Abstract

Intuition, duration, and critique of the possible are the great concepts and theses that define the heart of Bergsonian thought. Despite their keenness to uncover the implications of Bergson’s theses in various fields (such as epistemology, neuroscience, metaphysics, and physics), many commentators fail to address what is most pressing about them : the arguments which support them and the facts which corroborate them. In this paper, we reverse this tendency and try to establish, in turn, whether the intuitive method is sound, whether the characteristics of duration are accurate, and finally, whether the critique of the possible might not itself deserve a critique. However, our general aim is not to refute the Bergsonian doctrine but to focus on those dimensions of it that remain to be placed on firmer ground.