,naturalism ,and ,religion ,by ,dr4 ,rudolf ,otto ,professor of ,theology in the ,university of ,gttingen ,translated by ,j4 ,arthur ,thomson ,professor of ,natural ,history in the ,university of ,aberdeen and ,margaret ,r4 ,thomson ,edited with an ,introduction by ,the ,rev4 ,w4 ,d4 ,morrison1 ,,ll4,d4 ,williams ,norgate ,ltd4 #ch ,great ,ormond ,street1 ,london1 ,w4,c4#a #aijg ,,contents ,preface4 ,chapter ,i4 ,the ,religious ,interpretation ,of ,the ,world4 ,what is ,distinctive in the ,religious ,outlook4 ,chapter ,,ii4 ,naturalism4 ,what is ,distinctive in the ,naturalistic ,outlook4 ,the ,true ,naturalism4 ,goethe's ,attitude to ,naturalism4 ,the two ,kinds of ,naturalism4 ,aim and ,method of ,naturalism4 ,chapter ,,iii4 ,fundamental ,principles4 ,how the ,religious and the ,naturalistic ,outlooks ,conflict4 ,mystery 3 ,dependence 3 ,purpose4 ,the ,mystery of ,existence ,remains ,unexplained4 ,evolution and ,new ,beginnings4 ,the ,dependence of the ,order of ,nature4 ,the 8,contingency0 of the ,world4 ,the ,real ,world4 ,the ,antimony of ,our ,conception of ,time4 ,the ,antimony of the ,conditioned and the ,unconditioned4 ,the ,antimony of ,our ,conception of ,space4 ,the ,recognition of ,purpose4 ,teleological and ,scientific ,interpretations are ,alike ,necessary4 ,chapter ,,iv4 ,darwinism ,in ,general4 ,the ,development of ,darwinism4 ,darwinism and ,teleology4 ,the ,characteristic ,features of ,darwinism4 ,various ,forms of ,darwinism4 ,the ,theory of ,descent4 ,haeckel's ,evolutionist ,position4 ,weismann's ,evolutionist ,position4 ,virchow's ,position4 ,other ,instances of ,dissatisfaction with the ,theory of ,descent4 ,chapter ,v4 ,religion ,and ,the ,theory ,of ,descent4 ,the ,problema ,continui4 ,chapter ,,vi4 ,darwinism ,in ,the ,strict ,sense4 ,differences of ,opinion ,as ,to the ,factors ,in ,evolution4 ,weismannism4 ,natural ,selection4 ,chapter ,,vii4 ,critics ,of ,darwinism4 ,lamarckism and ,neo-,lamarckism4 ,theory of ,definite ,variation4 ,de ,vries's ,mutation-theory4 ,eimer's ,orthogenesis4 ,the ,spontaneous ,activity of the ,organism4 ,contrast ,between ,darwinian and ,post-,darwinian ,views4 ,chapter ,,viii4 ,the ,mechanical ,theory ,of ,life4 ,the ,conservation of ,matter and ,energy4 ,the ,organic and the ,inorganic4 ,irritability4 ,spontaneous ,generation4 ,the ,mechanics of ,development4 ,heredity4 ,chapter ,,ix4 ,criticism ,of ,mechanical ,theories4 ,the ,law of the ,conservation of ,energy4 ,criticisms of the ,mechanistic ,theory of ,life4 ,virchow's 8,caution04 ,preyer's ,position4 ,the ,position ,of ,bunge and ,other ,physiologists4 ,the ,views of ,botanists ,illustrated4 ,constructive ,criticism4 ,the ,constructive ,work of ,driesch4 ,the ,views of ,albrecht and ,schneider4 ,how all this affects the ,religious ,outlook4 ,chapter ,x4 ,autonomy ,of ,spirit4 ,naturalistic ,attacks on the ,autonomy of the ,spiritual4 ,the ,fundamental ,answer4 ,individual ,development4 ,underivability4 ,pre-eminence of ,consciousness4 ,creative ,power of ,consciousness4 ,activity of ,consciousness4 ,the ,ego4 ,self-,consciousness4 ,the ,unity of ,consciousness4 ,consciousness of the ,ego4 ,chapter ,,xi4 ,freedom ,of ,spirit4 ,feeling1 ,individuality1 ,genius1 and ,mysticism4 ,feeling4 ,individuality4 ,genius4 ,mysticism4 ,mind and ,spirit4 ,the ,human and the ,animal ,soul4 ,personality4 ,parallelism4 ,no ,parallelism4 ,the ,supremacy of ,mind4 8,the ,unconscious04 ,is there ,ageing of the ,mind8 ,immortality4 ,chapter ,,xii4 ,the ,world ,and ,god4 ,footnotes ,,preface4 ,it is a remarkable and in some respects a disquieting fact that whilst rival ecclesiastical parties are engaged in a furious and embittered debate as to the precise shade of religious instruction to be given in public elementary schools1 the thinking classes in modern ,europe are becoming more and more stirred by the really vital question whether there is room in the educated mind for a religious conception of the world at all4 ,the slow silent uninterrupted advance of research of all kinds into nature1 life1 and history1 has imperceptibly but irrevocably1 revolutionised our traditional outlook upon the world1 and one of the supreme questions before the contemporary mind is the probable issue of the great struggle now taking place between the religious and the non-religious conception of human life and destiny4 ,when we look at the development of this great fundamental conflict we feel that disputes between rival ecclesiastical systems are of trifling moment2 the real task at the present time before every form of religion is the task of vindicating itself before a hostile view of life and things4 ,it is the consciousness of this fact which has led to the translation and publication in ,english of ,professor ,otto's volume4 ,professor ,otto is well known on the ,continent as a thinker who possesses the rare merit of combining a high philosophic discipline with an accurate and comprehensive knowledge of the science of organic nature4 ,it is this combination of aptitudes which has attracted so much attention to his work on ,naturalism and ,religion1 and which gives it a value peculiar to itself4 ,at a time when so much loose and incoherent thinking exists about fundamental problems1 and when so many irrelevant claims are made1 sometimes on behalf of religion and sometimes on behalf of hypotheses said to be resting upon science1 it is a real satisfaction to meet with such a competent guide as ,dr4 ,otto4 ,although his book is written for the general reader1 it is in reality a solid scientific contribution to the great debate at present in progress between two different conceptions of the ultimate nature and meaning of things4 ,as such it is to be hoped that it will receive the favourable consideration which it deserves at the hands of the ,english-speaking world4 ,w4,d4,m4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,religious ,,interpretation ,,of ,,the ,,world4 ,the title of this book1 contrasting as it does the naturalistic and the religious interpretation of the world1 indicates that the intention of the following pages is1 in the first place1 to define the relation1 or rather the antithesis1 between the two2 and1 secondly1 to endeavour to reconcile the contradictions1 and to vindicate against the counter-claims of naturalism1 the validity and freedom of the religious outlook4 ,in doing this it is assumed that there is some sort of relation between the two conceptions1 and that there is a possibility of harmonising them4 ,will this be admitted8 ,is it not possible that the two views are incommensurable1 and would it not be most desirable for both sides if this were so1 for if there is no logical antithesis then there can be no real antagonism8 ,and is not this actually the case8 ,surely we have now left far behind us the primitive expressions of the religious outlook which were concerned with the creation of the world in six days1 the making of ,eve out of ,adam's rib1 the story of ,paradise and the angelic and demoniacal forces1 and the accessory miracles and accompanying signs by means of which the ,divine control of the world was supposed to manifest itself4 ,we have surely learnt by this time to distinguish between the simple mythical or legendary forms of expression in the religious archives1 and their spiritual value and ethical content4 ,we can give to natural science and to religious feeling what is due to each1 and thus have done for ever with tedious apologetic discussion4 ,it were well indeed if we had really attained to this6 ,but the relations1 and therefore the possibilities of conflict between religion and world-science1 are by no means so easily disposed of4 ,no actually existing form of religion is so entirely made up of 8feeling10 8subjectivity10 or 8mood10 that it can dispense with all assumptions or convictions regarding the nature and import of the world4 ,in fact1 every form1 on closer examination1 reveals a more or less fixed framework of convictions1 theoretical assumptions1 and presuppositions in regard to man1 the world1 and existence3 that is to say1 a theory1 however simple1 of the universe4 ,and this theory must be harmonised with the conceptions of things as they are presented to us in general world-lore1 in natural and historical science1 in particular sciences1 in theories of knowledge1 and perhaps in metaphysics2 it must measure itself by and with these1 and draw from them support and corroboration1 and possibly also submit to contradiction and correction4 ,there is no form of religion1 not even the most rarefied 7which makes least claim because it has least content71 that does not include in itself some minute ,credo1 some faith1 implying attachment to a set of doctrines and conclusions however few4 ,and it is always necessary to show that these conclusions are worthy of adherence1 and that they are not at variance with conclusions and truths in regard to nature and the world drawn from other sources4 ,and if we consider1 not the efflorescences and artificial products of religion1 but religion itself1 it is certain that there is1 and always must be1 around it a borderland and fringe of religious world-theory1 with which it is not indeed identical1 but without which it is inconceivable2 that is1 a series of definite and characteristic convictions relating to the world and its existence1 its meaning1 its 8whence0 and 8whither02 to man and his intelligence1 his place and function in the world1 his peculiar dignity1 and his destiny2 to time and space1 to infinity and eternity1 and to the depth and mystery of ,being in general4 ,these convictions and their fundamental implications can be defined quite clearly1 both singly and as a whole1 and later we shall attempt so to define them4 ,and it is of the greatest importance to religion that these presuppositions and postulates should have their legitimacy and validity vindicated4 ,for they are at once the fundamental and the minimal postulates which religion must make in its outlook on the world1 which it must make if it is to exist at all4 ,and they are so constituted that1 even when they are released from their primitive and nave form and association1 and permitted speculative development and freedom1 they must1 nevertheless1 just because they contain a theory of the world1 be brought into comparison1 contact1 or relation of some kind1 whether hostile or friendly1 with other world-conceptions of different origin4 ,this relation will be hostile or friendly according to the form these other conceptions have taken4 ,it is impossible to imagine any religious view of the world whose network of conceptions can have meshes so wide1 or constituents so elastic and easily adjustable1 that it will allow every theoretical conception of nature and the world to pass through it without violence or friction1 offering to none either let or hindrance4 ,it has indeed often been affirmed that religion may1 without anxiety about itself1 leave scientific knowledge of the world to go its own way4 ,the secret reservation in this position is always the belief that scientific knowledge will never in any case reach the real depth and meaning of things4 ,perhaps this is true4 ,but the assumption itself would remain1 and would have to be justified4 ,and if religion had no other interest in general world-theory1 it would still have this pre-eminent one1 that1 by defining the limitations of scientific theory1 and showing that they can never be transcended1 it thus indicates for itself a position beyond them in which it can dwell securely4 ,in reality religion has never ceased to turn its never-resting1 often anxious gaze towards the progress1 the changes1 the secure results and tentative theories in the domain of general world-science1 and again and again it has been forced to come to a new adjustment with them4 ,one great centre of interest1 though by no means the only or even the chief one1 lies in the special field of world-lore and theoretical interpretation comprised in the natural sciences4 ,and in the following pages we shall make this our special interest1 and shall endeavour to inquire whether our modern natural science consists with the 8minimal requirements0 of the religious point of view1 with which we shall make closer acquaintance later2 or whether it is at all capable of being brought into friendly relations with that point of view4 ,such a study need not necessarily be 8apologetic10 that is to say1 defensive1 but may be simply an examination4 ,for in truth the real results of investigation are not now and never were 8aggressive10 but are in themselves neutral towards not only religious but all idealistic conceptions1 and leave it1 so to speak1 to the higher methods of study to decide how the material supplied is to be taken up into their different departments1 and brought under their particular points of view4 ,our undertaking only becomes defensive and critical because1 not from caprice or godlessness1 but1 as we shall see1 from an inherent necessity1 the natural sciences1 in association with other convictions and aims1 tend readily to unite into a distinctive and independent system of world-interpretation1 which1 if it were valid and sufficient1 would drive the religious view into difficulties1 or make it impossible4 ,this independent system is ,naturalism1 and against its attacks the religious conception of the world has to stand on the defensive4 ,what is ,distinctive in the ,religious ,outlook4 ,at the very beginning and throughout we must keep the following points clearly before us1 otherwise all our endeavours will only lead us astray1 and be directed towards an altogether false issue4 ,firstly1 everything depends and must depend upon vindicating the validity and freedom of the religious view of the world as contrasted with world-science in general2 but we must not attempt to derive it directly from the latter4 ,if religion is to live1 it must be able to demonstrate--and it can be demonstrated--that its convictions in regard to the world and human existence are not contradicted from any other quarter1 that they are possible and may be believed to be true4 ,it can1 perhaps1 also be shown that a calm and unprejudiced study of nature1 both physical and metaphysical reflection on things1 will supplement the interpretations of religion1 and will lend confirmation and corroboration to many of the articles of faith already assured to it4 ,but it would be quite erroneous to maintain that we must be able to read the religious conception of the world out of nature1 and that it must be1 in the first instance1 derivable from nature1 or that we can1 not to say must1 regard natural knowledge as the source and basis of the religious interpretation of the world4 ,an apologetic based on such an idea as this would greatly overestimate its own strength1 and not only venture too high a stake1 but would damage the cause of religion and alter the whole position of the question4 ,this mistake has often been made4 ,the old practice of finding 8evidences of the existence of ,god0 had exactly this tendency4 ,it was seriously believed that one could thereby do more than vindicate for religious conviction a right of way in the system of knowledge4 ,it was seriously believed that knowledge of ,god could be gained from and read out of nature1 the world1 and earthly existence1 and thus that the propositions of the religious view of the world could not only gain freedom and security1 but could be fundamentally proved1 and even directly inferred from ,nature in the first instance4 ,the strength of these evidences was greatly overestimated1 and ,nature was too much studied with reference to her harmony1 her marvellous wealth and purposeful wisdom1 her significant arrangements and endless adaptations2 and too little attention was paid to the multitudinous enigmas1 to the many instances of what seems unmeaning and purposeless1 confused and dark4 ,people were far too ready to reason from finite things to infinite causes1 and the validity or logical necessity of the inferences drawn was far too rarely scrutinised4 ,and1 above all1 the main point was overlooked4 ,for even if these 8evidences0 had succeeded better1 if they had been as sufficient as they were insufficient1 it is certain that religion and the religious conception of the world could never have arisen from them1 but were in existence long before any such considerations had been taken into account4 ,long before these were studied1 religion had arisen from quite other sources4 ,these sources lie deep in the human spirit1 and have had a long history4 ,to trace them back in detail is a special task belonging to the domain of religious psychology1 history1 and philosophy1 and we cannot attempt it here1 but must take it for granted4 ,having arisen from these sources1 religion has long lived a life of its own1 forming its own convictions in regard to the world and existence1 possessing these as its faith and truth1 basing their credibility1 and gaining for them the adherence of its followers1 on quite other grounds than those used in 8proving the existence of ,god40 ,ideas and conclusions which have not arisen in this way can hardly be said to be religious1 though they may resemble religious ideas4 ,but having thus arisen1 the religious view comes into contact with knowledge in general1 and then a need for justification1 or even a state of antagonism1 may arise4 ,it may then be asked whether convictions and ideas which1 so far1 have come solely from within1 and have been affirmed and recognised as truths only by heart and conscience1 can possibly be adhered to in the face of the insight afforded by an investigation and scientific knowledge of nature4 ,let us take an example1 and at once the highest that can be found4 ,the religious recognition of the sway of an eternal ,providence cannot possibly be directly derived from1 or proved by1 any consideration of nature and history4 ,if we had not had it already1 no apologetic and no evidences of the existence of ,god would have given it to us4 ,the task of an apologetic which knows its limitations and its true aims can only be to inquire whether there is scope and freedom left for these religious ideas alongside of our natural knowledge of the world2 to show that the latter1 because of its proper limitations1 has no power to make a pronouncement in regard to the highest meaning of the world2 and to point to certain indications in nature and history that justify us in interpreting the whole in terms of purpose and ultimate import4 ,this is the case with all the conceptions and conclusions of the religious view of the world4 ,no single one of them can be really proved from a study of nature1 because they are much too deep to be reached by ordinary reasoning1 and much too peculiar in their character and content to be discovered by any scientific consideration of nature or interpretation of the world4 ,it is1 however1 at the same time obvious that all apologetic must follow religion1 and can never precede it4 ,religion can only be awakened1 never coerced4 ,once awakened1 it can reflect on its validity and freedom2 but it alone can really understand both4 ,and apart from religion1 or without its presence1 all apologetic endeavours are gratuitous1 and are1 moreover1 expressly forbidden by its own highest authorities 7,matt4 xxiii4 #ae74 ,the second point is even more important4 ,religion does not hold its theory of the world and its interpretations of the nature and meaning of things in the same way as poetry does its fine-spun1 airy dreams1 whose chief value lies in the fact that they call up moods and arouse a play of feeling1 and which may be grave or gay1 elegiac or idyllic1 charming or sublime1 but may be true or false indifferently4 ,for there is this outstanding difference between religion and all 8moods0--all poetic or fanciful views of nature--that it lives by the certainty of its ideas1 suffers if they be uncertain1 and dies if they be shown to be untenable1 however charming or consoling1 sublime or simple they may be4 ,its theories of the world are not poems2 they are convictions1 and these require to be first of all not pleasing but true4 7,hence it is that criticism may arise out of religion itself1 since religion seeks for its own sake to find secure foundations47 ,and in this respect the religious conception of the world is quite in line with world-theory in general4 ,both desire to express reality4 ,they do not wish to lay gaily-coloured wreaths and garlands about reality that they may enjoy it1 plunged in their respective moods2 they desire to understand it and give an account of it4 ,but there is at once apparent a characteristic difference between the propositions and conclusions of the religious view and those of the secular1 a difference not so much of content1 which goes without saying1 but in the whole form1 manner and method1 and tone4 ,as ,schleiermacher put it3 8,you can never say that it advances with the sure tread0 of which science in general is capable1 and by which it is recognisable4 ,the web of religious certainty is much more finely and delicately woven1 and more susceptible of injury than the more robust one of ordinary knowledge4 ,moreover1 where religious certainty has attained its highest point in a believing mind1 and is greater rather than less than the certainty of what is apprehended by the senses or experienced day by day1 this characteristic difference is most easily discerned4 ,the believer is probably much more confident about 8the care of his ,heavenly ,father10 or 8the life eternal10 than he is about this life with its varying and insignificant experiences and content4 ,for he knows about the life beyond in quite a different way4 ,the truths of the religious outlook cannot be put on the same level as those of ordinary and everyday life4 ,and when the mind passes from one to the other it does so with the consciousness that the difference is in kind4 ,the knowledge of ,god and eternity1 and the real value1 transcending space and time1 of our own inner being1 cannot even in form be mixed up with the trivial truths of the normal human understanding or the conclusions of science4 ,in fact1 the truths of religion exhibit1 in quite a special way1 the character of all ideal truths1 which are not really true for every day at all1 but are altogether bound up with exalted states of feeling4 ,this is expressed in the old phrase1 8,deus non scitur sed creditur0 ,god is not known but believed in4 ,for the ,sorbonne was quite right and protected one of the essential interests of religion1 when it rejected as heresy the contrary position1 that it was possible to 8know0 ,god4 ,thus1 in the way in which ,i 8know0 that ,i am sitting at this writing-table1 or that it rained yesterday1 or that the sum of the angles in a triangle are equal to two right angles1 ,i can know nothing of ,god4 ,but ,i can know of ,him something in the way in which ,i know that to tell the truth is right1 that to keep faith is duty1 propositions which are certain and which state something real and valid1 but which ,i could not have arrived at without conscious consent1 and a certain exaltation of spirit on my own part4 ,this1 and especially the second part of it1 holds true in an increased degree of all religious conceptions4 ,they weave themselves together out of the most inward and subtle experiences1 out of impressions which are coarsened in the very act of expressing them4 ,their import and value must be judged entirely by the standards of conscience and feeling1 by their own self-sufficiency and validity4 ,the best part of them lies in the intensity and vitality of their experience1 and in the spontaneous acceptance and recognition which they receive4 ,they cannot be apprehended by the prosaic1 secular mind2 whatever is thus apprehended is at most an indifferent analogue of religious experience1 if it is not self-deception4 ,it is only in exaltation1 in quiet enthusiasm1 that religious feelings can come to life and become pervasive1 and religious truth can only become a possession available for everyday use in proportion as it is possible to make this non-secular and exalted state of mind permanent1 and to maintain enthusiasm as the enduring mood of life and conduct4 ,and as this is capable of all degrees of intensity from overpowering outbursts and isolated raptures to a gentle but permanent tension and elevation of spirit1 so also is the certainty and actuality of our knowledge1 whether of the sway of the divine power1 or of our own higher nature and destiny1 or of any religious truth whatever4 ,this is what is meant by ,st4 ,paul's 8,praying without ceasing0 and his 8,being in the ,spirit0 as a permanent mood2 and herein lies the justification of the statement of enthusiasm that truth is only found in moments of ecstasy4 ,in fact1 religion and religious interpretations are nothing if not 8enthusiasms10 that is to say1 expressions of the art of sustaining a permanent exaltation of spirit4 ,and any one who is not capable of this inward exaltation1 or is too little capable of it1 is badly qualified for either religion or religious outlook4 ,the 8enthusiasts0 will undoubtedly make a better figure in the 8kingdom of ,god10 as well as find an easier entrance therein1 than the prosaic matter-of-fact people4 ,this is really the source of much that is vexatious in all apologetic efforts1 and indeed in all theorising about religion1 as soon as we attempt to get beyond the periphery into the heart of the matter4 ,for in order to understand the subject at all a certain amount of 8enthusiasm0 is necessary1 and in most cases the disputants fail to reach common ground because this enthusiasm is lacking in one or both4 ,if they both have it1 in that case also dialectics are out of the question4 ,finally1 it must be remarked that1 as ,luther puts it1 8,faith always goes against appearances40 ,the religious conception of the world not only never grows directly out of a scientific and general study of things1 but it can never be brought into absolute congruence with it4 ,there are endless tracts and domains of the world1 in nature and history1 which we cannot bring under the religious consideration at all1 because they admit of no interpretation from the higher or more general points of view2 they lie before us as everlasting unrelated mysteries1 uncomprehended as to their import and purpose4 ,moreover1 the religious theory of the world can never tell us1 or wish to tell us1 what the world is as a whole1 or what is the meaning of its being4 ,it is enough for us that it throws light on our own being1 and reveals to us our place and destiny1 and the meaning of our existence4 ,it is enough if1 in this respect1 reality adapts itself to the interpretations of religion1 admits of their truth and allows them scope1 and corroborates them in important ways and instances4 ,it actually does this1 and it can be demonstrated that it does4 ,and in demonstrating this the task of an apologetic that knows its own limitations alone consists4 ,it must be aware that it will succeed even in this1 only if it is supported by a courageous will to believe and joy in believing1 that many gaps and a thousand riddles will remain1 that the ultimate and highest condition of the search after a world-interpretation is personal decision and personal choice1 which finally depends upon 8what manner of man one is40 ,faith has always meant going against appearances4 ,it has gone against them not from obstinacy or incorrigible lack of understanding1 but because it has had strong reasons1 impossible to set aside1 for regarding appearances literally as appearances4 ,it has suffered from the apparent1 often even to the point of extinction1 and has again drawn from it and from its opposition its highest strength4 ,that they overmastered appearances made of the heroes of faith the greatest of all heroes4 ,and thus religion lives by the very riddles which have frequently caused its death1 and they are a part of its inheritance and constitution4 ,to work continually towards their solution is a task which it will never give up4 ,until success has been achieved1 it is of importance to show1 that what comes into conflict with faith in these riddles at the present day is not something new and previously unheard of4 ,in cases where faith has died because of them we almost invariably find the opinion that religion might have been possible in earlier and more nave times1 but that it is no longer possible to us1 with our deeper insight into the dark mystery of nature and destiny4 ,this is foolishness4 ,when faith dies thus1 it dies of one of its infantile diseases4 ,for from the tragedies of ,job and of ,jeremiah to the ,tower of ,siloam and the horror of the ,mont-,pele eruption there runs a direct lineage of the same perennial riddle4 ,well-developed religion has never existed without this--at once its shadow and its touchstone4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,naturalism4 ,naturalism is not of to-day or of yesterday1 but is very ancient1--as old1 indeed1 as philosophy1--as old as human thought and doubt4 ,indeed1 we may say that it almost invariably played its part whenever man began to reflect on the whence and the how of the actual world around him4 ,in the philosophical systems of ,leucippus and ,democritus and ,epicurus it lies fully developed before us4 ,it persisted as a latent and silently dreaded antagonist1 even in times when 8orthodox0 anti-naturalistic and super-naturalistic systems were the officially prevailing ones1 and were to all appearance generally adhered to4 ,so in the more modern systems of materialism and positivism1 in the ,systme de la nature and in the theory of l'homme machine1 in the materialistic reactions from the idealistic nature-speculations of ,schelling and ,hegel1 in the discussions of materialism in the past century1 in the naturalistic writings of ,moleschott1 ,czolbe1 ,vogt1 ,bchner1 and ,haeckel1 and in the still dominant naturalistic tendency and mood which acquired new form and deep-rooted individuality through ,darwinism1--in all these we find naturalism1 not indeed originating as something new1 but simply blossoming afresh with increased strength4 ,the antiquity of ,naturalism is no reproach1 and no reason for regarding it as a matter long since settled2 it rather indicates that ,naturalism is not a chance phenomenon1 but an inevitable growth4 ,the favourite method of treating it as though it were the outcome of modern scepticism1 malice1 or obduracy1 is just as absurd as if the 8naturalists0 were to treat the convictions of their opponents as the result of incredible narrow-mindedness1 priestly deception1 senility1 or calcification of the brain-cells4 ,and as naturalism is of ancient origin so also do its different historical phases and forms resemble each other in their methods1 aims1 and arguments1 as well as in the moods1 sympathies1 and antipathies which accompany them4 ,even in its most highly developed form we can see that it did not spring originally from a completed and unified principle1 but was primarily criticism of and opposition to other views4 ,what is ,distinctive in the ,naturalistic ,outlook4 ,at first tentative1 but becoming ever more distinctly conscious of its real motive1 ,naturalism has always arisen in opposition to what we may call 8supernatural0 propositions1 whether these be the nave mythological explanations of world-phenomena found in primitive religions1 or the supernatural popular metaphysics which usually accompanies the higher forms4 ,it is actuated at the same time by one of the most admirable impulses in human nature1--the impulse to explain and understand1--and to explain1 if possible1 through simple1 familiar1 and ordinary causes4 ,the sane human understanding sees all about it the domain of everyday and familiar phenomena4 ,it is quite at home in this domain2 everything seems to it well-known1 clear1 transparent1 and easily understood2 it finds in it intelligible causes and certain laws which govern phenomena1 as well as a constant association of cause and effect4 ,here everything can be individually controlled and examined1 and everything 8happens naturally40 ,things govern themselves4 ,nothing unexpected1 nothing that has not its obvious causes1 nothing mysterious or miraculous happens here4 ,sharply contrasted with this stands the region of the apparently inexplicable1 the supernatural1 with all its influences and operations1 and results4 ,to the religious interpretation in its nave1 pious1 or superstitious forms of expression1 this region of the supernatural seems to encroach broadly and deeply on the domain of the everyday world4 ,but with the awakening of criticism and reflection1 and the deepening of investigation into things1 it retreats farther and farther1 it surrenders piece after piece to the other realm of thought1 and this arises doubt and suspicion4 ,with these there soon awakens a profound conviction that a similar mode of causal connection binds all things together1 a glimmering of the uniformity and necessity embracing1 comprehending1 and ultimately explaining all things4 ,and these presentiments1 in themselves at first quite childishly and almost mythologically conceived1 may still be1 even when they first arise1 and while they are still only vaguely formulated1 anticipations of later more definite scientific conceptions4 ,such a beginning of naturalistic consciousness may remain quite nave and go no farther than a silent but persistent protest4 ,it makes free use of such familiar expressions as 8everything comes about of itself02 8everything happens by natural means02 8it is all #8nature' or #8evolution4' 0 ,but from the primitive naturalistic outlook there may arise reconstructions of nature and cosmic speculations on a large scale1 expanding into naturalistic systems of the most manifold kinds1 beginning with those of the ,ionic philosophers and coming down to those of the most recent times4 ,their watchwords remain the same1 though in an altered dialect3 8nature and natural phenomena10 the denial of 8dualism10 the upholding of the one principle 8monism10 the all-sufficiency of nature1 and the absence of any intervening influences from without or beyond nature4 ,rapidly and of necessity this last item becomes transformed into a 8denial of teleology03 nature knows neither will nor purpose1 it has only to do with conditions and results4 ,with these it deals and through them it works4 ,even in the most elementary naturalistic idea1 that 8everything happens of itself10 there lurks that aversion to purpose which characterises all naturalistic systems4 ,a naturalism which has arisen and grown in this manner has in itself nothing to do with concrete and exact knowledge of nature4 ,it may comprise a large number of ideas which are sharply opposed to 8science10 and which may be in themselves mythological1 or poetical1 or even mystical4 ,for what 8nature0 itself really is fundamentally1 how it moves1 unfolds1 or impels1 how things actually happen 8naturally10 this naturalism has never attempted to think out4 ,indeed1 naturalism of this type1 though it opposes 8dualism10 does not by any means usually intend to set itself against religion4 ,on the contrary1 in its later developments1 it may take it up into itself in the form of an apotheosis and a worship of nature4 ,almost invariably naturalism which begins thus develops1 not into atheism1 but into pantheism4 ,it is true that all is nature and happens naturally4 ,but nature itself1 as ,thales said1 is 8full of gods10 instinct with divine life4 ,it is the all-living which1 unwearied and inexhaustible1 brings forth form after form and pours out its fulness4 ,it is ,giordano ,bruno's 8,cause1 ,principle1 and ,unity10 in endless beauty and overpowering magnificence1 and it is ,goethe's 8,great ,goddess10 herself the object of the utmost admiration1 reverence1 and devotion4 ,this mood may readily pass over into a kind of worship of ,god and belief in ,him1 8,god0 being regarded as the soul and mind1 the 8,logos0 of ,heraclitus and the ,stoics1 the inner meaning and reason of this all-living nature4 ,and thus naturalism in its last stages may sometimes be quite devout1 and may assure us that it is compelled to deny only the transcendental and not the immanent ,god1 the ,divine being enthroned above the world1 but not the living ,god dwelling within it4 ,and ever anew ,goethe's verse is quoted3 ,what ,god would outwardly alone control1 ,and on ,his finger whirl the mighty ,whole8 ,he loves the inner world to move1 to view ,nature in ,him1 ,himself in nature too1 ,so that what in ,him works1 and is1 and lives1 ,the measure of ,his strength1 ,his spirit gives4 ,the ,true ,naturalism4 ,but naturalism becomes fundamentally different when it ceases to remain at the level of nave or fancifully conceived ideas of 8nature0 and 8natural occurrences10 when1 instead of poetry or religious sentiments1 it incorporates something else1 namely1 exact natural science and the idea of a mathematical-mechanical calculability in the whole system of nature4 8,nature0 and 8happening naturally01 as used by the nave intelligence1 are half animistic ideas and modes of expression1 which import into nature1 or leave in it1 life and soul1 impulse1 and a kind of will4 ,and that speculative form of naturalism which tends to become religious develops this fault to its utmost4 ,but a 8nature0 like this is not at all a possible subject for natural science and exact methods1 not a subject for experiment1 calculation1 and fixed laws1 for precise interpretation1 or for interpretation on simple rational principles4 ,instead of the nave1 poetical1 and half mystical conceptions of nature we must have a really scientific one1 so that1 so to speak1 the supernatural may be eliminated from nature1 and the apparently irrational rationalised2 that is1 so that all its phenomena may be traced back to simple1 unequivocal1 and easily understood processes1 the actual why and how of all things perceived1 and thus1 it may be1 understood2 so that1 in short1 everything may be seen to come about 8by natural means40 ,there is obviously one domain and order of processes in nature which exactly fulfils those requirements1 and is really in the fullest sense 8natural10 that is1 quite easily understood1 quite rational1 quite amenable to computation and measurement1 quite rigidly subordinate to laws which can be formulated4 ,these are the processes of physics and chemistry1 and in a still higher degree those of movement in general1 the processes of mechanics in short4 ,and to bring into this domain and subordinate to its laws everything that occurs in nature1 all becoming1 and passing away1 and changing1 all development1 growth1 nutrition1 reproduction1 the origin of the individual and of the species1 of animals and of man1 of the living and the not living1 even of sensation and perception1 impulse1 desire and instinct1 will and thought--this alone would really be to show that things 8happen naturally10 that is1 to explain everything in terms of natural causes4 ,and the conviction that this can be done is the only true naturalism4 ,naturalism of this type is fundamentally different in mood and character from the nave and poetic form1 and is1 indeed1 in sharp contrast to it4 ,it is working against the very motives which are most vital to the latter--namely1 reverence for and deification of nature4 ,where the two types of naturalism really understand themselves nothing but sharp antagonism can exist between them4 ,those on the one side must condemn this unfeeling and irreverent1 cold and mathematical dissection and analysis of the 8,great ,goddess0 as a sacrilege and outrage4 ,and those on the other side must utterly reject as romantic the view which is summed up in the confession3 8,ist nicht ,kern der ,natur ,menschen im ,herzen80 ,is not the secret of nature in the human heart8 ,goethe's ,attitude to ,naturalism4 ,the most instructive example we can take is ,goethe3 his veneration for nature on the one hand1 and on the other his pronounced opposition to the naturalism both of the materialists and of the mathematicians4 ,modern naturalists are fond of seeking repose and mental refreshment in ,goethe's conception of the world1 under the impression that it fits in best and most closely with their own views4 ,that they do this says much for their mood and taste1 but not quite so much for their powers of discrimination or for their consistency4 ,it is even more thoughtless than when the empiricists and sensationalists acclaim as their hero1 ,spinoza1 the strict1 pure rationalist1 the despiser of empiricism and of knowledge acquired through the senses4 ,for to ,goethe nature is far from being a piece of mechanism which can be calculated on and summed up in mathematical formul1 an everlasting 8perpetuum mobile10 a magnificent all-powerful machine4 ,in fact1 all this and especially the word 8machine0 expresses exactly what ,goethe's conception was most directly opposed to4 ,to him nature is truly the 8,goddess10 the great ,diana of the ,ephesians1 the everlasting ,beauty1 the artist of genius1 ceaselessly inventing and creating1 in floods of ,life1 in ,action's storm--an infinite ocean1 a restless weaving1 a glowing ,life4 ,embracing within herself the highest and the humblest1 she is in all things1 throughout all change and transformation1 the same1 shadowing forth the most perfect in the simplest1 and in the highest only unfolding what she had already shown in the lowliest4 ,therefore ,goethe hated all divisions and rubrics1 all the contrasts and boundaries which learned analysis attempts to introduce into nature4 ,passionately he seized on ,herder's idea of evolution1 and it was towards establishing it that all his endeavours1 botanical1 zoological1 morphological and osteological1 were directed4 ,he discovered in the human skull the premaxillary bone which occurs in the upper jaw of all mammals1 and this 8keystone to man0 gave him1 as he himself said1 8such joy that all his bowels moved40 ,he interpreted the skull as developed from three modified vertebr4 ,he sketched a hypothesis of the primitive plant1 and the theory that all the organs of the plant are modifications and developments of the leaf4 ,he was a friend of ,etienne ,geoffroy ,st4 ,hilaire1 who defended 8l'unit de composition organique0 in the forms of nature1 and evolution by gradual stages1 and he was the vehement opponent of ,cuvier1 who attempted to pick the world to pieces according to strictly defined architectural plans and rigid classes4 ,and what the inner impulse to all this was he has summed up in the motto to his 8,morphology0 from the verse in ,job3 ,lo1 he goeth by me1 and ,i see him not2 ,he is transformed1 but ,i perceive him not4 ,he further declares it in the introductory verse to his ,osteology3 ,joyfully some years ago1 ,zealously my spirit sought ,to explore it all1 and know ,how all nature lived and wrought3 ,and 'tis ever ,one in all1 ,though in many ways made known2 ,small in great1 and great in small1 ,each in manner of its own4 ,ever shifting1 yet fast holding2 ,near and far1 and far and near2 ,so1 with moulding and remoulding1-- ,to my wonder ,i am here4 ,in all this there is absolutely nothing of the characteristic mood and spirit of 8exact0 naturalism1 with its mechanical and mathematical categories4 ,it matters little that ,goethe1 when he thought of evolution1 never had present to his mind the idea of ,descent which is characteristic of 8,darwinism10 but rather development in the lofty sense in which it is worked out in the nature-philosophy of ,schelling and of ,hegel4 ,the chief point is1 that to him nature was the all-living and ever-living1 whose creating and governing cannot be reduced to prosaic numbers or mathematical formul1 but are to be apprehended as a whole by the perceptions of genius rather than worked out by calculation or in detail4 ,any other way of regarding nature ,goethe early and decisively rejected4 ,and he has embodied his strong protest against it in his 8,dichtung und ,wahrheit03 8,how hollow and empty it seemed to us in this melancholy1 atheistical twilight4444 ,matter1 we learnt1 has moved from all eternity1 and by means of this movement to right and left and in all directions1 it has been able1 unaided1 to call forth all the infinite phenomena of existence40 ,the book--the 8,systme de la ,nature0--8seemed to us so grey1 so ,cimmerian1 so deathlike that it was with difficulty we could endure its presence40 ,and in a work with remarkable title and contents1 8,die ,farbenlehre10 ,goethe has summed up his antagonism to the 8,mathematicians10 and to their chief1 ,newton1 the discoverer and founder of the new mathematical-mechanical view of nature4 ,yet the mode of looking at things which is here combated with so much labour1 wit1 and1 in part1 injustice1 is precisely that of those who1 to this day1 swear by the name of ,goethe with so much enthusiasm and so little intelligence ,the two ,kinds of ,naturalism4 ,but let us return to the two kinds of naturalism we have already described4 ,much as they differ from one another in reality1 they are very readily confused and mixed up with one another4 ,and the chief peculiarity of what masquerades as naturalism among our educated or half-educated classes to-day lies in the fact that it is a mingling of the two kinds4 ,unwittingly1 people combine the moods of the one with the reasons and methods of the other2 and having done so they appear to themselves particularly consistent and harmonious in their thought1 and are happy that they have been able thus to satisfy at once the needs of the intellect and those of the heart4 ,on the one hand they stretch the mathematical-mechanical view as far as possible from below upwards1 and even attempt to explain the activities of life and consciousness as the results of complex reflex mechanisms4 ,and on the other hand they bring down will soul and instincts into the lowest stages of existence1 and become quite animistic4 ,they wish to be nothing if not 8exact10 and yet they reckon ,goethe and ,bruno among the greatest apostles of their faith1 and set their verses and sayings as a credo and motto over their own opinions4 ,in this way there arises a 8world conception0 so indiarubber-like and ,protean that it is as difficult as it is unsatisfactory to attempt to come to an understanding with it4 ,if we attempt to get hold of it by the fringe of poetry and idealism it has assumed1 it promptly retires into its 8exact0 half4 ,and if we try to limit ourselves to this1 in order to find a basis for discussion1 it spreads out before us all the splendours of a great nature pantheism1 including even the ideas of the good1 the true1 and the beautiful4 ,one thing only it neglects1 and that is1 to show where its two very different halves meet1 and what inner bond unites them4 ,thus if we are to discuss it at all1 we must first of all pick out and arrange all the foreign and mutually contradictory constituents it has incorporated1 then deal with ,pantheism and ,animism1 and with the problem of the possibility of 8the true1 the good1 the beautiful0 on the naturalistic-empiric basis1 and finally there would remain a readily-grasped residue of naturalism of the second form1 to come to some understanding with which is both necessary and instructive4 ,in the following pages we shall confine ourselves entirely to this type1 and we shall not laboriously disentangle it from the bewildering medley of ideas foreign to it1 or attempt to make it consistent2 we shall neglect these1 and have regard solely to its clear fundamental principles and aims4 ,thus regarded1 its horizons are perfectly well-defined4 ,it is startling in its absolute poverty of ideal content1 warmth1 and charm1 but impressive and grand in the perseverance and tenacity with which it adheres to one main point of view throughout4 ,in reality1 it is aggressive to nothing1 but cold and indifferent to everything1 and for this very reason is more dangerous than all the excited protests and verdicts of the enthusiastic type of naturalism1 which it is impossible to attack1 because of its lack of definite principles1 and which1 in the pathetic stress it lays on worshipping nature1 lives only by what it has previously borrowed from the religious conceptions of the world4 ,aim and ,method of ,naturalism4 ,the aim and method of the strict type of naturalism may be easily defined4 ,in its details it will become more distinct as we proceed with our analysis4 ,taking it as a whole1 we may say that it is an endeavour on a large scale after consistent simplification and gradual reduction to lower and lower terms4 ,since it aims at explaining and understanding everything according to the axiom principia non temere esse multiplicanda principles are not to be heedlessly multiplied1 explaining1 that is1 with the fewest1 simplest1 and most obvious principles possible1 it is incumbent upon it to attempt to refer all phenomena to a single1 uniform mode of occurrence1 which admits of nothing outside of or beyond itself1 and which regulates itself according to its own system of fundamentally similar causal sequences4 ,it is further incumbent upon it to trace back this universal mode of occurrence to the simplest and clearest form possible1 and its uniformities to the fewest and most intelligible laws1 that is1 ultimately1 to laws which can be determined by calculation and summed up in formul4 ,this tracing back is equivalent to an elimination of all incommensurable causes1 of all 8final causes10 that is1 of ultimate causes and 8purposes0 which1 in an unaccountable manner1 work into the network of proximate causes and control them1 and by thus interrupting their connectedness1 make it difficult to come to a clear understanding of the 8,why80 of things4 ,and this elimination is again a 8reduction to simpler terms10 for it replaces the 8teleological0 consideration of purposes1 by a purely scientific consideration of causes1 which inquires only into the actual conditions antecedent to certain sequences4 ,but ,being and ,becoming include two great realms3 that of 8,nature0 and that of 8,mind10 i4e4 consciousness and the processes of consciousness4 ,and two apparently fundamentally different branches of knowledge relate to these3 the natural sciences1 and the mental sciences4 ,if a unified and 8natural0 explanation is really possible1 the beginning and end of all this 8reducing to simpler terms0 must be to bridge over the gulf between these2 but this1 in the sense of naturalism1 necessarily means that the mental sciences must in some way be reduced to terms of natural science1 and that the phenomena1 processes1 sequences1 and laws of consciousness must likewise be made 8commensurable0 with and be linked on to the apparently simpler and clearer knowledge of 8,nature10 and1 if possible1 be subordinated to its phenomena and laws1 if not indeed derived from them4 ,as it is impossible to regard consciousness itself as corporeal1 or as a process of movement1 naturalism must at least attempt to show that the phenomena of consciousness are attendant and consequent on corporeal phenomena1 and that1 though they themselves never become corporeal1 they are strictly regulated by the laws of the corporeal and physical1 and can be calculated upon and studied in the same way4 ,but even the domain of the natural itself1 as we know it1 is by no means simple and capable of a unified interpretation4 ,nature1 especially in the realm of organic life1 the animal and plant world1 appears to be filled with marvels of purposefulness1 with riddles of development and differentiation1 in short with all the mysteries of life4 ,here most of all it is necessary to 8reduce0 the 8teleological view0 to terms of the purely causal1 and to prove that all the results1 even the evolution of the forms of life1 up to their highest expressions and in the minutest details of their marvellous adaptations1 came 8of themselves10 that is to say1 are quite intelligible as the results of clearly traceable causes4 ,it is necessary to reduce the physiological and developmental1 and all the other processes of life1 to terms of physical and chemical processes1 and thus to reduce the living to the not living1 and to derive the organic from the forces and substances of inanimate nature4 ,the process of reduction does not stop even here4 ,for physical and chemical processes are only really understood when they can be resolved into the simplest processes of movement in general1 when all qualitative changes can be traced hack to purely quantitative phenomena1 when1 finally1 in the mechanics of the great masses1 as well as of the infinitely small atoms1 everything becomes capable of expression in mathematical terms4 ,but naturalism of this kind is by no means pure natural science2 it consciously and deliberately oversteps in speculation the bounds of what is strictly scientific4 ,in this respect it bears some resemblance to the nature-philosophy associated with what we called the first type of naturalism4 ,but its very poverty enables it to have a strictly defined programme4 ,it knows exactly what it wants1 and thus it is possible to argue with it4 ,the religious conception of the world must come to an understanding with it1 for it is quite obvious that the more indifferent this naturalism is to everything outside of itself1 and the less aggressive it pretends to be1 the more does the picture of the world which it attempts to draw exert a cramping influence on religion4 ,where the two come into contact we shall endeavour to make clear in the following pages4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,fundamental ,,principles4 ,the fundamental convictions of naturalism1 its general tendencies1 and the points of view which determine its outlook1 are primarily related to that order of facts which forms the subject of the natural sciences1 to 8,nature40 ,it is only secondarily that it attempts to penetrate with the methods of the natural sciences into the region of the conscious1 of the mind1 into the domain that underlies the mental sciences1 including history and the sthetic1 political1 and religious sciences1 and to show that1 in this region as in the other1 natural law and the same principles of interpretation obtain1 that here1 too1 the 8materialistic conception of history holds true1 and that there is no autonomy of mind40 ,the interests of religion here go hand in hand with those of the mental sciences1 in so far as these claim to be distinct and independent4 ,for the question is altogether one of the reality1 pre-eminence1 and independence of the spiritual as opposed to the 8natural40 ,occasionally it has been thought that the whole problem of the relations between religion and naturalism was concentrated on this point1 and the study of nature has been left to naturalism as if it were indifferent or even hopeless1 thus leaving a free field for theories of all kinds1 the materialistic included4 ,it is only in regard to the ,darwinian theory of evolution and the mechanical theory of the origin and nature of life1 and particularly in regard to the relatively unimportant question of 8spontaneous generation0 that a livelier interest is usually awakened4 ,but these isolated theories are only a part of the 8reduction10 which is characteristic of naturalism1 and they can only be rightly estimated and understood in connection with it4 ,we shall turn our attention to them only after we have carefully considered what is fundamental and essential4 ,but the idea that religion may calmly neglect the study of nature as long as naturalism leaves breathing-room for the freedom and independence of mind is quite erroneous4 ,if religion is true1 nature must be of ,god1 and it must bear tokens which allow us to interpret it as of ,god4 ,and such signs are to be found4 ,what we shall have to say in regard to them may be summed up in the following propositions3-- #a4 ,even the world1 which has been brought under the reign of scientific laws1 is a mystery2 it has been formulated1 but not explained4 #b4 ,the world governed by law is still dependent1 conditioned1 and 8contingent40 #c4 ,the conception of ,nature as obedient to law is not excluded but rather demanded by belief in ,god4 #d1 #e4 ,we cannot comprehend the true nature and depth of things1 and the world which we do comprehend is not the true ,reality of things2 it is only its appearance4 ,in feeling and intuition this appearance points beyond itself to the true nature of things4 #f4 ,ideas and purposes1 and with them ,providence and the control of things1 can neither be established by the natural sciences nor disputed by them4 #g4 ,the causal interpretation demanded by natural science fits in with an explanation according to purpose1 and the latter presupposes the former4 ,how the ,religious and the ,naturalistic ,outlooks ,conflict4 ,religion comes into contact with naturalism and demands to be reconciled with it1 not merely at its periphery1 but at its very core1 namely1 with its characteristic ideal of a mathematical-mechanical interpretation of the whole world4 ,this ideal seems to be most nearly1 if not indeed completely1 attained in reference to the inter-relations of the great masses1 in the realm of astronomy1 with the calculable1 inviolable1 and entirely comprehensible conditions which govern the purely mechanical correlations of the heavenly bodies4 ,to bring the same clearness and intelligibility1 the same inevitableness and calculability into the world in general1 and into the whole realm of nature down to the mysterious law determining the development of the daintiest insect's wing1 and the stirrings of the grey matter in the cortex of the brain which reveal themselves to us as sensation1 desire1 and thought1 this has always been the aim and secret faith of the naturalistic mode of thought4 ,it is thus aiming at a ,cosmos of all ,being and ,becoming1 which can be explained from itself1 and comprehended in itself alone1 supported by its own complete and all-sufficing causality and uniformity1 resting in itself1 shut up within itself1 complete in itself--a ,god sufficient unto himself and resting in himself4 ,we do not need to probe very deeply to find out how strongly religion resists this attempt1 and we easily discover what is the disturbing element which awakens hostile feeling4 ,it is of three kinds1 and depends on three characteristic aims and requirements of religion1 which are closely associated with one another1 yet distinct from one another1 though it is not always easy to represent them in their true proportions and relative values4 ,the first of these interests seems to be 8teleology10 the search after guiding ideas and purposes1 after plan and directive control in the whole machinery1 that sets itself in sharp opposition to a mere inquiry into proximate causes4 ,little or nothing is gained by knowing how everything came about or must have come about2 all interest lies in the fact that everything has come about in such a way that it reveals intention1 wisdom1 providence1 and eternal meaning1 realising itself in details and in the whole4 ,this has always been rightly regarded as the true concern and interest of every religious conception of the world4 ,but it has been sometimes forgotten that this is by no means the only1 or even the primary interest that religion has in world-lore4 ,we call it its highest and ultimate interest1 but we find1 on careful study1 that two others are associated with and precede it4 ,for before all belief in ,providence and in the divine meaning of the world1 indeed before faith at all1 religion is primarily feeling--a deep1 humble consciousness of the entire dependence and conditionality of our existence1 and of all things4 ,the belief we have spoken of is1 in relation to this feeling1 merely a form--as yet not in itself religious4 ,it is not only the question 8,have the world and existence a meaning1 and are phenomena governed by ideas and purposes80 that brings religion and its antagonists into contact2 there is a prior and deeper question4 ,is there scope for this true inwardness of all religion1 the power to comprehend itself and all the world in humility in the light of that which is not of the world1 but is above world and existence8 ,but this is seriously affected by that doctrine which attempts to regard the ,cosmos as self-governing and self-sufficing1 needing nothing1 and failing in nothing4 ,it is this and not ,darwinism or the descent from a ,simian stock that primarily troubles the religious spirit4 ,it is more specially sensitive to the strange and antagonistic tendency of naturalism shown even in that marvellous and terrifying mathematical-mechanical system of the great heavenly bodies1 in this clock of the universe which1 in obedience to clear and inviolable laws1 carries on its soundless play from everlasting to everlasting1 needing no pendulum and no pedestal1 without any stoppage and without room for dependence on anything outside of itself1 apparently entirely godless1 but absolutely reason and ,god enough for itself4 ,it shrinks in terror from the thought that the same autonomy and self-regulation may be brought down from the stage of immensity into the play of everyday life and events4 ,but we must penetrate still deeper4 ,schleiermacher has directed our attention anew to the fact that the most profound element in religion is that deep-lying consciousness of all creatures1 8,i that am dust and ashes10 that humble feeling of the absolute dependence of every being in the world on ,one that is above all the world4 ,but religion does not fully express itself even in this2 there is yet another note that sounds still deeper and is the keynote of the triad4 8,let a man examine himself40 ,is it not the case that we ourselves1 in as far as the delight in knowledge and the enthusiasm for solving riddles have taken hold of us1 rejoice in every new piece of elucidation and interpretation that science succeeds in making1 that we are in the fullest sympathy with the impulse to understand everything and bring reason and clearness into it1 and that we give hearty adherence to the leading ideas which guide the investigations of natural science8 ,yet on the other hand1 in as far as we are religious1 do we not sometimes feel a sudden inward recoil from this almost profane eagerness to penetrate into the mystery of things1 this desire to have everything intelligible1 clear1 rational and transparent8 ,this feeling which stirs in us has always existed in all religious minds and will only die with them4 ,and we need not hesitate to say so plainly4 ,for this is the most real characteristic of religion2 it seeks depth in things1 reaches out towards what is concealed1 uncomprehended1 and mysterious4 ,it is more than humility2 it is piety4 ,and piety is experience of mystery4 ,it is at this point that religion comes most violently into antagonism with the meaning and mood of naturalism4 ,here they first conflict in earnest4 ,and it is here above all that scientific investigation and its materialistic complement seem to take away freedom and truth1 air and light from religion4 ,for science is seeking especially this3 ,deeper penetration into and illumination of the world4 ,it presses with macroscope and microscope into its most outlying regions and most hidden corners1 into its abysses and fastnesses4 ,it explains away the old idea of two worlds1 one on this side and one on that1 and rejects heavenly things with the notice 8,no ,room0 of which ,d4 ,fr4 ,strauss speaks4 ,it aims at discovering the mathematical world-formul1 if not indeed one great general formula which embraces1 defines unequivocally1 and rationalises all the processes of and in infinity1 from the movements of ,sirius to those of the cilia of the infusorian in the drop of water1 and which not only crowds 8heaven0 out of the world1 but strips away from things the fringe of the mysterious and incommensurable which seemed to surround them4 ,mystery 3 ,dependence 3 ,purpose4 ,there is then a threefold religious interest1 and there are three corresponding points of contact between the religious and the naturalistic interpretations of the world1 where1 as it appears1 they are necessarily antagonistic to one another4 ,arranging them in their proper order we find1 first1 the interest1 never to be relinquished1 of experiencing and acknowledging the world and existence to be a mystery1 and regarding all that is known and manifested in things merely as the thin crust which separates us from the uncomprehended and inexpressible4 ,secondly1 there is the desire on the part of religion to bring ourselves and all creatures into the 8feeling of absolute dependence10 and1 as the belief in creation does1 to subordinate ourselves and them to the ,eternal ,power that is not of the world1 but is above the world4 ,finally1 there is the interest in a teleological interpretation of the world as opposed to the purely causal interpretation of natural science2 that is to say1 an interpretation of the world according to eternal ,god-willed purposes1 governing ideas1 a plan and aim4 ,in all three respects1 it is important to religion that it should be able to maintain its validity and freedom as contrasted with naturalism4 ,but while religion must inquire of itself into the reality of things1 with special regard to its own needs1 there are two possibilities which may serve to make peace between it and natural science4 ,it may1 for instance1 be possible that the mathematical-mechanical interpretation of things1 even if it be sufficient within its own domain1 does not take away from nature the characters which religion seeks and requires in it1 namely1 purpose1 dependence and mystery4 ,or it may be that nature itself does not correspond at all to this ideal of mathematical explicability1 that this ideal may be well enough as a guide for investigation1 but that it is not a fundamental clue really applying to nature as a whole and in its essence4 ,it may be that nature as a whole cannot be scientifically summed up without straining the mechanical categories4 ,and this suggests another possibility1 namely1 that the naturalistic method of interpretation cannot be applied throughout the whole territory of nature1 that it embraces certain aspects but not others1 and1 finally1 that it is distinctly interrupted and held in abeyance at particular points by the incommensurable which breaks forth spontaneously out of the depths of phenomena1 revealing a depth which is not to be explained away4 ,all these possibilities occur4 ,and though they need not necessarily be regarded as the key to our order of discussion1 in what follows we shall often meet them singly or together4 ,the ,mystery of ,existence ,remains ,unexplained4 #a4 ,let us begin with the problem of the mystery of all existence1 and see whether it remains unaffected1 or whether it disappears in face of naturalistic interpretation1 with its discovery and formulation of law and order1 with its methods of measuring and computing4 ,more primary even than faith and heartfelt trust in everlasting wisdom and purposeful ,providence there is piety2 there is devout sense of awe before the marvellous and mysterious1 before the depth and the hidden nature of all things and all being1 before unspeakable mysteries over which we hover1 and abysmal depths over which we are borne4 ,in a world which had not these1 and could not be first felt in this way1 religion could not live at all4 ,it could not sail on its too shallow waters1 or breathe its too thin air4 ,it is indeed a fact that what alone we can fitly speak of and love as religion--the sense of mystery and the gentle shuddering of piety before the depth of phenomena and their everlasting divine abysses1--has its true place and kingdom in the world of mind and history1 with its experiences1 riddles1 and depths4 ,but mystery is to be found in the world of nature as well4 ,it is only to a very superficial study that it could appear as though nature were1 or ever could become1 plain and obvious1 as if the veil of ,isis which shrouds its depths from all investigation could ever be torn away4 ,from this point of view it would make no difference even though the attempt to range the whole realm of nature under the sway of inviolable laws were to be immediately successful4 ,this is expressed in the first of our main propositions 7p4 #ce74 ,in order to realise this it is necessary to reflect for a little on the relation of 8explanation0 and 8description0 to one another1 and on what is meant by 8establishing laws0 and 8understanding0 in general4 ,the aim of all investigation is to understand the world4 ,to understand it obviously means something more than merely to know it4 ,it is not enough for us to know things1 that is1 to know what1 how many1 and what different kinds of things there are4 ,on the contrary1 we want to understand them1 to know how they came to be as they are1 and why they are precisely as they are4 ,the first step towards this understanding is merely to know1 that is1 we must rightly apprehend and disentangle the things and processes of the world1 grouping them1 and describing them adequately and exhaustively4 ,but what ,i have merely described ,i have not yet understood2 ,i am only preparing to try to understand it4 ,it stands before me enveloped in all its mystery1 and ,i must now begin to attempt to solve it1 for describing is not explaining2 it is only challenging explanation4 ,the next step is to discover and formulate the laws4 ,for when man sifts out things and processes and follows them out into their changes and stages he discovers the iron regularity of sequences1 the strictly defined lines and paths1 the inviolable order and connection in things and occurrences1 and he formulates these into laws1 ascribing to them the idea of necessity which he finds in himself4 ,in so doing he makes distinct progress1 for he can now go beyond what is actually seen1 he can draw inferences with certainty as to effects and work back to causes4 ,and thus order1 breadth of view1 and uniformity are brought into his acquaintance with facts1 and his science begins4 ,for science does not merely mean acquaintance with phenomena in their contingent or isolated occurrence1 manifold and varied as that may be2 it is the discovery and establishment of the laws and general modes of occurrence4 ,without this we might collect curiosities1 but we should not have science4 ,and to discover this network of uniformities throughout all phenomena1 in the movements of the heavenly bodies and in the living substance of the cell alike1 is the primary aim of all investigation4 ,we are still far away from this goal1 and it is more than questionable whether we shall ever reach it4 ,but if the goal should ever be reached1 if1 in other words1 we should ever be able to say with certainty what must result if occurrences a and b are given1 or what a and b must have been when c occurs1 