GASTON BACHELARD The Philosophy of No A Philosophy of the New Scientific Mind Translated from the French by G. C. Waterston The Orion Press NEW YORK Wee4 GASTON BACHELARD i lly we shall have to Keep re- g the fact that the philosophy of no is not psychologically a iele phenomena it all the variables which had degenerated or bee be regenerated, variables which science, just as much as naive thought, had neglected to study the frst time around. ONE The Various Metaphysical Explanations of a Scientific Concept I For the sake of clarity and before really entering upon our gen- , we shall bring the whole contro- ‘example, We shall study one par- ticular scientific concept possessed, in our estimation, of its full from the stand- rationalism, complex ra- ‘urns. We shall clearly explain the last two ‘of the example selected. Moreover, complex rationalism and dialectical rationalism can bbe more briefly united wnder the designation of surrationalism briefly elsewhere# versy to bear upon one 5 6 Levels6 GASTON BACHELARD ied just when we are others say that few examples where he ies aside in order to ze that the greater part of sci tages of its evolution which are ‘opment as soon as formal causality, so misconstrued and Ii rejected by the realists, could be studied in « new philosophical spirit. In the face of so many proofs adduced by the realists and the The Philosophy of No 7 ‘easily subdued, But, having made this gesture of humi fact is that there does nations of science, not ‘owards rational coherence. As soon as even two properties of an object are known, they immediately get to be related. More ad- vanced knowledge begets an exuberant growth of coordinated reasoning. However close you stay to realism towards setting things in order you go further than that “There is no éiid to thé dispute about progress, poetic progress or the progress of ss. It is a notion wl phy. Te would never occur to a philosopher was an advance upon Descart Kai upon Plato. But the direction notions is so clear th8 GASTON BACHELARD ific thought therefore furnishes a_principal for the classification of philosophies and for the study of the progress of reason. tion. Because of the fact that the concept of mass, wl ready been absorbed into the complex rationalism of re hhas just been endued (by the mechanics of Dirac) with a prec and curious dialect corresponds to a rough for reality. Mass ‘An empty intment evaluated knowledge comes into being, knowledge of the sort the fabulist takes to symbolize the experi- cence of “old folks.” With a he most valuable. A perspective of intensities suddenly comes to supplement the first prospects of quantity. At once the eriorizes itself. It becomes synonymous with The Philosophy of No 19 profound wealth, i dreams of the greatest variety get free rei notion of mass is an obstacle-concept. The concept blocks knowl- ‘we are starting our enquiry too low knowledge, thus postulating impedi- stop a reflective mind. We shall be glad Westigation, on the understanding, how- ion be suffered to come and bask later on at and that no one permit himself to make any ‘where there is further danger of being seduced by this pri atlorement sit not aziking, for example, ‘ogists speak of mass or load of an aci ‘he is always speaking of a more or less abundant mass, It would mass or a small stress of emotions. speak of it. Faced with an uncon- rt, or indifferent patient, the psychiatrist says that fering from reduced affect in the process of decreasing, the psyc dons his concept of affective mass or affect isan overload, ‘The concept is used more of bigness than of small- ‘ness. This is a strange way of measuring, in which increase alone counts From the dynamic point of concept of mass point of view. For homo faber trument of the power of s function is not easy to20 GASTON BACHELARD as a concept would be that was formed Tf we were to develop these psychoanalysis of objective knowledge by system: the early usages of the notion of mass, we would understand better how the prescientific mind came to postulate the concept of weightless bodies by renouncing too hastily the law of weight_ as_a generalization. This would be an example of premature ‘dialectic, working illadvisedly upon thi tead of working_ js ag an argument in favor of placing sophy outside of rationalism, as a more supple lectic at the level of realism is always uncertain and provisional. ‘Whatever the value of this metaphysical digression may be, we have said enough to decry imprecise conceptual forms, such as the concept of ma fe form. A mind accepts a con- nature cannot arrive at scientific culture, Explicit Moreover, there is a very curious symptom wl reflect upon too much: that is the speed with which an animistic js enough to teach what an 3 the moment all we want to do is to o show about mass. In our opinion there is an error which needs to be corrected in connection any scientific notion whatever. Before engaging in any ob- che mind must be psychoanalyzed not ‘general but also at the level of all particular notions. As jon is very rarely psychoanalyzed in all its usages, contamination of one usage all scientific concepts have to The Philosophy of No a subsequent chapter we shall come back to this plurality of mean. ings attached to one and the same concept and we shi find in it grounds for the scientific philosophy which we are defending in this work Vv The second level at notion of mass can be studied cor- relates with prudent empirical usage and