which have lent a symbolic character to every kind of science.  Metaphysicians, too, have done the same thing.  Hence it was easy for Kant to show that our science is wholly relative and our metaphysics entirely artificial.  For Kant, science was a universal mathematic and metaphysics a practically unaltered Platonism.  The synthetic Intuition was hidden by the analysis to which it had given rise.  For Kant, Intuition was infra-intellectual, but for Bergson it is supra-intellectual.  Kant’s great error was in concluding that it is necessary for us, in order to attain Intuition, to leave the domain of the senses and of consciousness.  This was because of his views of Time and Change.  If Time and Change really were what he took them to be, then Metaphysics and Intuition alike are impossible.  For Bergson, however, Time and Change lead up to Intuition; indeed it is by Intuition that we come to see all things, as he expresses it, sub specie durationis.  This is the primary vision which an intuitive philosophy supplies.  Such a philosophy will not be merely a unification of the sciences.

In an article contributed to the Revue de metaphysique et de morale in January of 1908, under the title L’Evolution de l’intelligence geometrique, we find Bergson remarking:  “Nowhere have I claimed that we should replace intelligence by something else, or prefer instinct to it.  I have tried to show merely that when we leave the region of physical and mathematical objects for the realm of life and consciousness, we have to depend on a certain sense of living, which has its origin in the same vital impulse that is the basis of instinct, although instinct, strictly speaking, is something quite different.”

Intellect and Intuition, Bergson says very emphatically, at the close of his Huxley Lecture on Life and Consciousness, are not opposed to one another.  “How could there be a disharmony between our Intuitions and our Science, how, especially, could our Science make us renounce our Intuition, if these Intuitions are something like Instinct—­an Instinct conscious, refined, spiritualized—­and if Instinct is still nearer Life than Intellect and Science?  Intuition and Intellect do not oppose each other, save where Intuition refuses to become more precise by coming into touch with facts, scientifically studied, and where Intellect, instead of confining itself to Science proper (that is, to what can be inferred from facts, or proved by reasoning), combines with this an unconscious and inconsistent metaphysic which in vain lays claim to scientific pretensions.  The future seems to belong to a philosophy which will take into account the whole of what is given.” [Footnote:  Life and Consciousness, as reported in The Hibbert Journal, Vol.  X, Oct., 1911, pp. 24-44.] Intuition, to be fruitful, must interact with Intellect.  It has the direct insight of Instinct, but its range is widened in proportion as it blends with Intellect.  To imagine that the acceptance of the gospel of Intuition