BERGSON S PHILOSOPHY OF THE ORGANISM. 23 



doubt it is the development of these, rather than the 

 diversity of physical structure, that indicates the main 

 tendency along the two diverging lines of evolution. 

 This statement implies that the difference between 

 instinct and intelligence is profound, and indeed one can 

 hardly study these two modes of acting without feeling 

 that this is the case. I am aware that very much indeed 

 has been written with regard to the evolution of 

 instinctive acting, but it may be suggested that the 

 formidable difficulties that attend all such hypotheses 

 indicate that the problem is in itself a pseudo-problem. 

 Is it not clear that we can make no real distinction 

 between the organic functioning of an organ and the 

 instinctive use of an organ ? The first act of a newly born 

 mammal is to draw a deep breath, and we do not hesitate 

 to describe this action as simply the organic functioning 

 of the muscles and nerves of the thorax, diaphragm, etc. 

 Its next act is probably to suckle the breasts of its mother 

 and this act which involves the same muscles, with some 

 others, we incline to call instinctive. Yet is there any 

 clear distinction between them? Is it not that our 

 ingrained mechanism compels us to think of an organ in 

 the same way as an artificial tool, the use of which has 

 to be discovered and learned, and which we use at first 

 imperfectly and then perfectly? Ought we not rather to 

 think of the evolution of a bodily organ as that of the 

 evolution both of its structure and functioning? That a 

 dog should be able to swim instinctively may be explained 

 on the principles of lamarckism or natural selection, but 

 is it not more probable that the use of the limbs for 

 progression through water was at all times in the 

 evolution of the animals that led up to the carnivora the 

 same thing as the existence of the limbs? Instinct, on 

 this view, is the inborn knowledge of things which is 



