"An absolute can only be given in an intuition, while all the rest has to do with analysis"
About this Quote
Bergson is drawing a hard line between what can be grasped whole and what can only be taken apart. An “absolute,” for him, isn’t a bigger, better conclusion at the end of careful reasoning; it’s the thing you touch directly, before you’ve translated it into concepts. That word “given” matters: the absolute isn’t manufactured by argument so much as encountered. Intuition, in Bergson’s sense, isn’t a hunch or a mood. It’s a disciplined immediacy, a way of entering an experience from the inside rather than circling it with definitions.
The subtext is a quiet indictment of the modern intellectual habit of mistaking analysis for access. Analysis is powerful, but it works by subtraction: it spatializes what is lived in time, breaks a flowing reality into manageable units, swaps motion for snapshots. Bergson’s lifelong target was the idea that reality is best understood as a set of stable objects and measurable states. Against that, he insists on duration: consciousness and life as continuous becoming, not a sequence of countable moments.
Contextually, this is early 20th-century philosophy pushing back against positivism, mechanistic psychology, and a prestige culture of science that wanted to treat mind and life as if they were machines. Bergson isn’t anti-intellect; he’s anti-reduction. He’s telling you why certain truths (about time, selfhood, creativity) feel flattened when “explained”: because explanation is often an evacuation, not an approach. Intuition is his demand that philosophy recover contact with the thing itself, not just its diagram.
The subtext is a quiet indictment of the modern intellectual habit of mistaking analysis for access. Analysis is powerful, but it works by subtraction: it spatializes what is lived in time, breaks a flowing reality into manageable units, swaps motion for snapshots. Bergson’s lifelong target was the idea that reality is best understood as a set of stable objects and measurable states. Against that, he insists on duration: consciousness and life as continuous becoming, not a sequence of countable moments.
Contextually, this is early 20th-century philosophy pushing back against positivism, mechanistic psychology, and a prestige culture of science that wanted to treat mind and life as if they were machines. Bergson isn’t anti-intellect; he’s anti-reduction. He’s telling you why certain truths (about time, selfhood, creativity) feel flattened when “explained”: because explanation is often an evacuation, not an approach. Intuition is his demand that philosophy recover contact with the thing itself, not just its diagram.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Henri
Add to List