would explanation then have taken the place of description8 ,or would understanding have replaced mystery8 ,obviously not at all4 ,it has indeed often been supposed that this would be the case4 ,people have imagined they have understood1 when they have seen that 8that is always so1 and that it always happens in this particular way40 ,but this is a nave idea4 ,the region of the described has merely become larger1 and the riddle has become more complex4 ,for now we have before us not only the things themselves1 but the more marvellous laws which 8govern0 them4 ,but laws are not forces or impelling causes4 ,they do not cause anything to happen1 and they do not explain anything4 ,and as in the case of things so in that of laws1 we want to know how they are1 whence they come1 and why they are as they are and not quite different4 ,the fact that we have described them simply excites still more strongly the desire to explain them4 ,to explain is to be able to answer the question 8,why80 ,natural science is very well aware of this4 ,it calls its previous descriptions 8merely historical10 and it desires to supplement these with tiology1 causal explanation1 a deeper interpretation1 that in its turn will make laws superfluous1 because it will penetrate so deeply into the nature of things that it will see precisely why these1 and not other laws of variation1 of development1 of becoming1 hold sway4 ,this is just the meaning of the 8reductions0 of which we have already spoken4 ,for instance1 in regard to crystal formation1 8explanation0 will have replaced description only when1 instead of demonstrating the forms and laws according to which a particular crystal always and necessarily arises out of a particular solution1 we are able to show why1 from a particular mixture and because of certain co-operating molecular forces1 and of other more primary1 more remote1 but also intelligible conditions1 these forms and processes of crystallisation should always and of necessity occur4 ,if this explanation were possible1 the 8law0 would also be explained1 and would therefore become superfluous4 ,from this and similar examples we can learn at what point 8explanation0 begins to replace description1 namely1 when processes resolve themselves into simpler processes from the concurrence of which they arise4 ,this is exactly what natural science desires to bring about1 and what naturalism hopes ultimately to succeed in1 thereby solving the riddle of existence4 ,but this kind of reduction to simpler terms only becomes 8explanation0 when these simpler terms are themselves clear and intelligible and not merely simple2 that is to say1 when we can immediately see why the simpler process occurs1 and by what means it is brought about1 when the question as to the 8why0 is no longer necessary1 because1 on becoming aware of the process1 we immediately and directly perceive that it is a matter of course1 indisputable1 and requiring no proof4 ,if this is not the case1 the reduction to simpler terms has been misleading4 ,we have only replaced one unintelligibility by another1 one description by another1 and so simply pushed back the whole problem4 ,naturalism supposes that by this gradual pushing back the task will at least become more and more simple1 until at last a point is reached where the riddle will solve itself1 because description becomes equivalent to explanation4 ,this final stage is supposed to be found in the forces of attraction and repulsion1 with which the smallest similar particles of matter are equipped4 ,out of the endlessly varied correlations of these there arise all higher forms of energy and all the combinations which make up more complex phenomena4 ,but in reality this does not help us at all4 ,for now we are definitely brought face to face with the quite unanswerable question1 ,how1 from all this homogeneity and unity of the ultimate particles and forces1 can we account for the beginnings of the diversity which is so marked a characteristic of this world8 ,whence came the causes of the syntheses to higher unities1 the reasons for the combination into higher resultants of energy8 ,but even apart from that1 it is quite obvious that we have not yet reached the ultimate point4 ,for can 8attraction10 influence at a distance1 vis a fronte1 be considered as a fact which is in itself clear8 ,is it not rather the most puzzling fundamental riddle we can be called upon to explain8 ,assuredly4 ,and therefore the attempt is made to penetrate still deeper to the ultimate point1 the last possible reduction to simpler terms1 by referring all actual 8forces0 and reducing all movement1 and therewith all 8action10 to terms of attraction and repulsion1 which are free from anything mysterious1 whose mode of working can be unambiguously and plainly set forth in the law of the parallelogram of forces4 ,law8 ,set forth8 ,therefore still only description8 ,certainly only description1 not explanation in the least4 ,even assuming that it is true1 instead of a mere ,utopia1 that all the secrets and riddles of nature can be traced back to matter moved by attraction and repulsion according to the simplest laws of these1 they would still only be summed up into a great general riddle1 which is only the more colossal because it is able to embrace all others within itself4 ,for attraction and repulsion1 the transference of motion1 and the combination of motion according to the law of the parallelogram of forces--all this is merely description of processes whose inner causes we do not understand1 which appear simple1 and are so1 but are nevertheless not self-evident or to be taken as a matter of course2 they are not in themselves intelligible1 but form an absolute 8world-riddle40 ,from the very root of things there gazes at us the same ,sphinx which we had apparently driven from the foreground4 ,but furthermore1 this reduction to simpler terms is an impossible and never-ending task4 ,there is fresh confusion at every step4 ,in reducing to simpler terms1 it is often forgotten that the principle of combination is not inherent in the more simple1 and cannot be 8reduced40 ,or else there is an ignoring of the fact that a transition has been made1 not from resultants to components1 but to quite a different kind of phenomena4 ,innumerable as are the possible reductions to simpler terms1 and mistaken as it would be to remain prematurely at the level of description1 it cannot be denied that the fundamental facts of the world are pure facts which must simply be accepted where they occur1 indisputable1 inexplicable1 impenetrable1 the 8whence0 and the 8how0 of their existence quite uncomprehended4 ,and this is especially true of every new and peculiar expression of what we call energy and energies4 ,gravitation cannot be reduced to terms of attraction and repulsion1 nor action at a distance to action at close quarters2 it might1 indeed1 be shown that repulsion in its turn presupposes attraction before it can become possible2 the 8energies0 of ponderable matter cannot be reduced to the 8ether0 and its processes of motion1 nor the complex play of the chemical affinities to the attraction of masses in general or to gravity4 ,and thus the series ascends throughout the spheres of nature up to the mysterious directive energies in the crystal1 and to the underivable phenomena of movement in the living substance1 perhaps even to the functions of will-power4 ,all these can be discovered1 but not really understood4 ,they can be described1 but not explained4 ,and we are absolutely ignorant as to why they should have emerged from the depth of nature1 what that depth really is1 or what still remains hidden in her mysterious lap4 ,neither what nature reveals to us nor what it conceals from us is in any true sense 8comprehended10 and we flatter ourselves that we understand her secrets when we have only become accustomed to them4 ,if we try to break the power of this accustomedness and to consider the actual relations of things there dawns in us a feeling already awakened by direct impressions and experience2 the feeling of the mysterious and enigmatical1 of the abyssmal depths beneath1 and of what lies far above our comprehension1 alike in regard to our own existence and every other4 ,the world is at no point self-explanatory1 but at all points marvellous4 ,its laws are only formulated riddles4 ,evolution and ,new ,beginnings4 ,all this throws an important light upon two subjects which are relevant in this connection1 but which cannot here be exhaustively dealt with1--evolution and new beginnings4 ,let us consider1 for instance1 the marvellous range and diversity of the characteristic chemical properties and interrelations of substances4 ,each one of them1 contrasted with the preceding lower forms and stages of 8energy10 contrasted with mere attraction1 repulsion1 gravitation1 is something absolutely new1 a new interpolation 7of course not in regard to time but to grade71 a phenomenon which cannot be 8explained0 by what has gone before4 ,it simply occurs1 and we find it in its own time and place4 ,we may call this new emergence 8evolution10 and we may use this term in connection with every new stage higher than those preceding it4 ,but it is not evolution in a crude and quantitative sense1 according to which the 8more highly evolved0 is nothing more than an addition and combination of what was already there2 it is evolution in the old sense of the word1 according to which the more developed is a higher analogue of the less developed1 but is in its own way as independent1 as much a new beginning as each of the antecedent stages1 and therefore in the strict sense neither derivable from them nor reducible to them4 ,it must be noted that in this sense evolution and new beginnings are already present at a very early stage in nature and are part of its essence4 ,we must bear this in mind if we are rightly to understand the subtler processes in nature which we find emerging at a higher level4 ,it is illusory to suppose that it is a 8natural0 assumption to 8derive0 the living from lower processes in nature4 ,the non-living and the inorganic are also underivable as to their individual stages1 and the leap from the inorganic to the organic is simply much greater than that from attraction in general to chemical affinity4 ,as a matter of fact1 the first occurrence--undoubtedly controlled and conditioned by internal necessity--of crystallisation1 or of life1 or of sensation has just the same marvellousness as everything individual and everything new in any ascending series in nature4 ,in short1 every new beginning has the same marvel4 ,perhaps this consideration goes still deeper1 throwing light upon or suggesting the proper basis for a study of the domain of mind and of history4 ,it is immediately obvious that there1 at any rate1 we enter into a region of phenomena which cannot be derived from anything antecedent1 or reduced to anything lower4 ,it must be one of the chief tasks of naturalism to explain away these facts1 and to maintain the sway of 8evolution10 not in our sense but in its own1 that is 8to explain0 everything new and individual from that which precedes it4 ,but the assertion that this can be done is here doubly false4 ,for1 in the first place1 it cannot be proved that methods of study which are relatively valid for natural phenomena are applicable also to those of the mind4 ,and in the second place we must admit that even in nature--apart from mind--we have to do with new beginnings which are underivable from their antecedents4 ,all being is inscrutable mystery as a whole1 and from its very foundations upwards through each successively higher stage of its evolution1 in an increasing degree1 until it reaches a climax in the incomprehensibility of individuality4 ,it is a mystery that does not force itself into nature as supernatural or miraculous1 but is fundamentally implicit in it1 a mystery that in its unfolding assuredly follows the strictest law1 the most inviolable rules1 whether in the chemical affinities a higher grade of energies reveals itself1 or whether--unquestionably also in obedience to everlasting law--the physical and chemical conditions admit of the occurrence of life1 or whether in his own time and place a genius arises47#a7 ,the ,dependence of the ,order of ,nature4 7#b and #c74 ,the 8dependence0 of all things is the second requirement of religion1 without which it is altogether inconceivable4 ,we avoid the words 8creation0 and 8being created10 because they involve anthropomorphic and altogether insufficient modes of representation4 ,but throughout we have in mind1 as suggested by ,schleiermacher's expression already quoted1 what all religion means when it declares nature and the world to be creatures4 ,the inalienable content of this idea is that deep and assured feeling that our nature and all nature does not rest in its own strength and self-sufficiency1 that there must be more secure reasons for nature which are absolutely outside of it1 and that it is dependent upon1 and conditioned through and through by something above itself1 independent1 and unconditioned4 8,i believe that ,god has created me together with all creatures40 7,luther47 ,this faith seemed easier in earlier times1 when men's eyes were not yet opened to see the deep-lying connectedness of all phenomena1 the inexorableness of causal sequences1 when it was believed that1 in the apparently numerous interruptions of the causal sequences1 the frailty and dependence of this world and its need for heavenly aid could be directly observed1 when1 therefore1 it was not difficult to believe that the world was 8nothing0 and perishable1 that it had been called forth out of nothing1 and that in its transient nature it carried for ever the traces of this origin4 ,but to-day it is not so easy to believe in this dependence1 for nature seems to show itself1 in its inviolable laws and unbroken sequences1 as entirely sufficient unto itself1 so that for every phenomenon a sufficient cause is to be found within nature1 that is1 in the sum of the antecedent states and conditions which1 according to inevitable laws1 must result in and produce what follows4 ,we have already noted that this is most obviously discernible in the world of the great masses1 the heavenly bodies which pursue their courses from everlasting to everlasting1 mutually conditioning themselves and betraying no need for or dependence upon anything outside of themselves4 ,everything1 even the smallest movement1 is here determined strictly by the dependence of each upon all and of all upon each4 ,there is no variation1 no change of position for which an entirely satisfactory cause cannot be found in the system as a whole1 which works like an immense machine4 ,nothing indicates dependence upon anything external4 ,and as it is to-day so it was yesterday1 and a million years ago1 and innumerable millions of years ago4 ,it seems quite gratuitous to suppose that something which does not occur to-day was necessary at an earlier period1 and that everything has not been from all eternity just as it is now4 ,we saw that naturalism is attempting to extend this character of independence and self-sufficiency from the astronomical world to the world as a whole4 ,shall we attempt1 then1 to oppose it in this ambition1 but surrender the realm of the heavenly bodies as already conquered8 ,by no means4 ,for religion cannot exclude the solar system from the dependence of all being upon ,god4 ,and this very example is the most conspicuous one1 the one in regard to which the whole problem can be most definitely formulated4 ,astronomy teaches us that all cosmic processes are governed by a marvellous far-reaching uniformity of law1 which unites in strictest harmony the nearest and the most remote4 ,has this fact any bearing upon the problem of the dependence of the world8 ,no4 ,it surely cannot be that a world without order could be brought under the religious point of view more readily than one governed by law6 ,let us suppose for a moment that we had to do with a world without strict nexus and definite order of sequence1 without law and without order1 full of capricious phenomena1 unregulated associations1 an inconstant play of causes4 ,such a world would be to us unintelligible1 strange1 absurd4 ,but it would not necessarily be more 8dependent10 more 8conditioned0 than any other4 ,had ,i no other reasons for looking beyond the world1 and for regarding it as dependent on something outside of itself1 the absence of law and order would assuredly furnish me with none4 ,for1 assuming that it is possible at all to conceive of a world and its contents as independent1 and as containing its own sufficient cause within itself1 it would be quite as easily thought of as a confused lawless play of chances as a well-ordered ,cosmos4 ,perhaps more easily2 for it goes without saying that such a conglomeration of promiscuous chances could not possibly be thought of as a world of ,god4 ,order and strict obedience to law1 far from being excluded1 are required by faith in ,god1 are indeed a direct and inevitable preliminary to thinking of the world as dependent upon ,god4 ,thus we may state the paradox1 that only a ,cosmos which1 by its strict obedience to law1 gives us the impression of being sufficient unto itself1 can be conceived of as actually dependent upon ,god1 as ,his creation4 ,if any man desires to stop short at the consideration of the apparent self-sufficiency of the ,cosmos and its obedience to law1 and refuses to recognise any reasons outside of the world for this1 we should hardly be able1 according to our own proposition1 to require him to go farther4 ,for we maintained that ,god could not be read out of nature1 that the idea of ,god could never have been gained in the first instance from a study of nature and the world4 ,the problem always before us is rather1 whether1 having gained the idea from other sources1 we can include the world within it4 ,our present question is whether the world1 as it is1 and just because it is as it is1 can be conceived of as dependent upon ,god4 ,and this question can only be answered in the affirmative1 and in the sense of ,schiller's oft-quoted lines3 ,the great ,creator ,we see not--,he conceals himself within ,his own eternal laws4 ,the sceptic sees ,their operation1 but beholds not ,him1 8,wherefore a ,god60 he cries1 8the world itself ,suffices for itself60 and ,christian prayer ,ne'er praised him more1 than does this blasphemy4 ,god's world could not possibly be a conglomeration of chances2 it must be orderly1 and the fact that it is so proves its dependence4 ,but while we thus hold fast to our canon1 we shall find that the assertion of the world's dependence receives indirect corroboration even in regard to the astronomical realm1 from certain signs which it exhibits1 from certain suggestions which are implied in it4 ,we must not wholly overlook two facts which1 to say the least1 are difficult to fit in with the idea of the independence and self-sufficiency of the world2 these are1 on the one hand1 the difficulties involved in the idea of an eternal machine1 and on the other the difficult fact of 8entropy40 ,we have already compared the world to a mighty clock1 or a machine which1 as a whole1 represents what can never be found in one of its parts1 a perpetuum mobile4 ,let us however leave aside the idea of a perpetuum mobile1 and dwell rather on the comparison with a machine4 ,it seems obvious that in order to be a machine there must be a closed solidarity in the system4 ,but how could a machine have come into existence and become functional if it is driven by wheels1 which are driven by wheels1 which are again driven by wheels 444 and so on unceasingly8 ,it would not be a machine4 ,the idea falls to pieces in our hands4 ,yet our world is supposed to be just such an infinitely continuous 8system40 ,how does it begin to depend upon and be sufficient unto itself8 ,but further4 ,it is a clock1 we are told1 which ever winds itself up anew1 which1 without fatigue and in ceaseless repetition1 adjusts the universal cycles of becoming1 and disappearing1 and becoming again4 ,it seems a corroboration of the old ,heraclitian and ,stoic conception1 that the eternal primitive fire brings forth all things out of itself1 and takes them back into itself to bring them forth anew4 ,even to-day the conception is probably general that1 out of the original states of the world-matter1 circling fiery nebul form themselves and throw off their rings1 that the breaking up of these rings gives rise to planets which circle in solar systems for many ons through space1 till1 finally1 their energy lessened by friction with the ether1 they plunge into their suns again1 that the increased heat restores the original state and the whole play begins anew4 ,all this was well enough in the days of navely vitalistic ideas of the world as having a life and soul4 ,but not in these days of mechanics1 the strict calculation of the amount of energy used1 and the mechanical theory of heat4 ,the world-clock cannot wind itself up4 ,it1 too1 owes its activity to the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy4 ,and1 since movement and work take place within it1 there is in the clock as a whole just as in every one of its parts1 a mighty process of relaxation of an originally tense spring1 there is dissipation and transformation of the stored potential energy into work and ultimately into heat4 ,and with every revolution of the earth and its moon the world is moving slowly but inexorably towards a final stage of complete relaxation of her powers of tension1 a state in which all energy will be transformed into heat1 in which there will be no different states but only the most uniform distribution1 in which also all life and all movement will cease and the world-clock itself will come to a standstill4 ,how does this fit in with the idea of independence and self-sufficiency8 ,how could the world-clock ever wind itself up again to the original state of tension which was simply there as if shot from a pistol 8in the beginning08 ,where is the everlasting impressive uniformity and constancy of the world8 ,how does it happen that the world-clock has not long ago come to a standstill8 ,for even if the original sum of potential energy is postulated as infinite1 the eternity that lies behind us is also infinite4 ,and so one infinity swallows another4 ,and innumerable questions of a similar kind are continually presenting themselves4 ,the 8,contingency0 of the ,world4 ,but we need not dwell in the meantime on these and the many other difficulties and riddles presented by our cosmological hypothesis4 ,however these may be solved1 a general consideration will remain--namely1 that whether the world is governed by law or not1 whether it is sufficient unto itself or not1 there is a world full of the most diverse phenomena1 and there are laws4 ,whence then have both these come8 ,is it a matter of course1 is it quite obvious that they should exist at all1 and that they should be exactly as they are8 ,we do not here appeal without further ceremony to the saying 8everything must have a cause1 therefore the world also40 ,it is not absolutely correct4 ,for instance1 if the world were so constituted that it would be impossible for it not to exist1 that the necessity for its existence and the inconceivability of its non-existence were at once explicit and obvious1 then there would be no sense in inquiring after a cause4 ,in regard to a 8necessary0 thing1 if there were any such1 we cannot ask1 8,why1 and from what cause does this exist80 ,if it was necessary1 that implies that to think of it as not existing would be ridiculous1 and logically or metaphysically impossible4 ,unfortunately there are no 8necessary0 things1 so that we cannot illustrate the case by examples4 ,but there are at least necessary truths as distinguished from contingent truths4 ,and thus some light may be brought into the matter for the inexpert4 ,for instance1 a necessary truth is contained in the sentence1 8,everything is equal to itself10 or1 8,the shortest distance between two points is a straight line40 ,we cannot even conceive of the contrary4 ,therefore these axioms have no reasons1 and can neither be deduced nor proved4 ,every question as to their reasons is quite meaningless4 ,as examples of a 8contingent0 truth we may take 8,it rains to-day10 or 8,the earth revolves round the sun40 ,for neither one nor the other of these is necessarily so4 ,it is so as a matter of fact1 but under other circumstances it might have been otherwise4 ,the contrary can be conceived of and represented1 and has in itself an equal degree of possibility4 ,therefore such a fact requires to be and is capable of being reasoned out4 ,i can and must ask1 8,how does it happen that it rains to-day8 ,what are the reasons for it80 ,but as we must seek for sufficient reasons for 8contingent0 truths1 that is1 for those of which the contrary was equally possible1 so assuredly we must seek for sufficient causes for 8contingent0 phenomena and events1 those which can be thought of as not existing1 or as existing in a different form4 ,for these we must find causes and actual reasons4 ,otherwise they have no foundation4 ,the element of 8contingency0 must be done away with2 they must be shown to result from sufficient causes4 ,that is to say nothing less than that they must be traced back to some necessity4 ,for it is one of the curious fundamental convictions of our reason1 and one in which all scientific investigation has its ultimate roots1 that what is 8contingent0 is only apparently so1 and in reality is in some way or other based on necessity4 ,therefore reason seeks causes for everything4 ,the search for causes involves showing that a thing was necessary4 ,and this must obviously apply to the world as a whole4 ,if it were quite obvious that the world and its existence as it is were necessary1 that is1 that it would be contrary to reason to think of the world1 and its phenomena1 and their obedience to law as non-existent1 or as different from what they are1 all inquiry would be at an end4 ,this would be the ultimate necessity in which all the apparent contingency of isolated phenomena and existences was firmly based4 ,but this is far from being the case4 ,that anything exists1 and that the world exists1 is for us absolutely the greatest 8contingency0 of all1 and in regard to it we can and must continually ask1 8,why does anything exist at all1 and why should it not rather be non-existent80 ,indeed1 all our quest for sufficient causes here reaches its climax4 ,in more detail3 that these celestial systems and bodies1 the ether1 attraction and gravitation should exist1 and that everything should be governed by definite laws1 all literally 8as if shot from a pistol10 there must undoubtedly be some sufficient reason1 certain as it is that we shall never discover it4 ,it is true1 as some one has said1 that we live not only in a very fortuitous world1 but in an incredibly improbable one4 ,and this is not affected by the fact that the world is completely governed by law4 ,law only confirms it4 ,the fact that all details may be clearly and mathematically calculated in no way prevents them from being fundamentally contingent4 ,for they are only so calculable on the basis of the given fundamental characters of the world4 ,and that is precisely the problem3 8,why do these characters exist and not quite different ones1 and why should any exist at all80 ,if any one should say3 8,well1 we must just content ourselves with recognising the essentially #8contingent' nature of existence1 for we shall never be able to get beyond that10 he would be right in regard to the second statement4 ,to get beyond that and to see what it is--eternal and in itself necessary--that lies at the basis of this world of 8contingency0 is indeed impossible4 ,but he would be wrong as to the first part of the assertion4 ,for no one will 8content himself40 ,for that all chance is only apparently chance1 and is ultimately based in necessity1 is a deeply-rooted and fundamental conviction of our reason1 one which directs all scientific investigation1 and which cannot be ignored4 ,it demands ceaselessly something necessary as the permanent basis of contingent existence4 ,and this fact is and remains the truth involved in the 8cosmological proofs of the existence of ,god0 of former days4 ,it was certainly erroneous to suppose that 8,god0 could be proved4 ,for it is a long way from that 8idea of necessity0 to religious experience of ,god4 ,and it was erroneous1 too1 to suppose that anything could be really 8proved40 ,what is necessary can never really be proved from what is contingent4 ,but the recognition of the contingent nature of the world is a stimulus that stirs up within our reason the idea of the necessary1 and it is a fact that reason finds rest only in this idea4 ,the ,real ,world4 7#d47 ,what was stated separately in our first and second propositions1 and has hitherto been discussed1 now unites and culminates in the fourth4 ,for if we note the vital expressions of religion wherever it occurs1 we find above all one thing as its most characteristic sign1 indeed as its very essence1 in all places and all times1 often only as a scarce uttered wish or longing1 but often breaking forth with impetuous might4 ,this one thing is the impulse and desire to get beyond time and space1 and beyond the oppressive narrowness and crampingness of the world surrounding us1 the desire to see into the depth and 8other side0 of things and of existence4 ,for it is the very essence of religion to distinguish this world from1 and contrast it as insufficient with the real world which is sufficient1 to regard this world which we see and know and possess as only an image1 as only transiently real1 in contrast with the real world of true being which is believed in4 ,religion has clothed this essential feature in a hundred mythologies and eschatologies1 and one has always given place to another1 the more sublimed to the more robust4 ,but the fundamental feature itself cannot disappear4 ,in apologetics and dogmatics the interest in this matter is often concentrated more or less exclusively upon the question of 8immortality40 ,wrongly so1 however1 for this quest after the real world is not a final chapter in religion1 it is religion itself4 ,and in the religious sense the question of immortality is only justifiable and significant when it is a part of the general religious conviction that this world is not the truly essential world1 and that the true nature of things1 and of our own being1 is deeper than we can comprehend1 and lies beyond this side of things1 beyond time and space4 ,to the religious mind it cannot be of great importance whether existence is to be continued for a little at least beyond this life4 ,in what way would such a wish be religious8 ,but the inward conviction that 8all that is transitory is only a parable10 that all here is only a veil and a curtain1 and the desire to get beyond semblance to truth1 beyond insufficiency to sufficiency1 concentrate themselves especially in the assertion of the eternity of our true being4 ,it is with this characteristic of religion that the spirit and method of naturalism contrast so sharply4 ,naturalism points out with special satisfaction that this depth of things1 this home of the soul is nowhere discoverable4 ,the great discoveries of ,copernicus1 ,kepler1 and ,newton have done away with the possibility of that4 ,no empyrean1 no corner of the world remains available4 ,even the attempted flight to sun1 moon1 or stars does not help4 ,it is true that the newly discovered world is without end1 but1 beyond a doubt1 in its outermost and innermost depths it is a world of space and time4 ,even in the stellar abysses 8everything is just the same as with us40 ,all this is doubtless correct1 and it is very wholesome for religion4 ,for it prompts religion no longer to seek its treasure1 the true nature of things1 and its everlasting home in time and space1 as the mythologies and eschatologies have sought them repeatedly4 ,it throws religion back on the fundamental insight and on the convictions which it had attained long before philosophy and criticism of knowledge had arrived at similar views3 namely1 that time and space1 and this world of time and space1 do not comprise the whole of existence1 nor existence as it really is1 but are only a manifestation of it to our finite and limited knowledge4 ,before the days of modern astronomy1 and without its help1 religion knew that ,god was not confined to 8heaven10 or anywhere in space1 and that time as it is for us was not for ,him4 ,even in the terms 8eternity0 and 8infinity0 it shows an anticipatory knowledge of a being and reality above time and space4 ,these ideas were not gained from a contemplation of nature1 but before it and from independent sources4 ,but though it is by no means the task of apologetics to build up these ideas directly from a study of things1 it is of no little importance to inquire whether religion possesses in these convictions only postulates of faith1 for which it must laboriously and forcibly make a place in the face of knowledge1 or whether a thorough and self-critical knowledge does not rather confirm them1 and show us1 within the world of knowledge itself1 unmistakable signs that it cannot be the true1 full reality1 but points to something beyond itself4 ,to study this question thoroughly would involve setting forth a special theory of knowledge and existence4 ,this cannot be attempted here4 ,but ,kant's great doctrine of the 8,antinomy of ,reason0 has for all time broken up for us the narrowness of the naturalistic way of thinking4 ,every one who has felt cramped by the narrow limits in which reality was confined by a purely mundane outlook must have experienced the liberating influence of the ,kantian ,antinomy if he has thought over it carefully4 ,the thick curtain which separates being from appearance seems to be torn away1 or at any rate to reveal itself as a curtain4 ,kant shows that1 if we were to take this world as it lies before us for the true reality1 we should land in inextricable contradictions4 ,these contradictions show that the true world itself cannot coincide with our thought and comprehension1 for in being itself there can be no contradictions4 ,otherwise it would not exist4 ,the ancient problems of philosophy1 from the time of the ,eleatic school onwards1 find here their adequate formulation4 ,kant's disciple1 ,fries1 has carried the matter further1 and has attempted to develop what for ,kant still remained a sort of embarrassment of reason to more precise pronouncements as to the relation of true being to its manifestation1 ,the ,antimony of ,our ,conception of ,time4 ,a few examples may serve to make the point clear4 ,the first of the antinomies is also the most impressive4 ,it brings before us the insufficiency of our conceptions of time1 and shows the impossibility of transferring1 from the world as it appears to us1 to real ,being any mode of conceiving time which we possess4 ,the difficulty is1 whether we are to think of our world as having had a beginning or not4 ,the nave outlook will at once assume without further ado a beginning of all things4 ,everything must have had a beginning1 though that may have been a very long time ago4 ,but on more careful reflection it is found impossible to imagine this1 and then the assumption that things had no beginning is made with as little scruple4 ,let us suppose that the beginning of things was six thousand1 or1 what is quite as easy1 six thousand billion years ago4 ,we are at once led to ask what there was the year before or many years before1 and what there was before that again1 and so on until we face the infinite and beginningless4 ,thus we find that we have never really thought of a beginning of things1 and never could think of it1 but that our thinking always carries us into the infinite4 ,time1 at any rate1 we have thought of as infinite4 ,we may then amuse ourselves by trying to conceive of endless time as empty1 but we shall hardly be able to give any reason for arriving at that idea4 ,if time goes back to infinity1 it seems difficult to see why it should not always have been filled1 instead of only being so filled from some arbitrary point4 ,and in any case the very fact of the existence of time makes the problem of beginning or not beginning insoluble4 ,for such reasons ,aristotle asserted that the world had no beginning1 and rejected the contrary idea as childish4 ,but the idea of no beginning is also childish or rather impossible1 and in reality inconceivable4 ,for if it be assumed that the world and time have never had a beginning1 there stretches back from the time at which ,i now find myself a past eternity4 ,it must have passed completely as a whole1 for otherwise this particular point in time could never have been arrived at4 ,so that ,i must think of an infinity which nevertheless comes to an end4 ,i cannot do this4 ,it would be like wooden iron4 ,the matter sounds simple but is nevertheless difficult in its consequences4 ,it confronts us at once with the fact1 confirmed by the theory of knowledge1 that time as we know it is an absolutely necessary and fundamental form of our conceptions and knowledge1 but is likewise the veil over what is concealed1 and cannot be carried over in the same form into the true nature of things4 ,as the limits and contradictions in the time-conception reveal themselves to us1 there wakes in us the idea which we accept as the analogue of time in true being1 an idea of existence under the form of 8eternity10 which1 since we are tied down to temporal concepts1 cannot be expressed or even thought of with any content47#b7 ,the ,antimony of the ,conditioned and the ,unconditioned4 ,the antinomy of the conditioned and the unconditioned leads us along similar lines4 ,every individual finite thing or event is dependent on its causes and conditions1 which precede it or co-exist in inter-relation with it4 ,it is conditioned1 and is only possible through its conditions4 ,but that implies that it can only occur or be granted when all its conditions are first given in complete synthesis4 ,if any one of them failed1 it would not have come about4 ,but every one of its conditioning circumstances is in its turn conditioned by innumerable others1 and every one of these again by others1 and so on into the infinite1 backwards and on all sides1 so that here again something without end and incapable of end must have come to an end1 and must be thought of as having an end1 before any event whatever can really come to pass4 ,but this again is a sheer impossibility for our thinking3 we require and must demand something completed1 because now is really now1 and something happens now1 and yet in the world as it appears to us we are always forced to face what cannot have an end4 ,the ,antimony of ,our ,conception of ,space4 ,to bring our examples to a conclusion1 we find the same sort of antinomy in regard to space1 and the world as it is extended in space4 ,here1 too1 it becomes apparent that space as we imagine it1 and as we carry it with us as a concept for arranging our sense-impressions1 cannot correspond to the true reality4 ,as in regard to time1 so also in regard to space1 we can never after any distance however enormous come to a halt and say1 8,here is the end of space40 ,whether we think of the diameter of the earth's orbit or the distance to ,sirius1 and multiply them by a million we always ask1 8,what lies behind80 and so extend space into the infinite4 ,and as a matter of course we people it also without end with heavenly bodies1 stars1 nebulae1 ,milky ,ways and the like4 ,for here again there can be no obvious reason why space in our neighbourhood should be filled1 while space at a greater distance should be thought of as empty4 ,therefore we actually think of star beyond star1 and1 as far as we can reckon1 stars beyond that without end4 ,for space extends not merely so far1 but always farther4 ,and the number of the stars is not so many1 but always one more4 ,this sounds quite obvious1 but it has exactly the same impossibility as we found in our 8past infinity40 ,for although we are carried by our conceptions into the infinite1 and to what never could have an end1 it is impossible to assume the same of reality4 ,it is remarkable and quite characteristic that the whole difficulty and its peculiar nature become much more intelligible to us through the familiar images and expressions of religion4 ,there we readily admit that we cannot comprehend the number of the stars and stellar spaces1 because for us they never reach an end1 there being always one more2 but that in the eyes of ,god all is embraced in ,his universality1 in a 8perfect synthesis10 and that to ,him ,being is never and in no point 8always one more40 ,god does not count4 ,without the help of religious expressions we say3 ,being itself is always itself and never implies any more2 for if there were 8always one more0 it would not be ,being4 ,it can only exist 8as a perfect synthesis10 which does not mean an endless number1 which nevertheless somewhere comes to an end--again wooden iron--but something above all reckoning and beyond all number1 as it is beyond space and time4 ,and that which we are able to weigh and measure and number is therefore not reality itself1 but only its inadequate manifestation to our limited capacity for understanding4 ,but enough of this4 ,the puzzles in the doctrines of the simple and the complex1 of the causeless and the caused1 into which this world of ours forces us1 should teach us further to recognise it for what it is--insufficient and pointing beyond itself1--to its own transcendent depths4 ,so1 too1 the problems that arise when we penetrate farther and farther into the ever more and more minute1 and the indefiniteness of our thought-horizons in general should have the same effect4 ,intuitions of ,reality4 7#e47 ,there are other evidences of this depth and hidden nature of things1 towards which an examination of our knowledge points4 ,for 8in feeling and intuition appearance points beyond itself to real being40 ,so ran our fifth proposition4 ,this subject indeed is delicate1 and can only be treated of in the hearing of willing ears4 ,but all apologetic counts upon willing ears2 it is not conversion of doubters that is aimed at1 it is religion which seeks to reassure itself4 ,our proposition does not speak of dreams but of facts1 which are not the less facts because they are more subtle than others4 ,what we are speaking of are the deep impressions1 which cannot properly be made commensurable at all1 which may spring up directly out of an inward experience1 an apprehension of nature1 the world and history1 in the depths of the spirit4 ,they call forth in us an 8anamnesis10 a 8reminiscence0 in ,plato's sense1 awakening within us moods and intuitions in which something of the essence and meaning of being is directly experienced1 although it remains in the form of feeling1 and cannot easily1 if at all1 find expression in definable ideas or clear statements4 ,fries1 in his book1 8,wissen1 ,glaube1 und ,ahnung10 unhappily too much forgotten1 takes account of this fact1 for he places this region of spiritual experience beside the certainties of faith and knowledge1 and regards these as 8animated0 by it4 ,he has in mind especially the impressions of the beautiful and the sublime which far transcend our knowledge of nature1 and to which knowledge and its concepts can never do adequate justice1 facts though they undoubtedly are4 ,in them we experience directly1 in intuitive feeling1 that the reality is greater than our power of understanding1 and we feel something of its true nature and meaning4 ,the utterances of ,schleiermacher7#c7 in regard to religion follow the same lines4 ,for this is precisely what he means when he insists that the universe must be experienced in intuition and feeling as well as in knowing and doing4 ,he is less incisive in his expressions than ,fries1 but wider in ideas4 ,he includes in this domain of 8intuitive feeling0 not only the aesthetic experiences of the beautiful and sublime1 but takes the much more general and comprehensive view1 that the receptive mind may gather from the finite impressions of the infinite1 and may through its experiences of time gain some conception of the eternal4 ,and he rightly emphasises1 that such intuition has its true place in the sphere of mind and in face of the events of history1 rather than in the outer court of nature4 ,he1 too1 lays stress on the fact that doctrinal statements and ideas cannot be formulated out of such subtle material4 ,the experience of which we are speaking may be most directly and impressively gained from the great1 the powerful1 the sublime in nature4 ,it may be gained from the contemplation of nature's harmonies and beauties1 but also of her overflowing abundance and her enigmatical dmonic strength1 from the purposeful intelligibility as well as the terrifying and bewildering enigmas of nature's operations1 from all the manifold ways in which the mind is affected and startled1 from all the suggestive but indefinable sensations which may be roused in us by the activity of nature1 and which rise through a long scale to intoxicated self-forgetfulness and wordless ecstasy before her beauty1 and her half-revealed1 half-concealed mystery4 ,if any or all of these be stirred up in a mind which is otherwise godless or undevout1 it remains an indefinite1 vacillating feeling1 bringing with it nothing else4 ,but in the religious mind it immediately unites with what is akin to it or of similar nature1 and becomes worship4 ,no dogmas or arguments for disputatious reasoning can be drawn from it4 ,it can hardly even be expressed1 except1 perhaps1 in music4 ,and if it be expressed it tends easily to become fantastic or romantic pomposity1 as is shown even by certain parts of the writings of ,schleiermacher himself4 ,the ,recognition of ,purpose4 7#f47 ,we must now turn to the question of 8teleology40 ,only now1 not because it is a subordinate matter1 for it is in reality the main one1 but because it is the culminating point1 not the starting point1 of our argument4 ,if the world be from ,god and of ,god1 it and all that it contains must be for some definite purpose and for special ends4 ,it must be swayed by eternal ideas1 and must be subject to divine providence and guidance4 ,but naturalism1 and even1 it appears1 natural science1 declares3 ,neither purposes nor ideas are of necessity to be assumed in nature4 ,they do not occur either in the details or in the whole4 ,the whole is an absolutely closed continuity of causes1 a causal but blind machinery1 in regard to which we cannot ask1 ,what is meant to be produced by this8 but only1 ,what causes have produced what exists8 ,this opposition goes deep and raises difficulties4 ,and in all vindication or defence of religion it ought rightly to be kept in the foreground of attention1 although the points we have already insisted on have been wrongly overlooked4 ,the opposition concentrates itself to-day almost entirely around two theories of naturalism1 which do not1 indeed1 set forth the whole case1 but which are certainly typical examples1 so that1 if we analyse them1 we shall have arrived at an orientation of the fundamental points at issue4 ,the two doctrines are ,darwinism and the mechanical theory of life1 and it is to these that we must now turn our attention4 ,and since the best elucidation and criticism of both theories is to be found in their own history1 and in the present state of opinion within their own school1 we shall have to combine our study of their fundamental principles with that of their history4 ,we can here set forth1 however1 only the chief point of view1 the gist of the matter1 which will continue to exist and hold good however the analysis of details may turn out4 ,for the kernel of the question may be discussed independently1 without involving the particular interests of zoology or biology1 though we shall constantly come across particular and concrete cases of the main problem in our more detailed study4 ,the struggle against1 and the aversion to ideas and purposes on the part of the nature-interpreters is not in itself directed against religion4 ,it does not arise from any antagonism of natural science to the religious conception of the world1 but is primarily an antagonism of one school of science to another1 the modern against the medival-,aristotelian4 ,the latter1 again1 was not in itself a religious world-outlook1 it was simply an attempt at an interpretation of the processes of nature1 and especially of evolution1 which might be quite neutral towards religion1 or might be purely naturalistic4 ,it was the theory of ,entelechies and form substaniales4 ,in order to explain how a thing had come to be1 it taught that the idea of the finished thing1 the 8form10 was implicit in it from the very beginning1 and determined the course of its development4 ,this 8form10 the end aimed at in development1 was 8potentially10 8ideally10 or 8virtually0 implicit in the thing from the beginning1 was the causa finalis1 the ultimate cause which determined the development4 ,modern natural science objects to this theory that it offers no explanation1 but merely gives a name to what has to be explained4 ,the aim of science1 it tells us1 is to elucidate the play of causes which brought about a particular result4 ,the hypothetical causa finalis it regards as a mere asylum ignoranti1 and as the problem itself not as its solution4 ,for instance1 if we inquire into the present form and aspect of the earth1 nothing is advanced by stating that the 8form10 the primitive model of the evolving earth was implicit in it from the beginning1 and that it gradually determined the phases and transition-stages of its evolution1 until the ultimate state1 the end aimed at1 was attained4 ,the task of science is1 through geology1 geognosy1 mineralogy1 geodesy1 physical geography1 meteorology1 and other sciences to discover the physical1 chemical1 and mechanical causes of the earth's evolution and their laws1 and from the co-operation of these to interpret everything in detail and as a whole4 ,whether modern natural science is right in this or not1 whether or not it has neglected an element of truth in the old theory of ,entelechies which it cannot dispense with1 especially in regard to living organisms1 it is beyond dispute that1 from the most general point of view1 and in particular with reference to teleology1 religion does not need to concern itself in the least about this opposition4 8,purposes10 8ideas10 8guidance0 in the religious sense1 are quite unaffected by the manner in which the result is realised2 everything depends upon the special and particular value of what has been attained or realised4 ,if a concatenation of causes and stages of development lead to results in which we suddenly discern a special and particular value1 then1 and not till then1 have we a reason and criterion for our assumption that it is not simply a result of a play of chances1 but that it has been brought about by purposeful thought1 by higher intervention and guidance of things4 ,certainly not before then4 ,thus we can only speak of purposes1 aims1 guidance1 and creation in so far as we have within us the capacity for feeling and recognising the value1 meaning and significance of things4 ,but natural science itself cannot estimate these4 ,it can or will only examine how everything has come about1 but whether this result has a higher value than another1 or has a lower1 or none at all1 it can neither assert nor deny4 ,that lies quite outside of its province4 ,let us try to make this clear by taking at once the highest example--man and his origin4 ,let it be assumed that natural science could discover all the causes and factors which1 operating for many thousands of years1 have produced man and human existence4 ,even if these causes and factors had actually been pure 8ideas10 form substantiales and the like1 that would in no way determine whether the whole process was really subject to a divine idea of purpose or not4 ,if we had not gained1 from a different source1 an insight into the supreme and incomparable worth of human existence1 spiritual1 rational1 and free1 with its capacity for morality1 religion1 art and science1 we should be compelled to regard man1 along with every other natural result1 as the insignificant product of a blind play of nature4 ,but1 on the other hand1 if we have once felt and recognised this value of human existence1 its highest dignity1 the knowledge that man has been produced through a play of highly complex natural processes1 fulfilling themselves in absolute obedience to law1 in no way prevents our regarding him as a 8purpose10 as the realisation of a divine idea1 in accordance with which nature in its orderliness was planned4 ,in fact1 this consideration leads us to discover and admire eternal plan and divine guidance in nature4 ,for it does not rest with natural science either to discover or to deny 8purpose0 in the religious sense in nature2 it belongs to quite a different order of experience1 an entirely inward one4 ,just in proportion as ,i become aware of1 and acknowledge in the domain of my inward experience and through my capacity of estimating values1 the worth of the spiritual and moral life of man1 so1 with the confidence of this peculiar mode of conviction1 ,i subordinate the concatenations of events and causes on which the possibility and the occurrence of the spiritual and moral life depend1 to an eternal teleology1 and see the order of the world that leads to this illuminated by everlasting meaning and by providence4 ,teleological and ,scientific ,interpretations are ,alike ,necessary4 7#g47 ,thus religion confidently subjects the world to a teleological interpretation4 ,and to a teleological study in this sense the strictly causal interpretations of natural science are not hostile1 but indispensable4 ,for how do things stand8 ,natural science endeavours by persistent labour to comprehend the whole of the facts occurring in our world1 up to the existence of man1 as the final outcome and result of an age-long process of evolution1 attempts also to follow this process ever higher up the ladder of strictly causal and strictly law-governed sequences1 and finally to connect it with the primary and simplest fundamental facts of existence1 beyond which it cannot go1 and which must simply be accepted as 8given40 ,if these results of this causally interpreted evolution reveal themselves to our inward power of valuation as full of meaning and value1 indeed of the deepest and most incomparable value1 the causal mode of explanation is in no way affected1 but its results are all at once placed in a new light and reveal a peculiarity which was previously not discoverable1 yet which is their highest import4 ,they become a strictly united system of means4 ,and purposefulness as a potentiality is thus carried back to the very foundation and 8beginning10 to the fundamental conditions and primary factors of the cosmos itself4 ,the strict nexus of conditions and causes is thus nothing more than the 8endeavour after end and aim10 the carrying through and realisation of the eternal purpose1 which was implicit potentially in the fundamental nature of things4 ,the absolute obedience to law1 and the inexorableness of chains of sequence are1 instead of being fatal to this position1 indispensable to it4 ,when there is a purpose in view1 it is only where the system of means is perfect1 unbroken1 and absolute1 that the purpose can be realised1 and therefore that intention can be inferred4 ,in the inexplicable datum of the fundamental factors of the world's existence1 in the strict nexus of causes1 in the unfailing occurrence of the results which are determined by both these1 and which reveal themselves to us as of value and purpose1 teleology and providence are directly realised4 ,the only assumptions are1 that it is possible to judge the results according to their value1 and that both the original nature of the world and the system of its causal sequences--that is1 the world as we know it--can be conceived of in accordance with the ideas of dependence and conditionedness4 ,both assumptions are not only possible1 but necessary4 ,in thinking out this most general consideration1 we find the real and fundamental answer to the question as to the validity and freedom of the religious conception of the world with regard to teleology in nature4 ,and if it be held fast and associated with the insight into the autonomy of the spiritual and its underivability from the natural1 we are freed at once from all the petty strife with the naturalistic doctrines of evolution1 descent1 and struggle for existence4 ,we shall nevertheless be obliged to discuss these to some extent1 because it is not a matter of indifference whether the detailed study of natural evolution fits in more or less easily with the conception of purpose whose validity we have demonstrated in general4 ,if that proves to be the case1 it will be an important factor in apologetics4 ,the conclusion which we have already arrived at on abstract grounds will then be corroborated and emphasised in the concrete4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,darwinism ,,in ,,general4 ,darwinism1 which was originally a technical theory of the biological schools1 has long since become a veritable tangle of the most diverse problems and opinions1 and seems to press hardly upon the religious conception of the world from many different sides4 ,in its theory of blind 8natural selection0 and the fortuitous play of the factors in the struggle for existence1 it appears to surrender the whole of this wonderful world of life to the rough and ready grip of a process without method or plan4 ,in the general theory of evolution and the doctrine of the descent of even the highest from the lowest1 it seems to take away all special dignity from the human mind and spirit1 all the freedom and all the nobility of pure reason and free will2 it seems to reduce the higher products of religion1 morality1 poetry1 and the sthetic sense to the level of an ignoble tumult of animal impulses1 desires and sensations4 ,purely speculative questions relative to the evolution theory1 psychological and metaphysical1 logical and epistemological1 ethical1 sthetic1 and finally even historical and politico-economical questions have been drawn into the coil1 and usually receive from the ,darwinians an answer at once robust and self-assured4 ,a zoological theory seems suddenly to have thrown light and intelligibility into the most diverse provinces of knowledge4 ,but in point of fact it can be shown that ,darwinism has not really done this and cannot do it4 ,it leaves unaffected the problem of the mind with its peculiar and underivable laws1 from the logical to the ethical4 ,whether it be right or wrong in its physiological theories1 its genealogical trees and fortuitous factors1 preoccupation with this theory is a task of the second order4 ,nevertheless it is necessary to study it1 because the chief objections to the religious interpretation of the world have come from it4 ,the ,development of ,darwinism4 ,in studying it we should like to follow a method somewhat different from that usually observed in apologetic writings4 8,darwinism10 even in its technical1 biological form1 never was quite1 and is to-day not at all a unified and consistent system4 ,it has been modified in so many ways and presented in such different colours1 that we must either refrain altogether from attempting to get into close quarters with it1 or we must make ourselves acquainted to some extent with the phases of the theory as it has gradually developed up to the present day4 ,this is the more necessary and useful since it is precisely within the circle of technical experts that revolts from and criticisms of the ,darwinian theory have in recent years arisen2 and these are so incisive1 so varied1 and so instructive1 that through them we can adjust our standpoint in relation to the theory better than in any other way4 ,and in thus letting the biologists speak for themselves1 we are spared the fatal task of entering into the discussion of questions belonging to a region outside our own particular studies4 ,we cannot1 however1 give more than a short sketch4 ,but even such a sketch may do more towards giving us a general knowledge of the question and showing us a way out of the difficulties it raises than any of the current 8refutations40 ,to supplement this sketch1 and facilitate a thorough understanding of the problem1 we shall give somewhat fuller references than are usual to the relevant literature4 ,and the same method will be pursued in the following chapter1 which deals with the mechanical theory of life4 ,this method throws more upon the reader1 but it is probably the most satisfactory one for the serious student4 ,the reactions from the ,darwinism of the schools which we have just referred to1 and to which the second half of this chapter is devoted1 are1 of course1 of a purely scientific kind4 ,and while we are devoting our attention to them1 we must not be unfaithful to the canon laid down in the previous chapter1 namely that with reference to the question of teleology in the religious sense no real answer can be looked for from scientific study1 not even if it be anti-,darwinian4 ,in this case1 too1 it is impossible to read the convictions and intuitions of the religious conception of the world out of a scientific study of nature3 they precede it4 ,but here1 too1 we may find some accessory support and indirect corroboration more or less strong and secure4 ,this may be illustrated by a single example4 ,it will be shown that1 on closer study1 it is not impossible to subordinate even the apparently confused tangle of naturalistic factors of evolution which are summed up in the phrase 8struggle for existence0 to interpretation from the religious point of view4 ,but matters will be in quite a different position if the whole theory collapses1 and instead of evolution and its paths being given over to confusion and chance1 it appears that from the very beginning and at every point there is a predetermination of fixed and inevitable lines along and up which it must advance4 ,in many other connections considerations of a like nature will reveal themselves to us in the course of our study4 ,darwinism1 as popularly understood1 is the theory that 8men are descended from monkeys10 and in general that the higher forms of life are descended from the lower1 and it is regarded as ,darwin's epoch-making work and his chief merit--or fault according to the point of view--that he established the ,theory of ,descent4 ,this is only half correct1 and it leaves out the real point of ,darwinism altogether4 ,the ,theory of ,descent had its way prepared by the evolutionist ideas and the speculative nature-philosophy of ,goethe1 ,schelling1 ,hegel and ,oken2 by the suggestions and glimmerings of the nature-mysticism of the romanticists2 by the results of comparative anatomy and physiology2 was already hinted at1 at least as far as derivation of species was concerned1 in the works of ,linn himself2 was worked out in the 8zoological philosophies10 by the elder ,darwin1 by ,lamarck1 ,etienne ,geoffrey ,st4 ,hilaire and ,buffon2 was in the field long before ,charles ,darwin's time2 was already in active conflict with the antagonistic theory of the 8constancy of species10 and had its more or less decided adherents4 ,yet undoubtedly it was through and after ,darwin that the theory grew so much more powerful and gained general acceptance4 ,darwinism and ,teleology4 ,but the essential and most characteristic importance of ,darwin and his work1 the reason for which he was called the ,newton of biology1 and which makes ,darwinism at once interesting and dangerous to the religious conception of the world1 is something quite special and new4 ,it is its radical opposition to teleology4 ,du ,bois-,reymond1 in his witty lecture 8,darwin versus ,galiani107#d7 explains the gist of the matter4 8,les ds de la nature sont pips0 7nature's dice are loaded74 ,nature is almost always throwing aces4 ,she brings forth not what is meaningless and purposeless1 but in great preponderance what is full of meaning and purpose4 ,what 8loaded0 her dice like this8 ,even if the theory of descent be true1 in what way does it directly help the purely scientific interpretation of the world8 ,would not this evolution from the lowest to the highest simply be a series of the most astonishing lucky throws of the dice by which in perplexing 8endeavour after an aim10 the increasingly perfect1 and ultimately the most perfect is produced8 ,and1 on the other hand1 every individual organism1 from the ,amba up to the most complex vertebrate1 is1 in its structure1 its form1 its functions1 a stupendous marvel of adaptation to its end and of co-ordination of the parts to the whole1 and of the whole and its parts to the functions of the organism1 the functions of nutrition1 self-maintenance1 reproduction1 maintenance of the species1 and so on4 ,how account for the adaptiveness1 both general and special1 without caus finales1 without intention and purposes1 without guidance towards a conscious aim8 ,how can it be explained as the necessary result solely of caus efficientes1 of blindly working causes without a definite aim8 ,darwinism attempts to answer this question4 ,and its answer is3 8,what appears to us #8purposeful' and #8perfect' is in truth only the manifold adaptation of the forms of life to the conditions of their existence4 ,and this adaptation is brought about solely by means of these conditions themselves4 ,without choice1 without aim1 without conscious purpose nature offers a wealth of possibilities4 ,the conditions of existence act as a sieve4 ,what chances to correspond to them maintains itself1 gliding through the meshes of the sieve1 what does not perishes40 ,it is an old idea of the naturalistic philosophies1 dating from ,empedocles1 which ,darwin worked up into the theory of 8natural selection0 through 8the survival of the fittest0 8in the struggle for existence40 ,of course the assumption necessary to his idea is that the forms of life are capable of variation1 and of continually offering in ceaseless flux new properties and characters to the sieve of selection1 and of being raised thereby from the originally homogeneous to the heterogeneous1 from the simple to the complex1 from the lower to the higher4 ,this is the theory of descent1 and it is1 of course1 an essential part and the very foundation of ,darwin's theory4 ,but it is the doctrine of descent based upon natural selection that is ,darwinism itself4 ,the ,characteristic ,features of ,darwinism4 ,we do not propose to expound the ,darwinian theory for the hundredth time2 a knowledge of it must be taken for granted4 ,we need only briefly call to mind the characteristic features and catchwords of the theory as ,darwin founded it1 which have also been the starting points of subsequent modifications and controversies4 ,all living creatures are bound together in genetic solidarity4 ,everything has evolved through endless deviations1 gradations1 and differentiations1 but at the same time by a perfectly continuous process4 ,variation continually produced a crop of heterogeneous novelties4 ,the struggle for existence sifted these out4 ,heredity fixed and established them4 ,without method or plan variations continue to occur 7indefinite variations74 ,they manifest themselves in all manner of minute changes 78fluctuating0 variations74 ,every part1 every function of an organism may be subject individually to variation and selection4 ,the world is strictly governed by what is useful4 ,the whole organisation as well as the individual organs and functions bear the stamp of utility1 at least1 they must bear it if the theory is correct4 ,in the general continuity the transitions are always easy2 there are no fundamentally distinct 8types10 architectural plans1 or groups of forms4 ,where gaps yawn the intermediate links have gone amissing4 ,there is no fundamental difference between genus1 species1 and variety4 ,even the most complicated organ such as the eye1 the most puzzling function such as the instinct of the bee1 may be explained as the outcome of many more primitive stages4 ,the chief evidences of the theory of descent are to be found in homologies1 in the correspondences of organs and functions1 as revealed by comparative anatomy and physiology1 in the recapitulation revealed by embryology1 in the structure of parasites1 in rudimentary organs and reversions to earlier stages1 in the distribution of animals and plants1 and in the possibility of still transforming1 at least to a slight extent1 one species into another1 by experimental breeding4 ,transformation and differentiation go on in nature as a vast1 ceaseless1 but blind process of selection4 ,in artificial selection evolution is secured by choosing the most fit for breeding purposes2 so it is secured in natural selection by the favouring and survival of those forms which are the most fit among the many unfit or less fit1 which happened to be exposed to the struggle for existence1 that is1 to the competition for the means of subsistence1 to the struggle with enemies1 to hostile environment1 and to dangers of every kind4 ,the adaptation thus brought about is of a purely 8passive0 kind4 ,the variations arise fortuitously out of the organism1 and present themselves for selection in the struggle for existence2 they are not actively acquired by means of the struggle4 ,the secondary factors of evolution recognised are3 correlation in the growth and in the development of parts1 the origin of new characters through use1 their disappearance through disuse 7,lamarck71 the transmission of characters thus acquired1 the influence of environment and sexual selection47#e7 ,the ,darwinian theory1 the interpretation of the teleological in the animate world by means of the theory of descent based upon natural selection1 entered like a ferment into the scientific thought-movement1 and in a space of forty years it has itself passed through a series of stages1 differentiations1 and transformations which have in part resulted in the present state of the theory1 and have in part anticipated it4 ,these are represented by the names of workers belonging to a generation which has for the most part already passed away3 ,darwin's collaborateurs1 such as ,alfred ,russel ,wallace1 who independently and simultaneously expounded the theory of natural selection1 ,haeckel and ,fritz ,mller1 ,ngeli and ,askenasy1 von ,klliker1 ,mivart1 ,romanes and others4 ,the differentiation and elaboration of ,darwin's theories has gone ever farther and farther2 the grades and shades of doctrine