Intuition and Analysis
Neither the term “intuition” nor the concept of a direct and immediate way of knowing objects was original with Bergson. A number of rationalists had used the word to describe the awareness of certain basic notions that exhibit a kind of transparency as to their truth and are commonly spoken of as self-evident. Mystics have often described the culmination of their mystic experiences, in which they see God face to face, as an intuitive experience. Many philosophers have recognized, as Bergson did, the need for a direct, as well as an indirect, way of knowing and have variously characterized intuition as “acquaintance,” “sensation,” “introspection,” “instinct,” and “feeling.” To Bergson goes the credit for extracting what is common to all of these conceptions of immediacy and for portraying the intuitive method in a clear and forceful manner by means of a wide range of vivid examples.
Intuition is defined by Bergson as “the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and consequently inexpressible.” In contrast, the method of analysis attempts to grasp the object by portraying the features that it possesses in common with other things. Analysis, therefore, always sees an object partially—from a certain perspective—rather than in its individuality and in terms of its peculiar properties. Intuition gives us what the object is in itself; analysis provides only the shell or the husk.
Of all the metaphors that Bergson uses to contrast the method of intuition with that of analysis, the spatial one is perhaps the most frequent. Consider the contrast between entering into an object and moving around it. Because of spatial perspective, an object appears different...
(The entire section is 729 words.)