Comments by Henri Bergson

Comment #144277 by Henri Bergson on March 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm

To give him some credit, Gray has understood Nietzsche's point.

Liberalism is a legacy of Christianity. Dawkins is very Christian in this sense.

If anyone foolishly disagrees with me, I would ask you to rebut Leo Strauss' observation that, "Liberalism cannot be proved correct anymore than Fascism or Communism can be."

Dawkins is a great, logical speaker. But he annoys me when he speaks of liberal values as definitively true. He is clearly a cultural Christian in this sense, even more than he realises.

Liberalism cannot be proven.

102. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143680 by Henri Bergson on March 14, 2008 at 9:51 am

But Hedges is a fundamentalist himself - a liberal fundamentalist.

Therefore, he's against himself.

As Leo Strauss said, "liberalism is no more factually correct than is Fascism or Communism."

Hedges' cant about people lacking empathy is his fundamental value, one which is unverifiable as 'good'.

He's so undereducated and a product of the PC movement. These people must be eradicated.

103. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127484 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 10:38 am

Here in Europe Americans do have a reputation for being very dumb. There are reasons for stereotypes.

Even when I was doing my Master's, the American students were very biased (politically correct to the extreme) and undereducated.

I now cringe when I hear an American try to be intellectual. It is a prejudice, but one with some justification.

I think the underlying reason is that money is valued higher than knowledge in the US.

This is an example, very funny:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q566ys0sqVQ

104. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127377 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 8:02 am

Mornington Crescent.

I win yet again.

105. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127331 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:54 am

Not playing your strange games here, but I'm actually popping out to Gloucester Road. (Does this mean something here?)

106. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127323 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:46 am

Oh, sorry irrate-atheist, I didn't realise this forum was all about reading about your changing moods and taste in clothes.

107. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127316 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:40 am

If we're all in London, we could settle this dispute with an arm-wrestle. I'm in Kensington if anyone fancies a debate over beer...

Anyway,

Zara,

Indeed nutrition is essential for power. Although it's at the rudimentary level.

Physical growth and knowledge are essentially different degrees within the same principle: 'will to power'.

108. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127289 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:19 am

Irate,

Uhh? I know the station in Camden....

Zara,

You write,
"Survival is the lowest form of power, it's the condition." [me]
I am not sure I can actually get any sense from this statement."

This is the missing link.

Survival is the condition of growth (things have to exist in order to grow). Growth is what I mean by power, be it physical, mental or social. Life is growth (in part).

This is in part a Nietzscheanism.

109. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127276 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:02 am

Haven't you people got work to do?

110. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127271 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 5:46 am

Zara,
The smoking gun is still smoking.

Your last comment,
"And "the value of truth depends on power" is just meaningless. If you step out of a high window, you are going to get hurt, no matter what your power (well, unless you have super power). "

--Survival is the lowest form of power, it's the condition. So of course one would value a truth that helped one's survival. So that particular truth (getting hurt) does depend on power.

But as argued before, one would also value a 'truth' (false truth) that helped one's power (status). The Pope is an atheist!

So all (believed) truth does depend on power, as does lying.

---

Thus Spoke Henri Bergson

111. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127260 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 5:33 am

When one has lost an argument, one either accepts it or remains with the faith that the opponent's argument must be twaddle.

If you choose the latter, you may as well go to Church.

112. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127252 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 5:24 am

Jin,

That reminds me of book two of Plato's Republic on Justice (Socrates vs Thrasymachus)... Did you plagiarise there?

I side with the Sophists anyway. I do not think that our interests depend on our knowledge, but rather our knowledge depends on our interests.

Your stance also assumes that human interests are universal, which is questionable.

You write,
"We can admit that no objective 'human rights' exist and still acknowledge that the social construct is vital to our functioning and that rules of thumb are useful despite not being absolute or objective".

You cannot 'acknowledge' that. Human rights, so-called, can be detrimental to our social functioning (e.g. not torturing people who have information about a nuclear bomb).

Secondly, I agree with Iran here that 'human rights' are a legacy of Christianity and have no value taken away from that context (e.g. that democracy is intrinsically better than theocracy). I also agree with Zizek that 'human rights' is a morality by which to dominate the non-western world. Just as 'civility' was to the British Empire: a morality to impose upon other nations so as to control them.