held by his disciples are now almost beyond reckoning4 ,various ,forms of ,darwinism4 ,the great majority of these express what may be called popular ,darwinism 8,darwinismus vulgaris01 theoretically worthless1 but practically possessed of great powers of attraction and propagandism4 ,it expresses in the main a conviction1 usually left unexplained1 that everything 8happens naturally10 that man is really descended from monkeys1 and that life has 8evolved from lower stages0 of itself1 that dualism is wrong1 and that monism is the truth4 ,it is exactly the standpoint of the popular naturalism we have already described1 which here mingles unsuspectingly and without scruple ,lamarckian and other principles with the ,darwinian1 which is enthusiastic on the one hand over the 8purely mechanical0 interpretation of nature1 and on the other drags in directly psychical motives1 unconscious consciousness1 impulses1 spontaneous self-differentiation of organisms1 which nevertheless adheres to 8monism0 and possibly even professes to share ,goethe's conception of nature6 ,above this stratum we come to that of the real experts1 the only one which concerns us in the least4 ,here too we find an ever-growing distance between divergent views1 the most manifold differences amounting sometimes to mutual exclusion4 ,these differences occur even with reference to the fundamental doctrine generally adhered to1 the doctrine of descent4 ,to one party it is a proved fact1 to another a probable1 scientific working hypothesis1 to a third a 8rescuing plank40 ,one party is always finding fresh corroborations1 another new difficulties4 ,and within the same group we find the contrasts of believers in monophyletic and believers in polyphyletic evolution1 the mechanists and the half-confessed or thoroughgoing vitalists1 the preformationists and the believers in epigenesis4 ,opinions differ even more widely in regard to the rle of the 8struggle for existence0 in the production of species4 ,on the one hand we have the ,darwinism of ,darwin freed from inconsequent additions and formulated as orthodox 8neo-,darwinism02 on the other hand we have heterodox ,lamarckism4 ,the 8all-sufficiency0 of natural selection is proclaimed by some1 its impotence by others4 ,indefinite variation is opposed by orthogenesis1 fluctuating variation by saltatory mutation 7,halmatogenesis in 8,greek071 passive adaptation by the spontaneous activity and self-regulation of the living organism4 ,the struggle for existence is variously regarded as the chief factor1 or as a co-operating factor1 or as an indifferent1 or even an inimical factor in the origination of new species4 ,and among the representatives of these different standpoints there are most interesting personal differences3 in some1 like ,weismann1 we find a great loyalty to1 and persistence in the position once arrived at1 in others the most surprising transitions and changes of opinion4 ,thus ,fleischmann1 a pupil of ,selenka's1 after illustrating during many years of personal research the orthodox ,darwinian standpoint1 finally developed into an outspoken opponent not only of the theory of selection but of the doctrine of descent4 ,so also ,friedmann47#f7 ,driesch started from the mechanical theory of life and advanced through the connected series of his own biological essays to vitalism4 ,romanes1 a prominent disciple of ,darwin1 ended in ,christian theism1 and ,wallace1 the discoverer of 8the struggle for existence10 landed in spiritualism4 ,nothing like an exhaustive view of the present state of ,darwinism and its many champions can here be attempted4 ,but it will be necessary to get to know what we may call its possibilities by a study of typical and leading examples4 ,in the course of our study many of the problems to which the theory gives rise will reveal themselves1 and their orientation will be possible4 ,this task falls naturally into two subdivisions3 7#a7 the present state of the theory of ,evolution and ,descent1 and how far the religious conception of the world is or is not affected by it2 7#b7 the truth as to the originative and directive factors of ,evolution1 especially as to 8natural selection in the struggle for existence10 whether they are tenable and sufficient1 and what attitude religion must take towards them4 ,these two problems must be kept distinct throughout1 and must be discussed in order4 ,for the validity of what is characteristically ,darwinism is in no way decided by proving descent and evolution1 although it appears so in most popular expositions47#g7 ,the ,theory of ,descent4 ,again and again we hear and read1 even in scientific circles and journals1 that ,darwinism breaks down at many points1 that it is insufficient1 and even that it has quite collapsed4 ,even the assurances of its most convinced champions are rather forced1 and are somewhat suggestive of bills payable in the future47#h7 ,but here again it is obvious that we must distinguish clearly between the ,theory of ,descent and ,darwinism4 ,of the ,theory of ,descent it is by no means true that it has 8broken down40 ,with a slight exaggeration1 but on the whole with justice1 ,weismann has asserted that the ,theory of ,descent is to-day a 8generally accepted truth40 ,even ,weismann's most pronounced opponents1 such as ,eimer1 ,wolff1 ,reinke1 and others1 are at one with him in this1 that there has been evolution in some form2 that there has been a progressive transformation of species2 that there is real 7not merely ideal7 relationship or affiliation connecting our modern forms of life1 up to and including man1 with the lower and lowest forms of bygone ons4 ,the evidences are the same as those adduced by ,darwin and before his time1 but they have been multiplied and more sharply defined3--namely1 that the forms of life can be arranged in an ascending scale of evolution1 both in their morphological and their physiological aspects1 both as regards the general type and the differentiation of individual organs and particular characters1 bodily and mental4 ,all the rubrics used by ,darwin in this connection1 from comparative anatomy1 from the palontological record itself1 and so on1 have been filled out with ever-increasing detail4 ,palontology1 in particular1 is continually furnishing new illustrations of descent and new evidence of its probability1 more telling perhaps in respect of general features and particular groups than in regard to the historical process in detail4 ,for certain species and genera palontology discloses the primitive forms1 discovers 8synthetic types0 which were the starting-point for diverging branches of evolution1 bridges over or narrows the yawning gulfs in evolution by the discovery of 8intermediate forms02 and1 in the case of certain species1 furnishes complete genealogical trees4 ,the same holds true of the facts of comparative anatomy1 embryology1 and so on4 ,in all detailed investigations into an animal type1 in the study of the structure1 functions1 or the instincts of an ant1 or of a whale or of a tape-worm1 the standpoint of the theory of descent is assumed1 and it proves a useful clue for further investigation4 ,in regard to man--so we are assured--the theory finds confirmation through the discovery of the ,neanderthal1 ,spy1 ,schipka1 ,la ,naulette skulls and bones--the remains of a prehistoric human race1 with 8pithecoid0 7ape-like7 characters4 ,and the theory reaches its climax in ,dubois' discovery of the remains of 8,pithecanthropus10 the upright ape-man1 in ,java1 #ahia-ib1 the long sought-for ,missing ,link between animals and man27#i7 and in the still more recent proofs of 8affinity of blood0 between man and ape1 furnished by experiments in transfusion4 ,friedenthal has revived the older experiments of transfusing the blood of one animal into another1 the blood of an animal of one species into that of another1 of related species into related species1 more remote into more remote1 and finally even from animals into man4 ,the further apart the two species are1 the more different are the physiological characters of the blood1 and the more difficult does a mingling of the two become4 ,blood of a too distantly related form does not unite with that of the animal into which it is transfused1 but the red corpuscles of the former are destroyed by the serum of the latter1 break up and are eliminated4 ,in nearly related species or races1 however1 the two kinds of blood unite1 as in the case of horse and ass1 or of hare and rabbit4 ,human blood serum behaves in a hostile fashion to the blood of eel1 pigeon1 horse1 dog1 cat1 and even to that of ,lemuroids1 or that of the more remotely related 8non-anthropoid0 monkey2 human blood transfused from a negro into a white unites readily1 as does also that of orang-utan transfused into a gibbon4 ,but human blood also unites without any breaking-up or disturbance with the blood of a chimpanzee2 from which the inference is that man is not to be placed in a separate sub-order beside the other sub-orders of the ,primates1 the platyrrhine and catarrhine monkeys1 not even in a distinct sub order beside the catarrhines2 but is to be included with them in one zoological sub-order4 ,this classification was previously suggested by ,selenka on other grounds1 namely1 because of the points in common in the embryonic development of the catarrhine monkeys and of man1 and their common distinctiveness as contrasted with the platyrrhines47#aj7 ,haeckel's ,evolutionist ,position4 ,the average type of the ,theory of ,descent of the older or orthodox school1 which still lingers in the background with its ,darwinism unshaken1 is that set forth by ,haeckel1 scientifically in his 8,generelle ,morphologie der ,organismen0 7#ahff71 and 8,systematische ,phylogenie0 7#ahif71 and popularly in his 8,natural ,history of ,creation0 and 8,riddles of the ,universe10 with their many editions4 ,we may assume that it is well known1 and need only briefly recall its chief characteristics4 ,the 8inestimable value10 the 8incomparable significance10 the 8immeasurable importance0 of the ,theory of ,descent lies1 according to ,haeckel1 in the fact that by means of it we can explain the origin of the forms of life 8in a mechanical manner40 ,the theory1 especially in regard to the descent of man from the apes1 is to him not a working hypothesis or tentative mode of representation2 it is a result comparable to ,newton's law of gravitation or the ,kant-,laplace cosmogony4 ,it is 8a certain historical fact40 ,the proofs of it are those already mentioned4 ,what is especially ,haeckelian is the 8fundamental biogenetic law10 8ontogeny resembles phylogeny10 that is to say1 in development1 especially in embryonic development1 the individual recapitulates the history of the race4 ,through 8palingenesis10 man1 for instance1 recapitulates his ancestral stages 7protist1 gastrad1 vermine1 piscine1 and simian74 ,this recapitulation is condensed1 disarranged1 or obscured in detail by 8cenogenesis0 or 8cnogenesis40 ,the groups and types of organisms exhibit the closest genetic solidarity4 ,the genealogical tree of man in particular runs directly through a whole series4 ,from the realm of the protists it leads to that of the gastrad 7nowadays represented by the ,clentera71 thence into the domain of the worms1 touches the hypothetical 8primitive chordates0 7for the necessary existence of which 8certain proofs0 can be given71 the class of tunicates1 ascends through the fishes1 amphibians and reptiles to forms parallel to the modern monotremes1 then directly through the marsupials to the placentals1 through lemuroids and baboons to the anthropoid apes1 from them to the 8famous ,pithecanthropus0 discovered in ,java1 out of which homo sapiens arose4 7,the easy transition from one group of forms to another is to be noted4 ,for it is against this point that most of the opposition has been directed1 whether from 8grumbling0 critics1 or thoroughgoing opponents of the ,theory of ,descent47 ,haeckel's facile method of constructing genealogical trees1 which ignores difficulties and discrepant facts1 has met with much criticism and ridicule even among ,darwinians4 ,the 8orator of ,berlin10 ,du ,bois-,reymond1 declared that if he must read romances he would prefer to read them in some other form than that of genealogical trees4 ,but they have at least the merit that they give a vivid impression of what is most plausible and attractive in the idea of descent1 and moreover they have helped towards orientation in the discussion4 ,nor can we ignore the very marked taxonomic and architectonic talent which their construction displays4 ,weismann's ,evolutionist ,position4 ,the most characteristic representative1 however1 of the modern school of unified and purified ,darwinism is not ,haeckel1 but the ,freiburg zoologist1 ,weismann4 ,through a long series of writings he has carried on the conflict against heterodox1 and especially ,lamarckian theories of evolution1 and has developed his theories of heredity and the causes of variation1 of the non-transmissibility of acquired characters1 and the all-sufficiency of natural selection4 ,in his latest great work1 in two volumes1 8,lectures on the ,theory of ,descent107#aa7 he has definitely summed up and systematised his views4 ,these will interest us when we come to inquire into the problem of the factors operative in evolution4 ,for the moment we are only concerned with his attitude to the ,theory of ,descent as such4 ,it is precisely the same as ,haeckel's1 although he is opposed to ,haeckel in regard to the strictly ,darwinian standpoint4 ,the ,theory of ,descent has conquered1 and it may be said with assurance1 for ever4 ,that is the firm conviction on which the whole work is based1 and it is really rather treated as a self-evident axiom than as a statement to be proved4 ,weismann takes little trouble to prove it4 ,all the well-known1 usually very clear proofs from palontology1 comparative anatomy1 c41 which we are accustomed to meet with in evolutionist books are wanting here1 the genealogical trees of the ,equid1 with the gradually diminishing number of toes and the varying teeth1 of ,planorbis multiformis1 of the ammonites1 the graduated series of stages exhibited by individual organs1 for instance1 from the ganglion merely sensitive to light up to the intricate eye1 or from the rayed skeleton of the paired fins in fishes up to the five-fingered hands and feet of the higher vertebrates1 c4 ,these are only briefly touched upon in the terse 8,introduction10 and the whole of the comprehensive work is then directed to showing what factors can have been operative1 and to proving that they must have been 8,darwinian0 7selection in the struggle for existence71 and not ,lamarckian or any other4 ,this is shown in regard to the coloration of animals1 the phenomena of mimicry1 the protective arrangements of plants1 the development of instinct in animals1 and the origin of flowers4 ,in reality ,weismann only adduces one strict proof1 and even that is only laying special stress on what is well known in comparative embryology2 namely1 the possibility of 8predicting0 on the basis of the theory of descent1 as ,leverrier 8predicted0 ,neptune4 ,for instance1 in the lower vertebrates from amphibians upwards there is an os centrale in the skeleton of wrist1 but there is none in man4 ,now if man be descended from lower vertebrates1 and if the fundamental biogenetic law be true 7that every form of life recapitulates in its own development1 especially in its embryonic development1 the evolution of its race1 though with abbreviations and condensations71 it may be predicted that the os centrale is to be found in the early embryonic stages of man4 ,and ,rosenberg found it4 ,in the same way the 8gill-clefts0 of the fish-like ancestors have long since been discovered in the embryo of the higher vertebrates and of man4 ,weismann himself 8predicted0 that the markings of the youngest stage of the caterpillars of the ,sphingid 7hawk-moths7 would be found to be not oblique but longitudinal stripes1 and ten years later a fortunate observation verified the prediction4 ,because of the abundance of evidential facts ,weismann does not go into any detailed proof of evolution4 8,one can hardly take up any work1 large or small1 on the finer or more general structural relations1 or on the development of any animal1 without finding in it proofs for the evolution theory40 ,but assured as the doctrine of descent appears17#ab7 and certain as it is that it has not only maintained its hold since ,darwin's day1 but has strengthened it and has gained adherents1 this foundation of ,darwinism is nevertheless not the unanimous and inevitable conclusion of all scientific men in the sense and to the extent that the utterances of ,weismann and others would lead us to suppose4 ,apart from all apologetic attempts either in religious1 ethical1 or sthetic interests1 apart1 too1 from the superior standpoint of the philosophers1 who have not1 so to speak1 taken the theory very seriously1 but regard it as a provisional theory1 as a more or less necessary and useful method of grouping our ideas in regard to the organic world1 there are even among the biologists themselves some who1 indifferent towards religious or philosophical or naturalistic dogma1 hold strictly to fact1 and renounce with nonchalance any pretensions at completeness of knowledge if the data do not admit of it1 and on these grounds hold themselves aloof from evolutionist generalisation4 ,from among these come the counsels of 8caution10 admissions that the theory is a scientific hypothesis and a guide to research1 but not knowledge1 and confessions that the ,theory of ,descent as a whole is verifiable rather as a general impression than in detail4 ,virchow's ,position4 ,warnings of this kind have come occasionally from ,du ,bois-,reymond1 but the true type of this group1 and its mode of thought1 is ,virchow4 ,it will repay us and suffice us to make acquaintance with it through him4 ,his opposition to ,darwinism and the theory of descent was directed at its most salient point3 the descent of man from the apes4 ,in lectures and treatises1 at zoological and anthropological congresses1 especially at the meetings of his own ,anthropological-,ethnological ,society in ,berlin1 from his 8,vortrge ber ,menschen-und ,affen-,schdel0 7,lectures on the ,skulls of ,man and ,apes1 #ahfi71 to the disputes over ,dubois' ,pithecanthropus erectus in the middle of the nineties1 he threw the whole weight of his immense learning--ethnological and anthropological1 osteological1 and above all 8craniological0--into the scale against the ,theory of ,descent and its supporters4 ,virchow has therefore been reckoned often enough among the anti-,darwinians1 and has been quoted by apologists and others as against ,darwinism1 and he has given reason for this1 since he has often taken the field against 8the ,darwinists0 or has scoffed at their 8longing for a pro-anthropos407#ac7 ,sometimes even it has been suggested that he was actuated by religious motives1 as when he occasionally championed not only freedom for science1 but1 incidentally1 the right of existence for 8the churches10 leaving1 for instance1 in his theory of psychical life1 gaps in knowledge which faith might occupy in moderation and modesty4 ,but this last proves nothing4 ,with ,virchow's altogether unemotional nature it is unlikely that religious or spiritual motives had any rle in the establishment of his convictions1 and in ,haeckel's nave blustering at religion1 there is1 so to speak1 more religion than in the cold-blooded connivance with which ,virchow leaves a few openings in otherwise frozen ponds for the ducks of faith to swim in6 ,and he has nothing of the pathos of ,du ,bois-,reymond's 8ignorabimus40 ,he is the neutral1 prosaic scientist1 who will let nothing 8tempt him to a transcendental consideration107#ad7 either theological or naturalistic1 who holds tenaciously to matters of fact1 who1 without absolutely rejecting a general theory1 will not concern himself about it1 except to point out every difficulty in the way of it2 in short1 he is the representative of a mood that is the ideal of every investigator and the despair of every theoriser4 ,his lecture of #ahfi already indicates his subsequent attitude4 8,considered logically and speculatively0 the ,theory of ,descent seems to him 8excellent107#ae7 indeed a logical moral767 hypothesis1 but unproved in itself1 and erroneous in many of its particular propositions4 ,as far back as #aheh1 before the publication of ,darwin's great work1 he stated at the ,naturalists' ,congress in ,carlsruhe1 that the origin of one species out of another appeared to him a necessary scientific inference1 but----,and throughout the whole lecture he alternates between favourable recognition of the theory in general1 and emphasis of the difficulties which confront it in detail4 ,the skull1 which1 according to ,goethe's theory1 has evolved from three modified vertebr1 is fundamentally different in man and monkeys1 both in regard to its externals1 crests1 ridges and shape1 and especially in regard to the nature of the cavity which it forms for the brain4 ,specifically distinctive differences in the development and structure of the rest of the body must also be taken into account4 ,the so-called ape-like structures in the skull and the rest of the body1 which occasionally occur in man 7idiots1 microcephaloids1 c47 cannot be regarded as atavisms and therefore as proofs of the ,theory of ,descent2 they are of a pathological nature1 entirely facts sui generis1 and 8not to be placed in a series with the normal results of evolution40 ,a man modified by disease 8is still thoroughly a man1 not a monkey40 ,virchow continued to maintain this attitude and persisted in this kind of argument4 ,he energetically rejected all attempts to find 8pithecoid0 characters in the prehistoric remains of man4 ,he declared the narrow and less arched forehead1 the elliptical form1 and the unusually large frontal cavities of the 8,neanderthal skull0 found in the ,wupperthal in #ahef1 to be simply pathological features1 which occur as such in certain examples of homo sapiens47#af7 ,he explained the abnormal appearance of the jaw from the ,moravian cave of ,schipka as a result of the retention of teeth17#ag7 accompanied by directly 8antipithecoid0 characters4 ,the proceedings at the meetings of the ,ethnological ,society in #ahie1 at which ,dubois was present1 had an almost dramatic character47#ah7 ,in the diverse opinions of ,dubois1 ,virchow1 ,nehring1 ,kollmann1 ,krause and others1 we have almost an epitome of the present state of the ,darwinian question4 ,virchow doubted whether the parts put together by ,dubois 7the head of a femur1 two molar teeth1 and the top of a skull7 belonged to the same individual at all1 disputed the calculations as to the large capacity of the skull1 placed against ,dubois' very striking and clever drawing of the curves of the skull-outline1 which illustrated1 with the help of the ,pithecanthropus1 the gradual transition from the skull of a monkey to that of man1 his own drawing1 according to which the ,pithecanthropus curve simply coincides with that of a gibbon 7,hylobates71 and asserted that the remains discovered were those of a species of gibbon1 refusing even to admit that they represented a new genus of monkeys4 ,he held fast to his ceterum censeo3 8,as yet no diluvial discovery has been made which can be referred to a man of a pithecoid type40 ,indeed1 his polemic or 8caution0 in regard to the ,theory of ,descent went even further4 ,he not only refused to admit the proof of the descent of man from monkey1 he would not even allow that the descent of one race from another has been demonstrated47#ai7 ,in spite of all the plausible hypotheses it remains 8so far only a pium desiderium40 ,the race obstinately maintains its specific distinctness1 and resists variation1 or gradual transformation into another4 ,the negro remains a negro in ,america1 and the ,european colonist of ,australia remains a ,european4 ,yet all ,virchow's opposition may be summed up in the characteristic words1 which might almost be called his motto1 8,i warn you of the need for caution10 and it is not a seriously-meant rejection of the ,theory of ,descent4 ,in reality he holds the evolution-idea as an axiom1 and in the last-named treatise he shows distinctly how he conceives of the process4 ,he starts with variation 7presumably 8kaleidoscopic071 which comes about as a 8pathological0 phenomenon1 that is to say1 not spontaneously1 but as the result of environmental stimulus1 as the organism's reaction to climatic and other conditions of life4 ,the result is an alteration of previous characteristics1 and a new stable race is established by an 8acquired anomaly407#bj7 ,other ,instances of ,dissatisfaction with the ,theory of ,descent4 ,what was with ,virchow only a suggestion of the need for caution1 or controversial matter to be subsequently allowed for or contradicted1 had more serious consequences to others1 and led to still greater hesitancy as regards evolutionist generalisations and speculations1 and sometimes to sharp antagonism to them4 ,one of the best known of the earlier examples of this mood is ,kerner von ,marilaun's large and beautiful work on 8,plant ,life407#ba7 ,he does1 indeed1 admit that our species are variations of antecedent forms1 but only in a very limited sense4 ,within the stocks or grades of organisation which have always existed1 variations have come about1 through 8hybridisation10 through the crossing of similar1 but relatively different forms2 these variations alter the configuration and appearance in detail1 but neither affect the general character nor cause any transition from 8lower0 to 8higher40 ,kerner disposes of the chief argument in favour of the theory of descent1 the homology of individual organs1 by explaining that the homology is due to the similarity of function in the different organisms4 ,a similar argument is used in regard to 8ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny40 ,palontology does not disclose in the plant-world any 8synthetic types10 which might have been the common primitive stock from which many now divergent branches have sprung1 nor does it disclose any 8transition links0 really intermediate1 for instance1 between cryptogams and gymnosperms1 or between gymnosperms and angiosperms4 ,that the higher races are apparently absent from the earlier strata is not a proof that they have never existed4 ,the peat-bog flora must have involved the existence of a large companion-flora1 without which the peat could not have been formed1 but all trace of this is absent in the still persistent vestiges of these times47#bb7 ,life1 with energy and matter1 has existed as a phenomenon of the universe from all eternity1 and thus its chief forms and manifestations have not 8arisen10 but have always been4 ,if facts such as these contradict the ,kant-,laplace theory of the universe1 then the latter must be corrected in the light of them1 not conversely4 ,the extreme isolation of ,kerner and his theory is probably due especially to this corollary of his views4 ,among the most recent examples of antagonism to the ,evolution-,theory1 the most interesting is a book by ,fleischmann1 professor of zoology in ,erlangen1 published in #aija1 and entitled1 8,the ,theory of ,descent40 ,it consists of 8popular lectures on the rise and decline of a scientific hypothesis0 7namely1 the ,theory of ,descent71 and it is a complete recantation by a quondam ,darwinian of the doctrine of his school1 even of its fundamental proposition1 the concept of evolution itself4 ,for ,fleischmann is not guilty1 like ,weismann1 of the inaccuracy of using 8,theory of ,descent0 as equivalent to ,darwinism2 he is absolutely indifferent to the theory of natural selection4 ,his book keeps strictly to matters of fact1 and rejects as speculation everything in the least beyond these2 it does not express even an opinion on the question of the origin of species1 but merely criticises and analyses4 ,it does not bring forward any new and overwhelming arguments in refutation of the ,theory of ,descent1 but strongly emphasises difficulties that have always beset it1 and discusses these in detail4 ,the old dispute which interested ,goethe1 ,geoffroy ,st4 ,hilaire1 and ,cuvier1 as to the unity or the fundamental heterogeneity of the 8architectural plan0 in nature is revived4 ,modern zoology recognises not merely the four types of ,cuvier1 but seventeen different styles1 8phyla10 or groups of forms1 to derive one of which from another is hopeless4 ,and what is true of the whole is true also of the subdivisions within each phylum2 e4g41 within the vertebrate phylum with its fishes1 amphibians1 reptiles1 birds and mammals4 ,no bridge leads from one to the other4 ,this is proved particularly by the very instance which is the favourite illustration in support of the ,theory of ,descent--the fin of fishes and its relation to the five-fingered hand of vertebrates4 ,the so-called transition forms 7,archopteryx1 monotremes1 c47 are discredited4 ,so with the 8stalking-horse0 of evolutionists--the genealogical tree of the ,equid1 which is said to be traceable palontologically right back1 without a break1 from the one-toed horses of the present day to the normal five-toed ancestry2 and so with another favourite instance of evolution1 the history of the pond-snails 7,planorbis multiformis71 the numerous varieties of which occur with transitions between them in actual contiguity in the ,steinheim beds1 and thus seem to afford an obvious example of the transformation of species4 ,against these cases1 and against using the palontological archives as a basis for the construction of genealogical trees in general1 the weighty and apparently decisive objection is urged1 that nowhere are the soft parts of the earlier forms of life preserved1 and that it is impossible to establish relationships with any certainty on the basis of hard parts only1 such as bones1 teeth and shells4 ,even ,haeckel admits that snails of very different bodily structure may form very similar and even hardly distinguishable shells4 ,fleischmann further asserts that ,haeckel's 8fundamental biogenetic law0 has utterly collapsed4 8,recapitulation0 does not occur4 ,selenka's figures of ovum-segmentation show that there are specific differences in the individual groups4 ,the origin and development of the blastoderm or germinal disc has nothing to do with recapitulation of the phylogeny4 ,it is not the case that the embryos of higher vertebrates are indistinguishable from one another4 ,even the egg-cell has a specific character1 and is totally different from any unicellular organism at the ,protistan level4 ,the much-cited 8gill-clefts0 of higher vertebrates in the embryonic stage are not persistent reminiscences of earlier lower stages2 they are rudiments or primordia shared by all vertebrates1 and developing differently at the different levels2 7thus in fishes they become breathing organs1 and in the higher vertebrates they become in part associated with the organs of hearing1 or in part disappear again74 ,though ,fleischmann's vigorous protest against over-hastiness in construction and over-confidence on the part of the adherents of the doctrine of descent is very interesting1 and may often be justified in detail1 it is difficult to resist the impression that the wheat has been rejected with the chaff47#bc7 ,even a layman may raise the following objections3 ,admitting that the great groups of forms cannot be traced back to one another1 the palontological record still proves1 though it may be only in general outline1 that within each phylum there has been a gradual succession and ascent of forms4 ,how is the origin of what is new to be accounted for8 ,without doing violence to our thinking1 without a sort of intellectual autonomy1 we cannot rest content with the mere fact that new elements occur4 ,so1 in spite of all 8difficulties10 the assumption of an actual descent quietly forces itself upon us as the only satisfactory clue4 ,and the fact1 which ,fleischmann does not discuss1 that even at present we may observe the establishment of what are at least new breeds1 impels us to accept an analogous origin of new species4 ,even if the biogenetic law really 8finds its chief confirmation in its exceptions10 even if we cannot speak of a strict recapitulation of earlier stages of evolution1 there are indisputable facts which are most readily interpreted as reminiscences1 as due to affiliation 7ideal or hereditary71 with ancestral forms4 7,note1 for instance1 ,weismann's 8prediction10 c47#bd77 ,even if ,archopteryx and other intermediate forms cannot be regarded as connecting links in the strict sense1 i4e41 as being stages in the actual pedigree1 yet the occurrence of reptilian and avian peculiarities side by side in one organism1 goes far to prove the close relationship of the two classes4 ,fleischmann's book strengthens the impression gained elsewhere1 that a general survey of the domain of life as a whole gives force and convincingness to the ,theory of ,descent1 while a study of details often results in breaking the threads and bringing the difficulties into prominence4 ,but the same holds true of many other theoretical constructions1 and yet we do not seriously doubt their validity4 7,take1 for instance1 the ,kant-,laplace theory1 and theories of ethnology1 of the history of religion1 of the history of language1 and so on47 ,and it is quite commonly to be observed that those who have an expert and specialist knowledge1 who are aware of the refractoriness of detailed facts1 often take up a sceptical attitude towards every comprehensive theory1 though the ultimate use of detailed investigation is to make the construction of general theories possible4 ,fleischmann does exactly what1 say1 an anthropologist would do if1 under the impression of the constancy and distinctiveness of the human races1 which would become stronger the more deeply he penetrated1 he should resignedly renounce all possibility of affiliating them1 and should rest content with the facts as he found them4 ,similarly1 those who are most intimately acquainted with the races of domesticated animals often resist most strenuously all attempts1 although these seem to others a matter of course1 to derive our 8tame0 forms from 8wild0 species living in freedom4 ,but to return4 ,even where the ,theory of ,descent is recognised1 whether fully or only half-heartedly1 the recognition does not always mean the same thing4 ,even the adherents of the general1 but in itself quite vague view that a transformation from lower forms to higher1 and from similar to different forms1 has taken place1 may present so many points of disagreement1 and may even stand in such antagonism to one another1 that onlookers are apt to receive the impression that they occupy quite different standpoints1 and are no longer at one even in the fundamentals of their hypotheses4 ,the most diverse questions and answers crop up2 whether evolution has been brought about 8monophyletically0 or 8polyphyletically10 i4e41 through one or many genealogical trees2 whether it has taken place in a continuous easy transition from one type to another1 or by leaps and bounds2 whether through a gradual transformation of all organs1 each varying individually1 or through correlated 8kaleidoscopic0 variations of many kinds throughout the whole system2 whether it is essentially asymptotic1 or whether organisms pass from 8labile0 phases of vital equilibrium by various halting-places to stable states1 which are definitive1 and are1 so to speak1 the blind alleys and terminal points of evolutionary possibilities1 e4g41 the extinct gigantic saurians1 and perhaps also man4 ,and to these problems must be added the various answers to the question1 ,what precedes1 or may have preceded1 the earliest stages of life of which we know8 ,whence came the first cell8 ,whence the first living protoplasm8 and ,how did the living arise from the inorganic8 ,these deeper questions will occupy us in our chapter on the theory of life4 ,some of the former1 in certain of their aspects1 will be considered in the sixth chapter1 which deals with factors in evolution4 ,the ,theory of ,descent itself and the differences that obtain even among its adherents can best be studied by considering for a little the works of ,reinke and of ,hamann4 ,reinke1 ,professor of ,botany in ,kiel1 has set forth his views in his book1 8,die ,welt als ,tat107#be7 and more recently in his 8,einleitung in die theoretische ,biologie0 7#aija74 ,both books are addressed to a wide circle of readers4 ,reinke and ,hamann both revive some of the arguments and opinions set forth in the early days of ,darwinism by ,wigand17#bf7 an author whose works are gradually gaining increased appreciation4 ,it is ,reinke's 8unalterable conviction0 that organisms have evolved1 and that they have done so after the manner of fan-shaped genealogical trees4 ,the ,theory of ,descent is to him an axiom of modern biology1 though as a matter of fact the circumstantial evidence in favour of it is extremely fragmentary4 ,the main arguments in favour of it appear to him to be the general ones2 the homologies and analogies revealed by comparative morphology and physiology1 the ascending series in the palontological record1 vestigial organs1 parasitic degeneration1 the origin of those vital associations which we call consortism and symbiosis4 ,these he illustrates mainly by examples from his own special domain and personal observation4 ,the simplest unicellular forms of life are to be thought of as at the beginning of evolution2 and1 since mechanical causes cannot explain their ascent1 it must be assumed that they have an inherent 8phylogenetic potential of development10 which1 working epigenetically1 results in ascending evolution4 ,he leaves us to choose between monophyletic and polyphyletic evolution1 but himself inclines towards the latter1 associating with it a rehabilitation of ,wigand's theory of the primitive cells4 ,if1 in the beginning1 primitive forms of life arose 7probably as unicellulars7 from the not-living1 it is not obvious why we need think of only one so arising1 and1 if many did so1 why they should not have inherent differences which would at once result in typically different evolutionary series and groups of forms4 ,but evolution does not go on ad libitum or ad infinitum1 for the capacity for differentiation and transformation gradually diminishes4 ,the organisation passes from a labile state of equilibrium to an increasingly stable state1 and at many points it may reach a terminus where it comes to a standstill4 ,man1 the dog1 the horse1 the cereals1 and fruit trees appear to ,reinke to have reached their goal4 ,the preliminary stages he calls 8,phylembryos10 because they bear to the possible outcome of their evolution the same relation that the embryo does to the perfect individual4 ,thus1 ,phenacodus may be regarded as the ,phylembryo of the modern horse4 ,it is quite conceivable that each of our modern species may have had an independent series of ,phylembryos reaching back to the primitive cells4 ,but the palontological record1 and especially its synthetic types1 lead ,reinke rather to assume that instead of innumerable series1 there have been branching genealogical trees1 not one1 however1 but several4 ,these views1 together or separately1 which are characterised chiefly by the catch-words 8polyphyletic descent10 8labile and stable equilibrium10 and so on1 crop up together or separately in the writings of various evolutionists belonging to the opposition wing4 ,they are usually associated with a denial of the theory of natural selection1 and with theories of 8,orthogenesis10 8,heterogenesis10 and 8,epigenesis40 ,we shall discuss them later when we are considering the factors in evolution4 ,but we must first take notice of a work in which the theories opposed to ,darwinian orthodoxy have been most decisively and aggressively set forth4 ,as far back as #ahib ,o4 ,hamann1 then a lecturer on zoology in ,gttingen1 gathered these together and brought them into the field1 against ,haeckel in particular1 in his book 8,entwicklungslehre und ,darwinismus407#bg7 ,hamann's main theme is that ,darwinism overlooks the fact that 8there cannot have been an origin of higher types from types already finished40 ,for this 8unfortunate and unsupported assumption0 there are no proofs in embryology1 palontology1 or anatomy4 ,he adopts and expands the arguments and anti-,haeckelian deliverances of ,his in embryology1 of ,snell and ,heer in palontology1 of ,klliker and von ,baer in their special interpretation of evolution1 of ,snell particularly as regards the descent of man4 ,it is impossible to derive ,metazoa from ,protozoa in their present finished state of evolution2 even the ,amoeba is so exactly adapted in organisation and functional activity to the conditions of its existence that it is a 8finished0 type4 ,it is only by a stretch of fancy that fishes can be derived from worms1 or higher vertebrates from fishes4 ,one of his favourite arguments--and it is a weighty one1 though neglected by the orthodox ,darwinians--is that living substance is capable1 under similar stimuli1 of developing spontaneously and afresh1 at quite different points and in different groups1 similar organs1 such as spots sensitive to light1 accumulations of pigment1 eye-spots1 lenses1 complete eyes1 and similarly with the notochord1 the excretory organs1 and the like4 ,therefore homology of organs is no proof of their hereditary affiliation47#bh7 ,they rather illustrate 8iterative evolution40 ,another favourite argument is the fact of 8,pdogenesis40 ,certain animals1 such as ,amphioxus lanceolatus1 ,peripatus1 and certain ,medus1 are very frequently brought forward as examples of persistent primitive stages and 8transitional connecting links40 ,but considered from the point of view of ,pdogenesis1 they all assume quite a different aspect1 and seem rather to represent very highly evolved species1 and to be1 not primitive forms1 but conservative and regressive forms4 ,pdogenesis is the phenomenon exhibited by a number of species1 which may stop short at one of the stages of their embryonic or larval development1 become sexually mature1 and produce offspring without having attained their own fully developed form4 ,another argument is the old1 suggestive1 and really important one urged by ,klliker1 that 8inorganic nature shows a natural system among minerals 7crystals7 just as much as animals and plants do1 yet in the former there can be no question of any genetic connection in the production of forms40 ,yet another argument is found in the occurrence of 8inversions0 and anomalies in the palontological succession of forms1 which to some extent upsets the ,darwinian-,haeckelian genealogical trees4 7,thus there are forms in the ,cambrian whose alleged ancestors do not appear till the ,silurian4 ,foraminifera and other ,protozoa do not appear till the ,silurian47 ,from embryology in particular1 as elsewhere in general1 we read the 8fundamental biogenetic law10 that evolution is from the general to the special1 from the imperfect to the more perfect1 from what is still indefinite and exuberant to the well-defined and precise1 but never from the special to the special4 ,according to ,hamann's hypothesis we must think of evolution as going on1 so to speak1 not about the top but about the bottom4 ,the phyla or groups of forms are great trunks bearing many branches and twigs1 but not giving rise to one another4 ,still less do the little side branches of one trunk bear the whole great trunk of another animal or plant phylum4 ,but they all grow from the same roots among the primitive forms of life4 ,unicellulars these must have been1 but not like our 8,protists40 ,they should be thought of as primitive forms having within themselves the potentialities of the most diverse and widely separate evolution-series to which they gave rise1 as it were1 along diverging fan-like rays4 ,it would be instructive to follow some naturalist into his own particular domain1 for instance a palontologist into the detailed facts of palontology1 or an embryologist into those of embryology1 in order to learn whether these corroborate the assumptions of the ,theory of ,descent or not4 ,it is just in relation to these detailed facts that criticisms or even denials of the theory have been most frequent4 ,koken1 otherwise a convinced supporter of the theory1 inquires in his 8,vorwelt10 apropos of the tortoises1 what has become of the genealogical trees that were scattered abroad in the world as proved facts in the early days of ,darwinism4 ,he asserts1 in regard to ,archopteryx1 the instance which is always put forward as the intermediate link in the evolution of birds1 that it does not show in any of its characters a fundamental difference from any of the birds of to-day1 and further1 that1 through convergent development under similar influences1 similar organs and structural relations result1 iterative arrangements which come about quite independently of descent4 ,he maintains1 too1 that the principle of the struggle for existence is rather disproved than corroborated by the palontological record4 ,in embryology1 so competent an authority as ,o4 ,hertwig--himself a former pupil of ,haeckel's--has reacted from the 8fundamental biogenetic law40 ,his theory of the matter is very much that of ,hamann which we have already discussed2 development is not so much a recapitulation of finished ancestral types as the laying down of foundations after the pattern of generalised simple forms1 not yet specialised2 and from these foundations the special organs rise to different levels and grades of differentiation according to the type47#bi7 ,but we must not lose ourselves in details4 ,looking back over the whole field once more1 we feel that we are justified in maintaining with some confidence that the different pronouncements in regard to the detailed application and particular features of the ,theory of ,descent1 and the different standpoints that are occupied even by evolutionists1 are at least sufficient to make it obvious that1 even if evolution and descent have actually taken place1 they have not run so simple and smooth a course as the over-confident would have us believe2 that the ,theory of ,descent rather emphasises than clears away the riddles and difficulties of the case1 and that with the mere corroboration of the theory we shall have gained only something relatively external1 a clue to creation1 which does not so much solve its problems as restate them4 ,the whole criticism of the 8right wing10 from captious objections to actual denials1 proves this indisputably4 ,and it seems likely that in the course of time a sharpening of the critical insight and temper will give rise to further reactions from the academic theory as we have come to know it47#cj7 ,on the other hand1 it may be assumed with even greater certainty that the general evolutionist point of view and the great arguments for descent in some form or other will ultimately be victorious if they are not so already1 and that1 sooner or later1 we shall take the ,theory of ,descent in its most general form as a matter of course1 just as we now do the ,kant-,laplace theory4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,religion ,,and ,,the ,,theory ,,of ,,descent4 ,in seeking to define our position in regard to the theory of descent it is most important that we should recognise that1 when it is looked into closely1 the true problem at issue is not a special zoological one1 but is quite general1 and also that it is not a new growth which has sprung up suddenly and found us unprepared1 but that it is very ancient and has long existed in our midst4 ,in the whole theory the question of 8descent0 is after all a mere accessory4 ,even if it fell through and were seen to be scientifically undemonstrable1 8evolution in the realm of life0 would remain an indisputable fact1 and with it there would arise precisely the same difficulties for the religious interpretation of the world which are usually attributed to the ,theory of ,descent4 ,evolution or development has been a prominent idea in the history of thought since the time of ,aristotle1 but descent is1 so to speak1 a modern upstart4 ,according to long-established modes of thought1 to evolve means to pass from to 1 from potentia to actus1 from the existence of the rudiment as in the seed to full realisation as in the tree4 ,in the course of its development the organism passes through many successive phases1 which are related to one another like steps1 each rising directly from the one beneath1 and preparing for the one above4 ,thus all nature1 and especially the realm of life1 implies a ladder of 8evolution40 ,what is 8potentially0 inherent in the lowest form of life has in the highest1 as in man1 become actual or 8realised0 through a continuous sequence of phases1 successively more and more evolved4 ,this view in its earlier forms was very far from implying that each higher step was literally 8descended0 from the one below it1 through the physical and mental transformation of some of its representatives4 ,as the world1 in ,aristotle's view for instance1 had existed from all eternity1 so also had the stages and forms of life1 each giving rise again to its like4 ,indeed1 the essential idea was that each higher step is simply a development1 a fuller unfolding of the lower stage1 and finally that man was the complete realisation of what was potentially inherent in the lowest of all4 ,this doctrine of evolution was in modern times the fundamental idea of ,leibnitz and ,kant1 of ,goethe1 ,schelling and ,hegel4 ,it brought unity and connectedness into the system of nature1 united everything by steps1 denied the existence of gaping chasms1 and proclaimed the solidarity of all the forms of life4 ,but to all this the idea of actual descent was unnecessary4 ,an actual material variation and transition from one stage to another seemed to it a wooden and gross expression of the evolution idea1 an 8all too childish and nebulous hypothesis0 7,hegel74 ,all the important results of comparative morphology and physiology1 which the modern supporters of the doctrine of descent so confidently utilise as arguments in its favour1 would have been welcomed by those who held the original and general evolution idea1 as a corroboration of their own standpoint4 ,and as a matter of fact they all afford conclusive proofs of evolution2 but not one of them1 including even the fundamental biogenetic law and the inoculated chimpanzee1 is decisive in regard to descent4 ,this contention is sufficiently important to claim our attention for a little4 ,let us take the last example4 ,transfusion of blood between two species is possible1 not necessarily because they are descended from one another or from a common root1 but solely because of their systematic 7ideal7 relationship1 that is to say because they are sufficiently near to one another and like one another in their physiological qualities and functions4 ,if1 assuming descent1 this homology were disturbed1 and the systematic relationship done away with1 for instance through saltatory evolution1 the mere fact of descent would not bring the two species any nearer one another4 ,thus the case proves only systematic relationship1 and only evolution4 ,but as to the meaning of this systematic relationship1 whether it can be 8explained0 by descent1 whether it has existed from all eternity1 or how it has arisen1 the experiment does not inform us4 ,the same idea may be illustrated in regard to ,weismann's 8predicting40 ,this1 too1 is a proof of evolution1 but not of descent4 ,exactly as ,weismann predicted the striping of the hawk-moth caterpillars and the human os centrale1 ,goethe predicted the formation of the skull from modified vertebr1 and the premaxillary bone in man4 ,in precisely the same way he 8derived0 the cavities in the human skull from those of the animal skull4 ,this was quite in keeping with the manner and style of his ,goddess ,nature and her creative transformations1 raising the type of her creations from stage to stage1 developing and expanding each new type from an earlier one1 yet keeping the later analogous to and recapitulative of the earlier1 recording the earlier by means of vestigial and gradually dwindling parts4 ,but what has all this to do with descent8 ,even the 8biogenetic law0 itself1 especially if it were correct1 would fit admirably into the frame of the pure evolution idea4 ,for it is quite consistent with that idea to say that the higher type in the course of its development1 especially in its embryonic stages1 passes through stages representative of the forms of life which are below it and precede it in the 7ideal7 genealogical tree4 ,indeed1 the older doctrine of evolution took account of this long ago4 8,the same step-ladder which is exhibited by the whole animal kingdom1 the steps of which are the different races and classes1 with at the one extreme the lowliest animals and at the other the highest1 is exhibited also by every higher animal in its development1 since from the moment of its origin until it has reached its full development it passes through--both as regards internal and external organisation--the essentials of all the forms which become permanent for a lifetime in the animals lower than itself4 ,the more perfect the animal is1 the longer is the series of forms it passes through40 ,so ,j4 ,fr4 ,meckel wrote in #ahab in his 8,handbook of ,pathological ,anatomy10 with no thought of descent4 ,and the facts which led to the construction of the biogenetic law were discovered in no small measure by ,agassiz1 who was an opponent of the doctrine of descent47#ca7 ,but the advance from the doctrine of evolution to that of descent was imperatively prompted by a recognition of the fact that the earth is not from everlasting1 and that the forms of life upon it are likewise not from everlasting1 that1 in fact1 their several grades appear in an orderly ascending series4 ,it is therefore simpler and more plausible to suppose that each higher step has arisen from the one before it1 than to suppose that each has1 so to speak1 begun an evolution on its own account4 ,a series of corroborative arguments might be adduced1 and there is no doubt1 as we have said before1 that the transition from the general idea of evolution to that of descent will be fully accomplished4 ,but it is plain that the special idea of descent contributes nothing essentially new on the subject4 ,it is an oft-repeated and self-evident statement1 that it is in reality a matter of entire indifference whether man arose from the dust of the earth or from living matter already formed1 or1 let us say1 from one of the higher vertebrates4 ,the question still would be1 how much or how little of any of them does he still retain1 and how far does he differ from all8 ,even if there be really descent1 the difference may quite as well be so great--for instance1 through saltatory development--that man1 in spite of physical relationship1 might belong to quite a new category far transcending all his ancestors in his intellectual characteristics1 in his emotional and moral qualities4 ,there is nothing against the assumption1 and there is much to be said in its favour1 that the last step from animal to man was such an immense one that it brought with it a freedom and richness of psychical life incomparable with anything that had gone before--as if life here realised itself for the first time in very truth1 and made everything that previously had been a mere preliminary play4 ,on the other hand1 even were there no descent but separate individual creation1 man might1 in virtue of his ideal relationship and evolution1 appear nothing more than a stage relatively separate from those beneath him in evolution4 ,it was not the doctrine of descent1 it was the doctrine of evolution that first ranked man in a series with the rest of creation1 and regarded him as the development of what is beneath him and leads up to him through a gradual sequence of stages4 ,and his nearness1 analogy1 or relationship to what is beneath him is in no way increased by descent1 or rendered a whit more intimate or more disturbing4 ,the ,problema ,continui4 ,the problem of descent thus shows itself to be one which has neither isolated character nor special value4 ,it is an accessory accompaniment of all the questions and problems which have been raised by1 or are associated with1 the doctrine of evolution1 which would have been in our midst without ,darwin1 which are made neither easier nor more difficult by zoological knowledge1 and the difficulties of which1 if solved1 would solve at the same time any difficulties presented by descent4 ,the following considerations will serve to make this clear4 ,the most oppressive corollary of the doctrine of descent is undoubtedly that through it the human race seems to become lost in the infra-human1 from which it cannot be separated by any hard and fast boundaries1 or absolute lines of demarcation4 ,but it is easy to see that this problem is in fact only a part of a larger problem1 and that it can really be solved only through the larger one4 ,even if it were possible to do away with this unpleasing inference as regards the whole human race1 so that it could be in some way separated off securely from the animal kingdom1 the same fatality would remain in regard to each individual human being4 ,for we have here to face the problem of individual development by easy transitions1 the ascent from the animal to the human state1 and the question3 ,when is there really soul and spirit1 when man and ego1 when freedom and responsibility8 ,but this is the same problem again1 only written with smaller letters1 the general problema continui in the domain of life and mind4 ,and the problem is very far-reaching4 ,in all questions concerning mental health and disease1 abnormalities or cases of arrest at an early stage of mental development1 concerning the greater or less degree of endowment for intellectual1 moral1 and religious life1 down to utter absence of capacity1 and this in relation to individuals as well as races and peoples1 and times2 and again1 concerning the gradual development of the ethical and religious consciousness in the long course of history1 in its continuity and gradual transition from lower to higher forms3 everywhere we meet this same problema continui4 ,and our oppressive difficulty is bound up with this problem1 and can be dispelled only by its solution1 for the gist of the difficulty is nothing else than the gradualness of human becoming4 ,this is not the place for a thoroughgoing discussion of this problema continui4 ,we can only call to mind here that the 8evolution idea0 has been the doctrine of the great philosophical systems from ,aristotle to ,leibnitz1 and of the great ,german idealist philosophers1 in whose school the religious interpretation of the world is at home4 ,we may briefly emphasise the most important considerations to be kept in mind in forming a judgment as to gradual development4 #a4 ,to recognise anything as in course of evolving does not mean that we understand its 8becoming40 ,the true inwardness of 8becoming0 is hidden in the mystery of the transcendental4 #b4 ,the gradual origin of the highest and most perfect from the primitive in no way affects the specific character1 the uniqueness and newness of the highest stage1 when compared with its antecedents4 ,for1 close as each step is to the one below1 and directly as it seems to arise out of it1 each higher step has a minimum and differentia of newness 7or at least an individual grouping of the elements of the old71 which the preceding stage does not explain1 or for which it is not a sufficient reason1 but which emerges as new from the very heart of things4 #c4 ,evolution does not diminish the absolute value of the perfect stage1 which is incomparably greater than the value of the intermediate stages1 it rather accentuates it4 ,the stages from the half-developed acorn-shoot are not equivalent in value to the perfect tree2 they are to it as means to an end1 and are of minimal value compared with it4 #d4 ,all 8descent0 and 8evolution10 which1 even in regard to the gradual development of physical organisation and its secrets1 offer not so much an explanation as a clue1 are still less sufficient in regard to the origin and growth of psychical capacity in general1 and in relation to the awakening and autonomy of the mind in man1 because the psychical and spiritual cannot be explained in terms of physiological processes1 from either the quantity or the quality of nervous structure4 ,this problem1 and the relation of the human spirit to the animal mind1 will fall to be dealt with in ,chapter ,,xi4 ,it is neither the right nor the duty of the religious conception of the world to inquire into and choose between the different forms of the idea of descent which we have met with4 ,if it has made itself master of the general evolution idea1 then descent1 even in its most gradual1 continuous1 monophyletic form1 affects it not at all4 ,it can then look on1 perhaps not with joy1 but certainly without anxiety1 at ,dubois' monkey-man and ,friedenthal's chimpanzee4 ,on the other hand1 it is obvious that a secret bond of sympathy will always unite it with the right wing of the theory of descent1 with the champions of 8halmatogenesis107#cb7 heterogenesis17#cc7 kaleidoscopic readjustment1 c41 because in all these the depth and wealth and the mystery of phenomena are more obviously recognisable4 ,for the same reasons the religious outlook must always be interested in all protests against over-hastiness1 against too great confidence in hypotheses1 and against too rapid simplification and formulation4 ,and it is not going beyond our province to place some reliance on the fact that there are increasing signs of revolt from the too great confidence hitherto shown in relation to the ,theory of ,descent4 ,the general frame of the theory will certainly never be broken1 but the enclosed picture of natural evolution will be less plain and plausible1 more complex and subtle1 more full of points of interrogation and recognitions of the limits of our knowledge and the depths of things4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,darwinism ,,in ,,the ,,strict ,,sense4 ,it remains for us to consider what is essentially ,darwinian in ,darwinism1 namely1 the theory of natural selection as the determining factor in evolution4 ,for1 given the reality of evolution and descent1 and that transformations from one form to another1 from lower to higher1 have really taken place1 what was the guiding and impelling factor in evolution1 what forced it forwards and upwards8 ,it is here that the real problem of ,darwinism begins4 ,only from this point onwards does the doctrine of evolution1 which is not in itself necessarily committed to any theory of the factors1 become definitely ,darwinian or anti-,darwinian4 ,and it is this problem that is mainly concerned in the discussions taking place to-day as to whether ,darwin was right1 or whether ,darwinism as a hypothesis has not broken down4 ,the most characteristic feature of ,darwin's theory was 8natural teleology10 that is1 the explanation of what is apparently full of purpose and plan in the world1 purely as the necessary consequence of very simple conditions1 without purpose or any striving after an aim4 ,he sought to show that evolution and ascent can be realised through purely 8natural0 causes1 that this world of life1 man included1 must have come about1 but not because it was intended so to do4 ,in this sense1 indeed1 his doctrine is an attempt to do away with teleology4 ,but in another sense it is so even more emphatically4 ,the world1 and especially the world of life1 is undoubtedly full of what is de facto purposive4 ,the living organism1 as a whole and in every one of its parts1 is marvellously adapted to the end of performing its functions1 maintaining its own life and reproducing4 ,every single living being is a miracle of inexhaustible adaptations to an end4 ,whence came these8 ,they1 too1 are products1 unsought for1 unintended1 and yet necessary1 and coming about 8of themselves10 that is without teleological or any supernatural guiding principles4 ,to eliminate purpose and the purposive creating and guiding activity of transcendental principles from interpretations of nature1 and to introduce purely naturalistic principles--8principles of chance10 if we understand chance in this connection not as opposed to necessity1 but to plan and purpose--this is the aim of the ,darwinian theory4 ,and it only becomes definitely anti-theological because it is anti-teleological4 ,the conclusions which ,darwin arrived at as to the factors in the transformation of species1 and in the production of 8adaptations10 have been in part supported by the specialists he influenced1 in part strengthened1 but in part modified and even reversed1 so that a great crisis has come about in regard to ,darwinism in the strict sense--a crisis which threatens to be fatal to it4 ,we must here attempt to take a general survey of the state of the question and to define our own position4 ,darwin's interpretation is well known4 ,it is the theory of the natural selection of the best adapted through the struggle for existence1 which is of itself a natural selection1 and results in the sifting out of particular forms and of higher forms4 ,darwin's thinking follows the course that all anti-teleological thought has followed since the earliest times4 ,in bringing forth the forms of life1 nature offers1 without choice or aim or intention1 a wealth of possibilities4 ,the forms which happen to be best adapted to the surrounding conditions of life maintain themselves1 and reproduce2 the others perish1 and are eliminated 7survival of the fittest74 ,thus arises adaptation at first in the rough1 but gradually in more and more minute detail4 ,this adaptation1 brought about by chance1 gives the impression of intelligent creative purpose4 ,in ,darwin this fundamental mode of naturalistic interpretation took1 under the influence of the social-economic theories of ,malthus1 the special form of natural selection by means of the struggle for existence1 in association with the assumption of unlimited and fluctuating variability in the forms of life4 ,all living beings have a tendency to increase in number without limit4 ,but the means of subsistence and other conditions of existence do not increase at the same rate2 they are relatively constant4 ,thus competition must come about4 ,any organism that is1 by fortuitous variation1 more favourably equipped than its fellows maintains itself and reproduces itself2 the less favoured perish4 ,for all things living are exposed to enemies1 to untoward circumstances1 and the like4 ,every individual favoured above its rivals persists1 and can transmit to its descendants its own more favourable1 more differentiated1 more highly equipped character4 ,thus evolution is begun1 and is forced on into the ever more diverse and ever 8higher40 ,to ,darwin this struggle for existence and this selection according to utility seemed1 at any rate1 the chief factor in progress4 ,he did1 indeed1 make some concessions to the ,lamarckian principle that new characters may be acquired by increased use1 and to other 8secondary0 principles4 ,but these are of small importance as compared with his main factor4 ,differences of ,opinion ,as ,to the ,factors ,in ,evolution4 ,the theory of natural selection in the struggle for existence rapidly gained wide acceptance1 but from the first it was called in question from many sides4 ,bronn1 who translated ,darwin's works into ,german1 was and remained loyal to the idea of a 8developmental law0--that there is within the organism an innate tendency towards self-differentiation and progress1 thus a purely teleological principle47#cd7 ,similarly1 von ,baer emphasised the idea of an endeavour to realise an aim2 von ,klliker1 that of 8heterogenesis02 ,ngeli1 that of an impulse towards perfection--all three thus recognising the theory of evolution1 but dissenting from the view that the struggle for existence is the impelling factor and actual guide in the process4 ,very soon1 in another direction1 antagonism became pronounced between the strictly ,darwinian elements of the theory 7the struggle for existence and its corollaries7 and the accessory ,lamarckian elements4 ,through these and other controversies the present state of the question has emerged4 ,the main antithesis at present is the following4 ,on the one side1 the 8all-sufficiency of natural selection0 is maintained1 that is1 progressive evolution is regarded as coming about without direct self-exertion on the part of the organisms themselves1 simply through the fact that fortuitous variations are continually presenting themselves1 and are being selected and established according to their utility in the struggle for existence4 ,on the other side--with ,lamarck--the progress is regarded as due to effort and function on the part of the organism itself4 7,increased use of an organ strengthens it2 a changed use transforms it2 disuse causes it to degenerate4 ,thus new characters appear1 old ones pass away1 and in the course of thousands of years the manifold diversity of the forms of life has been brought about47 ,further1 by those of the one side variation is regarded as occurring by the smallest steps that could have selective value in the struggle for existence4 ,to the others variation seems to have taken place by leaps and bounds1 with relatively sudden transformations of the functional and structural equilibrium on a large scale4 ,in regard to these the rle of the struggle for existence must be merely subsidiary4 ,this saltatory kind of evolution-process is called 8halmatogenesis10 or1 more neatly1 8kaleidoscopic variation10 because1 as the pictures in a kaleidoscope change not gradually but by a sudden leap to an essentially new pattern1 so also do the forms of life4 ,associated with this is the following contrast4 ,one side believes in free and independent variation of any organ1 any part1 any function1 physical or mental1 any instinct1 and so on1 apart from change or persistence in the rest of the organism2 the other side believes in the close connectedness of every part with the whole1 in the strict 8correlation0 of all parts1 in variation in one part being always simultaneously associated with variation in many other parts1 all being comprised in the 8whole10 which is above and before all the parts and determines them4 ,and further1 to one school variation seems without plan in all directions1 simply plus or minus on either side of a mean2 to the other1 variation seems predetermined and in a definite direction--an 8orthogenesis10 in