precise objective deter- jon. The concept then comes to be associated It derives immediate benefit from the obj ‘ument, even though a noteworthy lapse of time can he in- voked in which the instrument precedes its own theory. In really active departments of science, nowadays, where the theory pre- cedes the instrument, this is no longer true, and as a rest instrument of physis is a realized, concretized theory, ration ‘estence. As far a8 the old conceptualization of mass goes, scales: jously used before the theory of the lever was known. So, were, the concept of mass pre- posite” way, it was not thought out in a composite way: the case of the Roman scales where the comparison of weights was made by the intervention of an apparatus composed of a weight and of the arm of a lever, this composite operation was not one of which the operator was ellectively aware: In other words scales by Pre Janet to characterise one of the first forms of scales behavior runs through the age y like a fundamental experience. It is ig but a particular case of that simple use of a complicated 1, of course, countless more striking examples in our own day, where the most complicated ‘ply run with a set of badly made, irrati linked empirical concepts, are assembled, howeves manner which is pragmatically sound. ‘To any given, simple, positive conce} usage of an instrument (even a theor to any simple, positive lly complicated one)22 GASTON BACHELARD necessary and sufficient reference wherewith to le theory. To weigh is to think. To thi eating the aphorism of Lord Kelvin who ie never went beyond the physics of the scales the shield, And in this way an empirical peremptory simple experience, le experimenter, because why he reverts to the ani danger of simplifying :, ¢phemeral and ‘would say, pree ike all high values, of the mind too, bad money drives out good mongy. mnalism. But an epistemologist who studies fic thought should always bring out the 1 discovery. We must therefore go on to emphasize the rational aspect which the concept of mass assumes. v ‘comes into existence with rity. A correlated use ly as a primitive element of direct and immediate experience. “Newton mass will be defined as force times acceler From the realist point of view, the three notions are as diverse as they can be. To join them in one and the same formula would The Philosophy of No 33 we to accept a method of sophic differences, all precise questions, by one vague pri In our estimation, as soon as one has defined the three no of force, mass and acceleration in correlation, one is suddenly a very long way from the fundamental pri any one of these not introduce different realistic orders. Furthermore, by the very fact of correlation, one can deduce one of these notions—it doesn't matter which—from the two others. In particular, the idea of mass, which is so clearly r its first form, is in some way refined by the passage, via Newton's mechanics, from static to its dynamic aspect. Before Newton being, as a quantity of ter. After New: a becoming of phenomena, as a coefficient of becoming. Moreover, we may note in passing how very curi4 GASTON BACHELARD the hierarchy of levels by means of its own principles. So why not designate these levels of reality and th terms of the divisioning and hierarchizing_ pri terms of rational principles? This methodological remark needs stressing. We must realize that, once the fundamental relationship of dynamics has been es ics really comes to be rational from top to Tonk WIUK Lagrange with Potwon, with Hamlin "mechan toums" ofa nie and more general charac af incoduce, ‘which mass no more than on iatantof the rational consire Rational mechanics is to the mechanical phenomenon exactly iat pure geometry ito. phenomenal description, Rational sd with a Kantian philosophical character. The meta- cs of Kant was learned from the mechanics of Newton, and, of experience. If experience should happen to contradict elicit corrections, then a modification of mental principles . Let us proceed to losophies has reorganized the system of The Philosophy of No 25 to pose an analytical question about them would make no sense. They are the a priori of metric philosophy, Everything which can bbe measured must and can rest upon these metric bases. ‘But now, with the era of relativity, there comes an epoch in which rationalism, essentially closed within Newtonian and Kan- tian concepts, is about to open. Let us observe how this opening takes place with respect to the notion of mass now under con- sideration. The opening is made, so to speak, onto the interior of the notion. It becomes apparent that the notion of mass has an in- ternal functional structure, whereas previously all functions of be found in composition with other simple notions. The notion of mass which we were just characterizing as a notional atom, becomes susceptible of analysis. For the first time a notional atom. can be decomposed, so that we arrive at the metaphysical paradox that an element can be complex. The corollary is that the notion ‘of mass is simple only as a first approximation. Relativity dis- ‘overs that the mass which has been posited up to now as being by definition independent from speed, as being an absolute in time and space, as being a just basis for a system of absolute , is, as a matter of fact, a complicated function of speed. of an object is therefore relative to the displacement of the object. It is useless to expect to be able to define a miass in the state