities or manifolds in Riemann's Habilitationsschrift, and how Riemann uses them to establish the foundations of an intrinsic geometry. It then outlines how Deleuze reinterprets Riemann's thesis to make it a credible resource for Deleuze's Bergsonism. Finally, it explores the limits of this move, and how Deleuze's later move away from Bergson turns on the rejection of an assumption of Riemann's thesis, that of ‘flatness in smallest parts’, which Deleuze challenges with the idea, taken from Riemann's contemporary, Richard Dedekind, of the irrational cut. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This article examines Bergson’s critique of intensive magnitude in Time and Free Will. I demonstrate how his rejection of a different kind of quantity that is ordinal and does not allow measurement, and the underlying strict dualism of quantity and quality, is inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of his later philosophy. I dismantle two main strategies for explaining these inconsistencies. Furthermore, I argue that Bergson’s simplistic conception of quantity in terms of homogeneous multiplicity, which is operative (...) in his rejection of an alternative conception of quantity, lacks justification in the face of the transformations that the concept of quantity underwent in the history of mathematics and physics. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est de montrer comment la lecture de Kant par Bergson, loin de se ramener à un mot d’ordre sommaire, comporte une reprise partielle, une critique précise, un refus ultime enfin, qui conduisent au cœur d’une relation profonde entre deux philosophies irréductibles. La reprise partielle de la distinction entre intelligence et intuition, et même entre matière et forme de l’intuition, doit être comprise autrement que comme un hommage ironique. Elle seule permet de comprendre l’unité que Bergson (...) revendique contre Kant, d’abord entre matière et forme de l’intuition, dans le cas du temps, puis entre intelligence et intuition même, à partir de L’évolution créatrice. À son tour, cette unité permet aussi de comprendre pourquoi l’intelligence reste à l’écart de l’intuition pratique dans le dernier grand livre de Bergson. « Gagnée » par l’intuition, l’intelligence ou l’entendement le sont donc bien en un double sens : non seulement surmontés, mais envahis par elle, jusqu’à une limite qui révèle au cœur d’un problème commun, une singulière différence.The purpose of this paper is to show how Bergson’s reading of Kant, far from any expeditive fightword, implies at the same time some reappropriation, a precise critique, and a final objection that together lead to the heart of a profound relationship between two irreducible doctrines. The partial endorsing of Kant’s distinction between intelligence and intuition, and even between matter and form of intuition itself, must not be understood only as a ironical hommage. On the contrary, it helps understanding the unity Bergson advocates against Kant, first between the matter and form of intuition, in the case of time, then between intuition and intelligence itself, after Creative Evolution. In its own turn, that unity helps understanding why intelligence is put aside of practical intuition in Bergson’s last great book. Intelligence or understanding are thus « won » in a double way : not only as surpassed, but also as penetrated by intuition, up to a last limit, which reveals a peculiar difference, at the heart of a common problem. (shrink)