fact1 which is inherent in the organism1 and which is indifferent to utility or disadvantage1 or natural selection1 or anything else1 but simply follows its prescribed path in obedience to innate law4 ,the representatives of this last position differ again among themselves4 ,some regard it as true in detail1 in regard1 for instance1 to the markings of a butterfly's wing1 the striping of a caterpillar1 the development of spots on a lizard2 while others regard it as governing the general process of evolution as a whole4 ,finally1 there is the most important contrast of all4 ,on the one side1 subordination1 passivity1 complete dependence on the selective or directive factors in evolution1 which alone have any power2 on the other1 activity1 spontaneous power of adaptation and transformation1 the relative freedom of all things living1 and--the deepest answer to the question of the controlling force in evolution--the secret of life4 ,this last contrast goes deeper even than the one we have already noted1 that between the ,darwinian and the ,lamarckian principle of explanation2 and it leads ultimately from the special ,darwinian problem to quite a new one1 to be solved by itself--the problem of the nature and secret of living matter4 ,weismannism4 ,in regard to almost all the points to which we have referred1 the most consistent and decided champion of ,darwinism in its essential principles is the zoologist of ,freiburg1 ,august ,weismann47#ce7 ,in long chapters on the protective coloration of animals1 on the phenomena of mimicry--that resemblance to foreign objects 7leaves1 pieces of wood1 bark1 and well-protected animals7 by which the mimics secure their own safety from enemies--on the protective devices in plants1 the selective value of 8the useful0 is demonstrated4 ,in regard to the marvellous phenomena of 8carnivorous0 plants1 the still more marvellous instincts of animals1 which cannot be interpreted on ,lamarckian lines as 8inherited habit10 but only as due to the cumulative influence of selection on inborn tendencies1 as well as in regard to 8symbiosis10 8the origin of flowers10 and so on1 he attempts to show that the heterodox attempts at explanation are insufficient1 and that selection alone really explains4 ,at the same time the ,darwinian principle is carried still further4 ,it is not only among the individuals1 the 8persons10 that the selective struggle for existence goes on4 ,personal selection depends upon a 8germinal selection0 within the germ-plasm1 influencing it1 and being influenced by it--for instance1 restrained4 ,in order to explain the mystery of heredity1 ,weismann long ago elaborated1 in his germ-plasm theory1 the doctrine that the developing individual is materially preformed1 or rather predetermined in the 8idants0 and 8ids0 of the germ-cell4 ,thus every one of its physical characters 7and1 through these1 its psychical characters71 down to hairs1 skin spots1 and birth-marks1 is represented in the 8id0 by 8determinants0 which control the 8determinates0 in development4 ,in the course of their growth and development these determinants are subject to diverse influences due to the position they happen to occupy1 to their quality1 to changes in the nutritive conditions1 and so on4 ,through these influences variations in the determinants may be brought about4 ,and thus there comes about a 8struggle0 and a process of selection among the determinants1 the result of which is expressed in changes in the determinates1 in the direction of greater or less development4 ,on this basis ,weismann attempts to reach explanations of the phenomena of variation1 of many apparently ,lamarckian phenomena1 and of recognised cases of 8orthogenesis10 and seeks to complete and deepen ,roux's theory of the 8struggle of parts10 which was just another attempt to carry ,darwinism within the organism4 ,what distinguishes ,weismann1 and makes him especially useful for our present purpose of coming to an understanding in regard to the theory of selection is1 that his views are unified1 definite and consistent4 ,in his case we have not to clear up the ground and to follow things out to their conclusions1 nor to purge his theories from irrelevant1 vitalistic1 or pantheistic accessory theories1 as we have1 for instance1 in the case of ,haeckel4 ,his book1 too1 is kept strictly within its own limits1 and does not attempt to formulate a theory of the universe in general1 or even a new religion on the basis of biological theories4 ,let us therefore inquire what has to be said in regard to this clearest and best statement of the theory of selection when we consider it from the point of view of the religious conception of the world4 ,whatever else may be said as to the all-sufficiency of natural selection there can be no doubt that it presupposes two absolute mysteries which defy naturalistic explanation and every other1 and which are so important that in comparison with them the problem of the struggle for efficacy and its meaning fades into insignificance4 ,these are the functions and capacities of living organisms in general1 and in particular those of variation and inheritance1 of development and self-differentiation4 ,what is1 and whence comes this mysterious power of the organism to build itself up from the smallest beginnings1 from the germ8 ,and the equally mysterious power of faithfully repeating the type of its ancestors8 ,and1 again1 of varying and becoming different from its ancestors8 ,even the 8mechanical0 theory of selection is forced to presuppose the secret of life4 ,weismann indeed attempts to solve this riddle through his germ-plasm theory1 the predisposition of the future organism in the 8ids10 determinants1 and biophors1 and through the variation of the determinants in germinal selection1 amphimixis and so on4 ,but this is after all only shifting the problem to another place1 and translating the mystery into algebraical terms1 so to speak1 into symbols with which one can calculate and work for a little1 which formulate a definite series of observations1 an orderly sequence of phenomena1 which are1 however1 after all1 8unknown quantities0 that explain nothing4 ,in order to explain the developing organism ,weismann assumes that each of its organs or parts1 or 8independent regions10 is represented in the germ-plasm by a determinant1 upon the fate of which the development of the future determinate depends4 ,it is thought of as a very minute corpuscle of living matter4 ,thus there are determinants of hairs and scales1 pieces of skin1 pits1 marks1 c4 ,but every determined organ1 or part1 or 8independent region10 is itself in its turn an 8organism10 is indeed a system of an infinite number of interrelated component parts1 and each of these again is another1 down to the individual cells4 ,and each cell is an 8organism0 in itself1 and so on into infinity4 ,is all this represented in the determinants8 ,and how8 ,further1 the individual determinate1 for instance of a piece of skin1 is not something isolated1 but passes over without definite boundary into others4 ,therefore the determinants also cannot be isolated1 but must be systems within systems1 dependent upon and merging into one another4 ,how1 at the building up of the organism1 do the determinants find their direction and their localisation8 ,and1 especially1 how do they set to work to build up their organ8 ,here the whole riddle of the theory of epigenesis1 which ,weismann wished to do away with as a mystery1 is repeated a thousand times and made more difficult4 ,in order to explain puzzling processes on a large scale1 others have been constructed1 which on close investigation prove to be just the same mysterious and unexplained processes1 only made infinitely smaller4 ,moreover1 even if the whole of 8,weismannism10 including germinal selection1 could be accepted1 and if it were as sufficient as it is insufficient1 what we advanced at the end of ,chapter ,,iii4 as a standpoint of general validity in relation to teleology and theology would still hold good4 ,even an entirely nave1 anthropomorphic1 8supernatural0 theology is ready to see1 in the natural course of things1 in the 8caus secundari10 the realisation of ,divine purpose1 teleology1 and does not fail to recognise that the ,divine purpose may fulfil itself not only in an extraordinary manner1 through 8miracles0 and 8unconditioned0 events1 but also in ordinary ways1 8through means0 and the universal causal nexus4 ,thus it is quite consistent even with a theology of this kind to regard the whole system of causes and effects1 which1 according to the ,darwin-,weismann doctrine1 have gradually brought forth the whole diversity of the world of life1 with man at its head1 in a purely causal way without teleological intervention1 as an immense system of means marvellous in its intricacy1 in the inevitable necessity of its inter-relations1 and in the exactness of its work1 the ultimate result of which must have come about1 but perhaps at the same time was intended to come about4 ,whether ,i regard this ultimate result as the mere consequence of blind happenings1 or as an intended purpose1 does not depend1 as we have seen1 upon the knowledge gained by natural science1 but depends above all on whether this ultimate result seems to me of sufficient value to be thought of as the purpose of a world-governing intelligence1 and thus depends upon my personal attitude to human nature1 reason1 mind1 and the spiritual1 religious1 and moral life4 ,if ,i venture to attribute worth1 and absolute worth1 to these things1 nothing1 not even the fact of the 8struggle for existence0 in its thousand forms1 in its gradually transforming effects1 in the almost endless nexus of its causes and results1 germinal selection included1 can take away my right 7and eventually my duty7 to regard the ultimate result as an end1 and the nexus of causes as a system of means4 ,to enable me to do this1 it is only requisite that internal necessity should govern the system1 and that the result should not be a chance one1 so that it might even have been suppressed1 have failed1 or have turned out quite differently4 ,necessity and predetermination are characteristic of the relation between means and purpose4 ,but this requisite is precisely that which natural science does afford us1--namely1 the proof that all phenomena are strictly governed by law1 and are absolutely predetermined by their antecedents4 ,at this point the religious and the scientific consideration coincide exactly4 ,the hairs of our head1 and the hairs in the fur of a polar bear1 which is varying towards white1 and is therefore selected in the struggle for existence17#cf7 even the fluctuating variations of a determinant in the germ1 are 8numbered0 according to both conceptions4 ,every variation that cropped up1 every factor that 8selected0 the fit1 and eliminated the unfit1 was strictly predestined1 and must of necessity have appeared as1 and when1 and where it did appear47#cg7 ,the whole nexus of conditions and results1 the inclined plane of evolution and the power of ,being to move up it1 has its sufficient reason in the nature and original state of the cosmos1 in the constitution of its 8matter10 its 8energy10 its laws1 its sequences and the grouping of its phenomena4 ,only from beginnings so constituted could our present world have come to be as it is1 and that necessarily4 ,only because the primary possibility and fitness for life--vegetable1 animal and human--was in it from the beginning1 could all these have come to be4 ,this primary possibility did not 8come into being10 it was priori immanent in it4 ,whence came this8 ,there is no logical1 comprehensible1 or any other necessity why there should be a world at all1 or why it should be such that life and evolution must become part of it4 ,where then lies the reason why it is1 rather than is not1 and why it is as it is8 ,to this must be added what ,weismann himself readily admits and expressly emphasises4 ,the whole theory treats1 and must treat plant1 animal1 and man as only ingenious machines1 mere systems of physical processes4 ,this is the ideal aimed at--to interpret all the phenomena of life1 growth1 and reproduction thus4 ,even instincts and mental endowments are so interpreted1 since there must be corresponding morphological variations of the fine structure of the nervous organ1 and instinctive actions are then 8explained0 as the functions of these4 ,but how 8mechanical happening0 comes to have this marvellous inwardness1 which we call sensation1 feeling1 perception1 thought and will1 which is neither mechanical nor derivable from anything mechanical2 and1 further1 how physical and psychical can condition one another without doing violence to the law of the conservation of the sum of energy1 is an absolute riddle4 ,but this whole psychical world exists1 with graduated stages perhaps as close to each other as in the physical world1 but even less capable than these of being explained as having arisen out of their antecedent lower stages4 ,and this psychical world1 which is1 indeed1 related to and dependent upon the corporeal life1 as also conversely1 has its own quite peculiar laws3 thought does not follow natural laws1 but those of logic1 which is entirely indifferent to exciting stimuli1 for instance of the brain1 which conform to natural laws4 ,but this world1 its riddles and mysteries1 its great content and its history1 beyond the reach of mechanical theories1 is so absolutely the main thing 7especially in regard to the question of the possibility of religion71 that the question of bodily structure and evolution becomes beside it a mere accessory problem1 and even the last is only a relatively unimportant roundabout way of coming at the gist of the business4 ,how completely the evolution of the higher mental faculties transcends such narrow and meagre formul as the struggle for existence and the like1 ,weismann himself indicates in connection with man's musical sense1 and its relation to the 8musical0 instinct in animals4 ,the same and much more might be alleged in regard to the whole world of mind1 of the sthetic1 ethical and religious1 of the kingdom of thought1 of science1 and of poetry4 ,natural ,selection4 ,we have for the moment provisionally admitted the theory of natural selection1 in order to see whether it could be included in a religious interpretation of things4 ,but in reality such an admission is not to be thought of1 in face of what is at present so apparent--the breaking down of this hypothesis1 which has been upheld with so much persistence4 ,we shall have to occupy ourselves with this later on4 ,in the meantime a few more remarks must be added to what has been already said4 ,it might be said1 paradoxically1 that the worst fate that could befall this hypothesis would be to be proved1 for then it would be most certainly refuted4 ,what we mean is this3 ,if it is really 8utility0 that rules the world and things1 there can be no certainty and objectivity of knowledge1 no guarantee of truth4 ,the 8struggle for existence0 is not concerned with selecting beings who see the world as it is4 ,it selects only the interpretation and conception of the environment that is most serviceable for the existence and maintenance of the species4 ,but there is nothing to guarantee that the 8true0 knowledge will also be the most useful4 ,it might quite well be that an entirely subjective and in itself wholly false interpretation would be the most serviceable4 ,and if1 by some extraordinary chance1 the selected interpretation should be also the true one1 there would be no means of establishing the fact4 ,and what is true of this interpretation is true also of all theories that are derived from it1 for example of the theory of selection itself4 ,furthermore1 a great part1 perhaps the greatest part of the confidence placed in the theory of selection is due to an involuntary1 but entirely fallacious habit of crediting it with the probabilities in favour of the doctrine of descent4 ,the main arguments in favour of evolution and descent are very often1 though unwittingly1 adduced in support of ,darwinism in particular4 ,this is a great mistake4 ,take1 for instance1 the evidence of the 8palontological0 record4 ,it affords hundreds of proofs of evolution1 but not a single proof of selection4 ,its 8intermediate0 and 8connecting links0 do possibly prove the affiliation of species and the validity of genealogical trees4 ,but precisely the 8intermediate links0 which selection requires--the myriads of forms of life which were not successfully adapted1 the unfit competitors in the struggle for existence which must have accompanied the favourably adapted variants from step to step1 from generation to generation--these are altogether awanting4 ,another circumstance seems to us to have been entirely overlooked1 and it is one which gives the theory of selection an inevitable appearance of truth1 even if it is essentially false1 and thus makes it very difficult to refute4 ,assuming that the recognition of teleological factors is valid1 that there is an inward law of development1 that 8,moses0 or whoever one will was undoubtedly right1 it is self-evident that1 because of the indubitable over-production of organisms1 there would even then be a struggle for existence on an immense scale1 and that it would have a far-reaching 8selective0 influence1 because of the relative plasticity of many forms of life4 ,beyond doubt it would1 in the course of ons1 have applied its shears to many forms of life1 and probably there would be no organisms1 organs1 or associations in the evolution of the ultimate form of which it had not energetically co-operated4 ,its influence would1 perhaps1 be omnipresent1 yet it might be far from being the all-sufficient factor in evolution2 indeed1 as far as the actual impulse of evolution is concerned1 it might be a mere accessory4 ,unless we are to think of the forms of life as wholly passive and wooden1 the struggle for existence must necessarily be operative1 and the magnitude of its results1 and their striking and often bizarre outcome1 will tend ever anew to conceal the fact that the struggle is after all only an inevitable accompaniment of evolution4 ,and thus we understand how it is that interpretations from the point of view of an inward law of development1 of orthogenesis1 or of teleology1 notwithstanding their inherent validity1 have priori always had a relatively difficult position as compared with the ,darwinian view4 ,it is usual to speak of the 8all-sufficiency of natural selection10 yet the champion of the selection-theory admits1 as he needs must1 that the struggle for existence and selection can of themselves create absolutely nothing1 no new character1 no new or higher combination of the vital elements2 they can only take what is already given2 they can only select and eliminate among the wealth of what is offered47#ch7 ,and the offerer is ,life itself by virtue of its mysterious capacity for boundless and inexhaustible variability1 self-enrichment and increase4 ,the 8struggle for existence0 only digs the bed through which life's stream flows1 draws the guiding-line1 and continually stimulates it to some fresh revelation of its wealth4 ,but this wealth was there from the beginning2 it was1 to use the old word1 8potential0 in the living1 and included with it in the universal being from which life was called forth4 ,the struggle for existence is only the steel which strikes the spark from the flint2 is1 with its infinite forms and components1 only the incredibly complex channel through which life forces its way upwards4 ,if we keep this clearly in mind1 the alarming and ominous element in the theory shrinks to half its dimensions4 ,and1 finally1 if we can rid ourselves of the peculiar fascination which this theory exercises1 we soon begin to discover what extraordinary improbability and fundamental artificiality it implies4 8,utility0 is maintained to be that which absolutely1 almost tyrannically1 determines form and development in the realm of the living4 ,is this an idea that finds any analogy elsewhere in nature8 ,those who uphold the theory most strongly are wont to compare the development of organisms to crystal-formation in order in some way to tack on the living to the not-living4 ,crystal-formation1 with its processes of movement and form-development1 is1 they say1 a kind of connecting link between the living and the not-living4 ,and in truth we find here1 as in the realm of life1 species-formation1 development into individuals1 stages and systems4 ,but all this takes place without any hint of 8struggle for existence10 of laboriously 8selective0 processes1 or of ingenious accumulation of 8variations40 ,the 8species0 of crystals are formed not according to utility1 but according to inherent1 determining laws of development1 to which the diversity of their individual appearances is due4 ,if 8,life0 were only a higher potential of what is already stirring in crystallisation1 as this view suggests1 then we should expect to find fixed tendencies1 determined from within1 in accordance with which life would pass through the cycle of its forms and possibilities1 and rise spontaneously through gradual stages4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,critics ,,of ,,darwinism4 ,let us turn now to the other side4 ,what is opposed to ,darwinism in the biological investigations of the experts of to-day is in part simple criticism of the ,darwinian position as a whole or in some of its details1 and in part constructive individual theories and interpretations of the evolution of organisms4 ,a4 ,fleischmann's book1 8,die ,darwinsche ,theorie107#ci7 is professedly only critical4 ,he suggests no theory of his own as to the evolution of life in contrast to ,darwin's2 for1 as we have already seen in connection with his earlier book1 8,die ,deszendenztheorie10 he denies evolution altogether4 ,his agnostic position is maintained1 if possible1 more resolutely than before4 ,natural science1 according to him1 must keep to facts4 ,drawing conclusions and spinning theories is inexact1 and distracts from objective study4 ,the ,darwinian theory of selection seems to him a particularly good example of this1 for it is built up priori on theories and hypotheses1 it stands apart from experimentation1 and it twists facts forcibly to its own ends4 ,it has1 however1 to be acknowledged that ,fleischmann's book is without any 8apologetic0 intentions4 ,it holds equally aloof from teleology4 ,to seek for purposes and aims in nature he holds to be outside the business of science1 as ,kant's 8,critique of ,judgment0 suffices to show4 ,after having been more than a decade under the charm of the theory of selection1 ,fleischmann knows its fascination well1 but he now regards it as so erroneous that no one who wishes to do serious work should concern himself about it at all4 ,point by point he follows all the details of ,darwin's work1 and seeks to analyse the separate views and theories which go to make up ,darwinism as a whole4 ,darwin's main example of the evolution of the modern races of pigeons from one ancestral form1 ,columba livia1 is1 according to ,fleischmann1 not only unproved but unprovable47#dj7 ,for this itself is not a unified type4 ,the process of 8unconscious selection0 by man is obscure1 and it is not demonstrable1 especially in regard to pigeon-breeding4 ,it is a hazy idea which cannot be transferred to the realm of nature4 ,the ,malthusian assumption of the necessity of the struggle for existence is erroneous4 ,malthus was wrong in his law of population as applied to human life1 and ,darwin was still more mistaken when he transferred it to the organic world in general4 ,it was mere theory4 ,statistics should have been collected1 and observations instead of theories should have been sought for4 ,the alleged superabundance of organisms is not a fact4 ,the marvellously intertwined conditions in the economy of nature make the proportion of supply and demand relatively constant4 ,and even when there is actual struggle for existence1 advantages of situation17#da7 which are quite indifferent as far as selection is concerned1 are much more decisive than any variational differences4 ,the theory does not explain the first origin of new characters1 which can only become advantageous when they have attained to a certain degree of development4 ,as to the illustrations of the influence of selection given by ,darwin1 from the much discussed fictitious cases1 in which the fleet stags select the lithe wolf1 to the marvellous mutual adaptations of insects and flowers1 ,fleischmann objects that there is not even theoretical justification for any one of them4 ,the spade-like foot of the mole is not 8more useful0 than the form of foot which probably preceded it 7cf4 ,goette71 it is merely 8different40 ,for when the mole took to burrowing in the earth and adapting itself to that mode of life1 it ipso facto forfeited all the advantages of living above ground4 ,the postulated myriads of less well-adapted forms of life are no more to be found to-day than they are in the fauna and flora of palontological times4 ,the famous giraffe story has already been disposed of by ,mivart's objections4 ,as to the whales1 it is objected that the earliest stages of their whalebone and their exaggerated nakedness can have been of no use1 and a series of other alleged selective effects of 8utility0 are critically analysed4 ,the refutation of the most brilliant chapter in the ,darwinian theory1 that on protective coloration and mimicry1 is very insufficient4 ,a long concluding chapter sums up the fundamental defects of the ,darwinian theory4 ,for the most part1 ,fleischmann simply brings forward objections which have been urged against the theory of selection from the first1 either by naturalists or from other quarters4 ,the chief and the most fatal of these which are still current are the following3 ,the theory of selection does not explain the actually existing discontinuity of species4 ,the real characteristics which distinguish species from species are in innumerable cases quite indifferent from the point of view of 8utility0 7,ngeli1 ,bateson74 8,selection preserves the good and weeds out the bad40 ,but where does the good come from8 7,de ,vries74 ,the first beginnings of what may later be useful are almost always useless4 ,the theory of selection might perhaps explain the useful qualities1 but not the superfluous1 useless1 or directly injurious characters which actually exist4 ,confirmation of the theory of descent may be found in the palontological record1 but it affords none of the theory of selection4 ,natural selection is continually being neutralised by subsequent inter-crossing and reversion4 ,natural selection may indeed prevent degeneration within the limits of the species by weeding out what is weak and bad1 but it is powerless beyond these limits1 and so forth47#db7 ,these ever-repeated and ever-increasing objections are purely critical4 ,as this is true of ,fleischmann's whole book1 it is therefore unsatisfactory4 ,it leaves everything in the mist1 and puts nothing in place of what it attempts to demolish4 ,but attempts are being made in other quarters1 especially among the ,lamarckians1 to build up an opposition theory4 ,lamarckism and ,neo-,lamarckism4 ,the 8,lamarckian0 view as opposed to the ,darwinian continues to hold its own1 and indeed is more ardently supported than ever4 ,on this view1 evolution has been accomplished not by a laborious selection of the best which chanced to present itself--a selection in relation to which organisms remained passive1 but rather through the exertions of the organisms themselves4 ,it has been especially through the use and exercise of the various organs in response to the requirements of life1 through the increased exercise of physical and mental functions1 that the organism has adapted itself more diversely and more fully to the conditions of its life4 ,what one generation acquired in differentiation of structure1 in capacities and habits1 through its own exertions1 it handed on to the next4 ,by cumulative inheritance there ultimately arose the fixed specific characters1 and the diversity and progressive gradations of organisms have gone hand in hand with an ever increasing activity4 ,and as with the physical so it has been with the mental4 ,through continual use and exercise of the functions their capacity has been increased and modified4 ,through the frequent repetition of voluntary actions necessary to life the habitual use of them has come about4 ,habits that have become fixed are correlated with habitual psychical predispositions4 ,these1 gradually handed on by inheritance to the descendants1 have resulted in the marvellous instincts of animals4 ,instinct is inherited habit that has become fixed4 ,corresponding to this there is on the other hand the recognition--in theory at least--that the disuse of an organ1 the non-exercising of a function leads to degeneration of structure and so co-operates in bringing about a gradual but persistent modification of the features and constitution of organisms4 ,these views1 which have grown out of ,lamarck's fundamental ideas 78,philosophie zoologique10 #ahji7 are now usually associated with the theory advanced chiefly by ,etienne ,geoffrey ,st4 ,hilaire 78,philosophie zoologique10 #ahcj71 the opponent of ,cuvier1 and the ally of ,goethe1 of the direct influence of the monde ambiant4 ,the 8surrounding world10 the influences of climate1 of locality1 of the weather1 of nutrition1 of temperature1 of the salinity of the water1 of the moisture in the air1 and all other conditions of existence1 influence the living organism4 ,and they do so not indirectly1 as is implied in the process of selection1 simply playing the part of a sieve1 and not themselves moulding and transforming1 but directly by necessitating the production of new developments in the living substance1 new chemical and physiological activities1 new groupings and changes of form1 and new organs4 ,darwin himself did not regard these two theories as opposed to the theory of selection1 but utilised them as subsidiary interpretations4 ,it is obvious1 however1 that at bottom they conceal an essentially different fundamental idea1 which1 if followed out to its logical consequences1 reduces the 8struggle for existence0 to at most a wholly indifferent accessory circumstance4 ,weismann felt this1 and hence his entirely consistent endeavours to show by great examples1 such as the origin of flowers1 the mutual adaptations of flowers and insects1 the phenomena of mimicry1 and many other cases1 that neither the ,lamarckian nor any other factor in evolution1 except only natural1 passive selection1 suffices as an interpretation4 ,from the ,darwinian standpoint he is absolutely right1 and must needs speak of the 8omnipotence of natural selection10 for it must either be omnipotent1 or it must give place to the other two factors1 and retain only the significance we attributed to it in another connection 7p4 #aeg71 which amounts to saying none at all4 ,it is obvious enough why the discussion as to these factors should centre round the question of the 8inheritance of acquired characters10 8acquired0 either through the use or disuse of organs1 the exercise or non-exercise of functions1 or through the stimuli of the external world4 ,the neo-,lamarckian conflict with ,darwinism has become more and more acute in recent times1 and the neo-,lamarckians have sometimes passed from contrasting rival interpretations to excluding the ,darwinian factor altogether4 ,as the particular champion of the neo-,lamarckian view1 we must name ,th4 ,eimer1 the recently deceased ,tbingen zoologist4 ,his chief work is in three volumes1 entitled 8,die ,entstehung der ,arten auf ,grund von ,vererbung erworbener ,eigenschaften1 nach ,gesetzen organischen ,wachsens407#dc7 ,it is a polemic against ,weismannism in all details1 even to the theory of 8germinal selection40 ,eimer follows in the footsteps of ,st4 ,hilaire1 and shows what a relatively plastic and sensitive creature the organism is to the surrounding world1 the conditions of nutrition and other such influences4 ,there is in this connection a particularly instructive chapter on the physiological and other variations brought about by external influences which act as 8stimuli of the nervous system40 ,the whole theory of ,lamarck and ,st4 ,hilaire transcends--notwithstanding the protests of ,eimer to the contrary--the categories of the mechanical theory of life1 and this chapter does so in particular4 ,the array of facts here marshalled as to the spontaneous self-adaptation of organisms to their environment--in relation to colour mainly--forms the most thoroughgoing refutation of ,darwinism that it is possible to imagine4 ,it is shown1 too1 by a wealth of examples from osteology1 how use 7and the necessities of the case--a consideration which again goes beyond the bounds of mere ,lamarckism7 may modify1 increase or diminish vertebr1 ribs1 skull and limbs1 in short1 the whole skeleton4 ,kassowitz is equally keen and convinced in his opposition to natural selection1 and in his comprehensive 8,allgemeine ,biologic07#dd7 he attacks orthodox ,darwinism from the neo-,lamarckian standpoint4 ,the whole of the first volume is almost chapter for chapter a critical analysis1 and the polemical element rather outweighs his positive personal contribution4 ,he criticises very severely all attempts to carry the ,darwinian principle of explaining adaptations into internal and minute details1 arguing against ,roux's 8,struggle of ,parts0 and ,weismann's 8,germinal ,selection40 ,and though he himself maintains very decidedly that the ultimate aim of biology is to find a mechanical solution of the problem of life1 he criticises the modern hypotheses in this direction without prejudice1 and declares them unsuccessful and insufficient1 inclining himself towards the 8neo-vitalistic reaction0 in its most recent expression4 ,along with ,eimer and ,kassowitz1 we may name ,w4 ,haacke1 especially in relation to his views on the acquisition and transmission of functional modifications and his thoroughgoing denial of ,darwinism proper4 ,but his work must be dealt with later in a different connection47#de7 ,these neo-,lamarckian views give us a picture of the evolution of the world that is much more convincing than the strictly ,darwinian one4 ,instead of passive and essentially unintelligent 8adaptation0 through the sieve of selection1 we have here direct self-adaptation of organisms to the conditions of their existence1 through their own continual restless activity and exertion1 an ascent of their own accord to ever greater heights and perfections4 ,a theory of this kind might easily form part of a religious conception of the world4 ,we might think of the world with primitive tendencies and capacities1 in which the potentialities of its evolution were implied1 and so ordered that it had to struggle by its own exertions to achieve the full realisation of its possibilities1 to attain to ever higher--up to the highest--forms of ,being4 ,the process of nature would thus be the direct anticipation of what occurs in the history of man and of mind4 ,and the task set to the freedom of individual men1 and to mankind as a whole1 namely1 to work out their own nature through their own labour and exertion1 and to ascend to perfection--this deepest meaning of all individual and collective existence--would have its exact prelude and preparation in the general nature and evolution of all living creatures4 ,the transition from these theories of nature to a teleological outlook from the highest and most human point of view is so obvious as to be almost unavoidable4 ,and although a natural science which keeps to its own business and within its own boundaries has certainly no right to make this transition for itself1 it has still less right to prevent its being made outside of its limits4 ,theory of ,definite ,variation4 ,but the question now arises1 whether both ,darwinism and ,lamarckism must not be replaced1 or at least reduced to the level of accessory theories and factors1 by another theory of evolution which was in the field before ,darwin1 and which since his time has been advanced anew1 especially by ,ngeli1 and has now many adherents who support it in whole or in part4 ,this view affects the very foundations of the ,darwinian doctrine4 ,the theory of 8indefinite0 variation1 bringing about easy transitions and affecting every part of the organism separately1 which is the necessary correlate of the 8struggle for existence10 is rejected altogether4 ,evolution takes place only along a few definite lines1 predetermined through the internal organisation and the laws of growth4 ,it is wholly indifferent to 8utility10 and brings forth only what it must according to its own inner laws1 not seldom even the monstrous4 ,according to this view1 new species arise1 not in easy transition1 but with a visible leap1 by a considerable and far-reaching displacement of the organic equilibrium4 ,what ,darwin calls the correlation of parts1 and in no way denies1 is here maintained in strong opposition to his doctrine of the isolated variation of individual parts2 every member or character of the organism depends upon others1 and variation of one affects many1 and in some way all of the rest4 ,this theory is for the most part intended by its champions to be purely naturalistic4 ,but every one of its points yields support to teleological considerations1 most obviously so the concrete instances of correlation4 ,if any one were to attempt to make a theory of evolution from a decidedly teleological standpoint1 he would probably construct one very similar to the one we are now considering4 ,it is noteworthy that it has generally been the botanists who have especially supported these views of saltatory evolution in a definite direction and according to internal law1 who have therefore tended to react most strongly from ,darwinism4 ,we find examples in ,ngeli's large and comprehensive work1 8,mechanisch-physikalische ,theorie der ,abstammungslehre02 and1 before him1 in ,wigand's 8,darwinismus und die ,naturforschung ,newton's und ,cuvier's02 in von ,klliker's 8,heterogenesis02 in von ,baer's 8,endeavour after an ,end02 in the chapter added by the translator1 ,bronn1 to the first ,german edition of the 8,origin of ,species10 where he urges weighty objections against the theory of selection1 and refers to the 8innate impulse to development1 persistently varying in a definite direction02 in ,askenasy's oft-quoted 8,beitrge zur ,kritik der ,darwinschen ,lehre10 also referring to 8variation in a definite direction10 for instance1 in flowers2 in ,delpino's views1 and in the works of many other older writers4 ,but we must leave all these out of account here1 since we are concerned only with the present state of the question4 ,de ,vries's ,mutation-theory4 ,the work that has probably excited most interest in this connection is ,de ,vries' 8,die ,mutationstheorie3 ,versuche und ,beobachtungen ber die ,entstehung von ,arten im ,pflanzenleben407#df7 ,in a short preliminary paper he had previously given some account of his leading experiments on a species of evening primrose 7nothera lamarckiana71 and the outlines of his theory4 ,in the work itself he extends this1 adding much concrete material1 and comparing his views in detail with other theories4 ,darwin1 he says1 had already distinguished between variability and mutability2 the former manifesting itself in gradual and isolated changes1 the latter in saltatory changes on a larger scale4 ,the mistake made by ,wallace and by the later ,darwinians has been that they regarded this latter form 78single variation07 as unimportant and not affecting evolution1 and the former as the real method of evolutionary process4 ,that fluctuating individual variations do occur ,de ,vries admits1 but only within narrow limits1 never overstepping the type of the species4 ,here ,de ,vries utilises the recent statistical investigations into the phenomena of individual variation and their laws1 as formulated chiefly by ,quetelet and ,bateson1 which were unknown to ,darwin and the earlier ,darwinians4 ,the actual transition from 8species to species0 is made suddenly1 by mutation1 not through variation4 ,and the state of equilibrium thus reached is such a relatively stable one that individual variations can only take place within its limits1 but can in no way disturb it4 ,de ,vries marshals a series of facts which present insurmountable difficulties to the ,darwinian theory1 but afford corroboration of the ,mutation theory4 ,in particular1 he brings forward1 from his years of experiment and horticultural observation1 comprehensive evidence of the mutational origin of new species from old ones by leaps1 and this not in long-past geological times1 but in the course of a human life and before our very eyes4 ,the main importance of the book lies in the record of these experiments and observations1 rather than in the theory as such1 for the way had been paved for it by other workers4 ,in contrast to ,darwinism1 ,de ,vries states the case for 8,halmatogenesis0 7saltatory evolution7 and 8,heterogenesis0 7the production of forms unlike the parents71 taking his examples from the plant world1 but his attitude to ,darwinism is conciliatory throughout4 ,eimer1 on the other hand1 is sharply antagonistic1 especially to ,weismann2 he takes his proofs from the animal kingdom1 and in the second volume of his large work already mentioned1 which deals with the 8orthogenesis of butterflies10 he attempts to set against the ,darwinism 8chance theory10 a proof of 8definitely directed evolution10 and therefore of the 8insufficiency of natural selection in the formation of species40 ,eimer's ,orthogenesis4 ,organisation is due to internal causes4 ,structural characters crystallise out1 as it were4 8,orthogenesis10 or the definitely determined tendency of evolution to advance in a few directions1 is a law for the whole of the animate world4 ,in active response to the stimuli and influences of the environment the organism expresses itself in 8organic growth0 without any relation to utility4 ,butterflies in particular1 and especially their markings and coloration1 are taken as illustrations4 ,in the ,darwinian theory of 8mimicry0 these played a brilliant part4 ,the great resemblance to leaves1 to dried twigs1 or to well-protected species which are secure from enemies1 was regarded as the most convincing proof of the operation of natural selection4 ,but ,eimer shows that markings1 striping1 spots1 the development of pattern1 and the alleged or real resemblances to leaves1 are really subject to definite laws of growth1 in obedience to which they gradually appear1 developing according to their own internal laws1 varying and progressing altogether by internal necessity1 and without any reference to advantage or disadvantage1 ,in association with this orthogenesis1 ,eimer recognises halmatogenesis1 correlation and 8genepistasis0 7coming to a standstill at a fixed and definite stage71 and these seem to him to make the ,darwinian theory utterly impossible4 ,the text and the illustrations of the book show how1 in the sequence of evolution 7according to ,eimer's laws of transformation71 the groupings of stripes1 bands1 and eye-spots must have appeared on the butterfly's wing1 how convex or concave curvings of the contour must have come about at certain points1 so that the form of a 8leaf0 and the lines of its venation resulted1 how the eye-spots must have been moulded and shunted1 so that they produced the effect of rust or other spots on withered leaves4 ,particular interest attaches to the detailed arguments against the idea that the butterfly must receive some advantage from its 8mimicry40 ,even the ,darwinians have to admit that in a whole series of cases the advantage is not obvious4 ,they talk with some embarrassment of 8pseudomimicry40 ,some butterflies that are supposed to be protected have the protective markings on the underside1 so that these are actually hidden when the insects are flying from pursuing birds4 ,many of the leaf-like butterflies are not wood-butterflies at all1 but meadow species17#dg7 and so ,eimer's arguments continue4 ,a specially energetic fellow-worker on ,eimer's line is ,w4 ,haacke1 a zoologist of ,jena1 author of 8,gestaltung und ,vererbung10 and 8,die ,schpfung des ,menschen und seiner ,ideale407#dh7 ,in the first of these works ,haacke combats1 energetically and with much detail1 ,weismann's 8preformation theory10 and defends 8epigenesis10 for which he endeavours to construct graphic diagrams1 his aim being to make a foundation for the inheritance of acquired characters1 definitely directed evolution1 saltatory1 symmetrical1 and correlated variation4 ,the principles of the new school are very widespread to-day1 but we cannot here follow their development in the works of individual investigators1 such as ,reinke1 ,r4 ,hertwig1 ,o4 ,hertwig1 ,wiesner1 ,hamann1 ,dreyer1 ,wolff1 ,goette1 ,kassowitz1 v4 ,wettstein1 ,korschinsky1 and others47#di7 ,the ,spontaneous ,activity of the ,organism4 ,what is particularly luminous in all the theories that express the most recent anti-,darwinian tendency is that they tend to bring into prominence the mysterious powers of living organisms1 by means of which1 instead of passively waiting for natural selection and the continual accumulation of unceasing variations1 they are able spontaneously and of themselves to bring forth what is necessary for self-maintenance1 often what is new and different1 of course not unlimitedly1 but with considerable freedom and often with a surprising range of possibilities4 ,it is1 perhaps1 partly the fault of the one-sidedness of strict ,darwinism that this consideration has been so slowly brought into prominence and subjected to investigation and experiment4 ,it is bound up with the capacity that all forms of life have of reacting spontaneously to 8stimuli0 and1 to a certain extent1 of helping themselves if the conditions of existence be unfavourable4 ,they are able1 for instance1 to produce protective adaptations against cold or heat1 to 8regenerate0 lost parts1 often to replace entire organs that have been lost1 and1 under certain circumstances1 to produce new organs altogether4 ,if all this be true1 it seems almost like caprice to follow only the roundabout theory of the struggle for existence1 and not to take account of these spontaneous capacities of the living organism directly and before all other factors in the attempt to explain evolution4 ,there is no end to the illustrations that are being adduced1 that must force investigation to pass from merely superficial considerations of the struggle for existence type to the deeper and more real problems themselves4 ,an effectively modified and adapted type of ,alpine flora has not been evolved by a laborious process of selection lasting for many thousand years2 the organism may quickly and immediately produce the new characters by its own reaction4 ,crustaceans gradually transferred from a salt-water to a fresh-water habitat1 or conversely1 produce in a few generations the type of a new 8species0 with correlated variations 7,schmankewitsch74 ,birds weaned by careful experiment from a diet of seeds to one of flesh1 or conversely1 produce changes of effective correlation and adaptation in the characters of their alimentary system4 ,plants that have been deprived of their normal organs for absorbing water and prevented from growing new ones produce entirely new and effective 8hydatodes407#ej7 ,it is instructive to notice that ,darwinism seems likely to be robbed of its stock illustration1 namely1 8protective coloration40 ,by its own internal power of reaction1 and sometimes within one generation1 and even in the lifetime of an individual1 an organism may assume the colour of the substratum beneath it 7soles1 grasshoppers71 of its surroundings 7,eimer's tree frogs71 the colour and spottiness of the granite rock on which it hangs1 the colour of the leaves and twigs among which it lives 7,poulton's butterfly pup71 and even that of the brightly coloured sheets of paper amidst which it is kept imprisoned4 ,certain spiders assume a white1 pink1 or greenish 8protective coloration0 corresponding to the tinted blossom of the plants which they frequent1 and so on47#ea7 ,eimer alleged that direct psychical factors co-operated in bringing about these changes4 ,in any case1 all this carries us far beyond the domain of mere naturalistic factors into the mystery of life itself4 ,even what is called the 8influence of the external world10 and the 8active acquirement of new characters10 have their basis and the reason of their possibility in this domain4 ,and the whole domain is saturated through and through with 8teleology40 ,a recognition of the impressive secret of the organism led ,gustav ,wolff to become a very pronounced critic of ,darwinism1 especially in the form of ,weismannism4 ,as far back as #ahif1 in a lecture 8,on the present position of ,darwinism10 in which he dealt only with ,weismann1 he criticised and analysed that author's last attempt to uphold ,darwinism by the construction of his theory of 8germinal selection40 ,he concluded with the wish3 8,that a spirit of earnestness would once more enter into biological investigation1 which would no longer attempt to find in nature just what it wanted to find1 but would be ready to follow truth at all costs1 and to approach the riddle of life with an open mind40 ,his 8,beitrge zur ,kritik der ,darwinischen ,lehre10 which appeared first as papers in the 8,biologisches ,centralblatt10 did not see the light in book form until #ahih4 ,the doctrine of selection was regarded as so unassailable that no publisher would take the risk of the book4 ,its appearance is a sure indication of the general modification of opinions that had taken place in the interval4 ,the first and second essays are merely critical objections to the theory of selection1 very similar to those frequently urged before1 but more precisely stated47#eb7 ,the third is intended to show that there is in the forms of life themselves1 as a faculty of adaptation peculiar to them1 a primary purposiveness1 which is unquestionably active throughout the lifetime and development of every individual1 but which is also the deepest cause of 8phylogenesis10 or the formation of a race4 ,this doctrine makes both the ,darwinian and ,lamarckian theories merely secondary4 ,for the phenomena which suggest the ,lamarckian interpretation presuppose this most essential factor--the primary adaptiveness4 ,wolff concludes with a very striking instance--discovered by himself--of this primary adaptiveness of the organism--the regeneration of the lens in the newt's eye4 ,more comprehensively1 but from a precisely similar standpoint1 ,driesch has followed up the discussion of this problem47#ec7 ,he is1 of all modern investigators1 perhaps the one who has most persistently and thoroughly worked out the problem of causal and teleological interpretation1 and he has also thrown much light on the scientific and epistemological aspects of the problem4 ,that he could1 in a recent volume of the 8,biologisches ,zentralblatt10 write a respectful and sympathetic exposition of the ,hegelian nature-philosophy--as regards its aims1 though not its methods--is as remarkable a symptom as we can instance of the modern trend of views and opinions47#ed7 ,contrast ,between ,darwinian and ,post-,darwinian ,views4 ,the new views that have thus arisen have been definitely summarised and clearly contrasted with ,darwinism by the botanist ,korschinsky4 ,he died before completing his general work1 8,heterogenesis und ,evolution10 but he has elsewhere7#ee7 given an excellent summary of his results1 which we append in abstract4 ,,darwin4 7#a7 ,everything organic is capable of variation4 ,variations arise in part from internal1 in part from external causes4 ,they are slight1 inconspicuous1 individual differences4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#a7 ,everything organic is capable of variation4 ,this capability is a fundamental1 inherent character of living forms in general1 and is independent of external conditions4 ,it is usually kept latent by 8heredity10 but occasionally breaks forth in sudden variations4 ,,darwin4 7#b7 ,the struggle for existence4 ,this combines1 increases1 fixes useful variations1 and eliminates the useless4 ,all the characters and peculiarities of a finished species are the results of long-continued selection2 they must therefore be adapted to the external conditions4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#b7 ,saltatory variations4--,these are1 under favourable circumstances1 the starting-point of new and constant races4 ,the characters may sometimes be useful1 sometimes quite indifferent1 neither advantageous nor disadvantageous4 ,sometimes they are not in harmony with external circumstances4 ,,darwin4 7#c7 ,the species is subject to constant variation4 ,it is continually subject to selection and augmentation of its characters4 ,hence again the origin of new species4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#c7 ,all fully developed species persist1 but through heterogenesis a splitting up into new forms may take place1 and this is accompanied by a disturbance of the vital equilibrium4 ,the new state is at first insecure and fluctuating1 and only gradually becomes stable4 ,thus new forms and races arise with gradual consolidation of their constitution4 ,,darwin4 7#d7 ,the sharper and more acute the effect of the environment1 the keener is the struggle for existence1 and the more rapidly and certainly do new forms arise4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#d7 ,only in specially favourable conditions1 only when the struggle for existence is weak1 or when there is none1 can new forms arise and become fixed4 ,when the conditions are severe no new forms arise1 or if they do they are speedily eliminated4 ,,darwin4 7#e7 ,the chief condition of evolution is therefore the struggle for existence and the selection which this involves4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#e7 ,the struggle for existence simply decimates the overwhelming abundance of possible forms4 ,where it occurs it prevents the establishment of new variations1 and in reality stands in the way of new developments4 ,it is rather an unfavourable than an advantageous factor4 ,,darwin4 7#f7 ,if there were no struggle for existence there would be no adaptation1 no perfecting4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#f7 ,were there no struggle for existence1 there would be no destruction of new forms1 or of forms in process of arising4 ,the world of organisms would then be a colossal genealogical tree of enormous luxuriance1 and with an incalculable wealth of forms4 ,,darwin4 7#g7 ,progress in nature1 the 8perfecting0 of organisms1 is only an increasingly complex and ever more perfect adaptation to the external circumstances4 ,it is attained by purely mechanical methods1 by an accumulation of the variations most useful at the time4 ,,korschinsky ,,and ,,the ,,moderns4 7#g7 ,the adaptation which the struggle for existence brings about has nothing to do with perfecting1 for the organisms which are physiologically and morphologically higher are by no means always better adapted to external circumstances than those lower in the scale4 ,evolution cannot be explained mechanically4 ,the origin of higher forms from lower is only possible if there is a tendency to progress innate in the organism itself4 ,this tendency is nearly related to or identical with the tendency to variation4 ,it compels the organism to perfect itself as far as external circumstances will permit4 ,all this implies an admission of evolution and of descent1 but a setting aside of ,darwinism proper as an unsuccessful hypothesis1 and a positive recognition of an endeavour after an aim1 internal causes1 and teleology in nature1 as against fortuitous and superficial factors4 ,this opens up a vista into the background of things1 and thereby yields to the religious conception all that a study of nature can yield--namely1 an acknowledgment of the possibility and legitimacy of interpreting the world in a religious sense1 and assistance in so doing4 ,the most important point has already been emphasised4 ,even if the theory of the struggle for existence were correct1 it would be possible to subject the world as a whole to a teleological interpretation4 ,but these anti-,darwinian theories now emerging1 though they do not directly induce teleological interpretation1 suggest it much more strongly than orthodox ,darwinism does4 ,a world which in its evolution is not exposed1 for good or ill1 to the action of chance factors--playing with it and forcing it hither and thither--but which1 exposed indeed to the most diverse conditions of existence and their influences1 and harmonising with them1 nevertheless carries implicitly and infallibly within itself the laws of its own expression1 and especially the necessity to develop upwards into higher and higher forms1 is expressly suited for teleological consideration1 and we can understand how it is that the old physico-teleological evidences of the existence of ,god are beginning to hold up their heads again4 ,they are wrong when they try to demonstrate ,god1 but quite right when they simply seek to show that nature does not contradict--in fact that it allows room and validity to--belief in the ,highest ,wisdom as the cause and guide of all things natural4 ,as far as the question of the right to interpret nature teleologically is concerned1 it would be entirely indifferent whether what ,korschinsky calls 8the tendency to progress10 and the system of laws in obedience to which evolution brings forth its forms1 can be interpreted 8mechanically0 or not2 that is to say1 whether or not evolution depends on conditions and potentialities of living matter1 which can be demonstrated and made mechanically commensurable or not4 ,it may be that they can neither be demonstrated nor made mechanically commensurable1 but lie in the impenetrable mystery inherent in all life4 ,whether this mystery really exists1 and whether religion has any particular interest in it if it does1 must be considered in the following chapter4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,the ,,mechanical ,,theory ,,of ,,life4 ,what is life--not in the spiritual and transcendental sense1 but in its physical and physiological aspects8 ,what is this mysterious complex of processes and phenomena1 common to everything animate1 from the seaweed to the rose1 and from the human body to the bacterium1 this ability to 8move0 of itself1 to change and yet to remain like itself1 to take up dead substances into itself1 to assimilate and to excrete1 to initiate and sustain1 in respiration1 in nutrition1 in external and internal movements1 the most complex chemical and physical processes1 to develop and build up through a long series of stages a complete whole from the primitive beginnings in the germ1 to grow1 to become mature1 and gradually to break up again1 and with all this to repeat in itself the type of its parent1 and to bring forth others like itself1 thus perpetuating its own species1 to react effectively to stimuli1 to produce protective devices against injury1 and to regenerate lost parts8 ,all this is done by living organisms1 all this is the expression in them of 8,life40 ,what is it8 ,whence comes it8 ,and how can it be explained8 ,the problem of the nature of life1 of the principle of vitality1 is almost as old as philosophy itself1 and from the earliest times in which men began to ponder over the problem1 the same antitheses have been apparent which we find to-day4 ,disguised under various catchwords and with the greatest diversities of expression1 the antitheses remain essentially the same through the centuries1 competing with one another1 often mingling curiously1 so that from time to time one or other almost disappears1 but always crops up again1 so that it seems as if the conflict would be a never-ending one--the antitheses between the mechanical and the 8vitalistic0 view of life4 ,on the one side there is the conviction that the processes of life may be interpreted in terms of natural processes of a simple and obvious kind1 indeed directly in terms of those which are most general and most intelligible--namely1 the simplest movements of the smallest particles of matter1 which are governed by the same laws as movement in general4 ,and associated with this is the attempt to take away any special halo from around the processes of life1 to admit even here no other processes but the mechanical ones1 and to explain everything as the effect of material causes4 ,on the opposite side is the conviction that vital phenomena occupy a special and peculiar sphere in the world of natural phenomena1 a higher platform2 that they cannot be explained by merely physical or chemical or mechanical factors1 and that1 if 8explaining0 means reducing to terms of such factors1 they do in truth include something inexplicable4 ,these opposing conceptions of the living and the organic have been contrasted with one another1 in most precise form and exact expression1 by ,kant in certain chapters of the ,kritik der ,urteilskraft1 which must be regarded as a classic for our subject47#ef7 ,but as far as their general tendency is concerned1 they were already represented in the nature-philosophies of ,democritus on the one hand1 and of ,aristotle on the other4 ,all the essential constituents of the modern mechanical theories are really to be found in ,democritus1 the causal interpretation1 the denial of any operative purposes or formative principles1 the admission and assertion of quantitative explanations alone1 the denial of qualities1 the reduction of all cosmic developments to the 8mechanics of the atom0 7even to attractions and repulsions1 thus setting aside the 8energies071 the inevitable necessity of these mechanical sequences1 indeed at bottom even the conviction of the 8constancy of the sum of matter and energy40 7,for1 as he says1 8nothing comes out of nothing407 ,and although he makes the 8soul0 the principle of the phenomena of life1 that is in no way contradictory to his general mechanical theory1 but is quite congruent with it4 ,for the 8soul0 is to him only an aggregation of thinner1 smoother1 and rounder atoms1 which as such are more mobile1 and can1 as it were1 quarter themselves in the body1 but nevertheless stand in a purely mechanical relation to it4 ,aristotle1 who was well aware of the diametrical opposition1 represents1 as compared with ,democritus1 the ,socratic-,platonic teleological interpretation of nature1 and in regard to the question of living organisms his point of view may quite well be designated by the modern name of 8vitalism40 ,especially in his theory of the vegetable soul1 the essence of vitalism is already contained4 ,it is the 7logos enhylos71 the idea immanent in the matter1 the conceptual essence of the organism1 or its ideal whole1 which is inherent in it from its beginnings in the germ1 and determines1 like a directing law1 all its vegetative processes1 and so raises it from a state of 8possibility0 to one of 8reality40 ,all that we meet with later as 8nisus formativus10 as 8life-force0 7vis vitalis71 as 8endeavour after an end0 7,zielstrebigkeit71 is included in the scope of ,aristotelian thought4 ,and he has the advantage over many of his successors of being very much clearer47#eg7 ,the present state of the problem of life may be regarded as due to a reaction of biological investigation and opinion from the 8vitalistic0 theories which prevailed in the first half of last century1 and which were in turn at once the root and the fruit of the ,german ,nature-philosophy of that time4 ,lotze in his oft-quoted article1 8,leben1 ,lebenskraft0 7,life1 ,vital ,force71 in ,wagner's 8,hand-,wrterbuch der ,physiologie10 #ahdb1 gave the signal for this reaction4 ,the change1 however1 did not take place suddenly4 ,the most important investigators in their special domain1 the physiologist ,johannes ,mller1 the chemist ,julius ,liebig1 remained faithful to a modified vitalistic standpoint4 ,but in the following generation the revolution was complete and energetic4 ,with ,du ,bois-,reymond1 ,virchow1 ,haeckel1 the anti-vitalistic trend became more definite and more widespread4 ,it had a powerful ally in the ,darwinian theory1 which had been promulgated meanwhile1 and at the same time in the increasingly materialistic tendency of thought1 which afforded support to the mechanical system and also sought foundations in it4 ,the naturalistic1 8mechanical0 interpretation of life was so much in the tenor of ,darwin's doctrine that it would have arisen out of it if it had not existed before4 ,it is so generally regarded as a self-evident and necessary corollary of the strictly ,darwinian doctrine1 that it is often included with it under the name of ,darwinism1 although ,darwin personally did not devote any attention to the problem of the mechanical interpretation of life4 ,any estimate of the value of one must be associated with an estimate of the other also4 ,it goes without saying that the theory of life is dependent upon1 and in a large measure consists of physico-chemical interpretations1 investigations1 and methods4 ,for ever since the attention of investigators was directed to the problems of growth1 of nutrition1 of development and so on1 and particularly as knowledge has passed from primitive and unmethodical forms to real science1 it has been taken as a matter of course that chemical and physical processes play a large part in life1 and indeed that everything demonstrable1 visible1 or analysable1 does come about 8naturally10 as it is said4 ,and from the vitalistic standpoint it has to be asked whether detailed biological investigation and analysis can ever accomplish more than the observation and tracing out of these chemical and physical processes4 ,anything beyond this will probably be only the defining and formulating of the limits of its own proper sphere of inquiry1 and a recognition1 though no knowledge1 of what lies beyond and of the co-operative factors4 ,the difference between vitalism and the mechanical theory of life is not1 that the one regards the processes in the organism as opposed to those in the inorganic world while the other identifies them1 but that vitalism regards life as a combination of chemical and physical processes1 with the co-operation and under the regulation of other principles1 while the mechanical theory leaves these other principles out4 ,notwithstanding the many noteworthy reactions1 we are bound to regard the present state of the theory of life as on the whole mechanical4 ,the majority of experts--not to speak of the popular materialists1 and especially those who1 sailing under the flag of materialistic interpretation1 have their ships full of vitalistic contraband--regard as the ideal of their science an ultimate analysis of the phenomena of life into mechanical processes1 into 8mechanics of the atom40 ,they believe in this ideal1 and without concealing that it is still very far off1 do not doubt its ultimate attainability1 and regard vitalistic assumptions as obstacles to the progress of investigation4 ,moreover1 this aspect of the problem seems likely enough to be permanent with the majority1 or1 at any rate1 with many naturalists1 though it is obviously one-sided4 ,for it has always been the task of this line of investigation to extend the sphere within which physical and chemical laws can be validly applied in interpreting vital processes1 and the results reached along this line will always be so numerous and important that even on psychological grounds the mechanical point of view has the best chance for the future4 ,furthermore1 the maxim that all the phenomena of nature must be explained by means of the simplest factors and according to the smallest possible number of laws1 is usually regarded as one of the most legitimate maxims of science in general1 so that the resolute pertinacity with which many investigators maintain the entire sufficiency of the mechanical interpretation1 far from being condemned as materialistic fanaticism1 must be respected as the expression of scientific conscience4 ,even when confidence in the one-sided mechanical interpretation of vital processes sometimes fails in face of the great and striking riddles of life1 it is to be expected that it will revive again with each new success1 great or small47#eh7 ,the mechanical conception of life which now prevails is made up of the following characteristics and component elements4 ,these also indicate the lines along which the arguments are worked out--lines which glimmered faintly through the mechanical theories of ancient times1 but which have now been definitely formulated and supported by evidence4 ,the ,conservation of ,matter and ,energy4 #a4 ,the whole mechanical theory is based upon a law which is not strictly biological but belongs to science in general--the law of the conservation of matter and energy4 ,this was first recognised by ,kant as a general rational concept in his 8,critique0 and in the 8,grundlegung der ,metaphysik der ,naturwissenschaft10 and was transferred by ,robert ,mayer and ,helmholtz7#ei7 to the domain of natural science4 ,just as no particle of matter can come from nothing or become nothing1 so no quantum of energy can come from nothing or become nothing4 ,it must come from somewhere and must remain somewhere4 ,the form of energy is continually changing1 but the sum of energy in the universe remains invariable and constant4 ,therefore1 it seems to follow1 there can be no specific vital phenomena4 ,the energies concerned in the up-building1 growth1 and decay of the organism1 and the sum of the functions performed by it1 must be the exact resultant and equivalent of the potential energies stored in its material substance and the co-operative energies of its environment4 ,the particular course of transformations they follow must have its sufficient reason in the configuration of the parts of the organism1 in its relations to the environment1 and the like4 ,an intervention of 8vitalistic0 principles1 directions and so forth1 would1 we are told1 involve a sudden obtrusion and disappearance again of energy-effects which had no efficient cause in the previous phenomena4 ,from any point of view it would be a miracle1 and in particular it would be doing violence to the law of the constancy of the sum of energy4 ,apart from the inherent general 8instinct0--sit venia verbo1 for no more definite word is available--which is the quiet ,socius1 the concealed but powerful spring of the mechanistic convictions1 as of most others1 this law of the conservation of energy is probably the really central argument1 and