1.1 THE VITAL IMPETUS 89 



here, reproaches finalism with its anthropomorphic charac- 

 ter, and rightly. But it fails to see that itself proceeds 

 according to this method — somewhat mutilated! True, 

 it has got rid of the end pursued or the ideal model. But 

 it also holds that nature has worked like a human being 

 by bringing parts together, while a mere glance at the 

 development of an embryo shows that life goes to work 

 in a very different way. Life does not proceed by the as- 

 sociation and addition of elements, but by dissociation and 

 division. 



We must get beyond both points of view, both mechanism 

 and finalism being, at bottom, only standpoints to which 

 the human mind has been led by considering the work of 

 man. But in what direction can we go beyond them? 

 We have said that in analyzing the structure of an organ, 

 we can go on decomposing for ever, although the function 

 of the whole is a simple thing. This contrast between 

 the infinite complexity of the organ and the extreme 

 simplicity of the function is what should open our eyes. 



In general, when the same object appears in one aspect 

 and in another as infinitely complex, the two aspects 

 have by no means the same importance, or rather the same 

 degree of reality. In such cases, the simplicity belongs to 

 the object itself, and the infinite complexity to the views 

 we take in turning around it, to the symbols by which our 

 senses or intellect represent it to us, or, more generally, 

 to elements of a different order, with which we try to imitate 

 it artificially, but with which it remains incommensurable, 

 being of a different nature. An artist of genius has painted 

 a figure on his canvas. We can imitate his picture with 

 many-colored squares of mosaic. And we shall reproduce 

 the curves and shades of the model so much the better 

 as our squares are smaller, more numerous and more varied 

 in tone. But an infinity of elements infinitely small, 



