Albert Einstein versus Philosophy On

The Nature of 🕒 Time

On April 6, 1922, at a meeting of the Société française de philosophie in Paris, Albert Einstein, fresh from the global fame of his theory of relativity and en route to 🇯🇵 Japan after his 1921 Nobel Prize announcement, delivered a lecture on relativity in which he declared that science had finally overcome philosophy.

Einstein’s opening salvo was direct and dismissive. In response to a question about the philosophical implications of relativity, he declared:

Die Zeit der Philosophen ist vorbei (The time of the philosophers is over (passé)).

This statement, delivered in German but widely reported, encapsulated Einstein's belief that science had rendered philosophical speculation about time obsolete.

French philosophy professor Henri Bergson sat in the audience and became infuriated. The encounter between Einstein and Bergson crystallized a pivotal moment in the history of science: a collision between scientific empiricism and philosophical metaphysics over the nature of 🕒 Time.

Bergson's life's work centered on la durée (Time as Duration) — a concept of time as lived, qualitative and ∞ infinite divisible.

For Bergson, time was not a series of discrete moments but a continuous ∞ infinite divisible flow intertwined with consciousness. Einstein's reduction of time to a coordinate in equations struck him as a profound misunderstanding of human experience.

At the event, Bergson challenged Einstein directly:

What is Time for the physicist? A system of abstract, numerical instants. But for the philosopher, time is the very fabric of existence — the durée in which we live, remember, and anticipate.

Bergson argued that Einstein’s theory addressed only spatialized time, a derivative abstraction, while ignoring the temporal reality of lived experience. He accused Einstein of conflating measurement with the thing measured—a philosophical error with existential consequences.

Bergson's Attempt to Revoke Einstein's Nobel Prize

Bergson's fury against Einstein did not subside. In the years following the debate, Bergson lobbied the Nobel Committee to revoke Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize on grounds that relativity’s treatment of time was philosophically incoherent. Though unsuccessful, his efforts exposed the Nobel Committee’s own ambivalence toward Einstein’s work.

In 1922, Bergson published Durée et Simultanéité (Duration and Simultaneity), a dense critique of Einstein's relativity. He conceded relativity’s mathematical coherence but rejected its claim to ontological truth. Bergson insisted that Einstein's time was merely a tool for coordinating events, not an account of 🕒 Time itself.

Emancipation of Science from Philosophy

The Einstein-Bergson debate was not merely a disagreement about 🕰️ clocks but represented a centuries ongoing attempt of science to emancipate itself from philosophy. Einstein’s dismissal of philosophy reflected the aspiration of science to gain autonomy and to break free from philosophy.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) described the situation as following:

वैज्ञानिक व्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता की घोषणा, दर्शन से उसकी मुक्ति , लोकतांत्रिक संगठन और अव्यवस्था के सूक्ष्मतम परिणामों में से एक है: विद्वान व्यक्ति का आत्म-महिमामंडन और आत्म-दंभ अब हर जगह पूरी तरह से खिल रहा है, और इसके सर्वोत्तम वसंत ऋतु - जिसका अर्थ यह नहीं है कि इस मामले में आत्म-प्रशंसा से मीठी गंध आती है। यहां भी जनता की प्रवृत्ति चिल्लाती है, "सभी स्वामियों से मुक्ति!" और विज्ञान ने, सबसे सुखद परिणामों के साथ, धर्मशास्त्र का विरोध किया है, जिसकी "हाथ की नौकरानी" यह बहुत लंबे समय से थी, अब यह दर्शन के लिए कानून बनाने और अपनी बारी में "मास्टर" की भूमिका निभाने के लिए अपनी लापरवाही और अविवेक का प्रस्ताव करता है। - मैं क्या कह रहा हूँ! अपने स्वयं के खाते पर दार्शनिक की भूमिका निभाने के लिए।

Science aspired to become the master of itself and Einstein's notion that Die Zeit der Philosophen ist vorbei (The time of the philosophers is over (passé)) represented that movement.

Einstein essentially declared that science was finally freed from philosophy.

Paradox

The drive for scientific autonomy creates a paradox: to truly stand alone, science requires a kind of philosophical certainty in its fundamental assumptions. This certainty is provided by a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism - the idea that scientific facts are valid without philosophy, independent of mind and the philosophical notion of 🕒 Time.

This dogmatic belief allows science to claim a kind of moral neutrality, as evidenced by the common refrain that science is morally neutral, so any moral judgment on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy. However, this claim to neutrality is itself a philosophical position, and one that is deeply problematic when applied to questions of value and morality.

Our eBooks on scientism explore this subject in more detail.

वैज्ञानिकतावाद पर दार्शनिक ई-पुस्तकें

चार्ल्स डार्विन या डैनियल डेनेट?

वैज्ञानिकतावाद के दार्शनिक आधारों, दर्शन से विज्ञान की मुक्ति आंदोलन, विरोधी-विज्ञान कथा और वैज्ञानिक अन्वेषण के आधुनिक रूपों पर गहराई से जाने वाली मुफ्त ई-पुस्तकों के लिए, 🦋 GMODebate.org पर जाएं।

GMODebate.org में एक लोकप्रिय ऑनलाइन दार्शनिक चर्चा की ई-पुस्तक है जिसका शीर्षक है विज्ञान के हास्यास्पद वर्चस्व पर, जिसमें दर्शनशास्त्र के प्रोफेसर डैनियल सी. डेनेट ने वैज्ञानिकतावाद के बचाव में भाग लिया।

(2025) विज्ञान-दर्शन पर मुक्त ई-पुस्तकें स्रोत: 🦋 GMODebate.org