it meets us again more or less disguised in what follows4 ,the ,organic and the ,inorganic4 #b4 ,what is on priori grounds demanded as a necessity1 or set aside as impossible1 on the strength of the axiom of the conservation of energy1 must be proved posteriori by investigation4 ,it must be shown in detail that the difference between the organic and the inorganic is only apparent4 ,and it is here that the mechanical view of life celebrates its greatest triumph4 ,for a long time it seemed as though there were an absolute difference between 8inorganic0 and 8organic0 chemistry1 between the chemical processes and products found in free nature1 and those within the 8living0 body4 ,the same elements were indeed found in both1 but it seemed as if they were subject in the living body to other and higher laws than those observed in inanimate nature4 ,out of these elements the organism builds up1 by unexplained processes1 peculiar chemical individualities1 highly organised and complex combinations which are never attained in inorganic nature4 ,this seems to afford indubitable evidence of a vital force with mysterious super-chemical capacities4 ,but modern chemical science has succeeded in doing away with this absolute difference between the two departments of chemistry1 for it has achieved1 in retorts1 in the laboratory1 and with 8natural0 chemical means1 what had hitherto only been accomplished by 8organic0 chemistry4 ,since ,whler's discovery that urea could be built up by artificial combination1 more and more of the carbon-compounds which were previously regarded as specialities of the vital force have been produced by artificial syntheses4 ,the highest synthesis1 that of proteids1 has not yet been discovered1 but perhaps that1 too1 may yet be achieved4 ,and further3 intensive observation through the microscope and in the laboratory increases the knowledge of processes which can be analysed into simple chemical processes1 both in the plant and the animal body4 ,these are astonishing in their diversity and complexity1 but nevertheless they fulfil themselves according to known chemical laws1 and they can be imitated apart from the living substance4 ,the 8breaking up0 of the molecules of nutritive material1--that is to say1 the preparation of them as building material for the body1--does not take place magically and automatically1 but is associated with definitely demonstrable chemical stuffs1 which produce their effect even outside of the organism4 ,the fundamental function of living matter--8metabolism10--that is1 the constant disruption and reconstruction of its own substance1 has1 it seems1 been brought at least nearer to a possible future explanation by the recognition of a series of phenomena of a purely chemical nature1 the catalytic phenomena 7the effects of ferments or 8enzymes074 ,ingenious hypotheses are already being constructed1 if not to explain1 at least to give a general formulation of these facts1 which will serve as a framework and guiding clue1 as a 8working hypothesis0 for the further progress of investigation4 ,the most recent of these hypotheses is that set forth by ,verworn in his book 8,die ,biogenhypothese407#fj7 ,he assumes1 as the central vehicle of the vital functions1 a unified living substance1 the 8biogen10 nearly related to the proteids which form the fundamental substance of protoplasm and of the cell-nucleus1 and in contrast to which the other substances found in the living body are in part raw materials and reserves1 and in part of a derivative nature1 or the results of disruptive metabolism4 ,very complex chemically1 8biogen0 is able to operate upon the circulating or reserve 8nutritive0 materials in a way comparable1 for instance1 to the action of 8nitric acid in the production of ,english sulphuric acid40 ,that is to say1 it is able to set up processes of disruption and of recombination1 apparently by its mere presence1 but1 in reality1 by its own continual breaking down and building up again4 ,at the same time it has the power1 analogous to that of polymerisation in molecules1 of increasing1 of 8growing40 ,the case is the same in regard to physical laws4 ,they are identical in the living and the non-living4 ,and many of the processes of life have already been analysed into a complex of simpler physical processes4 ,the circulation of the blood is subject to the same laws of hydrostatics as are illustrated in all other fluids4 ,mechanical1 static1 and osmotic processes occur in the organism and constitute its vital phenomena4 ,the eye is a camera obscura1 an optical apparatus2 the ear an acoustic instrument2 the skeleton an ingenious system of levers1 which obey the same laws as all other levers4 ,e4 du ,bois-,reymond1 in his lectures on 8,the ,physics of ,organic ,metabolism0 78,physik des organischen ,stoffwechsels0717#fa7 compiles a long and detailed list of the physical factors associated and intertwined in the most diverse ways with the fundamental phenomenon of life1 namely1 metabolism3--the capacities and effects of solution1 diffusion of liquids1 capillarity1 surface tension1 coagulation1 transfusion with filtration1 the capacities and effects of gases1 aero-diffusion through porous walls1 the absorption of gases through solid bodies and through fluids1 and so on4 ,very impressive1 too1 are the manifold 8mechanical0 interpretations of intimate vital characteristics1 such as the infinitely fine structure of protoplasm4 ,for protoplasm does not fill the cell as a compact mass1 but spreads itself out and builds itself up in the most delicate network or meshwork1 of which it forms the threads and walls1 enclosing innumerable vacuoles and alveoli1 and ,btschli succeeded in making a surprisingly good imitation of this 8structure0 by mechanical means4 ,drops of oil intimately mixed with potash and placed between glass plates formed a very similar emulsion-like or foam-like structure with a visible network and with enclosed alveoli47#fb7 ,rhumbler1 too1 succeeded in explaining by 8developmental mechanics0 some of the apparently extremely subtle processes at the beginning of embryonic development 7the invagination of the blastula to form the gastrula72 by imitating the sphere of cells which compose the blastula with elastic steel bands he deduced the invagination mechanically from the model47#fc7 ,here1 too1 must be mentioned ,verworn's attempts to explain 8the movements of the living substance407#fd7 8,kinesis10 the power to move1 has since the time of ,aristotle been regarded as one of the peculiar characteristics of life4 ,from the gliding 8amboid0 movements of the moneron1 with its mysterious power of shifting its position1 spreading itself out1 and spinning out long threads 78pseudopodia071 up to the contractility of the muscle-fibre1 the same riddle reappears in many different forms4 ,verworn attacks it at the lowest level1 and attempts to solve it by reference to the surface tension to which all fluid bodies are subject1 and to the partial relaxation of this1 which forces the mass to give off radiating processes or 8pseudopodia40 ,the mechanical causes of the suspension of the surface tension are inquired into1 and striking examples of pseudopod-like rays are found in the inorganic world1 for instance1 in a drop of oil4 ,thus a starting-point is discovered for mechanical interpretations at a higher level47#fe7 ,irritability4 #c4 ,a property which seems to be quite peculiar to living matter is irritability1 or the power of responding to 8stimuli10 that is to say1 of reacting to some influence from without in such a manner that the reaction is not the mere equivalent of the action1 but that the stimulus is to the organism as a contingent cause or impulse setting up a new process or a new series of processes1 which seem as though they occurred spontaneously and freely4 ,thus the sensitive plant ,mimosa pudica droops its feathery leaves when touched4 ,here1 too1 must be classed also all the innumerable phenomena of ,heliotropism1 ,geotropism1 ,rheotropism1 ,chemotropism1 and other tropisms1 in which the sun1 or the earth1 or currents1 or chemical stimuli so affect a form of life--plant1 alga1 or spore--that it disposes its own movements or the arrangements of its parts accordingly1 turning towards1 or away from1 or in an oblique direction to the source of stimulus1 or otherwise behaving in some definite manner which could not have been deduced or predicted from the direct effects of the stimulating factors4 ,the upholders of the mechanical theory have attempted to conquer this vast and mysterious domain of facts by seeking to do away with the appearance of spontaneity and freedom1 by demonstrating in suitable cases that these phenomena of spontaneity and the like would be impossible were it not that the potential energies previously stored up within the organism are liberated by the stimulus4 ,thus the effect caused is not equivalent to the stimulus alone1 but is rather the resultant of the conditions given in the chemo-physical predispositions of the organism itself1 and in the architecture of its parts1 plus the stimulus4 ,directly associated with this property of irritability is another form of spontaneity and freedom in living beings--the power of adapting themselves to changed conditions of existence4 ,some do not show this at all1 while others show it in an astonishing degree1 helping themselves out by new contrivances1 so to speak4 ,thus the organism may protect itself against temperature and other influences1 against injury1 making damages good again by self-repairing processes1 8regenerating0 lost organs1 and sometimes even building up the whole organism anew from amputated parts4 ,the mechanical interpretation must here proceed in the same way as in dealing with the question of stimuli1 applying to the development of form the same explanations as are there employed4 ,and just because this domain does not lend itself readily to mechanical explanation1 we can understand that confidence in the sufficiency of this mode of interpretation grows rapidly with each fresh conquest1 when this or that particular process is shown to be actually explicable on mechanical principles4 ,processes of development or morphogenesis--which are among the most intricate and difficult--are attacked in various ways4 ,the processes of regeneration1 for instance1 are compared with the similar tendencies observed in crystals1 which when they are injured have the capacity of restoring their normal form4 ,this capacity therefore obtains in the realm of the inorganic as well as among organisms1 and is referred to the tendency of all substances to maintain a definite state of equilibrium1 conditioned by their form1 and1 if that is disturbed1 to return to a similar or a new state of equilibrium4 ,or1 the procedure may be to reduce the processes of a developmental or morphogenetic category to processes of stimulation in general1 and then it is believed1 or even demonstrated1 that chemo-physical analogies or explanations can be found for them4 ,thus1 for instance1 it is shown that the egg of the sea-urchin may be 8stimulated0 to development1 not exclusively by the fertilising sperm1 but even by a simple chemical agent1 or that spermatozoids which are seeking the ovum to be fertilised may be attracted by malic acid4 ,these are 8reductions0 of the higher phenomena of life to the terms of a lower and simpler process of 8stimulus10 that is to say1 to chemotropism in the second case and something analogous in the first4 ,a further reduction would be to show that the movement of the spermatozoids towards the malic acid is not a 8vitalistic0 act1 much less a psychically conditioned one1 7that is1 conditioned by 8taste10 8sensation10 and the voluntary or instinctive impulse liberated thereby71 but is a chemo-physical process1 although perhaps an exceedingly complex one4 ,it would be another 8reduction0 of this second kind1 if1 for instance1 the well-known effect of light on plants1 which makes them turn their leaves towards it 7heliotropism71 could be shown to be due to more rapid growth of the leaf on the shaded side1 which would lift up the leaf and cause it to turn1 or to an increase of turgescence on the shaded side1 and if it could be shown that the increase in either case was a simple and obvious physical process1 the necessary consequence of the decreased amount of light4 ,it is obvious1 and it is also thoroughly justifiable1 that all attempts along these lines of interpretation should be undertaken in the first place in connection with the simplest and lowest forms of life4 ,it is in the investigation of the 8,protists10 the study of the vital phenomena of the microscopically minute unicellular organisms1 that attempts of this kind have been most frequently made4 ,and they follow the course we have just indicated2 the 8apparently0 vitalistic and psychical behaviour of unicellulars 7impulse1 will1 spontaneous movement1 selecting and experimenting7 is interpreted in terms of reflex processes and the 8irritability0 of the cell1 and these again are traced back1 like all stimulus-processes1 to the subtle mechanics of the atoms4 ,spontaneous ,generation4 #d4 ,this reduction of known biological phenomena to simpler terms1 the lessening of the gap between inorganic and organic chemistry1 and the formulation of the doctrine of the conservation of energy1 have all prepared the way for a fourth step1 the establishment of the inevitable theory of generatio spontanea sive equivoca1 the spontaneous generation of the living1 that is to say1 the gradual evolution of the living from the not living4 ,since the earth1 and with it the conditions under which alone life is possible1 have had a beginning in time1 life upon the earth must also have had a beginning4 ,the assumption that the first living organisms may have come to the earth on meteorites simply shifts the problem a step farther back1 for according to all current theories of the universe1 if there are in any of the heavenly bodies conditions admitting of the presence of life1 these conditions have arisen from others in which life was impossible4 ,therefore1 since this suggestion is on the face of it a mere evasion of the difficulty1 the theory of spontaneous generation naturally arose4 ,there is something almost comical in the change in the attitude of the natural sciences to this theory4 ,for centuries it was one of the beliefs of popular superstition1 with its nave way of regarding nature1 that earthworms 8developed0 from damp soil1 and vermin from shavings1 and in general that the living arose from the non-living4 ,on the other hand it was one of the characteristics and axioms of scientific thought to reject this nave generatio equivoca1 and to hold fast to the proposition1 omne vivum ex ovo1 or1 at least1 omne vivum ex vivo4 ,and it was regarded as one of the triumphs of modern science when1 about the middle of the last century1 ,pasteur gave definiteness to this doctrine1 and when through him1 through ,virchow1 and indeed the whole younger generation of naturalists1 the proposition was modified1 on the basis of the newly discovered cell-theory1 to omnis cellula ex cellula4 ,but a short time after ,pasteur's discoveries1 the ideas of ,darwinism and the theory of evolution gained widespread acceptance4 ,and now it appeared that1 in rejecting the theory of generatio equivoca1 naturalists had1 so to speak1 sawn off the branch on which they desired to sit1 and thus many1 like ,haeckel1 became enthusiastic converts to the theory which natural science had previously rejected4 ,constructing theories and speculations as to the possibilities of spontaneous generation is regarded by some naturalists as somewhat gratuitous 7cf4 ,du ,bois-,reymond74 ,in general1 it is regarded as sufficient to point out that the reduction of the phenomena of life as we know them to those of a simpler order1 and the unification of organic and inorganic chemistry1 have made the problem of the first origin of life essentially simpler1 and that the law of the constancy and identity of energy throughout the universe permits no other theory4 ,but others go more determinedly to work1 and attempt to give concrete illustrations of the problem4 ,the most elementary form of life known to us is the cell4 ,from cells and their combinations1 their products and secretions1 all organisms1 plant and animal alike1 are built up4 ,if we succeed in deriving the cell1 the derivation of the whole world of life seems1 with the help of the doctrine of descent1 a comparatively simple matter4 ,the cell itself seems to stand nearer to the inorganic1 and to be less absolutely apart from the inanimate world than a highly organised body1 differentiated as to its functions and organs1 such as a mammal4 ,it almost seems as if we might regard the lowest forms of life known to us1 which seem little more than aggregated homogeneous masses of flowing rather than creeping protoplasm1 as an intermediate link between the higher forms of life and the non-living4 ,but the theory does not begin with the cell2 it assumes a series of connecting-links 7which may of course be as long and as complicated as the series from the cell upwards to man7 between the cell and matter which is still quite 8inorganic0 and which is capable only of the everyday chemical and physical phenomena1 and not of the higher syntheses of these1 which in their increasing complexity and diversity ultimately come to represent 8life0 in its most primitive forms4 ,as proteid is the chief constituent of protoplasm1 it is regarded as the specific physical basis of life1 and life is looked upon as the sum of its functions4 ,and it is not doubted that1 if the conditions of the universe brought about a natural combination of carbon1 hydrogen1 nitrogen and oxygen in certain proportions1 so that proteid resulted1 the transition to proteid which forms itself and renews itself from the surrounding elements1 to assimilating1 growing1 dividing proteid1 and ultimately to the most primitive plasmic structure1 to non-nucleated1 nucleated1 and finally fully formed cells1 could also come about4 ,haeckel's demonstration of the possibility of spontaneous generation is along these lines4 ,he refers to the cytodes1 the blood corpuscles1 to alleged or actual non-nucleated cells1 to bacteria1 to the simplest forms of cell-structure1 as proofs of the possibility of a descending series of connecting-links4 ,he 7and with him ,ngeli7 calls these links1 below the level of the cell1 ,probia or ,probions1 and for a time he believed that he had discovered in ,bathybius ,haeckeli presently existing homogeneous living masses1 without cell division1 nucleus or structure1 the 8primitive slime0 which apparently existed in the abysmal depths of the ocean to this day4 ,unfortunately1 this primitive slime soon proved itself an illusion4 ,opinions differ as to whether spontaneous generation took place only in the beginning of evolution1 or whether it occurred repeatedly and is still going on4 ,most naturalists incline to the former idea2 ,ngeli champions the latter4 ,there are also differences of opinion as to whether the origin of life from the non-living was manifold1 and took place at many different places on the earth1 or whether all the forms of life now in existence have arisen from a common source 7monophyletic and polyphyletic theories74 ,the ,mechanics of ,development4 #e4 ,the minds of the supporters of the mechanical theory had still to move along a fifth line in order to solve the riddle of the development of the living individual from the egg1 or of the germ to its finished form1 the riddle of morphogenesis4 ,they cannot assume the existence of 8the whole0 before the part1 or equip it with the idea of the thing as a spiritus rector1 playing the part of a metaphysical controlling agency4 ,here as elsewhere they must demonstrate the existence of purely mechanical principles4 ,it is simply from the potential energies inherent in its constituent parts that the supply of energy must flow1 by means of which the germ is able to make use of inorganic material from without1 to assimilate it and increase its own substance1 and1 by using it up1 to maintain and increase its power of work1 to break up the carbonic acid of the atmosphere and to gain the carbon which is so important for its vital functions1 to institute and organise the innumerable chemico-physical processes by means of which its form is built up4 ,purely as a consequence of the chemico-physical nature of the germ1 of the properties of the substances included in it on the one hand1 and of the implicit structure and configuration of its parts1 down to the intrinsic specific undulatory rhythm of its molecules1 it must follow that its mass grows exactly as it does1 and not otherwise1 that it behaves as it does and not otherwise1 duplicating itself by division after division1 and by intricate changes arranging and rearranging the results of division until the embryo or larva1 and finally the complete organism1 is formed4 ,an extraordinary amount of ingenuity has been expended in this connection1 in order to avoid here1 where perhaps it is most difficult of all1 the use of 8teleological0 principles1 and to remain faithful to the orthodox1 exclusively mechanical mode of interpretation4 ,to this category belong ,darwin's gemmules1 ,haeckel's plastidules1 ,ngeli's micell1 ,weismann's labyrinth of ids1 determinants1 and biophors within the germ-plasm1 and ,roux's ingenious hypothesis of the struggle of parts1 which is an attempt to apply the ,darwinian principle within the organism in order here also to rebut the teleological interpretation by giving a scientific one47#ff7 ,heredity4 #f4 ,with this fifth line of thought a sixth is associated and intertwined4 ,the problem of development is closely bound up with that of 8heredity40 ,a developing organism follows the parental type4 ,the acorn in its growth follows the type of the parent oak1 repeating all its morphological and physiological characters down to the most intimate detail4 ,and the animal organism adds to this also the whole psychical equipment1 the instincts1 the capacities of will and consciousness which distinguish its parents4 ,the problems of the fifth and sixth order are closely inter-related1 the sixth problem being in reality the same as the fifth1 only in greater complexity4 ,a step towards the mechanical solution of this problem was indicated in the 8preformation theory0 advanced by ,leibnitz1 and elaborated by ,bonnet4 ,according to this theory the developing organism is enclosed in the minutest possible form within the egg1 and is thus included in the parental organism1 in miniature indeed1 but quite complete4 ,thus the problem of the 8development of form0 or of 8heredity0 was1 so to speak1 ruled out of court2 all that was assumed was continuous growth and self-unfolding4 ,opposed to this theory was one of later growth1 the theory of epigenesis1 which maintained that the organism developed without preformation from the still undifferentiated and homogeneous substance of the egg4 ,the supporters of the first theory considered themselves much more scientific and exact than those of the second4 ,and not without reason4 ,for the theory of epigenesis obviously required mysterious formative principles1 and equally mysterious powers of recollection and recapitulation1 which impelled the undifferentiated ovum substance into the final form1 precisely like that of its ancestors4 ,nor need the preformationists have greatly feared the reproach1 that the parental organism must have been included within the grand-parental1 and so on backwards to the first parents in ,paradise4 ,for this 8,chinese box0 encapsulement theory only requires that we should grant the idea of the infinitely little1 and that idea is already an integral part of our thinking4 ,modern biologists ridicule the preformation hypothesis as altogether too artificial4 ,and undoubtedly it founders on the facts of embryology1 which disclose nothing to suggest the unfolding of a pre-existent miniature model1 but show us how the egg-cell divides into two1 into four1 and so on1 with continued multiplication followed by varied arrangements and rearrangements of cells--in short1 all the complex changes which constitute development4 ,but a preformation in some sense or other there must be2--some peculiar material predisposition of the germ1 which1 as such1 supplies the directing principle for the development1 and the sufficient reason for the repetition of the parental form4 ,this is of such obvious importance from the mechanical point of view that the speculations of to-day tend to move along the old preformationist lines4 ,to these modern preformationists are opposed the modern upholders of epigenesis or gradual differentiation1 who attempt to elaborate a mechanical theory of development4 ,and with the contrast between these two schools there is necessarily associated the discussion as to the inheritance or non-inheritance of acquired characters4 ,darwin's contribution to the problem of the sixth order was his rather vague theory of 8,pangenesis40 ,the living organism1 according to him1 forms in its various organs1 parts1 and cells exceedingly minute particles of living matter 7gemmules71 which1 8in some way or other10 bear within them the special characteristics of the part in which they are produced4 ,these may wander through the organism and meet in the germ-plasm1 and then1 when a child-organism is produced1 they 8swarm10 so to speak1 in it again 8in some way or other10 and in some fashion control the development4 ,this gemmule-theory was too obviously a quid pro quo to hold its ground for long4 ,various theories were elaborated1 and the world of the invisibly minute was flooded with speculations4 ,the most subtle of these1 on the side of consistent ,darwinism1 is that of ,weismann1 a pronounced preformation theory which has been increasingly refined and elaborated in the course of years of reflection4 ,according to ,weismann1 the individual parts and characteristics of the organism are represented in the germ-plasm1 not in finished form1 but as 8determinants0 in a definite system which is itself the directing principle in the building up of the bodily system1 and with definite characteristics1 which determine the peculiarities of the individual organs and parts1 down to scales1 hairs1 skin-spots1 and birth-marks4 ,as the germ-cells have the power of growth1 and can increase endlessly by dividing and re-dividing1 and as each process of division takes place in such a way that each half 7each product of division7 maintains the previous system1 there arise innumerable germ-cells corresponding to one another1 from which1 therefore1 corresponding bodies must arise 7inheritance74 ,it is not in reality the newly developed bodies which give rise to new germ-cells and transfer to them something of their own characters2 the germ-cells of the child-organism develop from that of the parent 78immortality0 of the germ-cells74 ,therefore there can be no inheritance of acquired characters1 and no modifications of type through external causes2 and all variations which appear in a series of generations are due solely to internal variations in the germ-cells1 whether brought about by the complication of their system through the fusion of the male and female germ-cells1 or through differences in the growth of the individual determinants themselves4 ,the numerous subsidiary theses interwoven in ,weismann's theory are entirely coherent1 and have been thought out to their conclusions with praiseworthy determination47#fg7 ,to the theory as a whole1 because of its fundamental conception of preformation1 and to its subsidiary hypotheses1 piece by piece1 there has been energetic opposition on the part of the upholders of the modern mechanical theory of epigenesis4 ,this opposition is most concretely and comprehensively expressed in ,haacke's 8,gestaltung und ,vererbung40 ,the infinitely complex intricacy of ,weismann's minute microcosm within the germ-cell1 indeed within every id in it1 is justly described as a mere duplication1 a repetition in the infinitely little of the essential difficulties to be explained4 ,the complicated processes of developing in the growing and inheriting organism cannot be explained1 they say1 in terms of processes of the equally complex and likewise developing germ-plasm4 ,the complex1 if it is to be explained at all1 must be explained by the simple--in this case by the functions of a homogeneous uniform plasm4 ,at an earlier date ,haeckel had made an attempt in this direction in his theory of the 8perigenesis of the plastidules40 ,peculiar states of oscillation and rhythm in the molecules of the germ-substance1 handed on to it from the parent organism and transferable to all the assimilated matter of the offspring1 represent1 according to this theory1 the principle which impels development to follow a particular course corresponding to the type of the parents4 ,this was a physical way of interpreting the matter4 ,other investigators have given a chemical expression to their theoretical schemes for explaining heredity4 ,haacke declares both these to be unsatisfactory1 and replaces them by morphological formative principles4 ,it is the structure of the otherwise homogeneous living matter that explains morphogenesis and inheritance4 ,minute 8gemm10 homogeneous fundamental particles of living substance1 not to be compared to or confused with ,darwin's 8gemmules10 are aggregated in 8,gemmaria10 whose configuration1 stability1 symmetrical or asymmetrical structure1 and so on1 are determined by the relative positions of the gemm to each other1 and these in their turn control the organism and give it a corresponding symmetrical or asymmetrical1 a firmly or loosely aggregated structure4 ,the completed organism then forms a system in organic equilibrium1 which is constantly exposed to variations and influences due to external causes 7,st4 ,hilaire71 and to use and disuse of organs 7,lamarck74 ,these influences affect the structure of the gemmaria1 and as the germ-cells consist of gemmaria1 like those of the rest of the organism1 the possibility of the transmission of acquired new characters is self-evident4 ,the importance of correlated growth and orthogenesis is explained on a similar basis1 and the ,darwinian conceptions of the independent variation of individual parts1 of the exclusive dominance of utility1 of the influence of the struggle for existence in regard to individual selection1 and of the omnipotence of natural selection1 are energetically denied4 ,oscar ,hertwig17#fh7 de ,vries1 ,driesch7#fi7 and others attempt to reconcile the preformationist and the epigenetic standpoints1 and 8to extract what is good and usable out of both40 ,hertwig and ,driesch1 however1 can only be mentioned with reservations in this connection4 ,we cannot better sum up the whole tendency of the construction of mechanical theories on these last lines than in the words of ,schwann3 8,there is within the organism no fundamental force working according to a definite idea2 it arises in obedience to the blind laws of necessity40 ,so much for the different lines followed by the mechanical theories of to-day4 ,an idea of their general tenor can be gained from a series of much quoted general treatises1 of which we must mention at least the 8classics40 ,in ,wagner's 8,handwrterbuch der ,physiologie10 #ahdb1 ,vol4 ,i41 ,lotze wrote a long introductory article to the whole work1 on 8,life and ,vital ,force40 ,it was the challenge of the newer views to the previously vitalistic standpoint1 and at the same time it was based on ,lotze's general principles and interspersed with philosophical criticism of the concepts of force1 cause1 effect1 law1 c47#gj7 ,a similar train of ideas to ,lotze's is followed to-day by ,o4 ,hertwig1 especially in his 8,mechanismus und ,biologie407#ga7 ,lighter and more elegant was the polemic against vital force1 and the outline of a mechanical theory which ,du ,bois-,reymond prefaced to his great work1 8,untersuchungen ber die tierische ,electricitt0 7#ahdi74 ,it did not go nearly so deep as ,lotze's essay1 but perhaps for that very reason its phrases and epigrams soon became common property4 ,we may recall how he speaks of vital force as a 8general servant for everybody10 of the iron atom which remains the same whether it be in the meteorite in cosmic space1 in the wheel of the railway carriage1 or in the blood of the thinker1 and of analytic mechanics which may be applied even to the problem of personal freedom4 ,the most comprehensive and detailed elaboration of the mechanical theory of life is to be found in ,herbert ,spencer's 8,principles of ,biology407#gb7 ,friedrich ,albert ,lange's 8,history of ,materialism0 is a brilliant plea for mechanical theories17#gc7 which he afterwards surpassed and neutralised by his ,kantian ,criticism4 ,verworn1 too1 in his 8,physiology07#gd7 gives a clear example of the way in which the mechanical theory in its most consistent form is sublimed1 apparently in the idealism of ,kant and ,fichte1 but in reality in its opposite--the ,berkeleyan psychology4 ,a similar outcome is in various ways indicated in the modern trend of things4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,criticism ,,of ,,mechanical ,,theories4 ,in attempting to define our attitude to the mechanical theory of life1 we have first of all to make sure that we have a right to take up a definite position at all4 ,we should have less right1 or perhaps none1 if this theory of life were really of a purely 8biological0 nature1 built up entirely from the expert knowledge and data which the biologist alone possesses4 ,but the principles1 assumptions1 supplementary ideas and modes of expression along all the six lines we have discussed1 the style and method according to which the hypothesis is constructed1 the multitude of separate presuppositions with which it works1 and indeed everything that helps to build up and knit the biological details into a scientific hypothesis1 are the materials of rational synthesis in general1 and as such are subject to general as well as to biological criticism4 ,what is there1 for instance1 in ,weismann's ingenious biophor-theory that can be called specifically biological1 and not borrowed from other parts of the scientific system8 ,one advantage1 indeed1 the biologist always has in this matter1 apart from his special knowledge2 that is1 the technical instinct1 the power of scenting out1 so to speak1 and immediately feeling the importance of the facts pertaining to his own discipline4 ,it is this that gives every specialist the advantage over the layman in dealing with the data of his own subject4 ,this power of instinctively appraising facts1 which develops in the course of all special work1 can1 for instance in hypotheses in the domain of history1 transform small details1 which to the layman seem trivial1 into weighty arguments4 ,similarly it may be that the success of the mechanical interpretation in regard to isolated processes may make its validity for many other allied processes certain1 even though there is no precise proof of this4 ,but we cannot regard this as a final demonstration of the applicability of the mechanical theory1 since the same technical instinct in other experts leads them to reject the whole hypothesis4 ,but here we are met with something surprising4 ,may it not be that while we are impelled on general grounds to contend against the mechanical interpretation of vital phenomena1 we are not so impelled on religious grounds8 ,may it not be that the instinct of the religious consciousness is misleading when it impels us--as probably every one will be able to certify from his own experience--to rebel against this mechanisation of life1 the mechanical solution of its mysteries8 ,lotze1 the energetic antagonist of 8vital force10 the founder of the mechanical theory of vital processes1 was himself a theist1 and was so far from recognising any contradiction between the mechanical point of view and the ,christian belief in ,god1 that he included the former without ceremony in his theistic philosophical speculations4 ,his view has become that of many theologians1 and is often expressed in a definition of the boundaries between theology and natural science4 ,according to the idea which was formulated by ,lotze1 and developed by others along his lines1 the matter is quite simple4 ,the interest which religion has in the processes of nature is at once and exclusively to be found in teleology4 ,are there purposes1 plans1 and ideas which govern and give meaning to the whole8 ,the interest of natural science is purely in recognising inviolable causality2 every phenomenon must have its compelling and sufficient reason in the system of causes preceding it4 ,all that is and happens is absolutely determined by its causes1 and nothing1 no caus finales for instance1 can co-operate with these causes in determining the result4 ,but1 as ,lotze says1 and as we have repeatedly pointed out1 causal explanation does not exclude a consideration from the point of view of purpose1 and the mechanical interpretation does not do so either4 ,for this is nothing more than the causal explanation itself1 only carried to complete consistency and definiteness4 ,purposes and ideas are not efficient causes but results4 ,where1 for instance1 there is a controlled purposive occurrence1 the 8purpose0 nowhere appears as a factor co-operating with the series of causes1 for these follow according to strict law1 and the 8purpose0 reveals itself at the close of the series1 as the result of a closed causal nexus1 complete in itself1 always provided that the initial links in the chain have been accurately estimated4 ,the same is true of the processes of life4 ,they are the ultimate result1 strictly necessary and sufficiently accounted for in terms of mechanical sequence1 of a long chain of causes whose initial links imply a definite constitution which could not be further reduced4 ,whether this ultimate result is merely a result or whether it is also a 8purpose0 is a question which1 as we have seen twice already1 it is wholly beyond the power of the causal mode of interpretation to answer4 ,given that an infinite intelligence in the world wished to realise purposes without instituting them as directly accomplished1 but by letting them express themselves through a gradual 8becoming10 the method would be exactly what is shown in the mechanical theory of life1 that is1 the primitive data and starting-points would have inherent in them a peculiar constitution and a rigidly inexorable orderliness of causal sequence4 ,and ,lotze emphasises that it would also be worthier of ,god to achieve the greatest by means of the simplest1 and to work out the realisation of ,his eternal purposes according to the strict inevitableness of mechanism1 than to attain ,his ends through the complicated means1 the adventitious aids1 and all the irregularities implied in the incommensurable activities of a 8vital force40 78,god needs no minor gods407 ,to ,lotze himself these original data and starting points are the primitive forms of life1 which1 according to his view1 are directly 8given10 and cannot be referred back to anything else 7except to 8creation074 ,but it is obvious that his view can be enlarged and extended so as to refer the derivation of the whole animate world to the original raw materials of the cosmos 7energy1 matter1 or whatsoever they may be71 and to the orderly process by which these materials were combined in various configurations to form the chemical elements1 the chemical compounds1 living proteids1 the first cell1 and the whole series of higher forms4 ,if this nexus has taken place1 it is nothing else than the transformation of the 8potential0 into the 8actual0 through strict causality4 ,and if this actuality proves itself to have claims1 because of its own intrinsic worth1 to be considered as intelligent 8purpose10 the whole system of means1 including the starting-point1 can be recognised as the means to an end1 and the original wisdom and the intelligence which ordained the purpose is only glorified the more through the great simplicity1 the rational comprehensibility1 and the inexorable necessity of the system1 which excludes all chance1 and therewith all possibility of error4 ,this extension of ,lotze's reconciliation of the mechanical causal with the teleological point of view is impressive and1 as far as it goes1 also quite convincing4 ,it will never be given up1 even if the point of view should change somewhat4 ,and we have already seen that it is quite sufficient as long as we are dealing only with the question of teleology4 ,but we must ask whether religion will be satisfied with 8teleology0 alone1 or whether this is even the first requirement that it makes in regard to natural phenomena4 ,we have already asked the question and attempted to clear the ground for an answer4 ,let us try to make it more definite4 ,many people will have a certain uneasiness in regard to the ,lotzian ideas2 they will be unable to rid themselves of a feeling that this way of looking at things is only a pis aller for the religious point of view1 and that the fundamental requirements of religious feeling receive very inadequate satisfaction on this method4 ,the world of life which has arisen thus is altogether too rational and transparent4 ,it is calculable and mathematical4 ,it satisfies well enough the need for teleology1 and with that the need for a supreme1 universally powerful and free intelligence2 but it gives neither support nor nourishment to the essential element in religious feeling1 through which alone faith becomes in the strict sense religious4 ,religion1 even ,christian religion1 is1 so to speak1 a stratified structure1 a graduated pyramid1 expressing itself1 at its second 7and undoubtedly higher7 level1 in our recognition of purpose1 the rationality of the world1 our own spiritual and personal being and worth1 but implying at its basis an inward sense of the mysterious1 a joy in that which is incommensurable and unspeakable1 which fills us with awe and devotion4 ,and religion at the second stage must not sweep away the essence of the stage below1 but must include it1 at the same time informing it with new significance4 ,whoever does not possess his religion in this way will agree with1 and will be quite satisfied with the ,lotzian standpoint4 ,but to any one who has experience of the most characteristic element in religion1 it will be obvious that there must be a vague but deep-rooted antipathy between religion and the mathematical-mechanical conception of things4 ,evidence of the truth of this is to be found in the instinctive perceptions and valuations which mark even the nave expressions of the religious consciousness47#ge7 ,for it is in full sympathy with a world which is riddled with what is inconceivable and incommensurable1 in full sympathy with every evidence of the existence of such an element in the world of nature and mind1 and therefore with every proof that the merely mechanical theory has its limits1 that it does not suffice1 and that its very insufficiency is a proof that the world is and remains in its depths mysterious4 ,now we have already said that the true sphere for such feeling is not the outer court of nature1 but within the realm of the emotional life and of history1 and1 on the other hand1 that even if the attempt to trace life back to the simpler forces of nature were successful1 we should still be confronted with the riddle of the sphinx4 ,but any one who would say frankly what he felt would at once be obliged to admit that the religious sense is very strongly stirred by the mystery of vital phenomena1 and that in losing this he would lose a domain very dear to him4 ,these sympathies and antipathies are in themselves sufficient to give an interest to the question of the insufficiency of the mechanical view of things4 ,for it is by no means the case that the mechanical theory1 with its premisses and principles1 is the interpretation that best fits the facts1 and that most naturally arises out of a calm consideration of the animate world4 ,it is an artificial scheme1 and astonishing energy has been expended on the attempt to fit it to the actual world1 that it may make this orderly and translucent4 ,it certainly yields this service so far1 but not without often becoming a kind of strait-jacket1 and revealing itself as an artificiality4 ,in so far as the special problems of biology are concerned1 we shall afterwards follow our previous method of taking our orientation from those specialists in the subject who1 in reaction from the one-sidedness of the mechanical doctrine1 have founded the 8neo-vitalism0 of to-day4 ,here we are only concerned with the generalities and presuppositions of the theory4 ,we must dispute even the main justification of the theory1 which is sought for in the old maxim of parsimony in the use of principles of explanation 7entia1 and also principia1 prter necessitatem non esse multiplicanda71 and in ,kant's 8regulative principle10 that science must proceed as if everything could ultimately be explained in terms of mechanism4 ,for surely our task is to try to explain things1 not at any cost with the fewest possible principles1 but rather with the aid of those principles which appear most correct4 ,if nature is not fundamentally simple1 then it is not scientific but unscientific to simplify it theoretically4 ,and the proposition bracketed above has its obvious converse side1 that while entities and principles must not be multiplied except when it is necessary1 on the other hand their number must not be arbitrarily lessened4 ,to proceed according to the fundamental maxims of the mechanistic view can only be wholesome for a time and1 so to speak1 for pdagogical reasons4 ,to apply them seriously and permanently would be highly injurious1 for1 by prejudging what is discoverable in nature1 it would tend to prevent the calm1 objective study of things which asks for nothing more than to see them as they are4 ,it would thus destroy the fineness of our appreciation of what there really is in nature4 ,this is true alike of forcible attempts to reduce the processes of life to mechanical processes1 and of the ,darwinian doctrine of the universal dominance of utility4 ,both bear unmistakably the stamp of foregone conclusions1 and betray a desire for the simplest1 rather than for the most correct principles of interpretation4 ,there is one point which presses itself on the notice even of outsiders1 and is probably realised even more keenly by specialists4 ,the confidence of the supporters of the mechanical theories of earlier days1 from ,descartes onward1 that animals and the bodies of men were machines1 mechanical automata1 down to the mechanical theories of ,lamettrie and ,holbach1 of l'homme machine1 and of the systme de la nature1 was at least as great as1 probably greater than1 that of the supporters of the modern theories4 ,yet how nave and presumptuous seem the crude and wooden theories upon which the mechanical system was formerly built up1 and how falsely interpreted seem the physiological and other facts which lent them support1 when seen in the light of our modern physiological knowledge4 ,vaucanson's or ,drozsch's duck-automaton or clockwork-man1 with which the mechanical theorists of bygone days amused themselves1 would not go far to encourage the physiologist of to-day to pursue his mechanical studies1 but would rather throw a vivid light on the impossibility of comparing the living 8machine0 with machines in the usual sense4 ,for things emphatically do not happen within the living organism in the same way as in the automatic duck1 and the more exact the resemblance to the functions of a 8real0 duck became1 the more did the system of means by which the end was attained become unlike vital processes4 ,it is difficult to resist the impression that in another hundred years1--perhaps again from the standpoint of new and definitely accepted mechanical explanations1--people will regard our developmental mechanics1 cellular mechanics1 and other vital mechanics much in the same way as we now look on ,vaucanson's duck4 ,associated or even identical with this is the fact that in proportion as mechanical interpretation advances1 the difficulties it has to surmount continually crop up anew4 ,processes which seem of the simplest kind and the most likely to be capable of purely mechanical explanation1 processes such as those of assimilation1 digestion1 respiration1 for which it was believed that exact parallels existed in the purely mechanical domain1 as1 for instance1 in the osmotic processes of porous membranes1 are seen when closely scrutinised as they occur in the living body to be extremely complex2 in fact they have to be transferred 8provisionally0 from the mechanical to the vital rubric4 ,to this category belong the whole modern development of the cell-theory1 which replaces the previously single mechanism in the living body by millions of them1 every one of which raises as many problems as the one had done in the days of cruder interpretation4 ,every individual cell1 as it appears to our understanding to-day1 is at least as complicated a riddle as the whole organism formerly appeared4 ,but further3 the modern development of biology has emphasised a special problem1 which was first formulated by ,leibnitz 7though it is in antithesis to his fundamental ,monad-theory71 and which appears incapable of solution on mechanical lines4 ,leibnitz declared living beings to be 8machines10 but machines of a peculiar kind4 ,even the most complicated machine1 in the ordinary sense1 consists of a combination of smaller 8machines10 that is to say1 of wheels1 systems of levers1 c41 of a simpler kind4 ,and these sub-machines may in their turn consist of still simpler ones1 and so on4 ,but ultimately a stage is reached when the component parts are homogeneous1 and cannot be analysed into simpler machines4 ,it is otherwise with the organism4 ,according to ,leibnitz it consists of machines made up of other machines1 and so on1 into the infinitely little4 ,however far we can proceed in our analysis of the parts1 we shall still find that they are syntheses1 made up of most ingeniously complex component parts1 and this as far as our powers of seeing and distinguishing will carry us4 ,that is to say3 organisation is continued on into the infinitely little4 ,leibnitz's illustration of the fish-pond is well known4 ,he could have no better corroboration of his theory than the results of modern investigation afford4 ,his doctrine of the continuation of organisation downwards into ever smaller expression is confirmed to a certain extent even by anatomy4 ,by analysing structural organisation down to cells a definite point seemed to have been reached4 ,but it now appears that at that point the problem is only beginning4 ,one organisation is made up of other organisations--cells1 protoplasm1 nucleus1 nucleolus1 centrosomes1 and so on1 according to the power of the microscope2 and these structures1 instead of explaining the vital functions of growth1 development1 multiplication by division1 and the rest1 simply repeat them on a smaller scale1 and are thus in their turn living units1 the aggregation of which is illustrated better by the analogy of a social organism than by that of a mechanical structure4 ,in order to follow the mechanical explanation along the six lines we have previously indicated1 we shall1 as we have already said1 entrust ourselves to the specialists who are on the opposite side4 ,the difficulties and objections which the mechanical theory has to face have forced themselves insistently upon us even in the course of a short sketch such as has just been given1 but they will be clearly realised if we approach them from the other side4 ,but1 first of all1 a word as to the fundamental and1 it is alleged1 unassailable doctrine on which the theory as a whole is based1 the 8law of the conservation of energy40 ,the appeal to this1 at any rate in the way in which it is usually made1 is apt to be so distorted that the case must first be clearly stated before we can get further with the discussion4 ,the ,law of the ,conservation of ,energy4 ,helmholtz's proof established mathematically what ,kant had already1 by direct insight1 advanced as an priori fundamental axiom3 that in any given system the sum of energy can neither increase 7impossibility of a perpetuum mobile7 nor diminish 7there is no disappearance of energy1 but only transformation into another form74 ,but even the vitalist had no need to deny this proposition4 ,the 8energy0 which is required for the work of directing1 setting agoing1 changing and rearranging the chemico-physical processes in the body1 and bringing about the effective reactions to stimuli which result in 8development10 8transmission10 8regeneration10 and so on--if indeed any energy is required--of course could not come 8from within0 as a spontaneous increase of the existing sum of energy--that would1 indeed1 be a magical becoming out of nothing6--but must naturally be thought of as coming 8from without40 ,the appeal to the law of the conservation of energy is therefore in itself irrelevant2 but it conceals behind it an assertion of a totally different kind1 namely1 that in relation to physico-chemical sequences there can be no 8without10 nothing transcending them--an assertion which ,helmholtz's arguments cannot and were never intended to establish4 ,but before any definite attitude to this newly imported assertion could be taken up1 it would require to be distinctly defined1 and that would lead us at once into all the depths of epistemological discussion4 ,here1 therefore1 we can only say so much3 ,if this assertion is accepted it is well to see where it carries us2 namely1 back to the first-described nave standpoint1 which1 without critical scruples1 quite seriously accepts the world as it appears to it for the reality1 and quite seriously speaks of an infinity lying in time behind us--and therefore come to an end--and is not in the least disturbed from its 8dogmatic slumber0 by this or any of the other great antinomies of our conception of the universe4 ,and it remains1 too1 for this standpoint to come to terms with the fact that1 in voluntary actions1 of which we have the most direct knowledge1 we have through our will the power of intervention in the physico-chemical nexus of our bodily energies--a fact which implies the existence of a 8without10 from which interpolations or influences may flow into the physico-chemical system1 even if there be none in regard to the domain of 8vital0 phenomena4 ,and we should require to find out through what parallelistic or abruptly idealistic system the 8without0 was done away with in this case4 ,for if a transcendental basis1 or reverse side1 or cause of things1 be admitted--even if only in the form of our materialistic popular metaphysics 7the 8substance0 of ,haeckel's 8world-riddle07--then a 8without10 from which primarily the cosmic system with its constant sum of matter and energy is explained1 is also admitted1 and it is difficult to see why it should have exhausted itself in this single effort4 ,criticisms of the ,mechanistic ,theory of ,life4 ,the course of the mechanistic theory of life has been surprisingly similar to that of its complement1 the theory of the general evolution of the organic world4 ,the two great doctrines of the schools1 ,darwinism on the one hand1 the mechanical interpretation of life on the other1 are both tottering1 not because of the criticism of outsiders1 but of specialists within the schools themselves4 ,and the interest which religion has in this is the same in both cases3 the transcendental nature of things1 the mysterious depth of appearance1 which these theories denied or obscured1 become again apparent4 ,the incommensurableness and mystery of the world1 which are1 perhaps1 even more necessary to the very life of religion than the right to regard it teleologically1 reassert themselves afresh in the all-too-comprehensible and mathematically-formulated world1 and re-establish themselves1 notwithstanding obstinate and persistent attempts to do away with them4 ,this is perhaps to the advantage of both natural science and religion3 to the advantage of religion because it can with difficulty co-exist with the universal dominance of the mathematical way of looking at things2 to the advantage of natural science because1 in giving up the one-sidedness of the purely quantitative outlook1 it does not give up its 8foundations10 its 8right to exist10 but only a petitio principii and a prejudice that compelled it to exploit nature rather than to explain it1 and to prescribe its ways rather than to seek them out4 ,the reaction from the one-sided mechanical theories shows itself in many different ways and degrees4 ,it may1 according to the individual naturalist1 affect the theory as a whole1 or only certain parts of it1 or only particular lines4 ,it starts with mere criticism and with objections1 which go no further than saying that 8in the meantime0 we are still far from having reached a physico-chemical solution of the riddle of life2 it may ascend through all stages up to an absolute rejection of the theory as an idiosyncrasy of the time which impedes the progress of investigation1 and as an uncritical prejudice of the schools4 ,it may remain at the level of mere protest1 and content itself with demonstrating the insufficiency of the mechanical explanation1 without attempting to formulate any independent theory for the domain of the vital2 or it may construct a specifically biological theory1 claiming independence amid other disciplines1 and basing this claim on the autonomy of vital processes2 or it may widen out deliberately into metaphysical study and speculation4 ,taken at all these levels it presents such a complete section of the trend of modern ideas and problems that it would be an attractive study even apart from the special interest which attaches to it from the point of view of religious and idealistic conceptions of the universe4 ,both ,liebig and ,johannes ,mller remained vitalists1 notwithstanding the discovery of the synthesis of urea and the increasing number of organic compounds which were built up artificially by purely chemical methods4 ,it was only about the middle of the last century that the younger generation1 under the leadership1 in ,germany1 of ,du ,bois-,reymond in particular1 went over decidedly to the mechanistic side1 and carried the doctrines of the school to ever fresh victories4 ,but opposition was not lacking from the outset1 though it was restrained and cautious4 ,virchow's 8,caution04 ,here1 as also in regard to 8,darwinism10 which was advanced about the same time1 the typical advocate of 8caution0 was ,rudolf ,virchow4 ,his doubts and reservations found utterance very soon after the theory itself had been promulgated4 ,in his 8,cellular ,pathologie107#gf7 and in an essay on 8,the ,old ,vitalism and the ,new107#gg7 he puts in a word for a vis vitalis4 ,the old vitalism1 he declared1 had been false because it assumed1 not a vis1 but a spiritus vitalis4 ,the substances in animate and in inanimate bodies have undoubtedly absolutely the same properties4 ,nevertheless1 8we must at once rid ourselves of the scientific prudery of regarding the processes of life solely as the mechanical result of the molecular forces inherent in their constituent bodily parts40 ,the essential feature of life is a derived and communicated force additional to the molecular forces4 ,whence it comes we are not told4 ,he glided all round the problem with platitudinarian expressions1 which were intended to show his own adherence as a matter of course to the new biological school1 and which revealed at the same time his striking incapacity for defining a problem with any precision4 ,at a 8certain period in the evolution of the earth0 this force arose1 as the ordinary mechanical movements 8swung over0 into the vital4 ,but it is thus a special form of movement1 which detaches itself from the great constants of general movement1 and runs its course alongside of1 and in constant relation to1 these4 7,did ever vitalist assert more87 ,after thus preparing the way for a return of the veering process at a particular stage of evolution1 and giving the necessary assurances against the 8diametrically opposed dualistic position10 ,virchow employs almost all the arguments against the mechanical theory which vitalists have ever brought forward4 ,even the catalytic properties of ferments are above the 8ordinary0 physical and chemical forces4 ,the movement of crystallisation1 too1 cannot be compared with the vital movement4 ,for vital force is not immanent in matter1 but is always the product of previous life47#gh7 ,in the simplest processes of growth and nutrition the vis vitalis plays its vital rle4 ,this is true in a much greater degree of the processes of development and morphogenesis4 ,in the phenomena of irritability life reveals its spontaneity through 8responses10 and so on4 8,peu d'anatomie pathologique loigne du vitalisme1 beaucoup d'anatomie pathologique y ramne40 ,it is impossible to make much of this position4 ,it leaves the theory with one of the opposing parties1 the practice with the other1 and the problem just where it was before4 ,preyer's ,position4 ,along with ,virchow1 we must name another of the older generation1 the physiologist ,william ,preyer1 who combated 8vitalism10 8dualism10 and 8mechanism0 with equal vehemence1 and issued a manifesto1 already somewhat solemn and official1 against 8vital force40 ,and yet he must undoubtedly be regarded as a vitalist by mechanists and vitalists alike47#gi7 ,he is more definite than ,virchow1 for he does not content himself with general statements as to the 8origin0 of vital force1 and of the 8swinging over0 of the merely mechanical energies into the domain of the vital1 but holds decidedly to the proposition omne vivum e vivo4 ,he therefore maintains that life has always existed in the cosmos1 and entirely rejects spontaneous generation4 ,the fallacy1 he says1 of the mechanistic claims was due to the increasing number of physical explanations of isolated vital phenomena1 and of imitations of the chemical products of organic metabolism4 ,a wrong conclusion was drawn from these4 8,any one who hopes to deduce from the chemical and physical properties of the fertilised egg the necessity that an animal1 tormented by hunger and love must1 after a certain time1 arise therefrom1 has a pathetic resemblance to the miserable manufacturers of homunculi40 ,life is one of the underivable and inexplicable fundamental functions of universal being4 ,from all eternity life has only been produced from life4 ,as ,preyer accepts the ,kant-,laplace theory of the origin of our earth from the sun1 he reaches ideas which have points of contact with the 8cosmo-organic0 ideas of ,fechner4 ,life was present even when the earth was a fiery fluid sphere1 and was possibly more general and more abundant then than it is now4 ,and life as we know it may only be a smaller and isolated expression of that more general life47#hj7 ,among the younger generation of specialists1 those most often quoted as opponents of the mechanical theory are probably ,bunge1 ,rindfleisch1 ,kerner von ,marilaun1 ,neumeister and ,wolff4 ,a special group among them1 not very easy to classify1 may be called the ,tectonists4 ,associated with them is ,reinke's 8,theory of ,dominants40 ,driesch started from their ranks1 and is a most interesting example of consistent development from a recognition of the impossibilities of the mechanistic position to an individually thought-out vitalistic theory4 ,hertwig1 too1 takes a very definite position of his own in regard to these matters4 ,perhaps the most original contribution in the whole field is ,albrecht's 8,theory of ,different ,modes of ,regarding ,things40 ,we may close the list with the name of ,k4 ,c4 ,schneider1 who has carried these modern ideas on into metaphysical speculation4 ,several others might be mentioned along with and connecting these representative names47#ha7 ,the ,position ,of ,bunge and ,other ,physiologists4 ,for a long time one of the most prominent figures in the controversy was ,prof4 ,g4 ,bunge1 of ,basle1 who was one of the first modern physiologists to champion vitalism1 and who has tried to show by analogies and illustrations what is necessarily implied in vital activity47#hb7 ,the mechanical reduction of vital phenomena to physico-chemical forces1 he says1 is impossible1 and becomes more and more so as our knowledge deepens4 ,he brings forward a series of convincing examples of the way in which apparent mechanical explanations have broken down4 ,the absorption of the chyle through the walls of the intestine seemed to be a mechanically intelligible process of osmosis and diffusion4 ,but in reality it proves to be rather a process of selection on the part of the epithelial cells of the intestine1 analogous to the selection and rejection exercised elsewhere by unicellular organisms4 ,in the same way the epithelial cells of the mammary glands 8select0 the suitable substances from the blood4 ,it is impossible to explain in a mechanical way the power which directs the innumerable different chemical and physical processes within the organism1 whether they be the bewilderingly purposeful reactions in the individual life of the cell1 which seem to point to psychic processes within the plasm1 or the riddles of development and of inheritance in particular2 for how can a spermatozoon1 so small that #ejj millions can lie on a cubic line1 be the bearer of all the peculiarities of the father to the son8 ,in ,lecture ,,iii4 ,bunge defines his attitude towards the law of the conservation of energy4 ,in so doing he unconsciously follows the lines laid down by ,descartes4 ,all processes of movement and all functions exhibited by the living substance are the results of the accumulated potential energies1 and the sums of work done and energy utilised remain the same4 ,but the liberation and the direction of these energies is a factor by itself1 which neither increases nor diminishes the sum of energies4 8,occasiones0 and 8caus0 are brought into the field once more4 ,the energies effect the phenomena1 but they require 8occasiones0 to liberate them--thus a stone may fall to the ground by virtue of the potential energies stored in it at the time of its suspension1 but it cannot fall until the thread by which it hangs has been cut4 ,the function of the 8occasio0 itself is something quite outside of and without relation to the effect caused2 it is a matter of indifference whether the thread be cut gently through with a razor or shot in two with a cannon ball4 ,kassowitz7#hc7 is an instructive example of how much the force of criticism has been recognised even by those occupying a convinced mechanical point of view4 ,he subjects all the different theories which attempt to explain the chief vital phenomena in mechanical terms to a long and exhaustive examination4 ,the theories of the organism as a thermodynamic engine1 osmotic theories1 theories of ferments1 interpretations in terms of electro-dynamics and molecular-physics--are all examined 7chap4 iv472 and the failure of all these hypotheses1 notwithstanding the enormous amount of ingenuity expended in their construction1 is summed up in an emphatic 8,ignoramus40 8,the failure is a striking one10 and it is frankly admitted that1 in strong contrast to the earlier mood of confident hope1 there now prevails a mood of resignation in regard to the mechanical-experimental investigation of the living organism1 and that even specialists of the first rank are finding that they have to reckon again seriously with vital force4 ,this breakdown and these admissions do not exactly tend to prejudice us in favour of the author's own attempt to substantiate new mechanical theories4 ,in the comprehensive text-book of physiological chemistry by ,r4 ,neumeister1 the mechanical standpoint seemed to be adhered to as the ideal4 ,but the same writer forsakes it entirely1 and disputes it energetically in his most recent work1 8,betrachtungen ber das ,wesen der ,lebenserscheinungen07#hd7 78,considerations as to the ,nature of ,vital ,phenomena074 ,he passes over all the larger problems1 such as those of development1 inheritance1 regeneration1 and confines himself in the main to the physiological functions of protoplasm1 especially to those of the absorption of food and metabolism4 ,and he shows1 by means of illustrations1 in part ,bunge's1 in part his own1 and in close sympathy with ,wundt's views1 that even these vital phenomena cannot possibly be explained in terms of chemical affinity1 physical osmosis1 and the like4 ,in processes of selection 7such as1 for instance1 the excretion of urea and the retention of sugar in the blood71 the 8aim is obvious1 but the causes cannot be recognised40 ,psychical processes play a certain part in the functions of protoplasm in the form of qualitative and quantitative sensitiveness4 ,all the mechanical processes in living organisms are initiated and directed by psychical processes4 ,physical1 chemical and mechanical laws are perfectly valid1 but they are not absolutely dominant4 ,living matter is to be defined as 8a unique chemical system1 the molecules of which1 by their peculiar reciprocal action1 give rise to psychical and material processes in such a way that the processes of the one kind are always causally conditioned and started by those of the other kind40 ,the psychical phenomena he regards as transcendental1 supernatural1 8mystical10 yet unquestionably also subject to a strict causal nexus1 although the causality must remain for ever concealed4 ,starting from this basis1 he analyses and rejects the explanations which have been offered in terms of the analogy of ferments1 enzymes1 or catalytic processes4 ,in particular1 he disputes ,ostwald's 8,energismus0 and ,verworn's ,biogen hypothesis47#he7 ,among the vitalists of to-day1 one of the most frequently cited1 perhaps1 except ,driesch the most frequently cited1 is ,g4 ,wolff1 a ,privatdozent1 formerly at ,wrzburg1 now at ,basle4 ,he has only published short lectures and essays1 and these deal not so much with the mechanical theory as with ,darwinism47#hf7 ,but in these writings his main argument is that of his concluding chapter3 the spontaneous adaptiveness of the organism1 which nullifies all contingent theories to explain the purposiveness in ontogeny and phylogeny4 ,and in his lecture1 8,mechanismus und ,vitalismus107#hg7 in which he directs his attention especially to criticising ,btschli's defence of mechanism1 the only problem to which prominence is given is the one with which we are here concerned4 ,in spite of their brevity1 these writings have given rise to much controversy1 because what is peculiar to the two