scientific knowledge should be sufficient refutation.

Only those who have not read the mass of carefully proved and positive
discussions could give way thus to the impressions of art awakened by what
is truly a magic style. But we can go further and put it better.

That there are analogies between philosophy and art, between metaphysical
and aesthetic intuition, is unquestionable and uncontested.

At the same time, the analogies must not be allowed to hide the
differences.

Art is, to a certain extent, philosophy previous to analysis, previous to
criticism and science; the aesthetic intuition is metaphysical intuition in
process of birth, bounded by dream, not proceeding to the test of positive
verification. Reciprocally, philosophy is the art which follows upon
science, and takes account of it, the art which uses the results of
analysis as its material, and submits itself to the demands of stern
criticism; metaphysical intuition is the aesthetic intuition verified,
systematised, ballasted by the language of reason.

Philosophy then differs from art in two essential points: first of all, it
rests upon, envelops, and supposes science; secondly, it implies a test of
verification in its strict meaning. Instead of stopping at the acts of
common-sense, it completes them with all the contributions of analysis and
scientific investigation.

We said just now of common-sense that, in its inmost depths, it possesses
reality: that is only quite exact when we mean common-sense developed in
positive science; and that is why philosophy takes the results of science