It is impossible to consider the mechanism of our intellect and the progress of our science without arriving at the conclusion that between intellect… - Henri Bergson

When it is said that an object occupies a large space in the soul or even that it fills it entirely, we ought to understand by this simply that its image has altered the shade of a thousand perceptions or memories, and that in this sense it pervades them, although it does not itself come into view.

Thus I repudiate facility. I recommend a certain manner of thinking which courts difficulty; I value effort above everything. How could certain people have mistaken my meaning? To say nothing of the kind of person who would insist that my “intuition” was instinct or feeling. Not one line of what I have written could lend itself to such an interpretation. And in everything I have written there is assurance to the contrary: my intuition is reflection. But because I called attention to the mobility at the base of things, it has been claimed that I encouraged a sort of relaxing of the mind. And because the permanence of substance was, in my eyes, a continuity of change, it has been said that my doctrine was a justification of instability. One might just as well imagine that the bacteriologist recommends microbic diseases to us when he shows us microbes everywhere, or that the physicist prescribes the exercise of swinging when he reduces natural phenomena to oscillations. A principle of explanation is one thing, a maxim of conduct is another. One could almost say that the philosopher who finds mobility everywhere is the only one who cannot recommend it, since he sees it as inevitable, since he discovers it in what people have agreed to call immobility. But the truth is that in spite of the fact that he views stability as a complexity of change or as a particular aspect of change, in spite of the fact that in some way he resolves stability into change he will none the less, like everybody else, distinguish stability and change. And for him, as for everyone, will arise the question of knowing to what extent it is the special appearance called stability, to what extent it is change pure and simple that he must recommend to human societies. His analysis of change leaves this question intact. If he has any common sense at all, he, like everyone else, will consider necessary a permanence of what is. He will say that institutions should furnish a relatively invariable framework

"Notre rire est toujours le rire d'un groupe. Il vous est peut-être arrivé, en wagon ou à une table d'hôte, d'entendre des voyageurs se raconter des histoires qui devaient être comiques pour eux puisqu'ils riaient de bon cœur. Vous auriez ri comme eux si vous eussiez été de leur société. Mais n'en étant pas, vous n'aviez aucune envie de rire. Un homme, à qui l'on demandait pourquoi il ne pleurait pas à un sermon où tout le monde versait des larmes, répondit : "Je ne suis pas de la paroisse". Ce que cet homme pensait des larmes serait bien plus vrai du rire."