standpoints is described with precision1 and the problem is clearly defined4 ,his criticism had its starting-point in1 and received a special impulse from an empirical proof1 due to a very happy experiment of his own1 of the marvellous regenerative capacity1 and the inherent purposive activity of the living organism4 ,he succeeded in proving that if the lens of the eye of the newt be excised1 it may be regrown4 ,the importance of this fact is greatly increased if we trace out in detail the various impossible rival mechanical interpretations which have grown up around this interesting case4 ,as ,driesch says1 8,it is not a restoration starting from the wound1 it is a substitution starting from a different place40 ,the ,views of ,botanists ,illustrated4 ,it might have been expected that in the domain of plant-biology1 if anywhere1 the mechanistic standpoint would have been the prevailing one4 ,for it is almost a matter of course to regard plants as devoid of sensation or 8psychical0 life1 and as mechanical systems1 chemical laboratories1 and reflex mechanisms1 and this way of regarding them has been made easy by the very marked uniformity and lack of spontaneity in their vital processes as compared with those of animals4 ,but it is not the case that mechanical theories have here prevailed4 ,the opposition to them is just as great here as elsewhere1 and from the days of ,wigand onwards it has been almost continuously sustained47#hh7 ,very characteristic is ,pfeffer's 8,pflanzen-,physiologie0 7#ahig71 which is written professedly from the mechanist point of view4 8,vitalism10 according to this authority1 is to be rejected1 but instead of 8vital force0 he offers us 8given properties10 and the alleged machine-like collocations of the most minute elements4 ,in regard1 for instance1 to the riddle of development and morphogenesis1 we must simply accept it as a 8given property10 that the acorn grows in an oak and nothing else4 ,the chemical explanation of the vital functions of protoplasm is also to be rejected2 as a shattered watch is no longer a watch though it remains chemically the same1 so it is with protoplasm4 ,the available chemical knowledge of the substances of which protoplasm is made up is insufficient to render the vital processes intelligible4 ,here1 as everywhere else1 we have to reckon with ultimate 8properties 7entities71 which we neither can1 nor desire to analyse further40 8,the human mind is no more capable of forming a conception of the ultimate cause of things than of eternity40 ,if all the views here indicated were followed out to their logical conclusions1 they would hinder rather than further the process of reduction to terms of physico-chemical sequences4 ,kerner von ,marilaun in his 8,pflanzenleben0 deliberately takes up a thorough-going vitalist position1 and on this point as well as on many others he opposed the current theory of the school 7,darwinism74 ,it is true1 he admits1 that many of the phenomena in plants can be explained in purely mechanical terms1 but they are only those which may occur also in non-living structures4 ,the specific expressions of life cannot be explained in this way4 ,he shows this more fully in regard to the most fundamental of all the vital processes in the plant-body--the breaking up of carbonic acid gas by the chlorophyll to obtain the carbon which is the fundamental element in all living organisms4 ,we know the requisite conditions3 the supply of raw material1 and the sunlight from which the energy is derived4 ,but how the chlorophyll makes use of these to effect the breaking up1 and how it starts the subsequent syntheses of the carbon into the most complex organic compounds remains a mystery4 ,and so on upwards through all the strictly vital phenomena4 ,wiesner's7#hi7 view of things is essentially similar4 ,he gives a very impressive picture of the mystery of the chemistry of the plant1 showing how small is the number of food-stuffs and raw materials in comparison to the thousands of highly complex chemical substances which the plant produces1 and how much work there is involved in de-oxydising the food and in forming syntheses4 ,he1 too1 refuses1 as usual1 to postulate 8vital force40 ,yet to speak of 8the fundamental peculiarities of the living matter inherent in the organism0 and to admit that plants are 8irritable10 8heliotropic10 8geotropic10 c41 amounts to much the same thing as postulating vital force2 that is to say1 to a mere naming of the specific problem of life without explaining it4 ,the author himself admits this when he says in another place3 8,if ,i compare organisms with inorganic systems1 ,i find that the progress of our knowledge is continually enlarging the gulf which separates the one from the other60 ,these anti-mechanical tendencies show themselves most emphatically in the work of ,fr4 ,ludwig47#ij7 ,in his concluding chapter1 after a discussion of the theories of ,darwin1 ,ngeli1 and ,weismann1 he postulates1 for variation1 heredity1 and species-formation in particular1 8forces other than physico-chemical10 8let us call them frankly psychical40 ,it is instructive to see how these 8vitalistic0 views crop up even in studies of detail and of the microscopically small1 as for instance in ,e4 ,crato's 8,beitrge zur ,anatomie und ,physiologie des ,elementar-organismus40 ,how the living organism contains within itself what is in its turn living1 down into ever smaller detail1 7amboid movements of certain plastines1 physodes17 how incomparable the living organism is with a 8machine10 to which its libellers are so fond of likening it1 how it builds itself up1 steers1 and stokes itself1 how it produces with 8playful ease0 the most marvellous and graceful forms1 makes combinations and breaks them up1 how analogous its whole activity is to 8being able0 and 8willing10 all this is clearly brought out47#ia7 ,a very fresh and lucid presentation of the whole case is given by ,borodin1 ,professor of ,botany in ,st4 ,petersburg1 in his essay1 8,protoplasm and ,vital ,force407#ib7 ,he sharply castigates the one-sidedness and impetuosity of the mechanical theory1 as in ,haeckel's discovery of ,bathybius and of non-nucleated bacteria4 ,the latter are problematical1 and the former has been proved an illusion4 ,to penetrate farther into the processes of life is simply to become aware of an ever-deepening series of riddles4 ,there is no such thing as 8protoplasm10 or 8living proteid10 or indeed any unified1 simple 8living matter0 whatever4 ,artificial 8oil-emulsion amoeb07#ic7 bear the same relation to living ones that ,vaucanson's mechanical duck bears to a real one2 that is1 none at all4 ,our 8protoplasm0 is as mystical as the old 8vital force10 and both are only camping-grounds for our ignorance4 ,neither the mechanical nor the atomic theory were the results of exact investigations2 they were borrowed from philosophy4 ,we do indeed investigate the typically vital process of irritability by physical methods4 ,but the response made by the organism to physical coercion may be called a mockery of physics4 ,the mechanists help themselves out with crude analogies from the mechanical1 conceal the problem with the name 8irritability10 and thus get rid of the greatest marvels4 ,if vital force itself were to call out from its cells1 8,here ,i am10 they would probably see in it only a remarkable case of 8irritability40 ,mechanism is no more positive knowledge than vitalism is2 it is only the dogmatic faith of the majority of present-day naturalists4 ,constructive ,criticism4 ,those whose protests we have hitherto been considering have not added to their criticism of the mechanical theory any positive contribution of their own1 or at least they give nothing more than very slight hints pointing towards a psychical theory4 ,but there are others who have sought to overcome the mechanical theory by gaining a deeper grasp of the nature of 8force0 in general4 ,their attempts have been of various kinds1 but usually tend in one direction1 which can perhaps be most precisely and briefly indicated through ,lloyd ,morgan's views1 as summed up1 for instance1 in his essay on 8,vitalism407#id7 ,in the beginning of biological text-books1 we usually find 7he says7 a chapter on the nature of 8force10 but it is 8like grace before meat0--without influence on quality or digestion4 ,yet this problem must be cleared up before we can arrive at any understanding of the whole subject4 ,in all attempts at 8reducing to simpler terms10 it must be borne in mind that 8force0 reveals its nature in ever higher stages1 of which every one is new4 ,even cohesion cannot be reduced to terms of gravitation1 nor the chemical affinities and molecular forces to something more primitive4 ,they are already something 8outside the recognised order of nature40 ,in a still higher form force is expressed in the processes of crystallisation4 ,at the formation of the first crystal there came into action a directing force of the same kind as the will of the sculptor at the making of the ,venus of ,melos4 ,this new element1 which intervenes every time1 ,lloyd ,morgan regards1 with ,herbert ,spencer 78,principles of ,biology071 as 8due to that ultimate reality which underlies this manifestation1 as it underlies all other manifestations40 ,there can be no 8understanding0 in the sense of 8getting behind things03 even the actions of 8brute matter0 cannot be 8understood40 ,the play of chance not only does not explain the living2 it does not even explain the not-living4 ,but life in particular can neither be brought into the cell from without1 nor be explained as simply 8emerging from the co-operation of the components of the protoplasm10 and it is 8in its essence not to be conceived in physico-chemical terms10 but represents 8new modes of activity in the noumenal cause10 which1 just because it is noumenal1 is beyond our grasp4 ,for only phenomena are 8accessible to thought40 ,among the biologists who concern themselves with deeper considerations1 ,oscar ,hertwig17#ie7 the ,director of the ,anatomical ,institute at ,berlin1 has expressed ideas similar to those we have been discussing1 little as this may seem to be the case at first sight4 ,he desires to oust the ordinary mechanism1 so to speak1 by replacing it by a mechanism of a higher order1 and in making the attempt he examines and deepens the traditional ideas of causality and 8force10 and defines the right and wrong of the quantitative-mathematical interpretation of nature in general1 and of mechanics in particular4 ,he follows confessedly in ,lotze's path1 not so much in regard to that thinker's insistence upon the association of the causal and the teleological modes of interpretation1 as in modifying the idea of causality4 ,o4 ,hertwig puts forward his own theories with special reference to those of ,w4 ,roux1 the founder of the new 8,science of the ,future0--the mechanical1 and therefore only scientific theory of development1 which no longer only describes1 but understands and causally explains phenomena 78,archiv fr ,entwicklungsmechanik074 ,there are two kinds of mechanism 7,hertwig says73 that in the higher philosophical sense1 and that in the purely physical sense4 ,the former declares that all phenomena are connected by a guiding thread of causal connection and can be causally explained4 ,as such1 its application to the domain of vital phenomena is justifiable and self-evident4 ,but it is not justifiable if cause be simply made identical with and limited to 8force10 if the causal connection be only admitted in the technical sense of the transference and transformation of energy1 and if1 over and above1 it is supposed to give an 8explanation10 in the sense of an insight into things themselves4 ,even mechanics is 7as ,kirchoff maintained7 a 8descriptive0 science4 ,hertwig agrees with ,schopenhauer and ,lotze in regarding every primitive natural 8force0 as unique1 not reducible to simpler terms1 but qualitatively distinct1--a 8qualitas occulta10 capable not of physical but only of metaphysical explanation4 ,and thus his conclusions imply rejection of mechanism in the cruder sense4 ,as such1 it has only a very limited sphere of action in the realm of the living4 ,the history of mechanical interpretations is a history of their collapse4 ,the attempt to derive the organic from the inorganic has often been made4 ,but no such attempts have held the field for long4 ,we can now say with some reason that 8the gulf between the two kingdoms of nature has become deeper just in proportion as our physical and chemical1 our morphological and physiological knowledge of the organism has deepened40 ,mach's expression 8mechanical mythology10 is quoted1 and then a fine passage on the insufficiency of the mathematical view of things in general concludes thus3 8,mathematics is only a method of thought1 an excellent tool of the human mind1 but it is very far from being the case that all thought and knowledge moves in this one direction1 and that the content of our minds can ever find exhaustive expression through it alone40 ,in his 8,theory of ,dominants107#if7 ,reinke1 the botanist of ,kiel1 has attempted to formulate his opposition to the physico-chemical conception of life into a vitalistic theory of his own4 ,among biologists who confess themselves supporters of the mechanical theory1 there are some who expressly reject explanations in terms of chemical and physical principles1 and emphasise1 more energetically than others1 that these can only give rise to vital phenomena and complex processes of movement1 on the basis of a most delicately differentiated structure and architecture of the living substance in its minute details1 and from the egg onwards4 ,they have created the strict 8machine theory10 and they may be grouped together as the 8tectonists40 8,a watch that has been stamped to pieces is no longer a watch40 ,thus the merely material and chemical is not the essential part of the living2 it is the tectonic1 the machinery of structure that is essential4 ,the fundamental idea in this position is precisely that of ,lotze4 ,it is not a 8mystical10 vital principle1 that sets up1 controls1 and regulates the physical and chemical processes within the developed or developing organism4 ,they receive their direction and impulse through the fact that they are associated with a given peculiar mechanical structure4 ,this theory certainly contains all the monstrosities of preformation in the germ1 the mythologies of the infinitely small1 and it suffers shipwreck in ways as diverse as the number of its sides and parts4 ,but it has the merit of clearly disclosing the impossibilities of purely chemical explanations4 ,reinke's 8,theory of ,dominants0 started from such tectonic conceptions1 and so originally did ,driesch's ,neovitalism1 of which we shall presently have to speak4 ,reinke's theory has gone through several stages of development4 ,at first its general tenor was as follows3 ,every living thing is typically different from everything that is not living4 ,what explains this difference8 ,certainly not the hypothesis of vital force1 which is far from being clear4 ,the idea that forces of a psychic nature are inherent in the organism is also rejected4 ,the illustration of a watch helps us to understand4 ,the impelling force in it is certainly not merely the ordinary force of gravity or the general elasticity of steel4 ,the efficacy of simple forces such as these can be increased in infinite diversity by the 8construction of the apparatus0 in which they operate4 ,life is the function of a quite unique1 marvellously complex1 inimitable combination of machines4 ,if these be given1 the most complex processes fulfil themselves of necessity and without the intervention of special vital forces4 ,but how can they be 8given08 ,the sole analogy to be found is the making of real machines1 artificial products as distinguished from fortuitous products4 ,they cannot be made without the influence and activity of intelligence4 ,to explain the incomparably more ingenious and complex vital machine as due to a fortuitous origin and collocation of its individual parts would be more absurd than it would be to think of a watch being made in this way4 ,the dominance of a creative idea cannot but be recognised4 ,an intelligent natural force which is conscious of its aims and calculates its means must be presupposed1 if we are really to satisfy our sense of causality4 ,it is a matter of personal conviction whether we find this force in 8,god0 or in the 8,absolute40 ,these views are more fully developed in the theory of dominants expounded in ,reinke's later work1 8,die ,welt as ,tat0 7after what has been said the meaning of the title will be self-evident71 and in his 8,theoretische ,biologie407#ig7 ,very vigorous and convincing are the author's objections to the naturalistic theories of organic life1 especially to the 8self-origin0 of the living1 or spontaneous generation4 ,in all vital processes we must reckon with a 8physiological x10 which cannot be eliminated1 which gives to life its unique and underivable character4 ,there are 8secondary forces10 8superforces10 8dominants10 which bring about what is peculiar in vital functions and direct their processes4 8,vitalism0 in the strict sense is thus here also rejected4 ,the machine-theory is held valid4 ,there are 8dominants0 even in our tools and utensils1 in our hammer and spoon1 and the 8operation0 of these cannot be explained merely physico-chemically1 but through the dominants of the form1 structure and composition1 with which they have been invested by intelligence4 ,the association with the views of the tectonists is so far quite apparent4 ,but the idea of 8dominants0 soon broadens out4 ,we find dominants of form-development1 of evolution1 and so on4 ,what were at first only peculiarities of structure and architecture have grown almost unawares into dynamic principles of form which have nothing more to do with the mechanical theory1 and which1 because of their dualistic nature1 result in conclusions and modes of explanation which can hardly be called very useful4 ,the lines along which the idea has developed are intelligible enough4 ,it started originally from that of the organism as a finished product1 functioning actively1 especially in its metabolism4 ,here the comparison with a steam engine with self-regulators and automatic whistles is admissible1 and one may speak of dominants in the sense of mechanical dominants4 ,but the idea thus started was pressed into general service4 ,and thus arose dominants of development1 of morphogenesis1 even of phylogenetic evolution 78phylogenetic evolution-potential074 ,new dominants are added1 and the theory advances farther and farther from the 8machine theory10 becomes ever more enigmatical1 and more vitalistic4 ,the ,constructive ,work of ,driesch4 ,what in ,reinke's case came about almost unperceived1 ,driesch did with full consciousness and intention1 following the necessity laid upon him by his own gradual personal development and by his consistent1 tenacious prosecution of the problem4 ,the acuteness of his thinking1 the concentration of his endeavours through long years1 his comprehensive knowledge and mastery of the material1 the deep logicalness and consistent evolution of his 8standpoints10 and his philosophical and theoretical grasp of the subject make him probably the most instructive type1 indeed1 we may almost say1 the very incarnation of the whole disputed question4 ,in #ahia he published his 8,mathematisch--mechanische ,betrachtung morphologischer ,probleme der ,biologie10 the work in which he first touched the depths of the problem4 ,it is directed chiefly against the merely 8historical0 methods in biology1 used by the current schools in the form of ,darwinism4 ,darwinism and the ,theory of ,descent have been so far nothing more than 8galleries of ancestors10 and the science ranged under their banner is only descriptive1 not explanatory4 ,instead of setting up contingent theories we must form a 8conception0 of the internal necessity1 inherent in the substratum itself1 in accordance with which the forms of life have found expression--a necessity corresponding to that which conditions the form-development of the crystal4 ,experimental investigations and discoveries1 and further reflection1 resulted1 in #ahib1 in his 8,entwicklungsmechanische ,studien10 and led him to insist on the need for what the title of his next year's work calls 8,biologie als selbstndige ,grundwissenschaft40 ,in this work two important points are emphasised4 ,the first is1 that biology must certainly strive after precision1 but that this precision consists not in subordination to1 but in co-ordination with physics4 ,biology must rank side by side with physics as an 8independent fundamental science10 and that in the form of tectonic4 ,and the second point is1 that the teleological point of view must take its place beside the causal4 ,only by recognising both can biology become a complete science4 ,in the 8,analytische ,theorie der organischen ,entwicklung0 7#ahid7 ,driesch picks up the thread where he dropped it in the book before1 and spins it farther1 8traversing0 his previous theoretical and experimental results4 ,in this work the author still strives to remain within the frame of the tectonic and machine-theory1 but the edges are already showing signs of giving way4 ,life1 he says1 is a mechanism based upon a given structure 7it is however a machine which is constantly modifying and developing itself74 ,ontogenesis7#ih7 is a strictly causal nexus1 but following 8a natural law the workings of which are entirely enigmatical0 7with ,wigand74 ,causality fulfils itself through 8liberations10 that is to say1 cause and effect are not quantitatively equivalent2 and all effect is1 notwithstanding its causal conditioning1 something absolutely new and not to be calculated from the cause1 so that there can be no question of mechanism in the strict sense4 ,and the whole is directed by purpose47#ii7 ,the vital processes compel us to admit that it seems 8as if intelligence determined quality and order40 ,driesch still tries to reconcile causes and purposes as different 8modes of regarding things10 but this device he afterwards abandons4 ,we cannot penetrate to the nature of things either by the causal or by the teleological method4 ,but they are--as ,kant maintained--two modes of looking at things1 both of which are postulates of our capacity for knowing4 ,each must stand by itself1 and neither can have its sequence disturbed by the interpolation of pieces from the other4 ,in the domain of the causal there can be no teleological explanation1 and conversely2 one might as well seek for an optical explanation of the synthesis of water2 but both are true in their own place4 ,the ,madonna della ,sedia1 looked at microscopically1 is a mass of blots1 looked at macroscopically it is a picture4 ,and it 8is0 both of these4 ,driesch's conclusions continue to advance1 led steadily onwards by his experimental studies4 ,in the 8,maschinentheorie des ,lebens107#ajj7 he attacks his own earlier theories with praiseworthy determination1 and remorselessly pursues them to the monstrous conclusions to which they lead1 and shows that they necessarily perish because of these4 ,he had previously declared1 at first emphatically1 later with hesitation 7we have already seen why71 that every single vital process is of a physico-chemical kind1 on the basis of a given 8structure0 of living beings4 ,but now he considers the living organism as itself a result of vital processes--that is1 of development4 ,if this also is to be explained mechanically 7as physico-chemical processes based on material structure71 then the ovum must possess in parvo this infinitely fine structure1 by virtue of which it fulfils its own physiological processes of maintenance1 and also becomes the efficient cause of the subsequent development4 ,it must bear the type of the individual and of the species1 as a rudiment 7or primordium7 within its own structure4 ,every specific type must1 however1 according to the theory of descent1 be derived through an endless process of evolution1 by gradual stages1 from some primitive organism4 ,just as in the mechanical becoming of the individual organism1 so the primitive protovum must also be extraordinarily intricate and complex in its organisation if it is to give rise to all the processes of evolution and development involved in the succeeding ontogenies1 phylogenies1 regenerations1 and so forth4 ,this is a necessary conclusion if the machine-theory be correct1 and if we refuse to admit that vital phenomena are governed by specific laws4 ,this consequence is monstrous1 and the theory of the tectonists therefore false4 ,but if it be false1 what then8 ,driesch answers this question in the books published in subsequent years47#aja7 ,in these he attains his final standpoint1 and makes it more and more secure4 ,the 8machine-theory10 and all others like it1 are now definitely abandoned4 ,they represent the uncritical dogmatism of a materialistic mode of thought1 which binds all phenomena to substance1 and refuses to admit any immaterial or dynamic phenomena4 ,the alleged initial structure is nowhere to be found4 ,the pursuit of things into the most minute details leads to no indication of it4 ,the chromatin1 in which the most important vital processes have their basis1 is very far from having this machine-like structure2 it is homogeneous4 ,the formation of the skeleton1 for instance1 of a ,plubeus larva is due to migratory spontaneously moving cells 7comparable to the leucocytes of our own body1 whose migrations and activities remind one much more of a social organism than of a machine74 ,the organism arises1 not from mechanical1 but from 8harmoniously-equipotential systems03 that is to say1 from systems every element of which has equal functional efficiency2 so that each individual part bears within itself in an equal degree the potentiality of the whole--an impossibility from the mechanical point of view4 ,driesch had given an experimental basis for this theory at an earlier stage1 in his experiments on the initial stages of the development of sea-urchins1 starfishes1 zoophytes1 and the like4 ,a ,planarian worm cut into pieces developed a new worm of smaller size from each part4 ,a mutilated ,pluteus larva developed a new food-canal1 and restored the whole typical form4 ,his experiment of #ahib went farther still1 for he succeeded in separating the first four segmentation-cells of the sea-urchin's egg2 and from each cell obtained a developing embryo4 ,these facts1 he maintains1 compel us to assume a mode of occurrence which is dynamically sui generis1 a 8prospective tendency0 which is a sub-concept in the ,aristotelian 8,dynamis40 ,and the essential difference between this kind of operation and a mechanical operation is1 that the same typical effect is always reached1 even if the whole normal causal nexus be disturbed4 ,even when forced into circuitous paths the embryo advances towards the same goal4 ,thus 8vitalism10 that is1 the independence and autonomy of the vital processes1 is proved4 ,the effect required is attained through 8action at a distance10 a mode of happening which is specifically different from anything to be found in the inorganic world1 and which has its directive1 for instance1 in the regeneration of lost parts1 not in anything corporeal or substantial1 but in the end to be attained4 ,in his work on 8,organic ,regulations10 ,driesch collects from the most diverse biological fields more and more astonishing proofs of the activity of the living as contrasted with physico-chemical phenomena1 and of the marvellous power the organism has to 8help itself0 and to attain the typical form and reach the end aimed at1 even under the greatest diversity in the chain of conditions4 ,the material here brought forward is enormous1 and the author's grasp of it very remarkable2 and not the least of the merits of the book is1 that the bewildering wealth and diversity of these phenomena1 which are usually presented to us as isolated and uncoordinated instances1 is here definitely systematised according to their characteristic peculiarities1 and from the point of view of the increasing distinctness of the 8autonomy0 of the processes4 ,the system begins with the active regulatory functions of living matter in the chemistry of metabolism 7see particularly the phenomena of immunisation71 and ascends through different stages up to the regulations of regeneration4 ,there could be no more impressive way of showing how little life and its 8regulations0 can be compared to the 8self-regulations0 of machines1 or to the restoring of typical states of equilibrium and of form in the physical and chemical domain1 to which the mechanists are fond of referring4 ,the facts thus empirically brought together are then linked together in a theory1 and considered epistemologically4 ,we may leave out of account all that is included in the treatment of modern idealism1 immanence-philosophy1 and solipsism4 ,all this does not arise directly out of the vitalistic ideas1 though the latter are fitted into an idealistic framework4 ,extremely vivid is the excursus on respiration and assimilation4 7,all processes of building up and breaking down take place within the organism under conditions notoriously different from those obtaining in the laboratory4 ,it is radically impossible to speak of a living 8substance0 according to the formula ,cx,hy,oz1 which assimilates and disassimilates itself sibi47 ,excellent1 too1 are ,driesch's remarks on materialistic elucidations of inheritance and morphogenesis4 ,it is quite impossible to succeed with epigenetic speculations on a material basis 7cf4 ,haacke74 ,weismann is so far right1 he admits1 from his materialistic premisses when he starts with preformations4 ,but his theory1 and all others of the kind1 can do nothing more than make an infinitely small photograph of the difficulty4 ,they 8explain0 the processes of form-development and the regeneration of animals and plants1 by constructing infinitely small animals and plants1 which develop their form and regenerate lost parts4 ,and ,driesch holds it to be impossible to distribute a complicated tectonic among the elements of an equipotential system4 ,in denying the materialistic theory of development1 ,driesch again determinedly 8traverses0 his own earlier views4 ,he does this1 too1 when he now rejects the reconciliation between causality and teleology as different modes of looking at things4 ,the teleological now seems to him itself a factor playing a part in the chain of causes1 and thus making it teleological4 ,the key-word of all is to him the 8entelechy0 of ,aristotle4 ,in his last work on 8,the ,soul10 ,driesch follows the impossibilities of the mechanical theories from the domain of vital processes into that of behaviour and voluntary actions4 ,the ,views of ,albrecht and ,schneider4 ,an outlook and interpretation which ,driesch7#ajb7 maintained for a while1 but afterwards abandoned1 has been developed in an original and peculiar fashion by ,eugen ,albrecht1 ,prosector and ,pathologist in ,munich47#ajc7 ,it is the theory of different ways of looking at things4 ,albrecht indeed firmly adheres to the chemical and physical interpretation of vital processes1 regards approximate completeness along these lines as the ideal of science1 and maintains their essential sufficiency4 ,but he holds that the mechanists have been mistaken and one-sided in that they have upheld this interpretation and mode of considering things as the sole and the 8true0 one4 ,according to our subjective attitude to things and their changes1 they appear to us in quite different series of associations1 each of which forms a complete series in itself1 running parallel to the others1 but not intruding to fill up gaps in them4 ,microscopic and macroscopic study of things illustrate such separate and complete series4 ,the classical example for the whole theory is the psycho-physical parallelism4 ,psychical phenomena are not 8explained0 when the correlated line of material changes and the phenomena of the nervous system have been traced out4 ,similarly with the series of 8vital0 phenomena1 8vital0 interpretation from the point of view of the 8living organism10 runs parallel to1 but distinct from the chemical and physical analyses of vital processes4 ,but each of these parallel ways of regarding things is 8true40 ,for the current separation of the 8appearance0 and 8nature0 of things is false1 since it assumes that only one of the possible ways of regarding things1 e4g41 the mechanical-causal mode of interpretation is essential1 and that all the others deal only with associated appearance4 ,the idea that only one or two of these series can represent the 8true nature0 of the phenomenon 8can only be called cheap dogma40 ,each series is complete in itself1 and every successive phase follows directly and without a break from the antecedent one1 which alone explains it4 ,in this lies the relative justification of the ever-recurring reactions to 8vitalism40 ,this theory of ,albrecht's has all the charms and difficulties1 or impossibilities1 of parallelistic interpretations in general4 ,its validity might be discussed with reference to the particular case of psycho-physical parallelism47#ajd7 ,to make a sound basis for itself it would require first to clear up the causality problem1 and to answer1 or at least definitely formulate the great question whether causing 7,bewirkung7 is to be replaced by mere necessary sequence--for this is where it ends4 ,the conclusion which1 with regard to biological methods and ideals1 seems to make all concessions to the purely mechanical mode of interpretation1 is not sufficiently obvious from the premisses4 ,if the vital series be a 8real0 one1 we should expect that a 8vitalistic0 mode of interpretation1 with methods and aims of its own1 would be required1 just as a special science of psychology is required4 ,the assumption that each series is complete without a break1 and that an all-including analysis of vital processes in terms of mechanical processes must ultimately be possible1 is a petitio principii1 and breaks down before the objections raised by the vitalists4 ,the most central problem in the whole matter1 namely1 the relation of the causal to the teleological1 has not been touched4 ,these two concepts would1 of course1 not yield 8parallels10 but would be different points of view1 which could eventually be applied to each series4 ,k4 ,camillo ,schneider17#aje7 ,privatdozent in ,vienna1 uses the soul1 the psychical in the true sense1 as the explanation of the vital4 ,what had been thought secretly and individually by some of the vitalists already mentioned1 but had1 so to speak1 cropped up only as the incidentally revealed reverse side of their negations of mechanism1 ,schneider attempts definitely to formulate into a theory4 ,the chief merit of his book on 8,vitalism0 is to be found1 in ,chapters ,,ii4 to ,x41 in his thorough discussion of the chemical1 physical1 and mechanical theories along the special lines of each4 ,the list of critics might be added to1 and the number of standpoints in opposition to mechanism greatly increased4 ,this diversity of standpoint1 and the individual way in which each independent thinker reacts from the mechanical theory shows that here1 as also in regard to ,darwin's theory of selection1 we have to do with a dogmatic theory and a forced simplification of phenomena1 not with an objective and calm consideration of things as they are4 ,it is a theory where simplex has become sigillum falsi4 ,how all this affects the ,religious ,outlook4 ,these denials and destructive criticisms of the mechanical theory1 which are now continually cropping up1 lead1 as must be obvious1 towards a deeper conception and interpretation of reality in general1 and towards a religious conception in particular4 ,unquestionably the most important fact in connection with them is the fresh revelation of the depth of things and of appearance1 the increased recognition that our knowledge is only leading us towards mystery4 ,it is indeed questionable whether anything more than this can be said in regard to the problem of life1 whether we ought not to content ourselves with recognising the limits of our knowledge1 and reject all positive statements that go beyond these limits4 ,for the mechanists are undoubtedly right in this1 that 8entelechy10 8the idea of the whole10 8co-operation10 8guidance10 8psychical factors10 and the like1 are only names for riddles1 and do not in themselves constitute knowledge47#ajf7 ,the case here is somewhat similar to what we have already seen in connection with 8antinomies40 ,they1 too1 give us no positive insight into the true nature of things1 but they at any rate prove to us that we have not yet understood what that is4 ,and1 just as they show us that our knowledge of the world as it appears to us can never be complete1 so here it appears that we come upon inexplicabilities even within the domain accessible to our knowledge4 ,thus the religious conception of the world gains something here as from the antinomies1 namely1 a fresh proof that the world which appears to us and can be comprehended by us1 proclaims its true nature and depths1 but does not reveal them4 ,perhaps there is still another gain4 ,for in any case the vital processes and the marvels of evolution and development are examples of the way in which physical processes are constantly subject to a peculiar guidance1 which certainly cannot be explained from themselves or in terms of mechanism1 organisation1 and the like4 ,all attempts to demonstrate this in detail1 all 8explanations0 in terms of dynamic co-operation1 of dominants1 of ideas1 or anything else1 are vague1 and seem to go to pieces when we try to take firm hold of them4 ,but the fact remains none the less4 ,may not this be a paradigm of the processes and development of the world at large1 and even of evolution in the domain of history8 ,here1 too1 all ideas of guidance1 of endeavour after an aim1 c41 which philosophical study of history or religious intuition seems to find1 make shipwreck against the fact that every attempt to demonstrate their nature1 fails4 ,all these theories of influx1 concursus1 and so on1 whether transcendental or immanent factors be employed1 immediately become wooden1 and never admit of verification in detail4 ,but precisely the same is true of the dominance of the 8idea10 or of the 8law of evolution10 or of the 8potential of development0 in every developing organism4 ,yet incomprehensible and undemonstrable in detail as this 8dominance0 is1 and completely as it may be concealed behind the play of physical causes1 it is there1 none the less4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,autonomy ,,of ,,spirit4 ,the aim of our study has been to define our attitude to naturalism1 and to maintain in the teeth of naturalism the validity and freedom of the religious conception of the world4 ,this seemed to be cramped and menaced by those 8reductions to simpler terms0 which we have already discussed4 ,but one of these reductions1 the most important of all1 we have not yet encountered1 and it remains to be dealt with now4 ,in comparison with this one all others are relatively unimportant1 and it is easy to understand how some have regarded the problem of the relations of the naturalistic and the religious outlook as beginning at this point1 and have neglected everything below it4 ,for we have now to consider the attempt of naturalism to 8reduce0 spirit itself to terms of nature1 either to derive it from nature1 or1 when that is recognised as quite too confused and impossible1 to make it subject to nature and her system of laws1 or to similar laws1 and thus to rob it of its freedom and independence1 of its essential character as above nature and free from it1 and to bring it down to the level of an accompanying shadow or a mere reverse side of nature4 ,the aggressive naturalism which we have discussed has from very early times exercised itself on this point1 and has instinctively and rightly felt that herein lies the kernel of the whole problem under dispute4 ,it has for the most part concentrated its interest and its attacks upon the 8immortality of the soul40 ,but while this was often the starting-point1 the nature of soul1 and spirit1 and consciousness in general have been brought under discussion and subjected to attacks which sought to show how vague and questionable was the reality of spirit as contrasted with the palpable1 solid and indubitable reality of the outer world4 ,prominence was given to the fact that the spiritual side of our nature is dependent on and conditioned by the body and bodily states1 the external environment1 experiences and impressions4 ,these were often the sole1 and always the chief subjects of the doctrine of the vulgar naturalism4 ,but the same is true of the naturalism of the higher order1 as we described it in ,chapter ,,ii4 ,in order to acquire definite guiding principles of investigation1 it makes the attempt to find the true reality of phenomena in the mechanical1 corporeal1 physiological processes1 and to take little or no account of the co-operation1 the interpolation1 the general efficiency of sensation1 perception1 thought1 or will1 and to treat them as though they were a shadow and accompaniment of reality1 but not as an equivalent1 much less a preponderating constituent of it4 ,out of these fundamental principles of investigation1 and out of the opposition and doubt with which the spiritual is regarded1 there is compounded the current mongrel naturalism1 which1 without precision in its ideas1 and without any great clearness or logical consequence in its views1 is thoroughly imbued with the notion that that only is truly real which we can see1 hear1 and touch--the solid objective world of matter and energy1 and that 8science0 begins and ends with this4 ,as for anything outside of or beyond this1 it is at most a beautiful dream of fancy1 with which it is quite safe to occupy oneself as long as one clearly understands that of course it is not true4 8,nature0 is the only indubitable reality1 and mind is but a kind of lusus or luxus natur1 which accompanies it at some few places1 like a peculiarly coloured aura or shadow1 but which must1 as far as reality is concerned1 yield pre-eminence to 8,nature0 in every respect4 ,the religious conception is deeply and essentially antagonistic to all such attempts to range spirit1 spiritual being1 and the subjective world under 8nature10 8matter10 8energy10 or whatever we may call what is opposed to mind and ranked above it in reality and value4 ,the religious conception is made up essentially of a belief in spirit1 its worth and pre-eminence4 ,it does not even seek to compare the reality and origin of spirit with anything else whatever4 ,for all its beliefs1 the most sublime and the crudest alike1 conceal within them the conviction that fundamentally spirit alone has truth and reality1 and that everything else is derived from it4 ,it is a somewhat pitiful mode of procedure to direct all apologetic endeavours towards the one relatively small question of 8immortality10 thus following exactly the lines usually adopted by the aggressive exponents of naturalism1 and thus allowing opponents to dictate the form of the questions and answers4 ,it is quite certain that all religion which is in any way complete1 includes within itself a belief in the everlastingness of our spiritual1 personal nature1 and its independence of the becoming or passing away of external things4 ,but1 on the one hand1 this particular question can only be settled in connection with the whole problem1 and1 on the other hand1 it is only a fraction of the much farther-reaching belief in the reality of spirit and its superiority to nature4 ,the very being of religion depends upon this4 ,that it may be able to take itself seriously and regard itself as true2 that all deep and pious feelings1 of humility and devotion1 may be cherished as genuine and as founded in truth2 that it behoves it to find and experience the noble and divine in the world's course1 in history and in individual life2 that the whole world of feeling with all its deep stirrings and mysteries is of all things the most real and true1 and the most significant fact of existence--all these are features apart from which it is impossible to think of religion at all4 ,but they all depend upon the reality1 independence and absolute pre-eminence of spirit4 ,freedom and responsibility1 duty1 moral control and self-development1 the valuation of life and our life-work according to our life's mission and ideal aims1 even according to everlasting aims1 and 8sub specie terni10 the idea of the good1 the true and the beautiful--all things apart from which religion cannot be thought of--all these depend upon spirit and its truth4 ,and finally 8,god is ,spirit03 religion cannot represent1 or conceive1 or possess its own highest good and supreme idea1 except by thinking in terms of the highest analogies of what it knows in itself as spiritual being and reality4 ,if spirit is not real and above all other realities2 if it is derivable1 subordinate and dependent1 it is impossible to think of anything whatever to which the name of 8,god0 can be given4 ,and this is as true of the refined speculations of the pantheistic poetic religions1 as of the idea of ,god in simple piety4 ,the interest of religion as against the claims of naturalism includes all this4 ,and it would be doing the cause of religion sorry service to extract from this whole some isolated question to which the mood of the time or traditional custom has given prominence4 ,our task must be to show that religion maintains its validity and freedom because of the truth and independence of spirit and its superiority to nature4 ,it is1 of course1 impossible to give an exhaustive treatment of this problem in a short study like this4 ,the answer to this question would include the whole range of mental science with all its parts and branches4 ,mental science1 from logic and epistemology up to and including the moral and sthetic sciences1 proves by its very existence1 and by the fact that it cannot be reduced to terms of natural science1 that spirit can neither be derived from nor analysed into anything else4 ,and it is only when we have mastered all this that we can say how far and how strongly knowledge and known realities corroborate religion and its great conclusions as to spirit and spiritual existence1 how they reinforce it and admit its validity and freedom4 ,since this is so1 all isolated and particular endeavours in this direction can only be a prelude or introduction1 and a more or less arbitrary selection from the relevant material of facts and ideas4 ,and nothing more than this is aimed at in the following pages4 ,naturalistic ,attacks on the ,autonomy of the ,spiritual4 ,the attacks that have been made by naturalism upon the independence and freedom of the spiritual are so familiar to every one--even from school days--through books of the type of ,bchner's 8,kraft und ,stoff10 and ,haeckel's 8,the ,riddle of the ,universe10 and other half or wholly materialistic popular dogmatics1 that it is unnecessary to enter into any detail4 ,very little that is new has been added in this connection to the attack made by ,plato on himself in the 8,phdo0 through ,simmias and ,kebes4 ,it is only apparently that the modern attacks have become more serious through the deepened knowledge of natural science4 ,at all times they have been as serious and as significant as possible1 and the religious and every other idealistic conception of the universe has always suffered from them4 ,it is plain that here1 if anywhere1 8faith goes against appearances10 and that in the last resource we have to postulate free moral resolution1 the will to believe1 the desire for the ideal1 for freedom1 and for the eternity of the spirit1 and the confidence of the spirit in itself4 ,all this is1 or at least ought to be1 self-evident and generally admitted4 ,let us once more take a brief survey of the reasons on the other side and arrange them in order4 ,that nature is everything and spirit very little seems to follow from a very simple circumstance4 ,there are whole worlds of purely natural and corporeal existence without mind1 sensation1 or consciousness1 which1 quite untroubled by their absence1 simply exist according to the everlasting laws of matter and energy4 ,but nowhere do we find spirit or mind without a material basis4 ,all that is psychical occurs in connection with a physical being1 and with relatively few physical beings4 ,spirit seems wholly bound up with and dependent upon the states1 development1 and conditions of material being4 ,with the body of living beings there arises what we call 8soul02 with the body it grows1 gains content1 changes1 matures1 ages1 and disappears4 ,according as the body is constituted and composed1 as it is influenced by heredity1 race1 and selection1 by nutrition1 mode of life1 climate1 and other circumstances1 there are developed in a hundred different ways what we call the natural disposition or character1 inclinations1 virtues or vices1 passions or temperaments4 ,even the names given to the different temperaments emphasise this dependence of what is innermost in us1 the deepest tendencies of our being1 on the bodily organisation and the nature of its physiological constitution4 ,the man whose blood flows easily and freely is called sanguine1 and the melancholic is the victim of his liver4 ,according as our organs are good or bad1 function freely or sluggishly1 our mood rises or sinks1 we are bold or cowardly1 languid or impetuous1 and enthusiasm is often enough only a peculiar name for a state which1 physiologically expressed1 might be called alcoholic poisoning4 ,there is one soul in the sound body1 another in the sickly4 ,fever1 and the impotence of the soul against it1 made ,holbach a materialist4 ,if the brain be diseased1 that marvellous order of psychical processes which we call reasoning is broken2 the 8soul0 is wholly or partly eliminated2 it fades away1 or becomes nothing more than a confused disconnected medley of images and desires4 ,even artificial interference with1 and changes in the bodily organisation react upon the mind4 ,the removal of the thyroid gland may result in idiocy4 ,castration not only prevents the 8breaking0 of the voice in the ,sistine choristers1 it damps the fires of life to dulness1 and makes of the impetuous ,abelard a comfortable discursive father-confessor4 ,the mind is bound up almost piece by piece with its material basis4 ,through the 8localisation0 of psychic processes in the particular parts of the brain1 naturalism has enormously strengthened the impression that existed even among the ancients1 that sensation and imagination are nothing more than1 let us say1 what the note is to a tightly stretched string4 ,cerebrum and cerebellum are regarded as the seats of different psychic processes4 ,the secret of the higher processes is believed to be hidden in the grey matter of the cortex of the cerebrum4 ,we seek and find in the various lobes and convolutions of the brain the 8centres0 for the different capacities1 the power of sight1 of smell1 of moving the arms1 of moving the legs1 of associating ideas1 of co-ordinated speech1 and so on4 ,when brain and spinal cord are injured or removed piece by piece from a pigeon or a frog1 it seems as if the 8soul0 were eliminated piece by piece1--the capacity for spontaneous free co-ordination1 for voluntary action1 for the various sense-impressions1 and so on from the higher to the lower4 ,it has even been maintained that the different feelings and perceptions which are gradually acquired can be apportioned among the individual cells of the brain in which they are localised1 and the thought-processes1 the associations of percepts1 the origin of consecutive ideas1 the rapid and easy recalling of memory-images1 and the process of voluntary control1 of instincts1 can be explained as due to the 8gradual laying down of nerve-paths0 between the different centres and areas of localisation in the brain4 ,all this seems to refute utterly the old belief in the unity and personality of the soul4 ,it is different in youth and in age1 and indeed varies continually4 ,it is the ever-varied harmony of the notes of all the strings which are represented by the fibres and ganglion-cells of the nerve-substance4 ,it apparently can not only be completely confused and brought to disharmony1 but it may be halved and divided4 ,an almost terrifying impression was produced when ,trembley in #agdj made the experiment of cutting a 8hydra0 in two1 and showed that each of the halves became a complete animal1 so that obviously each of the two halves of the soul grew into a new hydra-soul4 ,and ,trembley's hydra was only the precursor of all the cut-up worms1 of the frogs1 birds1 and guinea-pigs that have been beheaded1 or have had their brain removed1 or their nerves cut1 and have furnished further examples of this divisibility of 8souls40 ,if the independence of the spiritual is thus shown to be a vain assumption1 the alleged difference between the animal and the human ,psyche is much more so4 ,not from the days of ,darwinism alone1 but from the very beginning1 naturalism has opposed this claim to distinctiveness4 ,but it is due to ,darwinism that the fundamental similarity of the psychical in man and animals has come to be regarded as almost self-evident4 ,the mental organisation of man1 as well as his corporeal organisation1 is traced back through gradual stages to animal antecedents1 and in thus tracing it there are two favourite methods of procedure1 which are1 however1 apt to be mutually destructive4 ,on the one hand1 some naturalists regard the animal anthropomorphically1 insist on its likeness to man1 discovering and extolling1 not without emotion1 all the higher and nobler possessions of the human mind1 intellectual capacities1 reason1 reflection1 synthesis1 fancy1 the power of forming ideas and judgments1 of drawing conclusions and learning from experience1 besides will in the true sense1 ethical1 social and political capacities1 sthetic perceptions1 and even fits of religion in elephants1 apes1 dogs1 down even to ants and bees1 and these naturalists reject old-fashioned explanations in terms of instinct1 and find the highest already contained in the lowest4 ,those of another school are inclined to regard man theriomorphically1 to insist on his likeness to animals1 explaining reason in terms of perception and sensation1 deriving will from impulse and desire1 and ethical and sthetic valuations from physiological antecedents and purely animal psychological processes1 thus1 in short1 seeking to find the lowest in the highest4 7,we have already met with an analogous instance of a similarly fallacious double-play on parallel lines47 ,so it comes about that both the origin and the development of the psychical and spiritual seem to be satisfactorily cleared up and explained1 and at the same time a new proof is adduced for its dependence upon the physical4 ,for what is true of all other parts of the organisation1 of the building up and perfecting of every member and every system of organs1 the bony skeleton1 the circulatory system1 the alimentary canal1 that they can be referred back to very simple beginnings1 and that their evolution may be traced through all its stages--is equally true of the nervous system in general and of the brain in particular4 ,it increases more and more in volume and in intricacy of structure1 it expands the cranial cavity and diversifies its convolutions4 ,and the more it grows1 and the more complex it becomes1 the more do the mental capacities increase in perfection1 so that here again it seems once more apparent that the psychical is an accompaniment and result of the physical4 ,popular naturalism usually stops short here1 and contents itself with half-truths and inconsequences1 for it navely admits that psychical processes1 sensation1 perception1 will1 have a real influence upon the physical1 and1 not perceiving how much the admission involves1 it does not trouble itself over the fact that1 for instance in the so-called voluntary movements of the body1 in ordinary behaviour1 the psychical1 and the will1 in particular1 is capable of real effect1 and can move hand and foot and the whole body1 and thus has a real reciprocal relation with the physical4 ,this form of popular naturalism sometimes amuses itself with assuming a psychical inwardness even in non-living matter1 and admitting the co-operation of psychical motives even in regard to it4 ,but it is far otherwise with naturalism in the strict sense1 which takes its fundamental principles and its method of investigation seriously4 ,it is aware that such half-and-half measures interrupt the continuity of the system at the most decisive point4 ,and therefore with the greatest determination it repeats along psychological lines the same kind of treatment that it has previously sought to apply to biological phenomena3 the corporeal must form a sequence of phenomena complete in itself and not broken into from without4 ,all processes of movement1 all that looks as if it happened 8through our will10 through a resolve due to the intervention of a psychical motive1 every flush of shame that reddens the cheek1 every stroke executed by the hand1 every sound-wave caused by tongue and lips1 must be the result of conditions of stimulation and tension in the energy of the body itself4 ,this is the meaning of all those psycho-physical experiments that have been carried on with so much ingenuity and persistence 7usually associated with attempts to explain vital phenomena in terms of mechanism74 ,first1 they attempt to interpret the expressions of will1 feeling and need1 the spontaneous activities and movements of the lowest forms of life--protists--as 8pure reflexes10 as processes which take place in obedience to stimuli1 and thus are ultimately due to chemical and physical influences and causes without the intervention of a psychical motive2 and1 secondly1 when this has been apparently or really achieved1 the theory of irritability and reflex mechanism is pushed from below upwards1 until even the most intricate and complex movements and operations of our own body1 which we have wrongly distinguished as acts or behaviour from mere processes of stimulation1 are finally recognised as reflexes and liberations due to stimuli4 ,some stimulus or other1 from light or sound or something else1 is1 according to this theory1 conducted to the nervous centre1 the ganglion1 the spinal cord1 the cerebellum or the cerebrum4 ,here it produces an effect1 not of a psychical nature1 but some minute chemical1 or physical1--or purely mechanical change1 which goes through many permutations within the nervous centre itself1 unites there with the stored energies1 and then1 thus altered1 returns by the efferent nerve paths to effect a muscle-contraction in some organ1 a stretching of the hand1 or a movement of the whole body4 ,the physical process is accompanied by a peculiar inward mirroring1 which is the psychical penumbra or shadow of the whole business4 ,thus what is in reality a purely mechanical and reflex sequence appears like a psychical experience1 like choice and will and psychical causality4 ,we may be compared to ,spinoza's stone2 it was thrown1 and it thought it was flying4 ,the reasons for interpreting things in this way lie in the principles of investigation4 ,it is only in this way1 we are told1 that nature can be reduced to natural terms1 that is1 to chemistry1 physics1 and mechanics4 ,only in this way is it possible to gain a true insight into and understanding of things1 and to bring them under mathematical formul4 ,thus only1 too1 can 8the miraculous0 be eliminated4 ,for if we are obliged to admit that the will has a real influence on the corporeal1 for instance upon our brain1 and nerves1 and arm-muscles1 this would be a violation of the law of the constancy of the sum of energy4 ,for in this case there would occur1 at a certain point in the nexus of phenomena1 a piece of work done1 however small it might be1 for which there was no equivalent of energy in the previous constitution4 ,but this is1 since the days of ,helmholtz1 an impossible assumption4 ,and thus all those experiments and theories on what we have called the 8second line0 of mechanistic interpretation of the universe show themselves to be relevant to our present subject4 ,interpretations of the psychical such as these have given rise to four peculiar 8isms0 of an epistemological nature1 i4e41 related to a theory of knowledge4 ,not infrequently they are the historical antecedents which result in the naturalistic theory of the psychical4 ,these are nominalism and sensualism1 empiricism and a-posteriorism1 which1 setting themselves against epistemological rationalism1 assail the dignity1 the independence1 and the autonomy of the thinking mind4 ,they are so necessarily and closely associated with naturalism that their fate is intimately bound up with its fate1 and they are corroborated or refuted with it4 ,and it would be possible to conduct the whole discussion with which we are concerned purely with reference to these four 8isms40 ,the strife really begins in their camp4 ,the soul is a tabula rasa1 all four maintain1 a white paper on which1 to begin with1 nothing is inscribed4 ,it brings with it neither innate knowledge nor commands4 ,what it possesses in the way of percepts1 concepts1 opinions1 convictions1 principles of action1 rules of conduct1 are inscribed upon it through experience 7empiricism74 ,that is1 not antecedent to1 but subsequent to experience 7a posteriori74 ,but experience can only be gained through the senses4 ,only thus does reality penetrate into and stamp itself upon us4 8,what was not first in the senses 7sensus7 cannot be in the intelligence40 ,what the senses convey to us alone builds up our mental content1 from mere sensory perceptions upwards to the most abstract ideas from the simplest psychical elements up to the most complex ideas1 concepts1 and conclusions1 to the most varied imaginative constructions4 ,and in the development of the mental content the 8soul0 itself is merely the stage upon which all that is acquired through the senses crowds1 and jostles1 and unites to form images1 perceptions1 and precepts4 ,but it is itself purely passive1 and it becomes what happens to it4 ,therefore it is not really spirit at all1 for spirit implies spontaneity1 activity1 and autonomy4 ,philosophy and the mental sciences have always had to carry on the strife with these four opponents4 ,and it is in the teacup of logic and epistemology that the storm in regard to theories of the universe has arisen4 ,it is there1 and not in the domain of neurology1 or zoology1 that the real battlefield lies1 upon which the controversy must be fought out to the end4 ,what follows is only a sort of skirmish about the outposts4 ,what naturalism holds in regard to the psychical and spiritual may be1 perhaps1 most simply expressed by means of an illustration4 ,over a wide field there glide mighty shadows in constant interplay4 ,they expand and contract1 become denser or lighter1 disappear for a little1 and then reveal themselves again4 ,while they are thus forming and changing1 one state follows quite connectedly on another4 ,at first one is tempted to believe that they are self-acting and self-regulating1 that they move freely and pass from one state to another according to causes within themselves4 ,but then one sees that they are thrown upon the earth from the clouds above1 now in this way and now in that1 that all their states and forms and changes are nothing in themselves1 and neither effect anything in themselves nor react upon the occurrences and realities up above1 which they only accompany1 and by which they are determined without any co-operation on their own part1 even in determining their own form4 ,so it is with nature and spirit4 ,nature is the true effective reality2 spirit is its shadow1 which effects nothing either within or outside of itself1 but simply happens4 ,the ,fundamental ,answer4 ,how can the religious conception of the world justify itself and maintain its freedom in face of such views of spirit and spiritual being8 ,it is questionable whether it is worth while attempting to do so4 ,is not the essence of the validity and freedom of spirit made most certain simply through the fact that it is able to inquire into it8 ,if we leave popular naturalism out of the question1 is not the attempt made by scientific naturalism the best witness against itself8 ,for scientific study1 and the establishment of fundamental conceptions and guiding principles are only possible if mind and thought are free and active and creative4 ,the direct experience that spirit has of itself1 of its individuality and freedom1 of its incomparability with all that is beneath it1 is far too constant and genuine to admit of its being put into a difficulty by a doctrine which it has itself established4 ,and this doctrine has far too much the character of a 8fixed theory0 to carry permanent inward conviction with it4 ,here again1 the mistake made is in starting with scepticism and with the fewest and simplest assumptions4 ,it is by no means the case that in order to discover the truth we must start always from a position of scepticism1 instead of from calm confidence in ourselves and in our conviction that we possess in direct experience the best guarantee of truth4 ,for we experience nothing more certainly than the content and riches of our own mind1 its power of acting and creating1 and all its great capacities4 ,and it is part of the duty laid upon us by the religious conception of the universe1 as well as by all other idealistic conceptions1 to follow this path of self-assurance alone1 that is1 through self-development and self-deepening1 through self-realisation and self-discipline1 to use to the full in our lives all that we have in heart and mind as possibilities1 tendencies1 content1 and capacities1 and so practically to experience the reality and power of the spiritual that the mood of suspicion and distrust of it must disappear4 ,the validity of this method is corroborated by all the critical insight into the nature of our knowledge that we have gained in the course of our study1 and it might be deepened in regard to this particular case4 ,for here1 if anywhere1 we must recognise the limitations of our knowledge2 the impossibility of attaining to a full understanding of the true nature and depths of things applies to the inquiring mind and its hidden nature4 ,from ,descartes to ,leibnitz1 ,kant1 and ,fries1 down to the historian of materialism itself1 ,f4 ,a4 ,lange1 it has been an axiom of the idealistic philosophy1 expressed now in dogmatic1 now in critical form1 that the mathematical-mechanical outlook and causal interpretation of things1 not excluding a naturalistic psychology1 is thoroughly justifiable as a method of arranging scientifically the phenomena accessible to us and of penetrating more deeply towards an understanding of these4 ,it is1 indeed1 justifiable1 so long as it does not profess to reveal the true nature of things1 but remains conscious of the free spirit1 whose own work and undertaking the whole is4 ,yet here again it is by no means necessary to surrender to naturalism a field which it has tried to take possession of1 but is certainly unable to hold4 ,we need not try to force naturalism to read out of empirical psychology the high conclusions as to human nature and spirit which pertain to the religious outlook1 or to find in the 8simplicity0 of the 8soul monad0 a kind of physical proof of its indestructibility1 or anything of that kind4 ,we maintain that to comprehend the true inwardness of the vitality1 freedom1 dignity1 and power of the spirit is not the business of psychology at all1 but may perhaps be dealt with in ethics1 if it be not admitted that with these concepts one has already entered the realm of religious experience1 and that they are the very centre of religious theory4 ,but undoubtedly we must reject in great measure the claims which naturalism makes upon our domain1 and maintain that the most important starting-points for the higher view are to be found in the priority of everything spiritual over everything material1 in the underivability of the spiritual and the impossibility of describing it in corporeal-mathematical terms and concepts4 ,individual ,development4 ,what lives in us1 as far as we can perceive and trace it in its empirical expression1 is not a finished and spiritual being that leaps1 mature and complete1 from some pre-existence or other into its embodied form1 but is obviously something that only develops and becomes actual very gradually4 ,its becoming is conditioned by 8stimuli10 influences1 impressions from without1 and perfects itself in the closest dependence upon the becoming of the body1 is inhibited or advanced with it1 and may be entirely arrested by it1 forced into abnormal developments which never attain to the level of an 8ego0 or 8personality10 but remain incomprehensible anomalies and monstrosities4 ,in general1 the psychical struggles slowly and laboriously free from purely vegetative and physiological processes1 and gains control over itself and over the body4 ,its self-development and concentration to full unity and completeness of personality is only achieved through the deepest self-culture1 through complete 8simplification0 as the ancients said1 through great acts and experiences of inward centralisation such as that which finds religious expression in the metaphor of 8regeneration40 ,what 8building up0 and self-development of the psychical means remains obscure4 ,if we think of it as a summation1 an adding on of new parts and constituents1 and thus try to form a concrete image of the process1 we spoil it altogether4 ,if we speak of the transition from the potential to the actual1 from the tendency to the realisation1 we may not indeed spoil it1 but we have done little to make the process more intelligible4 ,so much only we can say3 certain as it is that the ,psyche1 especially as conscious inner life1 only gradually develops and becomes actual1 and that in the closest dependence upon the development1 maturing1 and establishment of the nervous basis and the bodily organisation in general1 yet the naturalistic view1 a fortiori the materialistic1 is never at any point correct4 ,there are three things to be borne in mind4 ,first1 the origin1 the 8whence0 of the psychical is wholly hidden from us1 and1 notwithstanding the theory of evolution and descent1 it remains an insoluble riddle4 ,and secondly1 however closely it is associated with and tied down to the processes of bodily development1 it is