Human Rights are ultimately based on the idea that each human has intrinsic worth. This is Christian ('human dignity'). Pagans did not believe that. Science cannot 'prove' it. It is the secular legacy of Christianity (which is why we find it predominantly in post-Christian cultures (the West)).

113. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127246 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 5:13 am

"Religion for the common man is true; for the wise, false; for the Rulers, useful." -- Seneca

The value of truth depends on power.

114. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127243 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 5:07 am

Zara,

Now we can see in practice the benefits falsity can bring to people! You are now blatantly lying.

Witness:
"...then you say falsity (e.g. a false truth) does NOT have survival benefits (post 160)." (me)
"No, I didn't say that..." (Zara)
â€"â€"â€"[i.e. so Zara thinks falsity DOES have survival benefits.]

Post 160: "falsity has survival benefits as well" (me)
"No." (Zara)
â€"â€"â€"[so now zara does NOT think falsity has survival benefits!]
---

A smoking gun, book 'im!

115. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127236 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 4:48 am

zara,

First you say that a false truth has survival benefits because they believe it to be a true truth, as it were, (post 154); then you say falsity (e.g. a false truth) does not have survival benefits (post 160).

You simply change your argument so that you can contradict me. It's devious and shows that your argumentation skills are lacking.

Lorien,

I think you misunderstand the point, to be honest. Tell me, please!

Zara,

Survival per se has no intrinsic value, which you seem to imply. The survival of the HIV virus has no value to humans.

So that to say whatever has survival benefits is valuable is to commit another error of logic.

Again, it's your logic which fails you. I suppose it is a subject you have never studied.

116. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127230 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 4:28 am

Zara & Lorien,

We must make a distinction between truth, lies, and false truths. (not videotape...) Lies and false truths are falsities.

So....

Zara writes that my comment,
"Falsity also certainly has survival value, as stated already. For example, "God will punish you in the afterlife if you kill others or yourself" (me)

"...only works if people believe it to be true." (Zara)
---

Yes, they believe it to be true (false truth) but it is not true (truth).

I.e. falsity has survival benefits as well.

117. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127229 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 4:24 am

AllanW,

Your first 3 points do not even make a defence. Your quotation from me on point 4 is my question, not statement.

118. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127221 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 4:12 am

Phatbat,

My initial point is that valuing 'truth' is subjective, whatever the 'truth' may be (a/theist).

An atheist will think the theist's truth to be false (as do I), but vice versa.

So the theist does value truth, but he does not know what the truth is (unless the Bible etc. is true). My initial point remains that valuing a 'truth' is subjective.

Power is gained by defining truth.

119. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127214 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 3:48 am

AllanW,

Weak response. But why not amuse myself:
Responses to your points:
1. I did.
2. So you think there's a difference between my ideology and my ideas? You need to analyse your thoughts.
3. The examples did prove the point. Your counter-examples are weak.
4. No I did not. Quote me if you think otherwise.

Do not call me 'mate'. I am only mates with people who can think properly.

120. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127210 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

Zara,

Falsity also certainly has survival value, as stated already. For example, "God will punish you in the afterlife if you kill others or yourself".

Truth also can also curtail survival. For example, the truths about the atom (bomb), the truth about your worthless existence.

So the question remains, what is the intrinsic value of truth?

121. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127200 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 3:30 am

Phatbat,

The whole gist of your post was summarised by,
"If these people don't find truth important or of value then why don't they admit it and then we can move on".

Two points:
- Religious people do value truth. It's just that they do not know what it is, they do not want to know as it may not be to their advantage. So they cannot admit it.

- Those liberals who say they do not value truth above 'getting on with people', value something which is to their advantage: a western morality which aids their status as 'high priests' of the world, telling people how to behave.

There is no intrinsic truth of liberalism over Fascism or Communism. It's just the ideology of our age. And all ideologies rest on subjective values.

Is it not all a matter of perspective? Of Wille zur Macht?

Someone wrote that "The will to truth is a form of the will to power." I.e. knowledge is power. Power is the real driving force behind religion, morality, law, even Dawkins' quest for truth!

122. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127195 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 3:17 am

AllenW,

Yours was a ramble. But let's attempt to show your errors.

Firstly, you contradict yourself: you call me first a postmodernist ('all opinions are equally valid') then a fascist (where they are specifically not!). I am neither of these.

Secondly, truth can have survival value, but so can falsity. For example, believing that suicide is a sin, believing that having many children is God's will, etc, etc. Therefore, both truth and falsity aid survival (thus the phenomenon of religion).

Thirdly, I never implied that order in society is a value. I simply wrote that if one wants order (for whatever purpose), falsity/illusion can aid that (read Leo Strauss/Machiavelli).

Finally, the burden of proof for morality, equality and human rights rests upon you. I do NOT believe in them, you presumably do. Likewise, the the burden of proof for God rests on those who believe in Him, not on those who do not.

---

So, I refer you to my original post.

123. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127179 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 2:33 am

A very English debate: there were no clear winners nor conclusions.

A question for Richard: you always say, "I'm concerned about the truth." Can you prove that truth has a value?

If not, why value it? If not, it would simply be a matter of your preference over others and thus not be an objective maxim that you could say others ought to follow.

And you cannot say that truth has value as it satisfies curiosity or helps people, as that would simply postpone the question by questioning the values of satisfaction and help.

So does this theist-atheist battle simply come down to suppression of those that think differently?

---

Another related question: is falsity not sometimes preferable? For example, is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of religion to keep society in order? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of morality for the same purpose? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of equality? Of 'human rights' (they have no inherent truth)?

---

That is to say, are you not really interested only in truths that suit you and your subjective preferences in life? Or has truth objective value?

124. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126335 by Henri Bergson on February 13, 2008 at 2:42 am

If only the British Press were not such cowards â€" and that is all it is. Dressing up cowardice as morality is despicable.

Could someone tell me how to add pictures to posts here?

125. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125135 by Henri Bergson on February 11, 2008 at 2:37 am

I was actually at the Archbishop's lecture in the Royal Courts of Justice. What he is accused of is an exaggeration of what he said, to be fair.

However, I am glad for the harsh response because ultimately and implicitly he is suggesting that we should accommodate muslim values rather than they accommodating ours fully.

But Hari's proposed solution here makes me laugh. Multiculturalism is a part of Liberalism which cannot be simply taken away. Multiculturalism is the ultimate ideology of global capitalism as it hinders the formation of national economies (thus limiting the global market of multinationals), as is Liberalism generally (just look at its origins).

The solution is simple: outlaw any non-state court or law, and stop non-EU low-skill (i.e. thick) immigrants from entering the continent. The latter has just been instigated by Britain at last. Also ban the teaching of religion as truth (as in Sweden).

Rowan Williams may have a PhD, but it's in theology and thus easily acquired.

In the lecture he said that a muslim board must decide which sharia laws are cultural as opposed to those which are religious, as if there's a difference! As if there is a 'true' Islam as opposed to a culturally-created one. Fool.

He also tried to water down the punishment in Sharia of Apostasy (conversion from a religion). He likened it to treason where a person rejects the community and actively goes against it. As if an apostate is like a traitor... However, even Britain doesn't stone traitors to death.

I think he may resign as the effect of his words in parts of Africa may be fatal to Anglicans there battling with sharia courts on a daily basis.

The effect may be a replaced stronger, stricter Archbishop, which, also, is not desirable for atheists (or is it?)....

126. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #118895 by Henri Bergson on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 am

Did we not just conquer this country?? What the hell was the point of getting rid of the taliban if we replace it with fanatics of the same type?

Time to re-drop the bombs.

127. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115578 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 11:04 am

I must go now,

but I'll write this concisely.
'Pride' is a feeling. To say that it 'should' come from achievement only is a prescriptive statement, one which cannot be verified. I.e. it is meaningless.

It's the old 'is-ought/should' fallacy.

128. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115567 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 10:29 am

MPhil,

No, for Aristotle happiness/flourishing was to be achieved through practising the 12 virtues, godliness was to be achieved through education (god being his prime mover: thought thinking about itself).

Secondly, it is not unjustified to say that one can be proud of one's natural features. If you follow this logic, you must say that 'black' people should not be proud of their race, or that homosexuals (like Zara) should not be proud of their sexuality.