of rest which would properly pertain to this object. Absolute rest has no meaning, nor has the notion of absolute as impossible to escape from relativi is to escape from it with respect to space-time. ternal complication of the notion of mass is accom- panied by noticeable complications in what may be called the external usage: mass does not behave in the same way with re- ics did, There is a further notional complica: ~ t physics mass is no longer different in kind from rt the simple notion makes way for a complex notion moreover, abrogating its role as an element. Mass re- na Huunraien pur ne Acebernewheastl a igmny26 GASTON BACHELARD mains a basic notion and this basic notion is complex. In certain cases only can the complex notion be simplified. It in practical application by abandoning certain ments, by subduing certain subtle variations. But outside of the notion, upon an elementary fragments alizes curacy, the element upon less complex. Traditional multiple usage of elementary no n, bodies of explanation, and bodi ito being—the three expressions being cognates. It is to be understood that these bodies are taken in the same sense as that h fixes the organization of a private law. Ra- jes becomes conditional. It is touched by 1g to the degree of ac- reason works gets to be more or ism is profoundly convulsed by ns. Bodies of approxima- of rationalization come he admit Let us then resume our battle wi definition of defeat? He always has the opti reality. Just a moment ago we had him admitting, under the , that there was a realism of laws above the the process of ar- iguish between he will confine himself to a realism of degrees of The Philosophy of No must ever be setting object ahead of its phenomena. But in28 GASTON BACHELARD in mathematical organiza prepare the do- as in laboratory in order to be pro- when it reaches its full ions of propagation. As object which is being variables from b. The il work, we can only The Philosophy of No 29 yields up this notion to us along with the others, and electric moments, the spins, respecting to the very end the fundamental syncretism which is so characteristic of complete rationalism. But now comes the surprise, now comes the discovery. needed, Caleulation gives us two—two masses for ject One of these masses sums up perfectly eve known about mass in the four antecedent philosophies: scientist of the preceding era, at the level of nineteenth century physics? ‘There seems to be no doubt whatever about what the latter would be. For the sient ofthe nineteenth century the concept branded any theory error. It was no real help thé ny can't mass be negative? What essential theoretical mass? What experi- propagation, would reveal iron magnetique, pO}.2 GASTON BACHELARD negative mass? In ysicist only really knows re jus master of beginning of things and when he cons vu to reveal an example of just one concept, we are wwe had allowed ourselves ly legitimate right of using ferent concepts to i ce the different states of ie objection as it comes to the reader's at the concept of negative mass has not yet found its exper quence, our example of, The Philosophy of No 2 Our thesis wou! no other examples to terpreted fundamental this is the case for negative energy. The concept of negative energy resented itself i Pith concep of negative mas. With reypectt ewe could repeat point for point all the preceding criticisms; we could afirm that such a concept would have appeared monstrous to science of the nineteenth century and that its manifestation in any theory would have seemed the sign of a capi irac did not make of led to the concept of negative energy, terpretation of concept of neg: the positive electron. There was synthesis of the theoretical discovery and of the experimental di covery; but the bed was made, and made to measure, for the new phenomenon to come and lie on, ‘There was a theoretical pre- ed the fact. In a certain sense, one can there- wing the construct of Dir Let us now return to negative mass, What is the phenomenon ‘which would correspond to the concept of negative mass prepared by the mechanics of Dis the question as a mathem:B GASTON BACHELARD found dialectics of basic concepts like positive and negative masses and positive and negative energies? Is there a connection between negative energy and negative mass? ‘works at the other extreme, in the area of depth psychology, fol- lowing the seductions of the libido, the temptations of the in- timate, the vital certainties of realism, the joy of possession, The psychology of the scientific mind can only be properly under- « stood when one keeps these two sorts of dreaming separate. Jules Re ‘understood of this ie in certain respects, a sur is more delay about refers , dreaming by t pour cela préjere is done with num ive quanta, and without obstacle to the wor ‘out of any process whatever. What poet panpythagorism, this sy The Philosophy of No 33 iy a few electrons in an atom of helium or jum, each gets its serial number in four figures; a squad of elec- trons is as complicated as a regiment of infantrymen. “jut enough of these outpourings. It was a poet that we needed st all that we can conjure up is the figure of a colonel counting the soldiers of his regiment. The hierarchy of things is more complex than the hierarchy of men. The atom is a mathe | “matical society whi hot yet told us its secret; one does not | command this society with the arithmetic of a soldier.TWO The Notion of an Epistemological