never at any stage of its development really a function of it in actual and exact correspondence and dependence4 ,and finally1 the further it advances in its self-realisation1 the further the relation of dependence recedes into the background1 and the more do the independence and autonomy of the psychical processes become prominent4 ,we have still to consider and amplify this in several respects1 and then we may go on to still more important matters4 ,underivability4 ,the first of the three points we have called attention to has1 so to speak1 become famous through the lectures of du ,bois-,reymond1 which attracted much attention1 on 8,the ,limits of ,natural ,knowledge10 and 8,the ,seven ,riddles of the ,universe40 ,that these thoughtful lectures made so great an impression did not mean that a great new discovery had been made1 but was rather a sign of the general lack of reflection on the part of the public1 for they only expressed what had always been self-evident1 and what had only been forgotten through thoughtlessness1 or concealed by polemical rhetoric4 ,consciousness1 thought1 even the commonest sensation of pleasure and pain1 or the simplest sense-perception1 cannot be compared with 8matter and energy10 with the movements of masses4 ,they represent a foreign and altogether inexplicable guest in this world of matter1 molecules1 and elements4 ,even if we could follow the play of the nervous processes with which sensation1 consciousness1 pain1 or pleasure are bound up1 into their most intricate and delicate details1 if we could make the brain transparent1 and enlarge its cells to the size of houses1 so that1 with searching glance1 we could count and observe all the processes1 and even follow the dance of the molecules within it1 we should never see 8pain10 8pleasure10 or 8thought10 or anything more than bodies and their movements4 ,a thought1 such as1 for instance1 the perception that two and two make four1 is not long or broad1 above or beneath2 it cannot be measured or weighed in inches or pounds like matter1 tested with the manometer1 thermometer1 or electrometer for its potential or intensity and tension1 measured by ampres or volts or horse-powers like energies and electric currents2 it is something wholly different1 which can be known only through inner experience1 but which is much better known than anything else whatever1 and which it is absolutely impossible to compare with anything but itself4 ,even if we admit that it can only become actual and develop as an accompaniment of processes within bodies1 and only within those bodies we call 8living10 and that wherever bodies exist psychical phenomena occur2 even if we were able1 as we never shall be able1 to produce living beings artificially in a retort1 and even if psychical phenomena occurred in these also1 we should still have made no progress towards explaining what the psychical really is4 ,it would still only be the blazing up in these bodies of a flame which1 in some inexplicable way1 had fallen upon them1 and associated itself with them4 ,we do not doubt that this association1 where it takes place1 does so in obedience to the strictest law and the most inexorable necessity2 therefore1 that wherever and however the corporeal conditions are produced1 sensation and consciousness will awaken4 ,for we believe in a world governed by law4 ,but the mystery is in no way lessened by this1 and the modern theory of evolution throws no light into this utterly impenetrable darkness4 ,in the first place1 the whole idea of 8explaining0 in terms of 8evolution0 is a futile one4 ,the process of becoming is pictured as a simple process of cumulation1 a gradual increase of intensities1 while the business is really one of change in quality and the introduction of what is new4 ,in the second place1 the occurrence even of the first and most primitive sensation contains the whole riddle concentrated on a single point4 ,in the third place1 the riddle meets us anew and undiminished in every developing individual4 ,for to say that the physical inwardness1 once it has arisen1 is 8transmitted10 is not an explanation but merely an admission that the riddle exists4 ,and the idea that the psychical is just a penumbra or shadow of reality1 which comes of itself and so to speak gratis1 is quite inadmissible from the point of view of strict natural science4 ,there are no longer luxus and lusus natur4 ,reality cannot throw a 8shadow40 ,according to the principles of the conservation of matter and energy1 we must be able to show whence it gets the so-called shadow1 and with what it compensates for it4 ,pre-eminence of ,consciousness4 ,but we have already spent too much time over this nave mode of looking at things1 which1 though it professes to place things in their true light1 in reality distorts them and turns them upside down4 ,as if this world of the external and material1 all these bodies and forces1 were our first and most direct data1 and were not really all derived from1 and only discoverable by1 consciousness4 ,we have here to do with the ancient view of all philosophy and all reflection in general1 although in modern days it has taken its place as a great new discovery even among naturalists themselves1 by whom it is extolled and recognised as 8the conquest of materialism40 ,such exaggerated emphasis tends to conceal the fact that this truth has been regarded as self-evident from very early times4 ,what is a body1 extension1 movement1 colour1 smell and taste8 ,what do ,i possess of them1 or know of them1 except through the images1 sensations and feelings which they call up in my receptive mind8 ,no single thing wanders into me as itself1 or reveals itself to me directly2 only through the way in which they affect me1 the peculiar changes which they work in me1 do things reveal to me their existence and their special character4 ,i have no knowledge of an apple-tree or of an apple1 except through the sense perceptions they call up in me4 ,but these sense perceptions1 what are they but different peculiar states of my consciousness1 peculiar determinations of my mind8 ,i see that the tree stands there1 but what is it to see8 ,what is the perception of a colour1 of light1 of shade1 and their changes8 ,surely only a peculiar change of my mind itself1 a particular state of stimulus and awareness brought about in myself4 ,and in the same way ,i can feel that the apple lies there4 ,but what is the perception of resistance1 of hardness1 of impenetrability8 ,nothing more than a feeling1 a change in my psychical state1 which is unique and cannot be described in terms of anything but itself4 ,even as regards 8attraction and repulsion10 external existence only reveals itself to us through changes in the mind and consciousness1 which we then attribute to a cause outside ourselves4 ,it is well enough known that this simple but incontrovertible fact has often led to the denial of the existence of anything outside of ourselves and our consciousness4 ,but even if we leave this difficult subject alone1 it is quite certain that1 if the question as to the pre-eminence of consciousness and its relation to external things is to be asked at all1 it should be formulated as follows1 and not conversely3 8,how can ,i1 starting from the directly given reality and certainty of consciousness and its states1 arrive at the certainty and reality of external things1 substances1 forces1 physics and chemistry80 ,creative ,power of ,consciousness4 ,to this insight into the underivability and pre-eminence of consciousness over the world of external reality there must be added at this stage a recognition of its peculiar creative character4 ,we have here to recognise that consciousness itself creates its world1--that is1 the world that becomes our own through actual experience1 possession1 and enjoyment4 ,we are led to this position even by the conception now current in natural science of the world as it is1 not as it is mirrored in consciousness1 and the theory of the 8subjectivity of sensory qualities40 ,the qualities which we perceive in things through the senses are 8subjective02 philosophy has long taught that1 and now natural science teaches it too4 ,that is to say1 these qualities are not actually present in the things themselves2 they are rather the particular responses which our consciousness makes to stimuli4 ,take1 for instance1 tone or colour4 ,what we call tone or sound is not known to acoustics4 ,that takes cognisance only of vibrations and the conditions of vibration in elastic bodies1 which1 by means of the ear and the nerves of hearing1 become a stimulus of consciousness4 ,consciousness 8responds0 to this stimulus by receiving a sense-impression of hearing4 ,but in this1 obviously1 there is nothing of the nature of oscillations and vibrations1 but something quite different4 ,what outside of us is nothing more than a complex process of movement according to mathematical conditions1 blossoms within us to a world of sound1 tone1 and music4 ,the world itself is soundless1 toneless4 ,and the same is true of light and colour2 8light0 and 8blue0 are nothing in themselves--are not properties of things themselves4 ,they are only the infinitely rapid movements of an infinitely delicate substance1 the ether4 ,but when these meet our consciousness1 they spin themselves within us into this world of light and colour1 of brilliance and beauty4 ,thus without us there is a world of a purely mathematical nature1 without quality1 charm1 or value4 ,but the world we know1 the world of sound1 light1 and colour1 of all properties whatsoever1 of the ugly or the beautiful1 of pain and pleasure1 is in the most real sense the product of consciousness itself1 a creation which1 incited by something outside of itself and of a totally different nature1 which we can hardly call 8world10 evolves out of itself and causes to blossom4 ,no part of this creation is given from without2 not the blue of the heavens1 for outside of us there is no colour1 only vibrations of the ether2 not the gold of the sun nor the red glory of the evening sky4 ,external nature is nothing more than the stimulus1 the pressure upon the mind1 which liberates from its depths the peculiar reactions and responses to this stimulus1 and calls them forth from its own treasure-stores4 ,certainly in this creating the consciousness is entirely dependent on the impressions stamped on it from outside1 and to that extent upon 8experience40 ,but it is by no means a tabula rasa1 and a merely passive mirror of the outer world1 for it translates the stimulus thus received into quite a different language1 and builds up from it a new reality1 which is quite unlike the mathematical and qualityless reality without4 ,and this activity on the part of consciousness begins on the very lowest stages4 ,the simplest perception of light or colour1 the first feeling of pleasure or discomfort1 is a reaction of the psychical1 which brings about something entirely new and unique4 8,the spirit is never passive40 ,that the psychical is not derivable from the physical1 that it does not arise out of it1 is not secondary to it1 but pre-eminent over it1 is not passive but creative2 so much we have already gained to set over against naturalism4 ,but its claims are even more affected by the fact of real psychical causality4 ,we need not here concern ourselves with the difficult question1 whether the mind can of itself act upon the body1 and through it upon the external world4 ,but in the logical consistence of naturalism there was implied not only a negative answer to this last question1 but also a denial of the causality of the psychical1 even within itself and its own domain4 ,this is well illustrated in the figure of the cloud shadows4 ,in consciousness state follows upon state1 a upon b1 b upon c4 ,according to naturalism1 b is not really the result of a1 nor c of b1 for in that case there would be independence of phenomena1 and distinctness of laws in the psychical4 ,but as all the states1 a1 b1 and c1 of the cloud shadows1 depend upon states a1 b1 and c1 of the clouds themselves1 but do not themselves form a concatenation of causes1 so all the states of the mind depend upon those of the body1 in which alone there is a true chain of causes because they alone have true reality4 ,this is a complete distortion of the facts of the case4 ,it would never be possible to persuade oneself or any one else that the arm1 for instance1 did not bend simply because we willed that it should4 ,and it is still less possible to doubt that there are sequences of causes within the psychical1 that in the world of thought and feeling1 of desire and will1 one thing calls up another1 awakes it1 impels it onwards1 and influences it4 ,indeed1 the mode of influence is peculiarly rich1 subtle1 and certain4 ,mental images and experiences arouse joy or sorrow1 admiration or repulsion4 ,one image calls up another1 forces it to appear according to quite peculiar laws1 or may crowd it out4 ,feelings call up desires1 desires lead to determination4 ,good news actually causes joy1 this is actually strengthened to willing1 and the new situation gives rise to actual resolves4 ,all this is so obvious and so unquestionable that no naturalism can possibly prevail against it4 ,it has also long been made the subject of special investigation and carefully regulated experiment1 and it is one of the chief subjects of modern psychological science4 ,and especially as regards the different forms of 8association of ideas10 the particular laws of this psychical causality have been established4 ,it cannot be denied1 however1 that this psychology of association has itself in a deeper sense certain dangers from the point of view of the freedom of the mind1 and it is apt to lead1 not indeed to naturalistic conceptions1 but to views according to which the 8soul0 is reduced to the level of a passive frame and stage1 so to speak1 for the exhibition of mental mechanics and statics4 8,ideas0 or thoughts1 or states of feelings1 are sometimes represented almost as actual little realities1 which come and go in accordance with their own laws of attraction and repulsion1 unite and separate again1 by virtue of a kind of mental gravitation1 move and crowd one another1 so that one must almost say 8it thinks10 as one says 8it rains10 and not 8the mind thinks0 or 8,i think40 ,but more of this later4 ,this psychological orderliness is in sharp antagonism to pure naturalism4 ,it describes the laws of a sequence of causes1 which have nothing to do with the physical1 chemical1 or mechanical1 and clearly establishes the uniqueness1 independence1 and underivability of the psychical as contrasted with the physical4 ,the individuality and incommensurability of this psychical causality shows itself in another series of factors which make even the form of the psychical process quite distinctive1 and produce phenomena which have no parallel in the material sequences of the world1 indeed1 conflict with all its fundamental laws4 ,the great psychologists of to-day1 ,wundt in particular1 and ,james1 have frequently emphasised these factors4 ,we can only briefly call attention to a few points1 as1 for instance1 ,wundt's theory of the creative resultants through which the psychical processes show themselves to be quite outside of the scope of the laws of equivalence which hold good in the physical4 ,if1 in the realm of the corporeal1 two components of energy1 a and b1 come together1 they unite in a common resultant c1 which includes in part a new movement1 in part transformation into heat1 but always in such a way that c remains equal to a and b4 ,but it is otherwise in the psychical4 ,here there occurs what may be called an increase 7and a qualitative change7 of the psychical energy4 ,if we take the notes1 c1 e1 and g1 and call the sensation- and perception-value of the individual notes x1 y1 z1 when they come together1 the resulting sensation-value is by no means simply x y z1 for a 8harmony0 results of which the effect is not only greater than the mere sum of x y z1 but is qualitatively different4 ,this is true of all domains of psychical experience4 ,the parallels from mechanical operation cannot be applied in any case4 ,these only supply inadequate analogies and symbols which never really represent the actual state of the case4 ,let us take1 for instance1 a motive1 m1 that impels us towards a particular action1 and another1 n1 that hinders us4 ,if these meet in us1 the result is not simply a weakening of the power of the one1 and a remaining motive of the strength of m minus n4 ,the meeting of the two creates an entirely new and peculiar mental situation1 which gives rise to conflict and choice1 and the resultant victorious motive is never under any circumstances m-n1 but may be a double or three-fold m or n4 ,thus1 in the different aspects of psychical activity1 there are factors which make it impossible to compare these with other activities1 remove them outside of the scope of the law of the equivalence of cause and effect1 and prove that there is self-increase and growth on the part of psychical energies4 ,and all such phenomena lead us away from the standpoint of any mere theory of association4 ,activity of ,consciousness4 ,naturalism takes refuge in the doctrine of association1 when it does not attain anything with its first claims1 and applies this theory in such a way that it seems possible from this standpoint to interpret mental processes as having an approximate resemblance to mechanically and mathematically calculable phenomena4 ,as in physics the molecules and atoms1 so here the smallest mental elements1 the simplest units of feeling are sought for1 and from their relations of attraction and repulsion1 their groupings and movements1 it is supposed that the whole mental world may be constructed up to its highest contents1 will1 ideals1 and development of character4 ,but even the analogy1 the model which is followed1 and the fact that a model is followed at all1 show that this method is uncritical and not unprejudiced4 ,what reason is there for regarding occurrences in the realm of physics as a norm for the psychical8 ,why should one not rather start from the peculiar and very striking differences between the two1 from the primary and fundamental fact1 not indeed capable of explanation1 but all the more worthy of attention on that account1 that there is an absolute difference between physical occurrences and mental behaviour1 between physical and mental causality8 ,these most primitive and simplest mental elements which are supposed to float and have their being within the mind as in a kind of spiritual ether are not atoms at all1 but deeds1 actions1 performances4 ,the laws of the association of ideas are not the laws of a mental chemistry1 but laws of mental behaviour2 very fixed and reliable laws1 but still having to do with modes of behaviour4 ,their separating and uniting1 their relations to one another1 their grouping into unities1 their 8syntheses10 are not automatic permutations and combinations1 but express the activity of a thinking intelligence4 ,not even the simplest actual synthesis comes about of itself1 as psychologists have shown by a neat illustration4 ,illustration3 ,square a#b1 next to smaller square b#b4 ,above them are horizontal lines a and b1 the same lengths as the widths of the squares below them4 ,caption3 a and b only associated4 ,squares of a and b in juxtaposition4 ,illustration3 ,square c#b4 ,above it is horizontal line c1 the same length as the width of the square below it4 ,caption3 a and b really synthetised to c4 ,square of a b as a true unity c#b4 ,given that1 through some association1 the image of the line a calls up that of the line b1 and both are associatively ranged together1 we have still not made the real synthesis a b c4 ,for to think of a and b side by side is not the same thing as thinking of c1 as we shall readily see if we square them4 ,the squares of a and b thought of beside one another1 that is1 a#b and b#b1 are something quite different from the square of the really synthetised a and b1 which is 7a b7#b a#b #b;ab b#b1 or c #b4 ,this requires quite a new view1 a spontaneous synthesis1 which is an action and not a mere experience4 ,the ,ego4 ,it was customary in earlier psychology1 as it still is in all apologetic psychology1 to regard the soul as a unified1 immaterial1 indivisible and therefore indestructible substance1 as a monad1 which1 as a unity without parts1 superior to its own capacities and the changes of its states1 is at all times one and the same subject4 ,many attempts have been made since the time of ,plotinus to accumulate proofs of this substantial unity4 ,we may leave this question untouched here1 and need not even inquire whether these definitions are not themselves things of the external world employed as images and analogies and pushed too far4 ,but there are three factors which may be established in regard to the psychical in spite of all naturalistic opposition2 and those who have attempted to find proofs for the traditional idea we have noted1 have usually really had these three in mind1 and quite rightly so3 they are1 self-consciousness1 the unity of consciousness1 and the consciousness of the ego4 ,self-,consciousness4 #a4 ,our consciousness is not merely a knowledge of many individual things1 the possession of concrete and abstract1 particular or general conceptions and ideas1 the cherishing of sensations1 feelings and the like4 ,we not only know1 but we know that we know1 and we can ponder in thought over the very fact that we are able thus to reflect in thought4 ,thought can turn its attention upon itself1 can establish that it takes place1 and how it runs its course1 can reflect upon the forms in which it expresses itself1 its powers1 its laws1 possibilities1 and limits1 and can ponder over the general nature of thought and the contingent individual nature of the particular thinking subject4 7,the very possibility and preliminary condition of moral freedom is implied in this47 ,how naturalism is to do justice to this fact it is not easy to see4 ,even if it were possible that the mental content was gained through mere experience1 that comparisons1 syntheses1 and abstractions were formed simply according to the laws of association1 and that these were sublimed and refined to general ideas1 and could grow into axioms of logic and of geometry1 or crystallise into necessary and axiomatic principles--none of which can happen--yet it would always be a knowledge of something4 ,but how this something could be given to itself remains undiscoverable4 ,the soul is a tabula rasa and a mere mirror1 says this theory4 ,but it would still require to show how the silver layer behind the mirror began to see itself in the mirror4 ,the ,unity of ,consciousness4 #b4 ,the same holds true of the unity of consciousness1 of which we are directly convinced4 ,it is quite inexplicable if consciousness is a function of the extended and divisible physical substratum which is built up of nerve-cells and nerve-fibres4 ,and yet this unity is the fundamental condition of our whole inner life4 ,even the facts of association demonstrate it4 ,two images could not come together1 the one could not call up the other1 if they were not possessed in the same consciousness1 and could unite in it4 ,it is the preliminary condition of every higher mode of thought1 of every relating of things1 of every comparison and abstraction4 ,no judgment can be formed1 no conclusion drawn without this4 ,how could a predicate become associated with its subject1 or a principal clause with its subordinate clause1 if they were in separate consciousnesses1 and how could the conclusion be drawn from them8 ,consciousness of the ,ego4 #c4 ,this unified self-consciousness is consciousness of the ego4 ,it is only by means of an artificial abstraction that we can leave out of account in the consideration of processes of thought the peculiar factor of personal relationship that absolutely attaches to every thought within us4 ,there are no thoughts in general that play their part of themselves alone4 8,it0 never 8thinks0 in me4 ,on the contrary1 all sensation1 thought1 and will has in every human being a peculiar central relationship to which we refer when we say 8my idea10 8my sensation40 ,what the 8,i0 is cannot be defined4 ,it is that through which the relation of all experiences and actions is referred to a point1 and through which the treasuring of them for good or ill1 the appreciation1 the valuation of them is accomplished4 ,and it plays its part even in the case of cold and indifferent items of knowledge4 ,for instance1 that twice two are four is not simply a perception1 it is my perception4 ,of the ego itself nothing more can be said than that it is the thought of me as the subject of all experience1 willing1 and action1 and if we try to take hold of it nothing more than this formula remains4 ,yet the fact that the ego is the subject of all this1 gives conduct1 will1 and experience that peculiar character which distinguishes them from mere action and reaction4 ,for it is directly certain that all the psychical contents are not only co-existences in one consciousness but that they are possessed by it4 ,thus in summing up we have to say1 that it is through the ego that all psychical activities and experiences are centred and related1 that the ego is itself the point of relation1 that it is the reason of the unity of consciousness and of the possibility of self-consciousness1 and that in all this it is the most certain reality1 without which the simplest psychical life would be impossible4 ,at the same time1 it is difficult to state what the 8ego0 is in itself1 apart from the effects in which it reveals itself4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,freedom ,,of ,,spirit4 ,the consciousness of the ego leads us naturally to the consciousness of freedom4 ,freedom of the mind is no simple idea2 it embraces various contents which bear the relation of stages to one another1 and each higher stage presupposes the one below it4 ,freedom is1 first of all1 the word which expresses that we are really agents1 not mere points of transit for phenomena foreign to ourselves1 but starting-points of phenomena peculiar to us1 actual causes1 beings who are able to initiate activity1 to control things and set them in motion4 ,here the whole question of freedom becomes simply the question of the reality and causality of the will4 ,is the will something really factual1 or is it only the strange illusion to which ,spinoza1 for instance1 referred in his illustration of the flying stone8 ,it would be purely an illusion of that kind if materialism were the true interpretation of things1 and the psychical were nothing more than an accompaniment of other 8true0 realities1 and even if the doctrine of psychical atoms we have already mentioned were correct4 ,this idea of freedom speedily rises to a higher plane4 ,freedom is always freedom from something1 in this case from a compulsion coming from outside1 and from things and circumstances foreign to us4 ,in maintaining freedom of the mind it is asserted that it can preserve its own nature and laws in face of external compulsion or laws1 and in face of the merely psychological compulsion of the 8lower courses of thought10 even from the 8half-natural0 laws of the association of ideas4 ,thus 8freedom0 is pre-eminently freedom of thought4 ,and in speaking thus we are presupposing that the mind has a nature of its own1 distinguished even from the purely psychological nature1 and has a code of laws of its own1 lying beyond the scope of all natural laws1 which psychical motives and physical conditions may prevent it following1 but which they can never suspend or pull down to their own level4 8,der ,mensch ist frei1 und wr' er in ,ketten geboren40 ,here at last we arrive at what is so often exclusively1 but erroneously1 included under the name of freedom1 or 8freedom of the will10 that is practical freedom1 the freedom to recognise moral laws and ideals1 and to form moral judgments against all psychological compulsion1 and to will to allow ourselves to be determined by these4 ,from this question of moral freedom we might finally pass to that with which it is usual over-hastily to begin3 the problem of so-called freedom of choice1 of the 8equilibrium0 of the will1 a problem in which are centred all the purely theoretical interests of the doctrine of the will in general1 and ethical interests in particular4 ,the whole domain is so enormous that we cannot even attempt to sketch it here4 ,the general bearing of the whole can be made clearest at the second stage1 but we cannot entirely pass over the first4 ,in this inquiry into the problem of the will it is not necessary to discuss whether we are able by it to bring about external effects1 movements1 and changes in our bodies4 ,we may postpone this question once more4 ,the most important part of the problem lies in the domain of the psychical4 ,to move an arm or a leg is a relatively unimportant function of the will as compared with the deliberate adoption of a rule of conduct1 with inward self-discipline1 self-culture1 and the development of character4 ,that we 8will10 and what it is to will1 cannot really be demonstrated at all1 or defended against attacks4 ,it simply is so4 ,it is a fundamental psychical fact which can only be proved by being experienced4 ,if there were anywhere a will-less being1 ,i could not prove to him that there is such a thing as will1 because ,i could never make clear to him what will is4 ,and the theories opposed to freedom of the will cannot be refuted in any way except by simply saying that they are false4 ,they do not describe what really takes place in us4 ,we do not find within ourselves either the cloud-shadows or the play of psychical1 minima already referred to1 with their crowding up of images1 bringing some into prominence and displacing them again while we remain passive--we find ourselves willing4 ,these theories should at least be able to explain whence came this marvellous hallucination1 this appearance of will in us1 which must have its cause1 and they should also be able to say whence came the idea of the will4 ,spinoza's example of the stone1 which seemed to itself to fly when it was simply thrown1 does not meet the facts of the case4 ,if the thrown stone had self-consciousness1 it would certainly not say1 8,i am flying10 but would merely wonder1 8,what has happened to me suddenly80 ,we cannot demonstrate what will is1 we can only make it clear to ourselves by performing an act of will and observing ourselves in the doing of it4 ,let us compare1 for instance1 a psychical state which we call 8attention0 with another which we call 8distraction40 ,in this last there is a stage where the will rests4 ,there is actually an uninhibited activity of 8the lower course of thought10 a disconnected 8dreaming10 a confused automatic movement of thoughts and feelings according to purely associative laws4 ,then suddenly we pull ourselves together1 rouse ourselves out of this state of distraction4 ,something new comes into the course of our thoughts4 ,it is the will4 ,now there is control and definite guidance of our thoughts and rejection of subsidiary association--ideas that thrust themselves upon us4 ,particular thoughts can be selected1 particular feelings or mental contents kept in focus as long as we desire4 ,in thus selecting and guiding ideas1 in keeping them in mind or letting them go1 we see the will in action4 ,this brings us to freedom of thought4 ,this lies in the fact1 not merely that we can think1 but that we can and desire to think rightly1 and that we are able to measure our thoughts by the standard of 8true0 or 8false40 ,naturalism is proud of the fact that it desires nothing more than to search after truth4 ,to this it is ready to sacrifice all expressions of feeling or sentiment1 and all prejudices4 ,the truth1 the whole truth1 and nothing but the truth is its ideal1 even if all pet ideas have to give way before it4 ,it usually saddles itself with the idea of the good and the beautiful along with this 8idea of truth10 but is resolved1 since it must soon see for itself that it is able to secure only a very doubtful basis for these1 to sacrifice them to truth if need be4 ,this is worthy of honour17#ajg7 but it implies a curious self-deception4 ,for if naturalism be in the right1 thought is not free1 and if thought be not free there can be no such thing as truth1 for there can be no establishing of what truth is4 ,let us attempt to make this plain in the following manner3 ,according to the naturalistic-psychological theory1 the play of our thoughts1 our impressions of things and properties1 their combination in judgments or in 8perceptions10 are dependent on physiological processes of the brain1 and therefore upon natural laws1 or1 according to some1 on peculiar attractions and repulsions among the impressions themselves1 regulated by the laws of association4 ,if that and that only were the case1 ,i should be able to say that such a conception was present in my mind1 or that this or that thought had arisen in me1 and ,i might perhaps be able to trace the connection which made it necessary that it should arise at that particular time4 ,but every thought would be equally right4 ,or rather there could be no question of right or wrong in the matter at all4 ,i could not forbid any thought to be there1 could not compel it to make way for another1 perhaps exactly its opposite4 ,yet ,i do this continually4 ,i never merely observe what thoughts are in my own mind or in another's4 ,for ,i have a constant ideal1 a plumb-line according to which ,i measure1 or can measure1 every train of thought4 ,and ,i can compel others to apply this same plumb-line to their thoughts4 ,this plumb-line is logic4 ,it is the unique law of the mind itself which concerns itself about no law of nature or of association whatsoever4 ,and however mighty a flood of conceptions and associations may at times pour through me in consequence of various confused physiological states of excitement affecting the brain1 or in consequence of the fantastic dance of the associations of ideas1 the ego is always able in free thought to intervene in its own psychical experiences1 and to test which combinations of ideas have been logically thought out and are therefore right1 and which are wrong4 ,it often enough refrains from exercising this control1 leaving the lower courses of thought free play4 ,hence the mistakes in our thinking1 the errors in judgment1 the thousand inconsistencies and self-deceptions4 ,but the mind can do otherwise1 can defend itself from interruptions and extraneous influences by making use of its freedom and of its power to follow its own laws and no others4 ,it is thus possible for us to have not only psychical experiences but knowledge2 only in this way can truth be reached1 and error rejected4 ,thus science can follow a sure course4 ,thus alone1 for instance1 could the great edifice of geometry and arithmetic have been built up in its indestructible certainty4 ,the progress from axiom to theorem and to all that follows is due to free thought1 obeying the laws of inference and demonstration1 and entirely unconcerned about the laws of association or the natural laws of the nervous agitations1 the electric currents1 and other plays of energy which may go on in the brain at the same time4 ,what have the laws of the syllogism to do with the temporary states of tension in the brain1 which1 if they had free course1 would probably follow lines very different from those of ,euclid1 and if they chanced once in a way to follow the right lines from among the millions of possibilities1 would certainly soon turn to different ones1 and could never examine them to see whether they were right or not4 ,thus it is not any highly aspiring emotional desire or any premature prejudice1 but the solid old science of logic that first and most determinedly shuts the door in face of the claims of naturalism4 ,if we combine this with what has already been said on page #aed1 we shall see how dangerous it would be for naturalism to be proved right in the dispute2 for then it would be wholly wrong4 ,for1 as it is only through the free1 thinking mind that true and false can be distinguished and brought into relation with things1 so only through it can we have an ideal of truth to be recognised and striven after1 and that spontaneous1 pertinacious1 searching1 following1 and discovering which constitutes science as a whole and in detail4 ,and in so far as naturalism itself claims to be nothing more than an attempt towards this goal1 it is itself only possible on the basis of something which it denies4 ,freedom of thought is also the most obvious example of that freedom of the spirit in morally 8willing10 which it is the business of ethical science to teach and defend4 ,as in the one case thought shows itself superior to the physiologically or psychologically conditioned sequence of its concepts1 so the free spirit1 in the uniqueness of its moral laws1 reveals itself as lord over all the motives1 the lower feelings of pleasure and pain that have their play within us4 ,as in the one case it is free to measure according to the criteria of true or false1 and thus is able to intervene in the sequence of its own conceptions1 correcting and confirming1 so in the other it is able to estimate by the criteria of good or bad4 ,as in the one case it carries within it its own fundamental laws as logic1 so in the other the moral ideals and fundamental judgments which arise out of its own being4 ,and in both cases it is free from nature and natural law1 and capable of subordinating nature to its own rules1 in so far as it 8wills10 and of becoming subordinate to nature--in erroneous thinking and non-moral acting--in so far as it does not will4 ,feeling1 ,individuality1 ,genius1 and ,mysticism4 ,the four things here mentioned are very closely associated with one another1 especially the second and third1 as is easily perceived1 but the second is rooted in the first4 ,and in the second and third there is already to be discovered a factor which goes beyond the sphere of the purely rational1 and is no longer accessible to our comprehension1 but carries us over into the sphere of the fourth4 ,this is really true even of the phenomena of moral consciousness and moral 8freedom40 ,in this quality1 and in the ethical ideal of 8personality10 there is implied something that is inaccessible to a purely rational consideration1 and is directly related to mystery and divination4 7,what is 8personality08 ,we all feel it4 ,we respect it from the depths of our soul wherever we meet it4 ,we bow down before it unconditionally4 ,but what it is no philosophy has ever yet been able definitely to state4 ,in seeking to comprehend it intuition and feeling must always play the largest part47 ,feeling4 ,it is in the four attributes here emphasised that the true nature of mind in its underivability and superiority to all nature first becomes clear4 ,all that we have so far considered under the name of mind is only preliminary and leads up to this4 ,all reality of external things is of little account compared with that of the mind4 ,it does not occur to any one in practice to regard anything in the whole world as more real and genuine than his own love and hate1 fear and hope1 his pain1 from the simplest discomfort due to a wound to the pangs of conscience and the gnawings of remorse--his pleasure1 from the merest comfort to the highest raptures of delight4 ,this world of feeling is for us the meaning of all existence4 ,the more we plunge ourselves into it1 the deeper are the intricacies and mysteries it reveals4 ,at every point underivable and unintelligible in terms of physiological processes1 it reveals itself from stage to stage as more deeply and wholly unique in its relations1 interactions1 and processes1 and grows farther and farther beyond the laboured and insufficient schemes and formulas under which science desires to range all psychical phenomena4 ,individuality4 ,it is especially in 8feeling0 that what we call individuality has its roots4 ,the individual really means the 8indivisible10 and in the strict sense of the word need mean nothing more than the ego1 and the unity of consciousness of which we have already spoken4 ,but through a change in the meaning of the word we have come to mean much more than that by it4 ,this individuality forces itself most distinctly upon our attention in regard to prominent and distinguished persons4 ,it is the particular determination of their psychical nature that marks them out so distinctly1 and it often rather escapes analysis and characterisation than is attained by it4 8,individuum est ineffabile40 ,it can only be grasped intuitively and by experience4 ,and people of a non-reflective mood are usually more successful in understanding it than those who reflect and analyse4 ,it requires 8fine feeling10 which knows exactly how it stands towards the person in question1 which yet can seldom give any definite account of his characteristics4 ,individuality usually meets us most obviously in exceptional men1 and we are apt to contrast these with ordinary men4 ,but on closer examination we see that this difference is only one of degree4 8,individuality0 in a less marked manner belongs to them all1 and where it exists it is a distinctly original thing1 which cannot be derived from its antecedents4 ,no psyche is simply derivable from other psyches4 ,what a child receives from its parents by 8heredity0 are factors which1 taken together1 amount to more than the mere sum of them4 ,the synthesis of these is at once the creation of something new and peculiar1 and what has been handed down is merely the building material4 ,this can be felt in an intensified and striking degree in regard to 8pronounced individuality10 but careful study will disclose the fact that there are no men quite alike4 ,this kind of 8creative synthesis10 that is1 the underivability of the individual1 was the element of truth in the mythologies of 8creationism0 held by the ,church fathers1 or in the theory of the 8pre-existence of the soul0 maintained by ,plato and others4 ,and from this point of view we must safeguard what has already been said in regard to the culture and gradual development of our psychical inner nature4 ,it is true that the 8soul0 does not spring up ready-made in the developing body1 lying dormant in it1 and only requiring to waken up gradually4 ,it really becomes4 ,but the becoming is a self-realisation4 ,it is not true that it is put together and built up bit by bit by experience1 so that a different being might develop if the experiences were different4 ,it is undoubtedly dependent upon experience1 impressions1 and circumstances1 and without these its development would be impossible4 ,but these impressions act as a stimulus1 developing only what is previously inherent4 ,they do not themselves create anything4 ,a characteristic predetermination restricts the development to comparatively narrow limits4 ,and this is identical with the individuality itself4 ,a man may turn out very different according to circumstances1 education1 influences4 ,but he would nevertheless recognise 8himself0 under any circumstances4 ,he will never become anything of which he had not the possibility within him from the very beginning1 any more than the rose will become a violet if it is nurtured with a different kind of manure4 ,genius4 ,we cannot venture to say much about genius and the mystery of it4 ,in it and its creative power something of the spirit1 the nature of the spirit1 seems to look up at us1 as we might think of it in itself and apart from the limits of existence in time and space4 ,it is usually most obvious and most accessible to us in the domain of art4 ,but it has its place too in the realm of science4 ,and it is most of all genius1 and therefore most inaccessible to us ordinary mortals1 in the domain of religion4 ,mysticism4 ,even 8pronounced individuality0 8has an element of mysticism0 in it--of the non-rational1 which we feel the more distinctly the more decidedly we reject all attempts to make it rational again through crude or subtle mythologies4 ,this is much more true of genius1 artistic insight1 and inspiration4 ,but these are much too delicate to be exposed to the buffeting of controversy1 much more so the dark and mysterious boundary region in the life of the human spirit which we know under the name of mysticism in the true sense1 without inverted commas4 ,it is not a subject that is adapted for systematic treatment4 ,where it has been subjected to it1 everything becomes crude and repulsive1 a mere caricature of pure mysticism like the recrudescent occultism of to-day4 ,therefore it is enough simply to call the attention of the sympathetic reader to it and then to pass it by4 ,in face of the witness borne to it by all that is finest and deepest in history1 especially in the history of religion1 naturalism is powerless4 ,mind and ,spirit4 ,the ,human and the ,animal ,soul4 ,what is the relation between the human and the animal mind8 ,this has always been a vital question in the conflict between naturalism and the religious outlook4 ,and as in the whole problem of the psychical so here the interest on both sides has been mainly concentrated on the question of 8mortality0 or 8immortality40 ,man is immortal because he has a soul4 ,animals 8have no souls40 8,animals also have souls1 differing only in degree but not in substantial nature from the soul of man3 as they are mortal1 man must be so too40 8,animals have minds3 the merely psychical passes away with the body4 ,but man has spirit in addition4 ,it is imperishable40 ,these and many other assertions were made on one side or the other4 ,and both sides made precisely the same mistake3 they made the belief in the immortality of our true nature dependent upon a proof that the soul has a physical 8substantial nature10 which is to be regarded as an indestructible substance1 a kind of spiritual atom4 ,and on the other hand they overlooked the gist of the whole matter1 the true starting-point1 which cannot be overlooked if the religious outlook is not to be brought into discredit4 ,it is undoubtedly a fundamental postulate1 and one which the religious outlook cannot give up1 that the human spirit is more than all creatures1 and is in quite a different order from stars1 plants1 and animals4 ,but absolutely the first necessity from the point of view of the religious outlook is to establish the incomparable value of the human spirit2 the question of its 8substantial nature0 is in itself a matter of entire indifference4 ,the religious outlook observes that man can will good and can pray1 and no other creature can do this4 ,and it sees that this makes the difference between two worlds4 ,whether the bodily and mental physics in both these worlds is the same or different1 is to it a matter rather of curiosity than of importance4 ,what occurs or does not occur within the animal mind is1 as a matter of fact1 wholly hidden from us4 ,we have no way of determining this except by analogy with ourselves1 and therefore our idea of it is necessarily anthropomorphic4 ,and apologists are undoubtedly right when they maintain that this is far too much the case4 ,to reach a more unprejudiced attitude towards the customary anthropomorphisation of animals1 it is profitable to study ,wundt's lectures on 8,the ,human and the ,animal ,mind0 7see especially ,lecture ,,xx474 ,perhaps it is true that1 notwithstanding all the much-praised cleverness1 intelligence and teachableness of elephants1 dogs1 and chimpanzees1 they are incapable of forming 8general ideas10 8rules10 and 8laws10 of forming judgments in the strict sense1 and constructive syllogisms1 that they have only associations of ideas1 and expectations of similar experience1 but no thinking in conceptual terms1 and cannot perceive anything general or necessary1 that they recognise posteriori but not priori1 as ,leibnitz supposed1 and that they form only perceptual inferences1 not judgments from experience4 ,but it is not easy to see that this contributes anything of importance to our problem4 ,it does not even help us in regard to the interesting question of a physical guarantee for the indestructibility of the soul4 ,for even if the psychical acts of animals were fewer and less important than they are admitted to be1 they have certainly sensations1 images1 feelings1 pleasure1 pain1 and desire4 ,all these are of a psychical nature1 immaterial1 and underivable from the material4 ,and it is difficult to see1 for instance1 why the forming of judgments should be regarded as more durable and indestructible than sensation and desire4 ,the difference lies higher than this1--not in the fact that man has a few 8capacities0 more than the animal1 but in the difference in principle1 that the psychical in man can be developed to spirit1 and that this is impossible anywhere else4 ,the very example that naturalism loves to cite in its own favour makes its error clear4 ,it asks whether the difference1 let us say1 between a ,fuegian and one of the higher mammals such as an ape1 is not much less than that between a ,fuegian and a ,european4 ,this sounds obvious1 if we measure simply by habits1 morals1 and possibly also the content of feeling and imagination in a 8savage0 as we find him4 ,and yet it is obviously false4 ,i can train a young ape or an elephant1 can teach it to open wine-bottles and perform tricks4 ,but ,i can educate the child of the savage1 can develop in him a mental life equal in fineness1 depth1 and energy1 frequently more than equal1 to that of the average ,european1 as the mission to the ,eskimos and to the ,fuegians proves1 and as ,darwin frankly admitted4 ,psychical capacity is nothing more than raw material4 ,it is in the possibility of raising this to the level of spirit1 of using the raw material to its purpose1 that the absolute difference1 the impassable gulf between man and animals lies4 ,even in animals there is a primitive thinking1 rising above the level of blind instinct4 ,but it can neither be schooled1 nor is it capable of developing even the crudest beginnings of science4 ,even the animal has a sensory satisfaction in colour1 form and tone 7not nearly so much1 however1 as the theory of sexual selection requires us to suppose74 ,but art1 even the most rudimentary self-expression of the spirit upon this basis1 is wholly sealed to it4 ,even the animal possesses strong altruistic instincts1 impulses towards companionship1 pairing1 and caring for its young1 and some have seen in this the beginnings of morality4 ,but morality is a matter of the spirit1 which begins with the idea of duty and rises to the recognition of an ideal of life4 ,nowhere else do we see so directly and emphatically the incomparability of the natural-psychical and the spiritual as in the idea of duty and an ideal of life1 although the contrast is equally great at all points of the spiritual life4 ,finally and highest of all1 we have the capacity of the human spirit to rise to religion and the greatest heights of feeling4 ,in science and art1 in morality and religion1 the spirit possesses itself4 ,and as such it is a unique and strange guest in this world1 absolutely incomparable with anything beneath or around it4 ,it may1 perhaps1 be true that the psychical difference between the ape and man is smaller than that between the ape and unicellular organisms 7though we really can know nothing about that74 ,but nowhere in the animal world does the psychical overstep the limits of purely natural existence1 of striving after and being prompted by the directly and purely natural ends of a vegetative and animal instinctive life1 physical pleasure1 self-preservation1 and the maintenance of the species4 ,and there is more than this4 ,however different the psychical equipment may be at different animal stages1 it has one thing in common in them all1 it is absolutely limited to what is given it by nature4 ,an animal species may last for a million years4 ,but it has no history4 ,it is and remains the same history-less natural product4 ,in this respect the animal is not a step in advance of the stone or the crystal4 ,the only thing it can achieve is to express more or less perfectly the character of the species4 ,this is the utmost height of its capacity4 ,but for man this is only the starting-point1 and the really human begins just there4 ,what is implicit in him as homo sapiens1 a member of a zoological order1 is nothing more than the natural basis upon which1 in human and individual history1 he may build up an entirely unique and new creation1 an upper story3 the world and life of the spirit4 ,it is also erroneous to regard the gradual development of the psychical capacities at the different levels of animal evolution as the development of and preparation for the human spirit4 ,it is not the spirit1 but the raw material of it1 that is thus being prepared and developed4 ,it is as if1 in the history of colour manufacture1 an 8evolution0 of colour were taking place4 ,the quality of the colour gradually becomes better and better4 ,each generation learns to make it purer and more brilliant4 ,but the painting which is painted with the most brilliant colour cannot be regarded as a link in the evolutionary sequence1 and is certainly not the crown and culmination of the pigment2 the latter is only the gradual perfecting of a necessary preliminary condition4 ,it is only of secondary interest to point out the immense leaps in the evolution of colour and colour-technique1 and especially the vast difference between the last stage and the one before it1 or1 to drop the metaphor1 the enormous psychological differences between the animal and the human mind4 ,there is no doubt that an apologetic which interests itself in such matters would find abundant opportunity for work1 and could find a powerful argument against a too hasty naturalism in the differences between animal and human psychical capacities1 which have been recognised much more sanely and clearly through recent investigation than they usually were in earlier times4 ,but the question has no special interest for us here4 ,personality4 ,in as far as man is endowed with a capacity for spiritual life and spiritual possession1 he is likewise destined for personality4 ,this includes and designates everything that expresses the peculiar dignity of human nature4 ,personality is a word which gives us an inward thrill4 ,it expresses what is most individual in us1 what is set before us1 our highest task and the inmost tendency of our being4 ,what is personality8 ,certainly something which is only a rudiment in us at birth1 and is not then realised1 and at the same time an ideal which we feel more or less indistinctly1 but without being able to outline it clearly4 ,to exhaust the idea as far as possible is the task of ethical science4 ,but one thing at any rate we can affirm about it with certainty3 it is absolutely bounded off from the whole world and all existence as a self-contained and independent world in itself4 ,the more we become persons1 the more clearly1 definitely1 and indissolubly we raise ourselves with our spiritual life and spiritual possessions out of all the currents of natural phenomena1 the more do we cease to be mere modes of a general existence and happening that flows about us1 and in which we would otherwise float with vaguely defined outlines4 ,a microcosm forms itself in contradistinction to the macrocosm1 and a unity1 a monad1 arises1 in regard to which there is now warrant for inquiring into its duration and immortality as compared with the stream of general becoming and passing away4 ,for what does it matter to religion whether1 in addition to physical indivisible atoms1 there are spiritual ones which1 by reason of their simplicity1 are indestructible8 ,but that the unities which we call personalities are superior to all the manifoldness and diversity of the world1 that they are not fleeting fortuitous formations among the many which evolution is always giving rise to and breaking down again1 but that they are the aim and meaning of all existence1 and that as such they are above the common lot of all that has only a transient meaning and a temporal worth--to inquire into all this and to affirm it is religion itself4 ,parallelism4 ,the independence and underivability of the psychical1 the incomparability of its uniformities with those of mechanical or physico-chemical laws1 has proved itself so clear and incontrovertible1 notwithstanding all the distortions of naturalism1 that it is now regarded as a self-evident fact1 not only among philosophers and epistemologists1 and technical psychologists1 but for the last decade even among all thinking men1 and 8materialism0 is now an obsolete position4 ,it was too crude and too contrary to all experience to define the relation between physical and mental1 as if the latter were a mere secretion of the former1 although a very subtle one1 or a mere epi-phenomenon of it1 in such a way that all reality and effectiveness was on the side of the physical4 ,in place of this1 another theory has become widespread1 which claims to define the relation of the two series of phenomena better and more adequately3 the theory of psychophysical parallelism4 ,it is not new4 ,there are occasional indications of it even in ,aristotle's psychology4 ,it was suggested by ,descartes in his automaton theory1 by the occasionalists in their parable of the two watches running in exact agreement2 it was developed by ,spinoza and ,leibnitz1 and refined by the idealistic philosophers1 by ,schopenhauer1 ,fechner1 and the modern psychologists4 ,the form in which it is most prevalent now is that given to it by ,spinoza1 and he is usually referred to in connection with it4 ,its general tenor is as follows3 ,the physical cannot be referred back to the psychical1 nor the psychical to the physical4 ,both orders of phenomena run side by side as parallels that never separate4 ,both represent a concatenation of causes complete in itself1 that is never broken1 or interrupted1 or completed4 ,and in both there is real causality4 ,thought really causes thoughts and feelings4 ,movement really causes movements4 ,but the one series is always strictly correlated with the other1 and corresponds with it4 ,and thus all existence is double1 and man is an obvious illustration of this4 ,to every thought1 feeling1 or exercise of will there corresponds some excitement1 movement or change in the body4 ,i will3 my arm moves4 ,subtle nervous processes run their course in my brain1 and ,i think4 ,that ,i will has its sufficient reasons1 its causes lie entirely in the preceding state of my mind1 in motives of feeling1 in ideas which again have their efficient causes in a previous psychical condition1 and so on4 ,and that my arm moves has its efficient cause in the stored-up energies of the muscle-substance1 in the stimulus and impulse conveyed by the motor nerve from the brain4 ,and these conditions have their purely physiological causes and reasons again in preceding purely physiological states and processes4 7,it goes without saying that a mechanical theory of life is the necessary presupposition of this parallelistic theory47 ,but both sets of processes correspond exactly one to another1 and the first is only the inner aspect of the second1 and the second the outer aspect of the first4 ,thus it is quite true that my arm moves when ,i will4 ,but in reality it is quite as true to say that when my arm moves ,i will4 ,but we must not substitute 8because0 for 8when40 ,this theory must maintain1 and does maintain1 that even the most abstract and subtle ideas1 the deepest processes of consciousness1 have some corresponding bodily processes1 either in the brain or in the nervous substance generally1 and1 on the other hand1 that no physical process is without this psychical inwardness4 ,the result is that this inwardness and soul are attributed also to the purely material world1 the world of 8dead0 matter4 ,in this way it is believed that everything gets its due2 the thorough mechanical explicability of bodily phenomena1 and the law of the conservation of energy and of matter1 and1 on the other hand1 very decisively also1 the independence and uniqueness of law which can no longer be denied to the psychical4 ,and from this latter standpoint sharp protests are raised against all materialistic distortions4 ,the only thing denied is the old idea of the 8influxus physicus10 the idea1 that is1 that mind can operate beyond itself and take effect on the physical world1 and conversely the physical world upon it4 ,this again is regarded as a breach of the law of the conservation of energy4 ,for if the bodily affects consciousness1 then at a given moment a certain amount of energy must be transformed into something that is not energy4 ,and if consciousness affects the bodily1 a process of movement must suddenly occur1 for which no previous equivalent of energy can be shown4 ,this standpoint is most impressively set forth in ,paulsen's widely read 8,introduction to ,philosophy40 ,the same ideas form the central feature in the work of ,fechner1 which is having such a marked renaissance to-day4 ,it seems as though all higher estimates of spirit1 even the religious estimate1 could quite well rest upon this basis4 ,for full scope is here given to the idea that mind and the mental sciences have their own particular field4 ,god1 as the absolute all-consciousness and self-consciousness1 comprehending within ,himself all individual consciousness1 is thought of as the eternal correlate of this universe in space4 ,and the theory has room also for a belief in immortality4 ,of all imaginative attempts to make the idea of immortality clear and possible1 undoubtedly that of ,fechner is the grandest and most effective4 ,and it1 too1 is based entirely upon the idea of parallelism4 7,yet as a matter of fact it could be shown that neither mortality nor immortality really fit into the scheme of this conception47 ,though its main features are very similar as set forth by its various champions1 this theory differs according to the way in which this astonishing and mysterious co-ordination1 this parallelism itself1 is explained4 ,how is it that 8thought0 and 8extension0 can correspond to one another8 ,the answer may be either navely dogmatic1 that this is one of the great riddles of the universe1 and that we must simply take it for granted4 ,others declare with ,spinoza that the two series of phenomena are only the two sides of one and the same fundamental being and happening1 which may be designated as natura sive deus1 and that what is inwardly unified expresses itself outwardly in these two forms of being4 ,but because both sides1 thought and extension1 are only expressions of one and the same fundamental substance1 they correspond exactly to one another4 ,the best illustration of this is ,fechner's simile of the curved line4 ,it is concave on one side1 convex on the other1 and thus entirely different on the two sides4 ,but at every point the concavity corresponds exactly to the convexity4 ,and this is possible because the two are the inner and the outer aspects of the same line4 ,others1 again1 go back to the fundamental ideas of critical idealism1 and declare the whole extended world accessible to the senses and the mechanical-physical nexus of cause and phenomena1 to be simply the form of appearance in which the fundamentally spiritual existence presents itself to our senses4 ,body1 movement1 physiological processes1 are all nothing more than the will1 to speak with ,fichte and ,schopenhauer1 or the idea1 or the spirit itself1 which appears thus to sensory beings4 ,other theories1 some of them new1 are also put forward4 ,no ,parallelism4 ,for a long time it seemed as if the theory of parallelism was to gain general acceptance4 ,one might write a whole history of the gradually increasing criticisms of1 and reactions from the academic theories which had become almost canonical4 ,but we may here confine ourselves to the most general of the objections to the parallelistic theory4 ,they apply to the general idea of parallelism itself1 and affect the different standpoints of the parallelists in different degrees4 ,the theory in no way corresponds to what we find in ourselves from direct experience4 ,it is only with the greatest difficulty that we can convince ourselves that our arm moves only when and not because we will4 ,the consciousness of being1 through the will1 the actual cause of our own bodily movements is so energetic and direct and certain1 that it maintains its sway in spite of all objections1 and confuses the argument even of the parallelists themselves4 ,usually after they have laid the foundations of a purely parallelistic theory1 they abandon it again as quickly as possible1 and revert to the expressions and images of ordinary thought4 ,indeed we have no clearer and more certain example of causality in general than in our own capacity for controlling changes in our own bodies4 ,further1 a very fatal addition and burdensome accessory of the parallelistic theory is involved in the two corollaries it has above and beneath it4 ,on the one hand there is the necessity for attributing soul to everything4 ,these mythologies of atom-souls1 molecule-souls1 this hatred and love which are the inner aspects even of the simple facts of attraction and repulsion among the elements1 fit better into the nature-philosophy of ,empedocles and ,anaxagoras than into ours4 ,the main support1 indeed the sole support1 of this position is that this world of the infinitely little cannot be brought under control as far as its 8soul0 is concerned4 ,thus we can impute 8a soul0 to it without danger4 ,on the other hand1 there is a difficulty which made itself felt even in regard to ,spinoza's system4 ,all bodily processes must have psychical processes corresponding to them1 said ,spinoza4 ,conversely1 all ideas in their turn must have bodily processes4 ,to the system including all bodily processes corresponds the sum-total of psychical processes4 ,this sum-total we call the soul4 ,and in its entirety it is the idea corporis4 ,if 8soul0 were really nothing more than this1 the theory of parallelism might be right4 ,but it is more than this4 ,it rises above itself1 and becomes also the idea ide2 it is self-consciousness and the consciousness of the ego2 it makes its own thought and the laws of it1 its feelings and their intensity--its experiences in short--a subject of thought4 ,how does this fit in with parallelism8 ,wundt himself1 the most notable modern champion of parallelism1 admits and defines these limits of the parallelistic theory on both sides4 ,furthermore1 the theory of parallelism1 notwithstanding its opposition to materialism1 must presuppose that localisation of psychical processes of which we have already spoken1 and to which all naturalism appeals with so much emphasis4 ,because of the fact that particular psychical functions seem to be limited to a particular and definable area of the brain-cortex1 or to a spot which could be isolated on a particular convolution1 it seemed as if naturalism could prove that 8soul0 was obviously a function of this particular organ or part of an organ4 ,according to the theory of parallelism this does not follow4 ,it would assert3 8,what in one aspect appears to be a psychical process1 appears in another aspect to be a definite physiological process of the brain40 ,yet it is clear that in order to gain support for the doctrine of mutual correspondence1 parallelism has also the same interest in such localisation4 ,for this is the only method by which it can empirically control its theory4 ,but this whole idea of localisation does not hold good to anything like the extent to which the members of the naturalistic school are wont to assert that it does4 ,in regard to this point1 too1 there has been considerable disillusioning in recent years4 ,perhaps all that can be said is1 that localisation of psychical processes is a fact analogous to the fact that sight is associated with the optic nerves and hearing with the auditory nerves4 ,progressive investigation leads more and more clearly to the recognition of a fact which makes localisation comparatively unimportant1 namely1 the vicarious functioning of different parts of the brain4 ,in many cases where this or that 8centre0 is injured1 and rendered incapable of function1 or even extirpated1 the corresponding part of the mind is by no means destroyed along with it4 ,at first the mind may suffer from 8the effect of shock0 as the phrase runs1 but gradually it may recover and the same function may be transferred to another part of the brain1 and there be fulfilled sometimes less perfectly1 sometimes quite as perfectly as before4 ,we had to deal with this fact of vicarious function in discussing the general theory of life4 ,it is one of the greatest difficulties in the way of the mechanistic and materialistic theories4 ,but it must give some trouble to the parallelists too4 ,we need not speak of the wonderful duplication of all existence which parallelism must establish1 though it is difficult to evade the question how a natura sive deus could have come1 so superfluously1 to say the same thing twice over4 ,superfluously1 for since both are alike self-contained and independent of one another1 one can have no need of the other4 ,one objection1 however1 may be urged against both parallelism and materialism1 which makes them both impossible1 and that is1 automatism4 ,both parallelism and materialism maintain that the sequence of physical processes is complete in itself and can be explained in terms of itself4 ,all physical processes6 ,not only the movements of the stars1 the changes in inanimate matter1 the origin and evolution of the forms of life1 but also what we call actions1 for instance the movements of our arms and our legs1 and the complicated processes affecting the breathing organs and tongue1 which we call 8speech40 ,every plant1 every animal1 every human being must be as it is and where it is1 must move and act1 must perform its functions1 which we explain as due to love or hate1 to fear or hope1 even if there were no such thing as sensation1 will1 idea1 neither love nor hate1 fear nor hope4 ,more than this1 all that we call history1 building towns and destroying them1 carrying on war and concluding peace1 uniting into states and holding national assemblies1 going to school and exercising mouth and tongue1 argument1 making books and forming letters1 writing ,iliads1 ,bibles1 and treatises on the soul or on free will1 holding psychological congresses and talking about parallelism2--all this must have been done even if there had been no consciousness1 no psychical activity in any brain6 ,this is the necessary consequence to which the theories