Pride does not logically need to come from achievement only – that is a purely subjective view. In fact, you cannot even justify your view!

129. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115550 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 10:07 am

MPhil,

Was ist los mit dir??
My German girlfriend is very proud of her breasts (as proud as I am pleased). Of course one is proud of one's natural features and abilities, why ever shouldn't one be?

For Aristotle, pride in oneself (including one's natural properties) was his fundamental virtue for being a flourishing (arete), happy person.

Of course because of the war, I understand that Germans have been brainwashed into thinking the opposite of anything Hitler thought.

One can be proud of one's achievements as well as the natural features one is born with. It's just a fact that people are.

130. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115541 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 9:59 am

Zara,

Sorry, but you confused my meaning there: when I wrote, ''Gods' does not', I meant 'does not refer to real things', not 'does not have a use'. Therefore you rebuttal isn't logical:
-"People use 'Gods' to refer to real things, such as the origin and evolution of life. This does mean the concept of 'God' is useful."

Secondly, your denial that there are differences between the races mentioned is racist (tell a Persian that he's an Arab, you'll find out) and simply means that you are using a different definition of 'race' to me.

Thirdly, homosexuality is not a characteristic of race, so your last comment carries no purpose.

131. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115532 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 9:47 am

Mphil (doubt that),

Can one not be proud of one's eyes, hair, stature, voice, etc? One is born with these, they are not an achievement.

If that's arrogance, it's good to be arrogant.

132. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115528 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 9:41 am

Interestingly, I have noticed, it is only 'white' people who challenge the idea of race. Others are proud of their heritage.

Cultural guilt complex?

---

Morgan,

get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape.

133. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115523 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 9:33 am

Zara,

But 'people' has a use and refers to real things. 'Gods' does not. 'Races' may, depending upon the definition WE give it. And I say that it can be defined as a general set of characteristics (a common pheno-type, as it were).

If you deny this, you deny there is a substantial difference between Aborigines, Persians, and Inuits.

134. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115517 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 9:26 am

al-r,

But I can't be black, nor Jewish, as 'races' do not really exist.

'Jewish' people probably (here's a theory!) refined their mental abilities due to the fact that they had no land for the last two millennia (until Israel was re-created) and so couldn't rely on land hire/tax/etc. for their sustenance. So they evolved intellect (the successful cases could provide for more of their children: natural selection of intelligence).

If this is true of Jews, it can be true of other 'races', if 'intelligence' can be inherited.

135. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115503 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 9:02 am

al-rawandi,

Firstly, as we have all stated, 'race' is a blurry concept. But it exists as a word as it has a use, This use is to differentiate general sets of people according to their evolved appearance.

Secondly, does this evolution that determines external appearance also determine internal intellect? There is a possibility, at the very least.

Thirdly, I would say that there were general, I say general, differences in mental capacity between so-called 'races'. But I cannot 'prove' this, it is just an observation.

You ask me if I think some races are 'superior'? I take it you mean intellectually? I would guess yes: jewish people on average have higher IQs, and many high-end jobs relative to their population. There have been a disproportionate number of Jews who have been leaders in intellectual professions.

I myself am black, so not biased in any way.

136. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115491 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:40 am

Zara,

Your sarcasm is truly astounding (how do you like mine?)... You write, 'You should reveal the faults in my reasoning'.

Okay: the essential question here is, 'Is it POSSIBLE for generally-defined racial groups to differ in mental abilities?'

I think we both agree that it is possible, though hard to prove due to semantic issues.

Political correctness does not like this possibility.

137. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115479 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:30 am

Beth,

You are political correctness made flesh.

138. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115478 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:29 am

Get your hands off me – you damn dirty ape!

Was Planet of the Apes inspired by Darwin's prediction of the widening of the ape/human gap?? I.e. the catastrophic consequence of the opposite happening?

(probably not.)

139. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115473 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:19 am

Zara,

I really think you're pushing this too far and do not perhaps fully understand aspects of logic.
You write, 'skin colour and the ability to digest different foods is going to vary' but not mental abilities. Is, for example, spatial awareness (an aspect of intellectual ability) not at all dependent on the environment in which a people have evolved (e.g. a forest and a desert)?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Japanese have superior spatial awareness as compared to other 'races'... Is this impossible? Of course not.