Profile 1 ‘Thus, in relation to one single notion, we have been able to bring ‘out an afiation of philosophical doctrines leading from realism to surrationalism. One concept alone was enough to disperse the philosophies and to show that the incompleteness of some philosophies was attributable to the fact that they rested upon ‘one aspect, they illuminated exclusively one facet of the concept. But we are now in possession of a graduated scale for disc lows us to locate the different points at philosophy, and to prevent a confusion of arguments. Since the realist is the philosopher who is the most imper- The Philosophy of No 3% turbably hard to budge of all, let us rekindle our quarrel with him by asking the following quest Do you really al realist? Is he a re len he supposes, is he a realist when he sums up, is he a realist when he schematizes, is he a realist when he makes mistakes? Is he necessarily a realist when he afirms? Don't different thoughts of one and the same mind have dif. ferent co-efficients of reality? Should realism forbid the use of metaphors? Is metaphor necessarily outside of reality? Does the ‘metaphor preserve, to these varying degrees, the same coefficients of reality—or of unreality? Don’t coefficients of reality differ according to the notions, according to the evolution of concepts, or acc retical conceptions of the day? “In short we shall force the reali to introduce a hierarchy into not content ourselves with a gener respect to a single notion I hierarchy of what is known about ‘$0 we muist sometimes keep the rationali |. We have to watch out for his a fr properly counter- and give them te_what remnant of common knowledge still resides in space and time involve only one type of experience, Nothing ean ify an absolute, invariable, definitive rationalism. In short we have to remind everyone of call the epistemological profile of various conceptual ‘a mental profile of this sort one could measure the effective psy- chological action of the various philosophies in the task of know- ing. Let us clarify our thought with respect to the example of mass.26 GASTON BACHELARD that by means of the five (naive realism—clear posi- very rough sort of measurem I then get, as my own personal epistemological profile of th i s,a tabulation of the following kind ( Epistemological profile of my personal notion of mass. Fig. It should be em ‘must always be relati makes it of interest for a psychology of the scientific mind. The Philosophy of No 37 By way of explanation let me comment upon my epistemo- logical profile by making a short confession of my own cultural background with respect to the concept we are studying. “The importance accorded to the rationalist notion of mass, as a notion which was shaped during education and developed dur. of teaching elementary physics, ty of cases the notion of mass presents itself orientation, For me, to the extent is a clear notion, the notion of mass is above all a rational ing a long period of the pra Indeed je notion. Yet 1 can, if need be, approach the notion in the sense of relativist mechanics or of the mechanics of Dirac. But these two philosophies, like ‘Newtonian and Kantian rationalism can, under certain circum: stances, become an obstacle to the progress of culture. “Let us consider, from the impoverished side of culture, the notion of mass in its empirical form. I am led to give tt, as it concerns me, a fairly large importance. Ia truth my scales be- hhavior has, in the past, been quite considerably exercized., It was at the time when I was studying chemistry, and the somewhat ‘more remote time also when I used to wei admit tive solicitude, overweight letters in a post office. The scruples of finance demand an assay-balance behavior. Common-sense fir ‘always amazed to hear that the mintman weighs instead of counting them. In passing we must point out that assay-balance behavior, giving, as it does, absolute respect for the not jot always a very clear behavior: many a student is troubled and surprised by the slowness of precise erefore, attribute to everyone an were a notion that was auto- everyone else, I have my moments of realism, and ‘concept in which I am as educated as in the con-8 GASTON BACHELARD cept of mass I am not fully pychoanalyzed. I adhere too quickly to metaphors which p ie threshold of shade in front of Hence the zone of realism or notion cognate to that of mass, the notion of energy. When I examine myself wit i I obtain the following epistemol Let us compare profiles 1 and 2. as possible Classical ‘Naive realism ‘Complete rationalism Discursive rationalism| Epistemological profile of our personal notion of energy. Fig. ian form and soon as I direct myself to The Philosophy of No 39 my notion of energy as about my notion of mass. In other words, with respect to my scientific knowledge, my culture is homo- geneous as far as the wo concepts of mass and energy are con- ‘generally the case and exact psychological in- ‘ut at the level of personal noti e the existence of curious disharmonies eve The systematic ‘great many gray areas into evidence. On profile 2, compared to profile 1, we give a greater impor- tance to the dialectized concept of energy since, as we have said in ized concept of energy has not the case for the concept found its re of mass. ‘The obscure part, the infra-red of the philosophical spectrum notion of mass, In the first place, the importance. Dynamometer behavior does mometer, we understand it in our rationalist