A M0DER2T "SYMPOSIUM." 



41 



and moral science, not by physiological science. 

 I say : " philosophy and science " have accom- 

 plished explanations ; I do not say biology ; and 

 the biological part of the explanation is a small 

 and subordinate part of the whole. I do not say 

 that the correspondence between physical and 

 moral phenomena is an explanation of the human 

 organism. Prof. Huxley says that, and I call it 

 materialism. Nor do I say that "spiritual sen- 

 sibility is a bodily function." I say, it is a moral 

 function ; and I complain that Prof. Huxley ig- 

 nores the distinction between moral and physical 

 functions of the human organism. 



As to the distinction between anatomy and 

 physiology, if he will look at my words again, he 

 will see that I use these terms with perfect accu- 

 racy. Six lines below the passage he quotes, I 

 speak of the human mechanism being only ex- 

 plained by a " complete anatomy and biology,' 1 '' 

 showing that anatomy is merely one of the in- 

 struments of biology. 



He might be surprised to hear that he does 

 not himself give an accurate definition of physi- 

 ology. But so it is. He says, " Physiology is 

 the science which treats of the functions of the 

 living organism." Not so, for the finest spiritual 

 sensibility is, as Prof. Huxley admits, a function 

 of a living organism ; and physiology is not the 

 science which treats of the spiritual sensibilities. 

 They belong to moral science. There are mental, 

 moral, affective functions of the living organism ; 

 and they are not within the province of physiol- 

 ogy. Physiology is the science which treats of 

 the bodily functions of the living organism ; as 

 Prof. Huxley says in his admirable " Elementary 

 Lessons," it deals with the facts " concerning the 

 action of the body.'''' I complain of the pseudo- 

 science which drops that distinction for a min- 

 ute. He says, " The explanation of a physio- 

 logical function is the demonstration of the con- 

 nection of that function with the molecular state 

 of the organ which exerts the function." That I 

 dispute. It is only a small part of the explana- 

 tion. The explanation substantially is the dem- 

 onstration of the laws and all the conditions of 

 the function. The explanation of the circulation 

 of the blood is the demonstration of all its laws, 

 modes, and conditions ; and the molecular ante- 

 cedents of it are but a small part of the explana- 

 tion. The principal part relates to the molar 

 (and not the molecular) action of the heart and 

 other organs. " The function of motion is ex- 

 plained," he says, " when the movements of the 

 living body are found to have certain molecular 

 changes for their invariable antecedents." Noth- 



ing of the kind. The function of bodily motion 

 is explained when the laws, modes, and condi- 

 tions, of that motion are demonstrated ; and mo- 

 lecular antecedents are but a part of these condi- 

 tions. The main part of the explanation, again, 

 deals with molar, not molecular, states of certain 

 organs. " The function of sensation is explained,'' 

 says Prof. Huxley, " when the molecular changes, 

 which are the invariable antecedents of sensa- 

 tions, are discovered." Not a bit of it. The 

 function of sensation is only explained when the 

 laws and conditions of sensation are demonstrated. 

 And the main part of this demonstration will 

 come from direct observation of the sensitive or- 

 ganism organically, and by no molecular discov- 

 ery whatever. All this is precisely the material- 

 ism which I condemn ; the fancying that one sci- 

 ence can do the work of another, and that any 

 molecular discovery can dispense with direct study 

 of organisms in their organic, social, mental, and 

 moral aspects. Will Prof. Huxley say that the 

 function of this Symposium is explained, when 

 we have chemically analyzed the solids and 

 liquids which are now effecting molecular change 

 in our respective digestive apparatus ? If so, let 

 us ask the butler if he cannot produce us a less 

 heady and more mellow vintage. What irritated 

 viscus is responsible for the materialist in philos- 

 ophy? We shall all philosophize aright, if our 

 friend Tyndall can hit for us the exact chemical 

 formula for our drinks. 



It does not surprise me, so much as it might, 

 to find Prof. Huxley slipping into really inaccu- 

 rate definitions in physiology, when I remember 

 that hallucination of his about questions of sci- 

 ence all becoming questions of molecular physics. 

 The molecular facts are valuable enough ; but we 

 are getting molecular-mad, if we forget that molec- 

 ular facts have only a special part in physiology, 

 and hardly any part at all in sociology, history, 

 morals, and politics ; though I quite agree that 

 there is no single fact in social, moral, or mental 

 philosophy, that has not its correspondence in 

 some molecular fact, if we only could know it. 

 All human things undoubtedly depend on, and 

 are certainly connected with, the general laws of 

 the solar system. And to say that questions of 

 human organisms, much less of human society, 

 tend to become questions of molecular physics, is 

 exactly the kind of confusion it would be, if I 

 said that questions of history tend to become 

 questions of astronomy, and that the more refined 

 calculations of planetary movements in the future 

 will explain to us the causes of the English Rebel- 

 lion and the French Revolution. 