of parallelism and materialism lead4 ,if it does not follow1 then there was from the outset no meaning in establishing them4 ,but the monstrosity of their corollary is fatal to them4 ,it is idle to set up theories in which it is impossible to believe4 ,there is another consideration that affects parallelism alone4 ,since the theory credits each of the two series with a closed and sufficient causal sequence1 each of which excludes the other1 it does away with causality altogether4 ,that the one line runs parallel with the other excludes the idea that a unique system of laws prevails1 determining the character and course of each line4 ,one of the two lines must certainly be dependent1 and one must lead4 ,otherwise there can be no distinctness of laws in either4 ,let us recall our illustration of the cloud shadows once more2 the changing forms of the shadows correspond point for point with those of the clouds only because they are entirely dependent upon them4 ,we may illustrate it in this way3 a parallel may be drawn to an ellipse1 it also forms a closed curved line4 ,but it is by no means again an ellipse1 but is an entirely dependent figure without any formula or law of its own4 ,parallelism must make one of its lines the leading one1 which is guided and directed by an actual causal connection within itself4 ,the other line may then run parallel with this1 but its course must certainly be determined by the other4 ,and as the line of corporeal processes1 with its inviolable nexus of sequences1 is not easily broken1 parallelism1 after many hard words against materialism1 frequently returns to that again or becomes inconsistent4 ,but if one says that the two aspects of phenomena are only the forms of one fundamental phenomenon1 that means taking away actual causality from both alike1 and leaving only a temporal sequence4 ,for then the actually real is the hidden something that throws the cloud-shadows to right and left4 ,but in the sequence of shadows there is no causal connection1 only a series of states succeeding one another in time1 and this points to a causal connection elsewhere4 ,it is easy enough to find examples to prove that the mental in us influences the bodily4 ,but the most convincing1 deepest and most trustworthy of these are not the voluntary actions which are expressed in bodily movements1 nor even the passions and emotions1 the joy which makes our blood circulate more quickly1 and the shame which brings a flush to our foreheads1 the suggestions which work through the mind towards the reviving1 vitalising or healing of the body1 but the cold and simple course of logical thought itself4 ,through logical thinking we have the power to correct the course of our conceptions1 to inhibit1 modify1 or logically direct the natural course1 as it would have been had it been brought about by our preceding physiological and psychical states1 if they were dominant and uncontrolled4 ,but if so1 then we must also have the power1 especially if it be widely true that physiological states correspond to psychical states1 to influence1 inhibit1 modify the nerve-processes in our brain1 or to liberate entirely new ones1 namely1 those that correspond to the corrected conceptions4 ,the law of the conservation of energy is here applied in as distorted a sense as we detected before in regard to the general theory of life4 ,and what we said there holds good here also4 ,that something which is in itself not energetic should determine processes and directions of energy is undoubtedly an absolute riddle4 ,but to recognise this is less difficult than to accept the impossibilities which mechanism and automatism offer us here1 even more pronouncedly than in regard to the theory of life4 ,perhaps one of the familiar antinomies of ,kant shows us the way1 not1 indeed1 to find the solution of the riddle1 but to recognise1 so to speak1 its geometrical position and associations4 ,we have already seen that inquiry into the causal conditions of processes lands us in contradictions of thought1 which show us that we can never really penetrate into the actual state of the matter4 ,perhaps we have here to do only with the obverse side of the problem dealt with there4 ,there the chain of conditions could not be finished because it led on to infinity1 where1 however1 it was required that it should be complete4 ,here again the chain is incomplete4 ,in the previous case a solution is found through the nave proceeding of simply breaking the empirical connection of conditions and postulating beginnings in time4 ,in this case1 the admission of an influxus physicus transforms consciousness almost unnoticed into a mechanically operative causality4 ,the proper attitude in both cases is a critical one4 ,we must admit that we cannot penetrate into the true state of the case1 because the world is deeper than our knowledge1 we must reject parallelism as being1 like the influxus physicus1 an unsatisfactory cutting of the critical knot1 and we must frankly recognise the incontrovertible fact1 never indeed seriously called in question1 of the controlling power of the mind1 even over the material4 ,the ,supremacy of ,mind4 ,from the standpoint we have now reached we can look back once more on those troublesome naturalistic insinuations as to the dependence of the mind upon the body1 which we have already considered4 ,it is evident to us all that our mental development and the fate of our inner life are closely bound up with the states and changes of the body4 ,and it did not need the attacks and insinuations of naturalism to point this out4 ,but the reasons brought forward by naturalism are not convincing1 and all the weighty facts it adduces could be balanced by facts equally weighty on the other side4 ,we have already shown that the apparently dangerous doctrine of localisation is far from being seriously prejudicial4 ,but if the dependence of the mind upon the body be great1 that of the body upon the mind is greater still4 ,even ,kant wrote tersely and drily about 8the power of our mind through mere will to be master over our morbid feelings40 ,and every one who has a will knows how much strict self-discipline and firm willing can achieve even with a frail and wretched body1 and handicapped by exhaustion and weakness4 ,joy heals1 care wastes away1 and both may kill4 ,the influence which 8blood0 and 8bile0 or any other predisposition may have upon temperament and character can be obviated or modified through education1 or transformed and guided into new channels through strong psychical impressions and experiences1 most of all by great experiences in the domain of morals and religion4 ,no one doubts the reality of those great internal revolutions of which religion is well aware1 which arise purely from the mind1 and are able to rid us of all natural bonds and burdens4 ,this mysterious region of the influence of the mind in modifying bodily states or producing new ones is in these days being more and more opened up4 ,that grief can turn the hair grey and disgust bring out eruptions on the skin has long been known4 ,but new and often marvellous facts are being continually added to our knowledge through curious experiments with suggestion1 hypnosis1 and auto-suggestion4 ,and we are no longer far from believing that through exaltations1 forced states of mind associated with auto-suggestion1 many phenomena1 such as 8stigmata10 for instance1 which have hitherto been over hastily relegated to the domain of pious legend1 may possibly have a 8scientific0 background4 8,the ,unconscious04 ,but one has a repugnance to descending into this strange region4 ,and religion1 with its clear and lofty mood1 can never have either taste for or relationship with considerations which so easily take an 8occult0 turn4 ,nor is its mysticism concerned with physiologies4 ,but it is instructive and noteworthy that the old idealistic faith1 8,it is the mind that builds up the body for itself10 is becoming stronger again in all kinds of philosophies and physiologies of 8the unconscious10 as a reaction from the onesidedness of the mechanistic theories1 and that it draws its chief support from the dependence of nervous and other bodily processes upon the psychical1 which is being continually brought into greater and greater prominence4 ,the moderate and luminous views of the younger ,fichte1 who probably also first introduced the now current term 8the unconscious10 must be at least briefly mentioned4 ,according to him1 the impulse towards the development of form which is inherent in everything living1 and which builds up the organism from the germ to the complete whole1 by forcing the chemical and physical processes into particular paths1 is identical with the psychical itself4 ,in instincts1 the unconscious purposive actions of the lower animals in particular1 he sees only a special mode of this at first unconscious psychical nature1 which1 building up organ after organ1 makes use in doing so of all the physical laws and energies1 and is at first wholly immersed in purely physiological processes4 ,it is only after the body has been developed1 and presents a relatively independent system capable of performing the necessary functions of daily life1 that it rises beyond itself and gradually unfolds to conscious psychical life in increasing self-realisation4 ,edward von ,hartmann has attempted to apply this principle of the unconscious as a principle of all cosmic existence4 ,and wherever1 among the younger generation of biologists1 one has broken away from the fascinations of the mechanistic theory1 he has usually turned to 8psychical0 co-operating factors4 ,is there ,ageing of the ,mind8 ,naturalism is also only apparently right in asserting that the mind ages with the body4 ,to learn the answer which all idealism gives to this comfortless theory1 it is well to read ,schleiermacher's 8,monologues10 and especially the chapter 8,youth and ,age40 ,the arguments put forward by naturalism1 the blunting of the senses1 the failing of the memory1 are well known4 ,but here again there are luminous facts on the other side which are much more true4 ,it is no wonder that a mind ages if it has never taken life seriously1 never consolidated itself to individual and definite being through education and self-culture1 through a deepening of morality1 and has gained for itself no content of lasting worth4 ,how could he do otherwise than become poor1 dull and lifeless1 as the excitability of his organ diminishes and its susceptibility to external impressions disappears8 ,but did ,goethe become old8 ,did not ,schleiermacher1 frail and ailing as he was by nature1 prove the truth of what he wrote in his youth1 that there is no ageing of the mind8 ,the whole problem1 in its highest aspects1 is a question of will and faith4 ,if ,i know mind and the nature of mind1 and believe in it1 ,i believe with ,schleiermacher in eternal youth4 ,if ,i do not believe in it1 then ,i have given away the best of all means for warding off old age4 ,for the mind can only hold itself erect while trusting in itself4 ,and this is the best argument in the whole business4 ,but even against the concrete special facts and the observable processes of diminution of psychical powers1 and of the disappearance of the whole mental content1 we could range other concrete and observable facts1 which present the whole problem in quite a different light from that in which naturalism attempts to show it4 ,they indicate that the matter is rather one of the rusting of the instrument to which the mind is bound than an actual decay of the mind itself1 and that it is a withdrawing of the mind within itself1 comparable rather to sleep than to decay4 ,the remarkable power of calling up forgotten memories in hypnosis1 the suddenly re-awakening memory a few minutes before death1 in which sometimes the whole past life is unrolled with surprising clearness and detail1 the flaming up anew of a rusty mind in moments of great excitement1 the great clearing up of the mind before its departure1 and many other facts of the same nature1 are rather to be regarded as signs that in reality the mind never loses anything of what it has once experienced or possessed4 ,it has only become buried under the surface4 ,it has been withdrawn from the stage1 but is stored up in safe treasure-chambers4 ,and the whole stage may suddenly become filled with it again4 ,the simile of an instrument and the master who plays upon it1 which is often used of the relation between body and mind1 is in many respects a very imperfect one2 for the master does not develop with and in his instrument4 ,but in regard to the most oppressive arguments of naturalism1 the influence of disease1 of old age1 of mental disturbances due to brain changes1 the comparison serves our turn well enough1 for undoubtedly the master is dependent upon his instrument2 upon an organ which is going more and more out of tune1 rusting1 losing its pipes1 his harmonies will become poorer1 more imperfect4 ,and if we think of the association between the two as further obstructed1 the master becoming deaf1 the stops confused1 the relation between the notes and pipes altered1 then what may still live within him in perfect and unclouded purity1 and in undiminished richness1 may present itself outwardly as confused and unintelligible1 may even find only disconnected expression1 and finally cease altogether2 so that no conclusion would be possible except that the master himself had become different or poorer4 ,the melancholy field of mental diseases perhaps yields proofs against naturalism to an even greater degree than for it4 ,it is by no means the case that all mental diseases are invariably diseases of the brain1 for even more frequently they are real sicknesses of the mind1 which yield not to physical but to psychical remedies4 ,and the fact that the mind can be ill1 is a sad but emphatic proof that it goes its own way4 ,immortality4 ,it is in a faith in a ,beyond1 and in the immortality of our true being1 that what lies finely distributed through all religion sums itself up and comes to full blossoming3 the certainty that world and existence are insufficient1 and the strong desire to break through into the true being1 of which at the best we have here only a foretaste and intuition4 ,the doctrine of immortality stands by itself as a matter of great solemnity and deep rapture4 ,if it is to be talked about1 both speaker and hearers ought to be in an exalted mood4 ,it is the conviction which1 of all religious convictions1 can be least striven for consciously2 it must well forth from devotional personal experience of the spirit and its dignity1 and thus can maintain itself without1 and indeed against much reasoning4 ,to educate and cultivate it in us requires a discipline of meditation1 of concentration1 and of spiritual self-culture from within outwards4 ,if we understood better what it meant to 8live in the spirit10 to develop the receptivity1 fineness1 and depth of our inner life1 to listen to and cultivate what belongs to the spirit1 to inform it with the worth and content of religion and morality1 and to integrate it in the unity and completeness of a true personality1 we should attain to the certainty that personal spirit is the fundamental value and meaning of all the confused play of evolution1 and is to be estimated on quite a different scale from all other being which is driven hither and thither in the stream of ,becoming and ,passing away1 having no meaning or value because of which it must endure4 ,and it would be well also if we understood better how to listen with keener senses to our intuitions1 to the direct self-consciousness of the spirit in regard to itself1 which sleeps in every mind1 but which few remark and fewer still interpret4 ,here1 where the gaze of self-examination reaches its horizon1 and can only guess at what lies beyond1 but can no longer interpret it1 lie the true motives and reasons for our conviction of immortality4 ,an apologetic cannot do more than clear away obstacles1 nor need it do much more than has hitherto been done4 ,it reminds us1 as we have already seen1 that the world which we know and study1 and which includes ourselves1 does not show its true nature to us2 hidden depths lie behind appearances4 ,and it gathers together and sums up all the great reasons for the independence and underivability of the spiritual as contrasted with the corporeal4 ,the spiritual has revealed itself to us as a reality in itself1 which cannot be explained in terms of the corporeal1 and which has dominion over it4 ,its beginning and its end are wholly unfathomable4 ,there is no practical meaning in discussing its 8origin0 or its 8passing away10 as we do with regard to the corporeal4 ,under certain corporeal conditions it is there1 it simply appears4 ,but it does not arise out of them4 ,and as it is not nothing1 but an actual and effective reality1 it can neither have come out of nothing nor disappear into nothing again4 ,it appears out of the absolutely transcendental1 associates itself with corporeal processes1 determines these and is determined by them1 and in its own time passes back from this world of appearance to the transcendental again4 ,it is like a great unknown sea1 that pours its waters into the configuration of the shore and withdraws them again4 ,but neither the flowing in nor the ebbing again is of nothing or in nothing4 ,whether and how it retains the content1 form1 and structure that it assumes in other spheres of animate and conscious nature1 when it retires into the transcendental again2 or whether it dissolves and breaks up into the universal we do not know2 nor do we attribute everlastingness to those individual forms of consciousness which we call animal souls4 ,but of the self-conscious1 personal spirit religion knows that it is everlasting4 ,it knows this from its own sources4 ,in its insight into the underivability and autonomy of the spiritual it finds warrant and freedom to maintain this knowledge as something apart from or even in contrast to the general outlook on the world4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,the ,,world ,,and ,,god4 ,the world and nature are marvellous in their being1 but they are not 8divine06 ,the formula 8natura sive deus0 is a monstrous misuse of the word 8deus10 if we are to use the words in the sense which history has given to them4 ,god is the ,absolute ,being1 perfect1 wholly independent1 resting in ,himself1 and necessary2 nature is entirely contingent and dependent1 and at every point of it we are impelled to ask 8,why80 ,god is the immeasurable fulness of ,being1 nature is indeed diverse in the manifoldness of her productions1 but she is nevertheless limited1 and her possibilities are restricted within narrow limits4 ,god is the unrestrained1 and everlasting omnipotence itself1 and the perfect wisdom2 nature is indeed mighty enough in the attainment of her ends1 but how often is she obstructed1 how often does she fail to reach them1 and how seldom does she do so perfectly and without mistakes8 ,she shows wisdom1 indeed1 cunning in her products1 subtlety and daintiness1 taste and beauty1 all these often in an overwhelming degree1 yet just as often she brings forth what is meaningless1 contradictory and mutually hurtful1 traverses her own lines1 and bewilders us by the brutality1 the thoughtlessness1 and purposelessness1 the crookedness1 incompleteness1 and distortedness of her operations4 ,and what is true of the world of external nature is true in a far greater degree of the world of history4 ,nature is not a god1 but a demigod1 says ,aristotle4 ,and on this1 ,pantheism with its creed1 8natura sive deus10 makes shipwreck4 ,the words of this credo are either a mere tautology1 and 8deus0 is misused as a new name for nature2 or they are false4 ,it is not possible to transfer to nature and the world all the great ideas and feelings which the religious mind cherishes under the name of 8,god40 ,on the other hand1 nature is really1 as ,aristotle said1 1 that is1 strange1 mysterious1 and marvellous1 indicating ,god1 and pointing1 all naturalism and superficial consideration notwithstanding1 as we have seen1 to something outside of and beyond itself4 ,religion demands no more than this4 ,it does not insist upon finding a solution for all the riddles of theoretical world-lore4 ,it is not distressed because the course of nature often seems to our eyes confused1 and to our judgment contradictory and unintelligible at a hundred places and in a hundred respects4 ,on the contrary1 that this is the case is to religion in another aspect a strong stimulus and corroboration4 8,the world is an odd fellow2 may ,god soon make an end of it10 said ,luther1 and thus gave a crude but truly religious parallel to the words of ,aristotle1 1 7,aristot4 8,de ,divin4 in ,somn410 c4 ii474 ,it is part of the very essence of religion1 as we have seen1 to read in the pages of nature1 insufficiency1 illusion1 and perplexities1 and to be made thereby impatient and desirous of penetrating to the true nature of things4 ,religion does not claim to be directly deducible out of a consideration of nature2 it demands only the right and freedom to interpret the world in its own way4 ,and for this it is sufficient that this world affords those hints and suggestions for its convictions that we have seen it does afford4 ,to form clear ideas in regard to the actual relations of the infinite to the finite1 and of ,god to the world1 and of what religion calls creation1 preservation1 and eternal providence1 self-revelation in the world and in history1 is hardly the task of religion at all1 but rather pertains to our general speculative instinct1 which can only satisfy itself with the help of imagination4 ,attempts of this kind have often been made4 ,they are by no means valueless1 for even if no real knowledge can be gained by this method1 we may perhaps get an analogue of it which will help us to understand existence and phenomena1 and to define our position1 as well as to give at least provisional answers to many pressing questions 7such1 for instance1 as the problem of theodicy74 ,if we study the world unprejudiced by the naturalistic interpretation1 or having shaken ourselves free from it1 we are most powerfully impressed by one fundamental phenomenon in all existence3 it is the fact of evolution4 ,it challenges attention and interpretation1 and analogies quickly reveal themselves which give something of the same trend to all such interpretations4 ,from stage to stage existence advances onwards1 from the world of large masses subject only to the laws of mechanics1 to the delicately complex play of the forces of development in growth and other vital processes4 ,the nature of the forces is revealed in ever higher expression1 and at the same time in ever more closely connected series of stages4 ,even between the inorganic and the organic there is an intermediate stage--crystal formation--which is no longer entirely of the one1 yet not of the other4 ,and in the organic world evolution reveals itself most clearly of all2 from the crudest and simplest it presses onwards to the most delicate and complex4 ,in the corporeal as in the psychical1 in the whole as in each of its parts1 there are ever higher stages1 sometimes far apart1 sometimes close together4 ,however we picture to ourselves the way in which evolution accomplishes itself in time1 we can scarcely describe it without using such expressions as 8nature advances upwards step by step10 8it presses and strives upwards and unfolds itself stage by stage40 ,and it is with us as it was with ,plato2 we inform the world with a soul1 with a desire and endeavour which continually expresses itself in higher and higher forms4 ,and it is with us also as with ,fichte2 we speak of the will which1 unconscious of itself1 pours itself forth in unconscious and lifeless nature1 and then on this foundation strives forward1 expressing its activity in ever higher developments1 breaking forth in life1 sensation1 and desire1 and finally coming to itself in conscious existence and will4 ,the whole world seems to us a being which wills to become1 presses restlessly forward1 and passes from the potential to the actual1 realising itself4 ,and the height of its self-realisation is conscious1 willing life4 ,this outlook is lofty and significant1 it supplies a guiding clue by which the facts of life and nature can be arranged4 ,the religious outlook1 too1 when it wishes to indulge in speculation1 can make use of this guiding thread4 ,it will then say3 ,god established the world as 8a will to existence1 to consciousness1 to spirit40 ,he established it1 not as complete1 but as becoming4 ,he does not build it as a house1 but plants it1 like a flower1 in the seed1 that it may grow1 that it may struggle upwards stage by stage to fuller existence1 aspiring with toil and endeavour towards the height where1 in the image of the ,creator1 as a free and reasonable spirit capable of personality1 it may realise the aim of its being4 ,thus the world is of ,god1 that is1 its rudiments came from ,god1 and it is to ,god1 in the purpose of likeness to ,god4 ,and it is imbued with the breath of ,godhead which moves in it and impels it onwards1 with the logos of the everlasting ,zeus of whom ,cleanthes sings1 with the spirit of ,jehovah whom ,isaiah and the ,psalmist praise1 and whom the poet of the ,creation figuratively paints2 the divine breath is in everything that lives1 from grass to flower1 from animal to man4 ,but it is implanted as becoming4 ,and in regard to this1 religion can say of the whole world what it says of man4 ,for man1 too1 is not given as a finished product1 either as regards the genus or the individual1 but as a rudiment1 with his destiny to work out1 in historical becoming1 by realising what is inherent in him4 ,we call this freedom4 ,and an adumbration of such freedom1 which is the aim of self-realisation1 would help us to penetrate deeply into the nature of things4 ,many riddles and apparent contradictions could be fitted in with this view of things3 the unity of the world1 and yet the gradations2 the relationship of all living creatures1 the unity of all psychical life1 and yet the uniqueness of the rational spirit2 causal concatenation1 yet guidance by means of the highest ideas and purposes2 the tentativeness1 illogicalness1 and ineffectiveness of nature1 unconsciously pressing forward along uncertain paths1 yet the directness and purposefulness of the main lines of evolution in general4 ,this ,god-awakened will to be lies at the roots of the mysteries of development in all living creatures1 of the unconscious purposiveness of instinctive action1 of the gradually ascending development of psychical life and its organ4 ,operating in crystals and plants purely as a formative impulse and 8entelechy10 it awakes in the bodies of animals more and more as 8soul40 ,then it awakes fully in man1 and in him1 in an entirely new phase of real free development1 it builds itself up to spirit4 ,it resembles a stream whose waves flow casually and transiently in animal consciousness1 and are soon withdrawn again1 to break forth anew at another place1 in the personal spirit1 where they attain to permanent indissoluble form1 since they have now at last attained to self-realisation1 and fulfilled the purpose of all cosmic existence1 the reflecting of the eternal personality in the creature4 ,but it is only in human history that what was prepared for in natural evolution is completed4 ,the riddle of theodicy thus becomes easier1 for what surrounds us in nature and history has not come direct from the hand of eternal wisdom1 but is in the first place the product of the developing1 striving world1 which only gradually and after many mistakes and failures works out what is inherent in it as eternal idea and aim4 ,we see and blame its mistakes1 for instance in our own human structure4 ,we see the deficiencies in the historical course of things4 ,but when we find fault we do not see that evolution and self-realisation and freedom are more worthy of praise than ready-made existence incapable of independent action4 ,this principle of development1 wherever it is regarded as 8world-soul0 or as 8will0 or as the 8unconscious10 is frequently1 through pantheism and the doctrine of immanence1 made equivalent with the object of religion1 with ,god4 ,this is an impossible undertaking4 ,we cannot worship what only reaches its full development in ourselves4 ,but that we can worship1 and that it is only in the feeling of complete dependence that the full depth of what is developing within us to conscious life reveals itself1 proves better than anything else that ,god is above all 8,world-will40 ,it was more than allegory when ,plato in ,timus set the 8eternal father and creator of the world0 above all soul and psyche4 ,and it was religion that broke through when ,fichte in his little book1 8,anweisung zum seeligen ,leben10 set being before becoming1 and ,god above the creatures struggling towards self-realisation4 ,religion knows in advance that this is so4 ,and calm reflection confirms it4 ,all that we have already learnt of the dependence1 conditionedness1 and contingent nature of the world is equally true of a world 8evolving itself0 out of its potentiality1 of a will to existence1 and of an unconscious realising itself4 ,no flower can grow and develop without being first implicit in the seed4 ,nothing can attain to 8actuality10 to realisation1 that was not potentially implied in the beginning4 ,but who originated the seed of the world-flower8 ,who enclosed within it the 8tendencies10 the 8rudiments0 which realise themselves in evolution8 ,invariably 8the actual is before the potential0 and ,being before ,becoming4 ,a world could only become if it were called to become by an everlasting ,being4 ,god planting the world-flower that it might radiate forth in its blossoms ,his own image and likeness1 is an allegory which may well symbolise for religion the relation between ,god and the world4 ,and thus it is possible to draw the outline of a religious outlook on the world1 into which the results of world-lore could well be fitted4 ,this frame was constructed by ,plato on the basis of a religious study of things1 and after ,plato it was first definitely outlined in ,fichte's too much forgotten but unforgettable books 8,bestimmung des ,menschen0 and 8,anweisung zum seeligen ,leben10 and it is thus a new creation of the great ,german idealism and its mighty faith4 ,and it is not easy to see why it should be abandoned1 why we should give it up in favour of an irreligious1 semi-naturalistic outlook on the world4 ,one thing1 however1 must be kept constantly in mind3 even such an interpretation of the world as this is poetry1 not knowledge4 ,there is a poetry of the will to live1 of the unconscious1 which is struggling towards existence1 but there is no philosophy4 ,there are only analogies and hints of what goes on at the foundations of the world4 ,in particular1 the unconscious creative impulse in all living organisms1 this 8will0 towards form1 its relationship with instinct and the relationship of instinct to conscious psyche1 afford us a step-ladder of illustrations1 and an illustration of the step-ladder of the 8will towards existence10 which invite us to overstep the bounds of our knowledge1 and indulge in our imagination4 ,we can say nothing of pre-conscious consciousness and will1 we can at best only make guesses about them4 ,we cannot think definitely of a general world-will1 which wills and aspires in individual beings2 we cannot picture to ourselves the emergence of the individual 8souls0 of animals and man from a universal psyche4 ,imagination plays a larger part here than clear thinking4 ,and for our present purpose it must be clearly borne in mind that religion does not require any speculative construction of theories of the world4 ,but 8you shall know that it is your imagination which creates the world for you407#ajh7 ,and if a speculative construction be desired1 it will always be most easily attained along these lines1 and will in this way come nearest to our modern knowledge of nature4 ,we must remember1 too1 that the objections which may be urged against this form of speculation are equally applicable against any other4 ,for the origin of the individual psyche1 the graduated series of its forms1 the development of one after the other1 and of that of the child from that of its parents1 are riddles which cannot be solved by any speculative thinking4 ,monadology1 theories of the pre-existence of the soul1 creationism1 or the current traducianism--which to-day1 with its partly or wholly materialistic basis1 is just as nave as the older--all reveal equal darkness4 ,but the speculation we have hinted at1 if it gives no explanation1 at least supplies a framework for many questions which attract us1 and do so even from the point of view of religion3 for instance the collective1 diffuse1 and almost divisible nature of consciousness in the lower stages1 its increasing and ever more strict centralisation1 the natural relationship of the psychical in man to the psychical in general1 and yet its incommensurability and superiority to all the world4 ,but let us once more turn from all the poetical and imaginative illustrations of the relation of ,god to the world1 which can at best be only provisional1 and only applicable at certain points1 to the more general aspect of the problem4 ,religion itself consists in this3 believing and experiencing that in time the ,eternal1 in the finite the ,infinite1 in the world ,god is working1 revealing ,himself1 and that in ,him lies the reason and cause of all being4 ,for this it has names like creation1 providence1 self-revelation of ,god in the world1 and it lives by the mysteries which are indicated under these names4 ,the mysteries themselves it recognises in vague or nave forms of conception long before it attempts any definite formulation4 ,if dogmatics begin with the latter1 some form or other of the stiff and wooden doctrines of concursus1 of influxus ordinarius and extraordinarius usually develops with many other subtleties1 which are nothing more than attempts to formulate the divine influence in finite terms1 and to think of it as a force along with other forces4 ,two series of causes are usually distinguished2 the system of causes and effects within the world1 according to which everything natural takes place1 the 8caus secundari02 and in addition to these the divine causality co-operating and influencing the others1 ordering them with gentle and delicate pressure1 and guiding them towards their true end1 and which may also reveal itself as 8extraordinaria0 in miracles and signs4 ,this double operation is regarded as giving rise to all phenomena1 and in it consists guidance1 dispensation1 providence1 and natural revelation4 ,this kind of conception is extremely primitive1 and is unfavourable to religion itself1 for in it mystery is done away with and arranged according to rubric1 and everything has become quite 8simple40 ,moreover1 this doctrine has a necessary tendency to turn into the dreaded 8,deism40 ,according to the deistic view1 ,god made the world in the beginning1 and set the system of natural causes in motion1 in such a way that no farther assistance was given1 and everything went on of itself4 ,this theory is incredibly profane1 and strikes ,god out of the world1 and nature1 and history at a single stroke1 substituting for ,him the course of a well-arranged system of clockwork4 ,but the former theory is a very unsatisfactory and doubtful makeshift as compared with that of deism1 for it is impossible to see why1 if ,god arranged these caus secundari1 ,he should have made them so weak and ineffective that they need all these ingenious concursus1 influxus1 determinationes1 gubernationes1 and the like4 ,both theories are crude fabrications of the dogmatists1 and they have nothing left in them of the piety they were intended to protect1 nor do they become any better in this respect1 however many attempts are made to define them4 ,religion possesses1 without the aid of any stilted and artificial theories1 all the things we have named above1 and especially and most directly the last of them1 namely1 the experience of the revelation and communication of the ,divine in the great developments and movements of spiritual and religious history4 ,and it finds its corroboration and justification and freedom not by way of dogmatics but of criticism4 ,it is impossible to distinguish artificially two sets of causes1 and to give to the world what is alleged to be of the world1 and to ,god what is alleged to be of ,god4 ,but it is permissible to point to the insufficiency of our causal study in general1 and to the limits of our knowledge4 ,even when we have established it as a fact that all phenomena are linked together in a chain of causes we are still far from having discovered how things actually come to pass4 ,every qualitative effect and change is entirely hidden from us as far as the cause of its coming about and its real and inner nature are concerned4 ,every effect which in kind or quantity goes beyond its cause 7and we cannot make anything of the domain of living forms1 of the psychical and of history without these71 shows us that we are still only at the surface4 ,indeed1 even mechanical action1 often alleged to be entirely intelligible1 such as the transference or transformation of energy1 is1 as we have seen1 a complete riddle4 ,in addition1 all causality runs its course in time1 and therefore partakes of all the defects and limitations of our views of time4 ,and finally we are guided by the ,kantian antinomy regarding the conditions of what is 8given40 ,it destroys the charm of the 8purely causal0 point of view by showing that this in itself cannot be made complete and is therefore contradictory4 ,moreover1 in the phenomena of life1 and in the fact that consciousness and will control our corporeal processes1 and yet can hardly be thought of as a cause 8co-operating0 with other causes1 we found an analogy1 if a weak and obscure one1 of the relation that a divine teleology and governing of the world may bear to mundane phenomena4 ,thus mystery remains in all its strength and is not replaced by the surrogate of a too simple and shallow dogmatic theory4 ,in confessing mystery and resting content with it we are justified by reflection on the nature and antinomy of our knowledge4 ,all this is true also of what religion means by creation4 ,in the feeling of complete humility1 in its experience of absolute dependence and conditionedness1 the creature becomes conscious of itself as a creature1 and experiences with full clearness what it means to be a 8creature0 and 8created40 ,the dogmatic theory is here again only a surrogate of mystery4 ,and again critical self-reflection proves a better guide than any theory of creation1 which is quite in its place as a means of expression in religious discourse and poetry1 but is quite insufficient as true knowledge4 ,that we must but cannot think of this world either as beginning or as not-beginning is the analogue in knowledge of what religion experiences in mystery2 and that this contingent and conditioned world is founded in everlasting1 necessary1 true ,being1 is the analogue of what religion possesses and knows through devout feeling1 more directly and clearly than by any thinking1 of the relations of ,god to the world4 ,,footnotes #a ,this has been urged often enough even by scientific investigators4 ,in such cases they have frequently been reproached for dragging miracles into nature when they call a halt in face of the 8underivable0 and the 8mysterious40 ,this is a complete misunderstanding4 ,with miracles and with the supernatural in the historical sense of these words1 this mode of regarding nature has nothing whatever to do4 ,it would be much more reasonable to maintain the converse3 that there exists between supernatural ideas and the belief in the absolute explicability and rationalisation of nature a peculiar mutual relation and attraction4 ,for1 if we think out the relation clearly1 we must see that all real and consistent belief in miracles demands as its most effective background the clearest possible explicability of nature4 ,it pictures to itself two natures1 so to speak3 nature and supernature1 and the latter of these interpolates itself into the former in the form of sudden and occasional interruptions2 that is to say1 as miracles4 ,the purpose of miracles is to be recognised as such1 as events absolutely different from the ordinary course of happening4 ,and they are most likely thus to be recognised when nature itself is translucent and mathematical4 ,thus we find that supernaturalism quite readily accepts1 and even insists upon a rationalistic explanation of nature4 ,but this is quite incorrect4 ,nature is not so thoroughly rationalised and calculable as such a point of view would have us believe4 ,the really religious element in belief in miracles is that it1 too1 in its own way1 is seeking after mystery1 dependence and providence4 ,it fails because it navely seeks for these in isolated and exceptional acts1 which have no analogy to other phenomena4 ,it regards these as arbitrary acts1 and does so because it overlooks or underestimates the fact that they have to be reckoned with throughout the whole of nature4 #b ,not even after the scholastic manner of regarding eternity as a 8nunc stans10 a stationary now1 an everlasting present4 8,present0 is a moment in our own time1 and an 8everlasting0 present is nonsense4 #c 8,reden ber die ,religion1 an die ,gebildeten unter ihren ,verchtern40 ,neu herausgegeben von ,r4 ,otto4 #aijf4 #d ,kgl4 ,preuss4 ,akademie der ,wissenschaften1 #ahgf4 #e ,some of these subsidiary factors are difficult to harmonise with the main principle of selection2 they endanger it or it endangers them1 as we shall see when we consider the controversies within the ,darwinian camp4 #f ,h4 ,friedmann1 8,die ,konvergenz der ,organismen10 ,berlin1 #aijd4 #g ,it is somewhat confusing that even ,weismann in his most recent work professes to give 8,lectures on the ,theory of ,descent10 and in reality only assumes it1 concerning himself with the ,darwinian theory in the strict sense4 ,the ,english translation is more correctly entitled 8,the ,evolution ,theory40 #h ,cf4 ,wagner1 8,zur gegenwrtigen ,lage des ,darwinismus40 8,die ,umschau10 ,january1 #aijj4 #i ,eugen ,dubois 7,military ,surgeon of the ,dutch ,army71 8,pithecanthropus erectus1 a man-like transition-form from ,java40 ,batavia4 #aijd4 #aj ,h4 ,friedenthal4 8,ueber einen experimentellen ,nachweis von ,blutsverwandtschaft40 ,archiv4 f4 ,anatomie und ,physiologie1 #aijj1 p4 #djd4 #aa ,jena1 #aijd4 ,trans4 8,the ,evolution ,theory10 ,arnold4 ,london #aijd4 #ab ,a defence of this very confident ,darwinian point of view1 for the benefit of non-scientific readers1 will be found in the recent 8,gemeinverstndlichen darwinistischen ,vortrgen und ,abhandlungen10 by ,plate1 ,simroth1 ,schmidt1 and others4 ,see also ,ziegler's 8,ueber den derzcitigen ,stand der ,descendenzlehre in der ,zoologie40 #ac 8,rassenbildung und ,erblichkeit10 ,festschrift fr ,bastian1 p4 #i4 #ad 8,rassenbildung und ,erblichkeit10 ,festschrift fr ,bastian1 p4 #f4 #ae 8,sammlung gemeinverstndl4 ,vortrge1 hrsg4 v4 ,virchow und ,holtzendorf10 ,heft #if4 8,menschen und ,affenschdel10 ,berlin1 #ahgj4 #af 8,zeitschrift fr ,ethnologie10 #ahhb1 p4 #bgf4 #ag 8,verh4 ,berlin anthropolog4 ,gesellschaft iv40 7#ahgb71 p4 #acb4 ,it does1 however1 appear strange to the lay mind that it should have been only the pathological subjects of prehistoric times that had their remains preserved for our modern study4 #ah ,cf4 8,zeitschrift fr ,ethnologie10 #ahie1 pp4 #gh1 #gce4 #ai ,cf4 8,rassenbildung und ,erblichkeit40 ,festschrift fr ,bastian1 #ahie4 #bj ,see also 8,descendenz und ,pathologie40 ,arch4 f4 path4 ,anat4 a4 ,physiol41 #ahhf2 8,transformation und ,abstammung40 ,berliner ,klin4 ,wochenschrift1 #ahic4 #ba ,first edition1 ,leipzig1 #ahhg4 ,a second edition and an ,english translation have since been published4 ,see especially the discussion of the origin and history of species in the second volume4 #bb ,see ,english translation of ,kerner's ,plant ,life4 #bc ,cf4 a criticism of the book from the ,darwinian point of view by ,plate in ,biologisches ,centralblatt1 #aija4 #bd ,that this points only to the fact of evolution1 and not necessarily to actual descent1 will be seen later on4 #be ,first edition1 #ahii2 now in a second edition4 #bf 8,genealogie der ,urzellen als ,lsung des ,descendenzproblems0 7#ahgb71 and 8,der ,darwinismus und die ,naturforschung ,newtons und ,cuviers0 7#ahgd-ahgg74 #bg 8,eine kritische ,darstellung der modernen ,entwicklungslehre10 ,jena1 #ahib4 #bh ,compare ,darwin's derivation of fishes from ,tunicata because of the notochord which occurs in the tunicate larv4 #bi ,see ,hertwig's 8,biological ,problem of ,to-day40 ,london #ahif4 #cj ,the justice of this prophecy has been meanwhile illustrated by the recent work of ,h4 ,friedmann1 8,die ,konvergenz der ,organismen10 ,berlin1 #aijd4 #ca ,if we wish to1 we can even read the 8biogenetic law0 in ,dante4 ,see 8,purgatory10 p4 #bf1 where the embryo attains successively to the plant1 animal and human stages3 8,anima fatta la virtute attiva1 ,qual d'una pianta4444 ,come fungo marino 444 ,ma come d'animal divenga fante40 ,this is1 of course1 nothing else than ,aristotle's theory of evolution1 done into terzarima1 and corrected by ,st4 ,thomas4 ,for the latest application of these views1 even in relation to the 8biogenetic fundamental law10 see the finely finished 8,morpho-genetic ,studies0 of ,t4 ,garbowski 7,jena1 #aijc73 8,the greater part of what is usually referred to the so-called fundamental biogenetic law depends on illusion1 since all things undeveloped or imperfect must bear a greater or less resemblance one to another40 #cb ,i4e41 ,the occurrence of saltatory1 transilient1 or discontinuous variations or mutations4 #cc ,i4e41 ,the emergence of a distinctively new pattern of organisation4 #cd ,see ,h4 ,g4 ,bronn's ,appendix to his translation of ,darwin's 8,origin of ,species40 ,first ,german edition4 #ce ,finally and comprehensively in the two volumes we have already mentioned1 8,vortrge ber die ,deszendenztheorie10 ,jena1 #aijb 7,eng4 trans41 ,london1 #aijd74 8,natural selection depends essentially upon the cumulative augmentation of the most minute useful variations in the direction of their utility2 only the useful is developed and increased1 and great effects are brought about slowly through the summing up of many very minute steps4444 ,but the philosophical significance of natural selection lies in the fact that it shows us how to explain the origin of useful1 well-adapted structures purely by mechanical factors1 and without having to fall back upon a directive principle40 #cf ,if it were not white it would be observed by the seals1 which would thus avoid being devoured by it4 ,see ,weismann1 ,i41 p4 #gj4 7,english edition1 p4 #fe47 #cg ,it is almost comical when ,weismann1 the champion of the purely naturalistic outlook1 occasionally forgets his rle altogether1 and puts in a word for 8chance10 or attempts to soften absolute predetermination4 ,for if even a single wolf should destroy a stag 8by chance10 or if a single 8id0 should 8chance0 to grow in a manner slightly different from that laid down for it by the compelling force of preceding and accompanying circumstances1 the whole ,darwinian edifice would be labour lost4 #ch ,see ,darwin1 8444 chance variations4 ,unless such occur1 natural selection can do nothing40 #ci 8,die ,darwinsehe ,theorie4 ,gemeinverstndliche ,vorlesungen ber die ,naturphilosophie der ,gegenwart gehalten vor ,studierenden aller ,fakultten10 ,leipzig1 #aijc4 ,this book is the continuation of the author's 8,deszendenztheorie40 #dj ,fleischmann's book compares favourably with those of other naturalists1 in that he does not contrast 8,moses0 and natural science1 as is customary1 but has a deeper knowledge of the modern view of ,genesis ,i4 than is usually found among naturalists1 whether of the 8positive0 or 8negative0 standpoint4 #da ,see also ,wolff4 #db ,see ,c4,c4 ,coe1 8,nature versus ,natural ,selection10 ,london1 #ahie4 ,perhaps the most comprehensive1 many-sided1 critical analysis of the theory of natural selection4 ,see also ,herbert ,spencer1 8,the ,inadequacy of ,natural ,selection10 #ahic4 #dc ,leipzig1 #ahhh1 #ahig1 #aija4 ,in part translated as 8,organic ,evolution40 ,we are here mainly concerned with ,vols4 ,i4 and ,,iii4 ,later on we shall have to discuss ,vol4 ,,ii4 #dd ,wien1 #ahii4 #de ,see ,wettstein1 8,neolamarckism10 ,jena1 #aijb4 ,see also ,demoor1 ,massart1 ,vandervelde1 8,l',evolution rgressive en ,biologie et ,sociologie10 ,paris1 #ahig4 ,bibliothque scientific internationale1 vol4 lxxxv4 ,this work is on the ,lamarckian basis4 ,it is original in applying ,lamarckian principles to a theory of society4 #df ,two vols41 ,leipzig1 #aija and #aijb4 #dg ,it remains open to question whether ,eimer's explanation is sufficient in all cases1 even those of the exaggeratedly deceptive copies of leaves or bark1 or the colour of the environment4 ,it is certainly not the sorry explanation in terms of 8,variation and ,selection10 but that of a spontaneous imitation of the surroundings1 that forces itself irresistibly upon us in this connection4 #dh ,jena1 #ahib and #ahie4 #di ,see ,reinke1 8,einleitung in die theoretische ,biologie10 #aija1 especially pp4 #dfc onwards on 8,phylogenetisches ,bildungspotential40 von ,wettstein 7,on direct adaptation71 8,neolamarkismus10 ,jena1 #aijb4 ,cf4 8,wissensch-,beitrge zum #ae ,jahresberichte 7#aijb7 der ,philos4 ,gesellschaft an der ,universitt zu ,wien3 ,vortrge und ,besprechungen ber die ,krisis der ,darwinismus40 ,m4 ,kassowitz1 8,allgemeine ,biologie10 ,i4 and ,,ii41 #ahii4 ,o4 ,hertwig1 8,entwicklung der ,biologie im #ai4 ,jahrhundert40 ,wiesner1 8,elemente der wissenschaftlichen ,botanik40 7cf4 especially ,,iii4 8,biologie der ,pflanzen071 and on p4 #bhh the summary of propositions which are very similar to those formulated later by ,korschinsky4 78,auf ,grund des den ,organismen innewohnenden ,vervollkommnungstriebes407 #ej ,see the particularly beautiful and suggestive experiments of ,haberlandt3 8,experimentelle ,hervorrufung eines neuen ,organs40 ,in 8,festschrift fr ,schwendener10 ,berlin ,borntraeger1 #ahii4 #ea ,see 8,nature10 #ahia1 p4 #dda #eb ,see 8,nature10 #ahia1 p4 #dda4 #ec ,the variation-increment of the selection theory ought to be a differential4 ,but in many cases it is not so4 ,as for instance in symmetrical correlated variation1 c4 ,in the struggle for existence it is usually not advantages of organisation which are decisive1 but the chance advantages of situation1 though these have no 8selective0 influence4 ,the case of the tapeworm is illustrative4 ,his work1 8,die organischen ,regulationen1 ,vorbereitungen zu einer ,theorie des ,lebens10 #aija1 is a systematic survey of illustrations of the 8autonomy0 of vital processes4 ,in his 8,analytischen ,theorie der organischen ,entwicklung10 ,leipzig1 #ahid1 his special biological 78ontogenetic07 views are still in process of development4 ,but even here his sharp rejection of ,darwinism is complete 7see ,,vi41 ,par4 #c1 on 8the absurd assumption of a contingent character of morphogenesis074 ,it is not for nothing that the book is dedicated to ,wigand and ,c4 ,f4 von ,baer4 ,he says that in regard to development we must 8picture to ourselves external agents acting as stimuli and achieving transformations which have the character1 not analysable as to its causes1 of being adapted to their end1 that is1 capable of life40 ,incomplete1 but very instructive too1 are his discussions on the causal and the teleological outlook1 the necessity for both1 and the impossibility of eliminating the latter from the study of nature4 ,in a series of subsequent works1 ,driesch has defined and strengthened this position1 finally reaching the declaration3 8,darwin belongs to history1 just like that other curiosity of our century1 the ,hegelian philosophy4 ,both are variations on the theme1 #8,how to lead a whole generation by the nose6' 0 78,biolog4 ,zentralbl40 #ahif1 p4 #af74 ,we are concerned with ,driesch more particularly in ,chapter ,,ix4 #ed ,see ,driesch 8,kritisches und ,polemisches10 ,biol4 ,zentrabl41 #aijb1 p4 #ahg1 ,note #b4 #ee 8,naturwissenschaftliche ,wochenschrift10 xiv41 p4 #bgc4 #ef ,see #gj and subsequent sections4 ,take1 for instance1 the sentences3--8,every production of material things and of their forms must be interpreted as possible in terms of purely mechanical laws10 and the contrast3 8,some products of material nature cannot be interpreted as possible in terms of purely mechanical laws40 #eg ,to ,aristotle the 8,soul0 7 ,psyche1 phytike7 was in the first place a purely biological principle4 ,but by means of his elastic formula of ,potentiality and ,actuality he was able to make the transition to the psychological with apparent ease4 ,the biological is to him in 8potentiality0 what sensation1 impulse1 imagination are in 8realisation40 ,but the biological and the psychological are not related to one another as stages4 ,growth1 form1 development1 c41 cannot be carried over through any 8actualisatio0 into sensation1 consciousness and the like4 ,an essentially different question is1 whether the biological may not be not indeed derivable from the psychological--that would be the same mistake--but dependent on1 and conditioned by it1 just as we regard the voluntary moving and directing of the body as dependent on it4 ,an imaginative interpretation of the world will always take this course4 #eh ,of course all this still gives us no ground for drawing conclusions as to the correctness of the mechanistic theory1 but only affords a reason for its power of persistence4 ,indeed1 the very fact that1 in investigating the problem of life1 instinct directs us towards mechanical interpretations1 should give added weight to the other fact1 that among the ranks of naturalists themselves there constantly arise doubts and criticisms of the adequacy of this mode of interpretation1 and that many of them go over more or less completely to the vitalistic point of view4 #ei ,h4 ,helmholtz1 8,ueber die ,erhaltung der ,kraft1 eine physikalische ,abhandlung10 ,berlin1 #ahdg4 #fj ,max ,verworn1 8,die ,biogenhypothese10 ,jena1 #aijc4 ,cf4 criticisms by ,czapek in the 8,botanische ,zeitung10 ,no4 #b1 #aijc1 and by ,loeb in the 8,biologisches ,zentralblatt10 #aijb4 #fa ,berlin1 #aijj4 ,edited by ,r4 du ,bois-,reymond4 #fb ,btschli1 8,untersuchungen ber microscopische ,schume und das ,protoplasma10 ,leipzig1 #ahib4 ,cf4 ,berthold1 8,studien zur ,protoplasmamechanik40 #fc ,rhumbler1 8,zur ,mechanik des ,gastrulationvorganges 4440 in 8,archiv4 f4 ,entwicklungsmechanik10 ,bd4 #ad4 #fd 8,bewegung der lebendigen ,substanz40 ,jena1 #ahib4 #fe ,a short1 very attractive description of these mechanical methods1 and one which appeals particularly to us laymen because of its excellent illustrations1 is ,dreyer's 8,ziele und ,wege biologischer ,forschung0 7,jena1 #ahib71 especially the first part1 8,die ,flssigkeitsmechanik als eine ,grundlage der organischen ,form- und ,gerst-,bildung40 ,the astonishing and fascinating forms of ,radiolarian frameworks and 8skeletons0 7the artistic appreciation of which was made possible to a wider public by ,haeckel's 8,kunstformen der ,natur07 are here made the subject of mechanical explanations1 which are certainly in a high degree plausible4 #ff ,cf4 ,roux1 8,archiv4 fur ,entwicklungsmechanik40 ,the name sufficiently indicates the scope4 #fg ,for a discussion of the difficulties and impossibilities of this theory see page #adh above4 #fh 8,preformation oder ,epigenesis80 ,outlines of a theory of the development of organisms4 ,jena1 #ahid4 7,part ,i4 of 8,zeit- und ,streit-fragen der ,biologie407 ,translated by ,p4 ,chalmers ,mitchell1 8,the ,biological ,problem of ,to-day40 #fi ,in his earlier period4 ,later he rejects both preformation and epigenesis1 as mechanical distortions of vital processes4 #gj ,see also ,lotze's interesting article 8,instinct0 in the same work4 #ga ,part ,,ii4 of his 8,zeit- und ,streit-fragen der ,biologie40 #gb ,second ,edition1 #aijb4 #gc ,in ,vol4 ,,ii4 p4 #aci4 #ahih4 #gd 8,general ,physiology40 ,translated by ,lee4 ,london4 #ahii4 ,p4 #agj4 #ge ,as a remarkable instance and corroboration of this1 we may refer to the ever-recurring1 instinctive antipathy of deeply religious temperaments1 from ,augustine to ,luther and ,schleiermacher1 to the ,aristotelian mood and its conception of the world1 and their sympathy with ,plato's 7mostly and especially in their 8,platonised0 expressions74 ,the clear-cut1 luminous1 conception of the world which expresses everything in terms of commensurable concepts is thoroughly ,aristotelian4 ,but it would be difficult to find a place in it for the peculiar element which lies at the root of all true devotional feeling1 and which makes faith something more than the highest 8reverence1 love and trust40 #gf 8,arch4 fr pathol4 ,anatomie und ,physiologie10 ,bd4 ,,viii4 #ahee4 #gg ,vol4 ,,ix41 #ahef4 #gh ,the same is true even of crystals1 8omne crystallum e crystallo40 #gi ,cf4 8,ueber die ,aufgabe der ,naturwissenschaft10 ,jena1 #ahgf4 8,naturwissenschaftliche ,tatsachen und ,probleme40 8,physiologie und ,entwicklungslehre10 #ahhf1 in the collection of the 8,allgemeiner ,vereins fr ,deutsche ,literatur40 ,also in the same collection1 8,aus ,natur- und ,menschen-leben40 #hj ,these ideas are not fully worked out1 and they are disguised in poetic form--for instance1 when even the play of flames is compared to vital processes4 ,but if they be stripped of their poetic garb1 they lead to the same conclusions to which one is always led when one approaches the problem unprejudiced by naturalistic or anthropomorphic preconceptions of the relation of the infinite to the finite1 or the divine to the natural4 ,if we exclude the materialistic or semi-materialistic position which regards teleological phenomena1 vital processes1 and even states of sensation and consciousness as the function of a 8substance0 or of matter1 we can quite well speak of them as general 8cosmo-organic0 functions of universal being1 meaning that they occur of necessity wherever the proper conditions exist4 ,according to the doctrine of potentiality and actuality1 this is to say that all possible stages of the higher and highest phenomena are semper et ubique potentially present in universal being1 and that they become actual wherever the physical processes are far enough advanced to afford the necessary conditions4 ,preyer's ideas have been revived of late1 especially in the romantic form1 as1 for instance1 in ,willy ,pastor's 8,lebensgeschichte der ,erde0 78,leben und ,wissen10 ,vol4 ,i41 ,leipzig1 #aijc74 ,and in certain circles1 characterised by a simultaneous veneration for and combination of modern natural science--,haeckel1 ,romanticism1 ,novalis and other antitheses--,fechner appears to have come to life again4 ,the type of this group is ,w4 ,blsche4 ,naturally enough1 ,pastor has turned his attention also to the recent views of ,schroen in regard to crystallisation4 ,the fact1 omne crystallum e crystallo1 like the corresponding fact1 omne vivum e vivo1 was long a barrier against mechanistic derivation4 ,but ,schroen draws a parallel between crystallisation and organic processes1 so that the alleged clearness and obviousness of the inorganic can no longer be carried over--in the old fashion--into the realm of life1 but1 conversely1 the mystery of life must be extended downwards1 and continued into the inorganic4 #ha ,worthy of note and much cited is a somewhat indefinite essay on 8,neovitalism10 by the ,wurzburg pathologist1 ,e4 von ,rindfleisch 7in 8,deutsche ,medizinische ,wochensehrift10 #ahie1 ,no4 #ch74 #hb ,already given in detail in his 8,lehrbuch der phys4 und pathol4 ,chemie0 7,second ,edition1 #ahhi71 in the first chapter1 8,vitalism and ,mechanism40 ,in the meantime a fifth revised and enlarged edition of ,bunge's book has appeared as a 8,lehrbuch der ,physiologie des ,menschen0 7,leipzig1 #aija71 ,the relevant early essays appear here again under the title 8,idealism and ,mechanism40 ,the arguments are the same4 ,it is often supposed that it is merely a question of time1 and that in the long run we must succeed in finding proofs that the whole process of life is only a complex process of movement2 but the history of physiology shows that the contrary is the case4 ,all the processes which can be explained mechanically are those which are not vital phenomena at all4 ,it is in activity that the riddle of life lies4 ,the solution of this riddle is looked for1 more decidedly than before but still somewhat vaguely1 in the 8idealism0 of self-consciousness and its implications1 8,physiologus nemo nisi psychologus40 ,these views have been also stated in a separate lecture3 ,g4 ,bunge1 8,vitalismus und ,mechanismus10 7,leipzig1 #ahhf74 #hc 8,allgemeine ,biologie0 7#b vols471 ,vienna1 #ahii4 #hd ,jena1 #aijc4 #he ,cf4 especially ,verworn's example of the manufacture of sulphuric acid4 ,see what we have previously said on the 8second line0 of mechanistic theory1 along which ,neumeister's thought mainly moves4 ,see especially p4 #aih4 ,as regards the 8fifth line10 the problem of the development of form in its present phase1 there is an instructive short essay by ,fr4 ,merkel 7,nachrichten der ,k4 ,gesellschaft der ,wissenschaften ,gttingen4 ,geschftl4 ,mitt4 #ahig1 ,heft #b7--8,welche ,krfte wirken gestaltend auf den ,krper der ,menschen und ,tiere80 ,this essay avoids1 obviously intentionally1 the shibboleths of controversy4 ,the mechanical point of view and the play with mechanical analogies and models are abruptly dismissed4 8,if things1 which were in themselves susceptible of mechanical explanations1 occur in the absence of the mechanical antecedent conditions1 then we must seek for other forces to enable us to understand them40 ,and quite calmly a return is made to the old1 simple conception of a 8regulative0 and a 8formative force10 inherent as a capacity sui generis within the 8energids10 the really living parts of the cell4 ,the cell-energid carries within it the 8pattern0 of the organisation1 and the partial or perfect 8capacity0 78,fertigkeit07 for producing and reproducing the whole organism4 ,but these two forces 8make use of0 the physico-chemical forces as tools to work out details4 ,so to describe the state of the case is not of course a solution of the problem2 it is only a figurative formulation of it4 ,but that1 at the present day1 we can and must return to doing this if we are to describe things simply and as they actually occur1 is precisely what is most instructive in the matter4 #hf 8,beitrge zur ,kritik der ,darwinschen ,lehre10 which was first published in the 8,biologisches ,zentralblatt10 #ahih4 #hg ,leipzig1 #ahib4 #hh ,before ,wigand's larger works there had appeared ,f4 ,delpino3 8,applicazione della ,teoria ,darwinia ai ,fiori ed agli ,insetti ,visitatori dei ,fiori0 7,bull4 della ,societa ,entomologica ,ital41 ,florence #ahgj74 ,he says3 8,un principio intrinsico1 reagente1 finch dura la vita1 contro le influenze estrinseche ossia contro gli agenti chimici e fisici40 #hi 8,elemente der ,wissenschaftlichen ,botanik4 ,biologie der ,pflanzen40 #ahhi4 #ij 8,lehrbuch der ,biologie der ,pflanzen40 ,stuttgart1 #ahie4 #ia ,cf4 ,cohn1 8,beitrge zur ,biologie der ,pflanzen10 vii4 #djg1 ,see especially the concluding chapter1 8,einiges ber ,functionen der einzelnen ,zellorgane40 ,from ,zoology we may cite ,e4 ,teichmann's investigation1 8,ueber die ,beziehung zwischen ,astrosphren und ,furchen40 8,experimentelle ,untersuchungen am ,seeigelei0 78,archiv4 f4 ,entw4 ,mech40 xvi4 #b1 #aijc74 ,this paper contains no references to 8psychical phenomena10 8power10 or 8will10 and we cannot but approve of this in technical research4 ,but it is pointed out that the mechanistic interpretation of the detailed processes of development has definite limitations1 and we are referred to 8fundamental characters of living matter which we must take for granted40 ,this is even more decidedly the case in ,tad4 ,garbowski's beautiful 8,morphogenetische ,studien1 als ,beitrag zur ,methodologie zoologischer ,forschung40 ,these belong to the line of thought followed by ,driesch and ,wolff1 who are both frequently and approvingly quoted1 and they afford an excellent instance of that mood of dissatisfaction with and protest against the 8dogmas0 of descent1 selection and phylogeny1 which is observable in many quarters among the younger generation of investigators4 ,garbowski vigorously combats ,haeckel's theories of development1 especially 8the fundamental biogenetic law1 and the ,gastra theory40 ,he criticises 8mechanistic0 interpretations of the development of the embryo1 which 8treat the living being morphologically1 as if the matter were one of vesicles1 cylinders and plates1 and not of vital units03 and he does not look with favour on 8artificial amoeb10 which can move1 creep1 and do everything except live4 ,the ideal of biology is of course always a science with laws and equations1 but the key to these will not be found in mechanics4 ,garbowski's studies may be highly recommended as giving a sharp and vivid impression of the modern anti-mechanistic tendencies observable even in technical research4 #ib ,trans4 by ,levinsohn4 8,beilage zur ,allgemeinen ,zeitung10 ,munich1 #ahih1 ,no4 #aff4 #ic ,btschli1 op4 cit41 p4 #bjj4 #id 8,the ,monist10 #ahii1 p4 #agi4 #ie ,cf4 8,entwicklung der ,biologie in #ai4 ,jahrhundert0 78,naturforscher ,versammlung10 #aijj71 and 8,zeit- und ,streit-fragen der ,biologie10 #ahid-g1 especially ,part ,,ii41 8,mechanik und ,zoologie40 #if 8,die ,organismen und ihr ,ursprung10 published in 8,nord und ,sd10 xviii41 p4 #bja seq4--8,die ,welt als ,tat10 ,berlin #ahii1 since then in second edition4--8,einleitung in die theoretische ,biologie10 #aija4--;,and 8,der ,ursprung des ,lebens auf der ,erde10 in the 8,trmer-,jahrbuch10 #aijc4 #ig ,cf41 the discussion by ,a4 ,drews in the 8,preuss4 ,jahrbuch10 ,october1 #aijb1 p4 #aja1 a review of ,reinke's 8,einleitung in die theoretische ,biologie40 #ih ,of all the bad ,greek zoology has produced1 8,ontogenesis0 is probably the worst4 ,the ,becoming of the ,being6 ,the word is used in contrast to ,phylogenesis1 the becoming of the race or of the species1 and it denotes the development of the individual4 #ii ,cf4 p4 #acj4 ,excellent observations on 8purpose40 ,if two or more chains of causes meet1 we call it 8chance20 if they do so constantly and in a typical manner1 we call it 8purpose40 #ajj 8,biolog4 ,centralbl410 #ahif1 p4 #cfc4 #aja 8,die ,lokalisation 7 spatial determination7 morphogenetischer ,vorgnge1 ein ,beweis vitalistischen ,geschehens10 #ahii 7in 8,archiv4 f4 ,entw4-,mechanik10 viii41 #a1 and separately published71 and 8,die organischen ,regulationen3 ,vorbereitungen zu einer ,theorie des ,lebens10 ,leipzig1 #aija4 ,also 8,die #8,seele' als elementarer ,natur-factor10 7studies on the movements of organisms71 ,leipzig1 #aijc4 ,he gives a general review of his own evolution in the 8,sddeutsche ,monatshefte10 ,january #aijd1 under the title 8,die ,selbstndigkeit der ,biologie und ihre ,probleme40 #ajb ,in the 8,biol4 ,zentralbl410 ,june #aijc1 p4 #dbg1 ,driesch is criticised by ,moszkowski1 who rejects ,driesch's teleological standpoint4 ,but even this criticism shows us how far the untenability of the mechanistic position has been recognised4 ,it is based upon a somewhat vague dynamism1 which admits that the physico-chemical and all other mechanical interpretations have been destructively criticised by ,driesch1 and recognises entelechy 78 074 ,an entelechy without 6 #ajc 8,vorfragen der ,biologie10 #ahii4 8,die #8,ueberwindung des ,mechanismus' in der ,biologie40 8,biolog4 ,zentralbl410 #aija1 p4 #acj4 #ajd ,cf4 ,tad4 ,garbowski1 8,morphogenetische ,studien10 p4 #afg4 ,the illustration here employed of the arc and the 8explanation of form by form0 would be a good criticism of many of ,albrecht's statements4 #aje ,schneider has expounded his physiological and morphological view in his 8,comparative ,histology40 ,in 8,vitalismus0 78,elementare ,lebensfunctionen10 ,vienna1 #aijc7 he sums up his vitalistic views4 ,it is a comprehensive work which goes deeper than others of its class into the detailed description and analysis of the intimate phenomena of life4 ,indeed it almost amounts to an independent biology4 ,but the most essential vital problems1 the development of form1 regeneration1 and inheritance1 to which ,driesch gives the fullest consideration1 are all too briefly treated4 ,in ,chapters ,,xi4 and ,,xii4 the question of vitalism expands into a far-reaching discussion of the general outlook upon nature4 ,we need not here concern ourselves with his more general views4 ,schneider must be regarded as a representative of the most modern tendency of 8,psychism10 which1 stimulated by ,mach1 ,avenarius1 and the school of 8immanence-philosophy10 finds expression among the younger physiologists and biologists1 from ,schneider to ,driesch1 ,verworn1 ,albrecht1 and others4 ,to overthrow 8materialism0 and 8realism10 they utilise1 with impetuous delight1 the ancient self-evident idea that what is given to us is sensation4 ,they confuse and identify such opposites as ,kant and ,berkeley1 and their own position with that of 8solipsism40 ,this outlook is still vague and vacillating1 and it may perhaps compel epistemology to return on its old path from the sophists to ,plato1 from ,hume to ,kant4 ,in ,schneider's case1 however1 the thin stream of this new sensualism is intermingled with so many intuitions and perceptions of the deeper nature of knowledge that one is now curious to know how this strange mixture of semi-materialism1 idealism1 solipsism1 and a priorism is to make the transition from its present extremely labile phase to a condition of stable equilibrium4 ,one fears lest sooner or later a reaction against the contortions of this empiricism and psychism should lead to a modern rehabilitation of mysticism or occultism4 7,cf4 p4 #bie ff47 ,in an essay on 8,vitalism0 in the 8,preuss4 ,jahrbuch10 ,aug4 #aijc1 p4 #bgf1 ,schneider has supplemented his previous work4 #ajf ,if the protest of natural science against these means no more than that they should be excluded as inaccessible to scientific understanding1 from the domain of its investigation1 but not from reality1 it is perhaps fully justified in its methods4 #ajg ,though somewhat inconsequent1 since at any rate the enthusiasm for truth could not result from a naturalistic1 but only from some kind of idealistic basis4 #ajh ,schleiermacher1 8,reden ber die ,religion10 ii4