leave aside, as we must, the many suggestive views scattered lavishly
about, the many flashes of light which fall on all faces of the problem,
and let us confine ourselves to seeing how we get a theory of knowledge
from this doctrine. There we have yet another proof of the striking and
fertile originality of the new philosophy.

More than one objection has been brought against Mr Bergson on this head.
That is quite natural: how could such a novelty be exactly understood at
once? It is also very desirable; it is the demands for enlightenment which
lead a doctrine to full consciousness of itself, to precision and
perfection. But we must be afraid of false objections, those which arise
from an obstinate translation of the new philosophy into an old language
steeped in a different metaphysic. With what has Mr Bergson been
reproached? With misunderstanding reason, with ruining positive science,
with being caught in the illusion of getting knowledge otherwise than by
intelligence, or of thinking otherwise than by thought; in short, of
falling into a vicious circle by making intellectualism turn round upon
itself. Not one of these reproaches has any foundation.

Let us begin by a few preliminary remarks to clear the ground. First of
all, there is one ridiculous objection which I quote only to record. I
mean that which suspects at the bottom of the theories which we are going
to discuss some dark background, some prepossession of irrational
mysticism. On the contrary, the truth is, we have here perhaps better than
anywhere, the spectacle of pure thought face to face with things. But it
is a complete thought, not thought reduced to some partial functions, but
sufficiently sure of its critical power to sacrifice none of its resources.
Here, we may say, really is the genuine positivism, which reinstates all
spiritual reality. It does not in any way lead to a misunderstanding or
depreciation of science. Even where contingency and relativity are most