The Philosophy of Henri Bergson. 13 



to be pre-eminent, not for closeness of reasoning or clearness of 

 demonstration, but for insight, for thecai)acity tore-think doctrines 

 which had been long taken for granted, to re-examine postulates 

 which had been too readily assumed. He threw them back upon 

 themselves, challenged some ot their most cherished philosophic 

 preconceptions, thawed the ice of their prejudices, invited them 

 to assume a new standpoint, and to behold a new prospect. They 

 were bound to look with some suspicion upon a system of thought 

 which professed to transcend, and in some degree to discredit, 

 reason. When they asked themselves the question — ' In what 

 departments of thought or action are we to reject reason, to what 

 extent are we to reject it, and if we decide to reject it, what is to 

 be our guide ?" they found themselves in a maze of controversy. 

 Bergson had his answer ready — Trust instinct or intuition, but 

 only when they had been clarified and divested of some of those 

 factitious elements with which the necessity for action and the 

 exigencies of practical life had invested them. Those who thought 

 clearly would soon convince themselves that the attempt to rule 

 reason entirely out of court proved in the end futile. Even if 

 they decided that there were many things beyond the compass of 

 human reason, it was by a process of reasoning that this conclusion 

 was reached. Another weak point in Bergson's system was that 

 he endowed his " super-consciousness " with abundant energy and 

 capacity for development, but denied it prevision or definite aim. 

 This only put the mystery one step farther back. It might turn 

 out in the end that Bergson's philosophy would prove more 

 valuable on the critical than on the constructive side, that it would 

 justify itself rather as a valuable stimulus to re-think the old 

 problems of matter, life and mind, from fresh points of view than 

 as a lasting contribution to positive thought. Bergson had at 

 least fluttered the dovecotes of the philosophers. He had flouted 

 Scientific Monism and Scientific Determinism. He had poured 

 scorn upon Materialism. He had reaffirmed the doctrine of 

 human freedom. More evolutionary than the evolutionists, he 



