The aim of this study is to make an inquiry on the nature and the development of dualities in Bergson&rsquo / s philosophy. Since the nature of each duality differs from the others and the dualistic pattern inherent in Bergsonian philosophy is subject to change, we base our study on a chronological structure in order to comprehend better how this pattern changes. We claim that such an inquiry will yield relevant outcomes with regard to ontological and epistemological evolution of Bergson&rsquo / s thought. To state more precisely, we are of the idea that the modification in the dualistic pattern in Bergson&rsquo / s ontology is reflected in a parallel manner in his epistemology. The fundamental question that shows us the way to follow in our study is whether the elements of the dualities (whether they be ontological or epistemological) are reconciled by Bergson or they are left as absolutely distinct elements. At the end of the inquiry regarding that question, which we believe can be taken as an inspiring point in developing new approaches especially to epistemological problems, our conviction is that Bergson points out to a meeting point.

In his writings, Bergson criticizes the scientific concept of time as a discontinuous and homogeneous succession. According to Bergson, scientific methods do not lead to an authentic knowledge of the reality which is inherently continuous and heterogeneous for him. The more we objectify and conceptualize the world, the more far away are we from being aware of it and actually grasping it. The reason for this distance or distortion is our intellect that always operates with a linear concept of time and always serves everyday conduct. Thus it works with the delusion of time that produces a useful but to some extent illusory knowledge. The question for this thesis is how inteligence or intellect meets with reality in spite of their different nature. What makes it possible to connect our practical needs with reality. Is the world we are living in, the world of our practical life, real or just an illusion of reality? And how can we understand the meaning of our scientific cognition in this sense?