Edward O'Doherty

This little essay of Bergson’s was originally delivered as a lecture to the Institut Psychologique in 1901, and published the same year in the Revue Scientifique. The date is significant: it was the year after Freud’s great work, The Interpretation of Dreams, was published. Bergson’s lecture came therefore at the end of the era of the old introspective psychologists, and before the new depth theories had become the commonplace they now are. So Bergson can state: “There is nothing mysterious about the birth of a dream”. Dreams are due to the fact that our senses continue to function in sleep, responding to external stimuli though less accurately than when we are awake, and at the same time responding to what we would now perhaps call the internal spontaneous discharges of the end–receptors themselves.

Quite honestly, it is not easy to see what all the fuss is about. Sir Julian Huxley was clearly impressed. “A landmark in modern thought which we cannot afford to pass by” wrote John Stewart Collis in the Sunday Times, and the following week Arnold Toynbee in the Observer wrote: “This is a great book. If it is eclipsed by anything, it is by the spirit of the author, which shines through it”. The French reaction to the original text was at least equally enthusiastic. André Rousseaux in Figaro Littéraire says: “Not since the 12th. Century has there been such a satisfying exposition of the perfect understanding between the material world and that of Christ Incarnate”. One wonders how much of the enthusiasm is due to the fact that Father Teilhard was not allowed to publish his philosophical thought in his own lifetime. The facts of his life are well known. Born in 1881, he joined the Jesuits in 1899 and was ordained. in 1912. Prehistory, geology, palaeontology, anthropology, were his chief intellectual interests, and he took his doctorate in the Sorbonne in 1922. He became professor of geology in the Institut Catholique in Paris and in 1923 went with Pére Licent S.J. to China on a palaeontological mission. The detail is given by Sir Julian in the introduction, in the course of which he pays Père Teilhard many felicitous tributes, notably that he was “a dedicated Christian priest.” On his return to France, Sir Julian tells us, “some of the ideas which he had expressed in his lectures about original sin and its relation to evolution, were regarded as unorthodox by his religious superiors, and he was forbidden to continue teaching.” He spent the next twenty years mostly in China with occasional scientific visits to India, Burma, Java, Abyssinia and the United States. The work under review was all but finished in Peking in 1938-1940.

This is an important work. It is sub-titled “Reality orion?” and makes a valiant effort to reinstate the notion of person as the keyconcept in psychology. There is a preface by Professor Oeser, of the University of Melbourne, which gives a good indication of what the book is about, and incidentally does great credit to the faculty of psychology in Melbourne. “When” says Professor Oeser, “about the middle of the nineteenth century, the science of experimental psychology was born, the infant was crippled by an array of physical and physiological instruments. It was starved on a diet of psychophysics, and later of rats….” Instead of a preoccupation with psychophysics and rats, Oeser contends that the science should concern itself with “the person”, and lauds Lafitte for the devastating way in which he has dealt with “the perversions or pseudo-sciences of some psychometricians, psycho-analysts and rat-lovers”. This is trenchant writing, and Lafitte in the substance of the work lives up to the promise of the foreword, both in ideas and in style.