orient positivist usages of the notion of energy were very rare We must therefore designate as relatively unimportant of empirical philosophy. As if to compensate, however, there subsists in us a confused knowledge of energy, a knowledge which has been formed under the inspiration of a primitive realism. This confused knowledge which finds countless opp. not astonishing then that s shadows clear empircism and twists our epistemological profile ut of shape. Use a badly sharpened tool and you get an idea of this psychological deformation. Let a root interrupt the rhythm of the spade and it is enough to becloud the so that the worker, forgetful of the clear ty of his task, wields the tool with vengeful energy. It would be interesting to circumscribe this concept of triumphant energy properly; it would40 GASTON BACHELARD be seen to bring to certain thoughts an assurance and a certainty and a flavor which are in effect misleading as to their truth. The epistemological profile of the n Nietsche, for example, would be enough, perhaps, to expla A great doctrine can be made out of a false notion, Vv So, in our estimation, it would only be after one had put to- gether an album of epistemological profiles on all basic ni that one could really study the relative eficieney of diferent of course, would serve 2s tests forthe. psychology of the scientine mind. We would, therefore, like to suggest a philosophical spectrumvanalysis which sophies lar objective knowledge. This philo- require, for its development, eychologiste who would be philosophers and alo philosophers ‘who would consent to concern themselves with particular ob- jective knowledge. This twin condition is not impossible to satisfy if one really undertakes to set forth the suecessive stages of knowl: edge of an accurately designated particular phenomenon. The welldefined phenomenon almost automatically classifies phe- nomenologies. A dialectic of the mind which is nurtured at the level of the phenomenon at once loses its arbitrary character. Since it is our task in this work to convince the reader of the permanence of philosophical ideas in the very development of the scientific mind, we should like to show that the axis of the corresponds to a reg: ular development of knowledge. In truth itis hard to see how one could arrange the philosophies re took as our base in any other way. We made vi ypts to disrupt the arrangement, but they al inute we came to refer to a particular piece of kno out our method of had been our thought that most is rationalism into operation. But, The Philosophy of No a when we examined the problem more closely, we found that we had only been classifying general attitudes in this way and, after ns, we adopted the order sm, for particular objective pieces of knowledge. This order is genetic. It proves the very reality of epistemology. A particular piece of knowledge may well expose itself in a particular philosophy, it cannot found itself upon a plies a variety of philosophical unique philosophy; its progress standpoints. ‘Anyone willing to jump the obstacles and take an immediate stand within the confines of rationalism would be putti trust in a general doctrine, in a merely philosophical teaching, If that the notions corresponding to different qu: tions are not organized on the same plane; he culty in finding traces of realism in the most advanced, objective knowledge. On the other hand, a philosopher who claimed to stay within the bounds of realism could only do so by choosing natural ob- jects, systematically reducing his culture to childishness, and arb I phase. He need only. any civilized object, to be. ‘of the real prolongs it jon, It would then be easy, by keeping so™ confines of realism, to prove that between2 GASTON BACHELARD everything and In other words, al spectrum and g to put the each philosophy gives onl sctrum of a particular piece of knowledge. notions do not have the same dispersive power losopher only too often has the ing for support to a particular science, or even to ific thinking of common sense. He the ing the philosopher are posed fic thought, one must re- frameworks and accept new rea To do this is to follow exactly the advice of which Ferdinand Gonseth gives us in an ardent, formed work whose importance drawing it to the atten take into account all aspects of ématique et Réalité, Ferdinand Gon- le of appropriateness) and mathemati ‘The added implications are due to the fact that objective knowl: necessarily more diverse than strictly mathematical knowl- Our conclusion is therefore lear: a philosophy ofthe sciences, The Philosophy of No 43 even if one limits it to the examination of a necessarily a dispersed philosophy. Nevertheless the cohesion of its dialectic, whic of an epistemological obstacle. We could relate the two no of an epistemological obstacle and of an epistemological profi for an epistemological profile bears the marks of the obstacles which a culture has had to surmount. The earliest obstacles, those which are met during the first stages of culture, pave the way for some very clear pedagogical efforts. In the present work we labor at the other extreme by attempting to show rat most subtle form, as it tries to complete itself and to dialectize itself with the contemporary forms of the new scientific spi this region the notional mat naturally not very notions on the way to di are delicate, sometimes uni ‘They constitute the frailest of seeds, yet them that the human spirit progresses.