﻿170 
  THE 
  UNIQUENESS 
  OF 
  LIFE 
  

  

  tion 
  swing 
  so? 
  It 
  is 
  partly 
  because 
  new 
  knowledge 
  always 
  

   rewards 
  the 
  prosecution 
  of 
  chemico-physical 
  analysis, 
  and 
  

   the 
  investigators, 
  flushed 
  with 
  success, 
  insist 
  on 
  premature 
  

   generalisation. 
  It 
  is 
  partly 
  because 
  vitalism 
  is 
  apt 
  to 
  be- 
  

   come 
  vague 
  and 
  mystical, 
  provoking 
  a 
  positivist 
  recoil 
  which 
  

   is, 
  within 
  its 
  limits, 
  quite 
  wholesome. 
  

  

  According 
  to 
  Prof. 
  W. 
  E. 
  Hitter, 
  vitalism 
  is 
  the 
  lineal 
  de- 
  

   scendant 
  of 
  early 
  animism, 
  sharing 
  with 
  it 
  the 
  assumption 
  of 
  

   non-material, 
  essentially 
  extra-corporeal 
  forces 
  or 
  principles 
  

   to 
  explain 
  observed 
  phenomena. 
  Similarly, 
  materialism 
  is 
  

   the 
  lineal 
  descendant 
  of 
  early 
  magic, 
  sharing 
  with 
  it 
  the 
  as- 
  

   sumption 
  of 
  crediting 
  observed 
  bodies 
  with 
  qualities 
  which 
  

   are 
  not 
  verifiable. 
  " 
  Both 
  attempt 
  to 
  explain 
  everything 
  in 
  

   terms 
  of 
  ' 
  something 
  else 
  ', 
  and 
  this 
  in 
  essence 
  amounts 
  to 
  a 
  

   denial 
  of 
  the 
  reality 
  of 
  the 
  organic 
  beings 
  which 
  we 
  actually 
  

   see 
  and 
  deal 
  with' 
  7 
  (Hitter, 
  1911, 
  p. 
  441). 
  

  

  SUMMARY. 
  

  

  It 
  is 
  plain 
  that 
  at 
  present 
  chemical 
  and 
  physical 
  formulations 
  do 
  

   not 
  suffice 
  to 
  answer 
  biological 
  questions, 
  do 
  not 
  adequately 
  cover 
  

   what 
  is 
  distinctive 
  in 
  the 
  functions, 
  behaviour, 
  development, 
  and 
  

   evolution 
  of 
  living 
  creatures. 
  But 
  this 
  does 
  not 
  in 
  itself 
  prove 
  the 
  

   validity 
  of 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  various 
  forms 
  of 
  positive 
  vitalism. 
  These 
  

   must 
  be 
  considered 
  on 
  their 
  merits. 
  

  

  (a) 
  Some 
  have 
  maintained 
  that 
  mechanistic 
  formulation 
  is 
  not 
  

   exhaustive 
  even 
  within 
  the 
  domain 
  of 
  the 
  inorganic. 
  If 
  so 
  it 
  will 
  

   be 
  a 
  fortiori 
  inadequate 
  in 
  the 
  realm 
  of 
  organisms, 
  (b) 
  Others, 
  

   while 
  admitting 
  that 
  we 
  cannot 
  now 
  translate 
  vital 
  processes 
  into 
  

   terms 
  of 
  any 
  known 
  chemistry 
  and 
  physics, 
  suggest 
  that 
  we 
  may 
  

   be 
  able 
  to 
  do 
  so 
  eventually. 
  The 
  concepts 
  of 
  chemistry 
  and 
  physics 
  

   may 
  have 
  to 
  be 
  modified. 
  But 
  we 
  can 
  only 
  discuss 
  the 
  sciences 
  as 
  

   we 
  know 
  them 
  now. 
  (c) 
  Others, 
  again, 
  maintain 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  mind 
  

   that 
  makes 
  all 
  the 
  difference. 
  But 
  the 
  problem 
  " 
  Vitalism 
  or 
  

   Mechanism?" 
  is 
  the 
  same 
  for 
  plants 
  as 
  for 
  animals, 
  and 
  we 
  do 
  not 
  

   know 
  anything 
  about 
  the 
  mind 
  of 
  plants. 
  

  

  It 
  may 
  be 
  said 
  that 
  there 
  are 
  three 
  grades 
  of 
  vitalism. 
  (1) 
  The 
  

  

  