Professor Henri Bergson’s Biology. ue) 
XIII.—Professor Henri Bergson’s Biology. Address delivered on October 
28th, 1912, by the retiring President, Prof. J. Arthur Thomson, 
M.A. 
To some it may seem strange indeed that this opportunity for scientific 
discourse should be used to direct attention to the biological views of a 
Professor of Philosophy. Is Saul also among the prophets? Can even a 
brilliant philosopher instruct us in Biology ? 
Why are we so quick to bid the shoemaker stick to his last? Is it because 
we know the difficulty of getting a firm grip of any one subject? Or is 
our jealousy for the sanctity of “intellectual preserves” in part due to the 
fact that intruders, when really men of might, are more or less upsetting, 
disarranging our mental furniture and making us uncomfortable ? 
Whatever may be the motive of our trespass notice-boards, we have only 
to look around to be convinced that they are of little avail. For the strong 
the day of “intellectual preserves” is over. The philosopher taking Biology 
seriously has now a welcome as well as a reward; the biologist who 
disciplines himself in the sublime logic of metaphysics, profits by the 
philosophers’ criticism of his categories. It spells progress that we have 
biologists like Lloyd Morgan and Driesch in the ranks of the philosophers, 
and metaphysicians like Bergson and Pringle-Pattison moving with a firm step 
among the biologists. 
Perhaps it is a little unfair to speak of M. Bergson’s “ Biology,” for he 
_mmakes no profession of giving any systematic treatment of biological problems. 
He uses biological data primarily for philosophical purposes, on general 
grounds, since philosophy must take account of all the data that all the 
sciences lay at her feet, and on special grounds, since he believes that 
theory of knowledge and theory of life are inseparable, and should push each 
other on unceasingly. He uses biological data for a second purpose, that 
he may throw a philosophical light on them. For while he does not of 
course meddle with biological facts, with which he is much more conversant 
than some of his critics, he presses home the question whether Biology is 
altogether right in its choice of the frames in which it encloses these. 
Bergson tries biological facts in new frames. 
It is often interesting to have a favourite passage depolarised by being 
translated into a new language—one of Burns’s poems in German, or one of 
Heine’s poems in Scots. It is interesting to see a familiar landscape in an 
unusual light—such as that of dawn. So it may be interesting to look at 
some familiar facts of Biology through Bergson’s philosophical eyes. 