I think you have ulterior motives here.

140. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115455 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

Zara,

You write, 'No, because there has been so much mixing of different groups. '

Not too much though. We can distinguish human features from different global areas. If the phenotype differs at surface level, it can at the mental level. Of course, the differences may be subtle and hard to generalise, but still there.

141. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115451 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:59 am

Zara,

but as to the last points?

If inequality doesn't exist, then racism doesn't nor the food chain.

But that's the fact of inequality, not the value of inequality. You cannot 'prove' a value one way or another.

142. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115441 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

eepeist,
You're so human, all too human. I do behold the man you are. (what are we on about??)

Zara,
so it comes down to the fact as to whether 'races' is proper classification. If so, you grant there may be hierarchies.

Is it not possible to talk about common traits within a general racial grouping? Of course, talk about a, say, 'German' race is impossible. But should we not talk about a more general 'north European' race where certain characteristics exist?

If not, we should neither speak about intellectual differences between dog races (Boxers, Collies, etc). That would seem absurd.

Or do you fundamentally disagree that a human group could exist (even in theory) that was superior to others in general terms? What about if one was specifically bred through genetic manipulation? Like some kind of... übermensch?

143. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115427 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:25 am

God, I sounded like a Christian in that last response, forgive me Lord!

epeeist,
like the subtlety there. You're really gay about your science.

144. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115424 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:21 am

irate-'atheist',

2 simple points:

- The Reformation against the Catholic Church occurred as people (like Martin Luther) realised that Catholicism did not follow the teachings of the bible. Thus we get women clergy in the protestant churches.

- You can find a justification for any view in the bible (for example, not eating shell fish). But treating people equally and with compassion was fundamental to a predominant character in the Bible known as 'Jesus Christ' – you should look him up.

So, you shouldn't bother, you're right.

145. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115407 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 6:55 am

Zara,

I advise you to control your emotions, they betray you.

You write, 'Some groups of people are superior to others in terms of muscle strength, resistance to disease and so on. We talk about that openly.'

- But you insist then that intellectual superiorities cannot exist between racial groups taken as a mean average?

Tell me, is there a scientific law which states that all human races MUST have equal average intelligence?

Moreover, I would suggest that belief in equality in the west is a fundamental Christian ethic ("all men are equal under the eyes of God") which was created by Jewish slaves in order to gain power over their Roman masters. I.e. no god = no equality. Equality, like God, cannot be proven.

Of course, this view is too radical for most people today.

146. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115396 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 6:38 am

Imagine if it were proved, beyond any doubt, that some races were 'superior' (i.e. intellectually, physically, etc) to others. No-one with authority would accept it anyway – it would be harmful to a multi-racial society.

That's how politics controls scientific paths of investigation.

al-rawandi,
indeed it would explain the success of some peoples over others, of course.

Zara,
of course 'differences between human races are not easily distinguishable', but that doesn't mean that they're not there, generally, that is.

Furthermore, if there are no races, as some state, there can be no racism!

Don't be brainwashed by the zeitgeist, man!

147. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115387 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 6:18 am

What if Darwin, Galton, Spencer, et al were right about the hierarchy of human races? Of course it is a value judgement, but so is one which states that humans are superior to apes (in terms of intellect).

We should be careful not to judge scientific theories under the contemporary morality of the age ('political correctness', say).

So, perhaps the pastor is correct. That, however, doesn't demean evolutionary theory in any way whatsoever. We can't get rid of a theory because it isn't 'nice'.

148. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113763 by Henri Bergson on January 20, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Great, and about time.

Bring on the truth, and show the film on this site!

149. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111023 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 10:54 am

PBUM,

That remark itself is ad hom.

Feck ad hominems anyway, retards.

Too many stupid people have entered this argument now, it was enjoyable a few hours ago.

(P.S. anything you write in my absence against me is wrong.)

And Boyzone is so much better.

150. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111016 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 10:48 am

So most of you have acceded to accept that there can be no scientific fact, so that you can disprove my arguments. I think I win here.