02 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



an original metaphysical thinker, enunciated cer- 

 tain loose opinions as to the "souls" of animals, 

 in following out which he came to the conclusion 

 that brutes had neither the capacity of thinking 

 nor feeling ; that they did not eat because they 

 were hungry, or evince signs of pain because 

 they were hurt, or pursue their prey because 

 they saw it, or perceived it by any sense ; but 

 that all their actions were automatic, merely 

 those of a cunningly-constructed machine, and 

 were attended by neither perception nor sensa- 

 tion. 



The " method " of Descartes was essentially 

 subjective, and deductive, when not mathematical. 

 He did not so much observe Nature, and care- 

 fully analyze the phenomena, as attempt to de- 

 duce those phenomena from the a priori require- 

 ments of his own consciousness. Thus, " to de- 

 fine the idea of God, and hence to construct the 

 world — not to contemplate the world, and thence 

 infer the existence of God — was the route he pur- 

 sued." 1 It seems to have been the same in his 

 biological speculations. He started from a fore- 

 gone conclusion as to what "the animal spirits 

 arising in the heart" ought to do under unde- 

 fined circumstances ; and thence he inferred the 

 nature of animal life. As might be supposed, all 

 this was of no scientific value ; and, indeed, nei- 

 ther his contemporaries nor his immediate fol- 

 lowers laid any stress upon this part of his phi- 

 losophy. For the most part, it is omitted from 

 the notices of his life and works ; or, if alluded 

 to, it was considered in the light of an eccentrici- 

 ty of genius. Most probably, however, Descartes 

 was only solemnly amusing himself with one of 

 those subtile dialectic exercises which before his 

 time were in such favor with the schools, just as 

 the gravest mathematicians will occasionally de- 

 monstrate the impossible results that may be ob- 

 tained from the manipulation of some algebraic 

 quantities. 2 



Be this as it may, it would appear that some 

 years ago Prof. Huxley had taken these lucubra- 

 tions au grand serieux, and made them the text 

 of sundry addresses, whereby the "weathercock- 

 heads among us " (I borrow his own phrase 3 ) 

 have been much exercised. Weathercock-heads, 

 indeed, that can be blown about by such feeble 

 winds of doctrine as Evolution, Automatism, and 



1 Lewes, op. cit., vol. ii., p. 153. 



rj.1 J 



2 E. g., vanishing fractions, as , the value of 



x — 1 

 which may be finite, infinite, or nothing, according to 

 their treatment. 



8 "American Addresses," etc., p. 147. 



Natural Selection ! In 1S69 the learned professor 

 wrote thus : 



" As the ages lengthen the borders of physicism 

 increase. . . . Even theology in her purer forms 

 has ceased to be anthropomorphic, however she 

 may talk. Anthropomorphism has taken stand in 

 its last fortress— man himself. But science closely 

 invests the walls, and philosophers gird them- 

 selves for battle upon the last and greatest of all 

 speculative problems : Does human nature possess 

 any free volitional or truly anthropomorphic ele- 

 ment, or is it only the cunningest of all Nature's 

 clocks ? Some, among whom I count myself, think 

 that the battle will forever remain a drawn one, 

 and that for all practical purposes this result is as 

 good as anthropomorphism winning the day." ! 



Well, the philosophers (as they term them- 

 selves) did gird themselves, and went forth to the 

 battle, with the truly noble aim of reducing man 

 to the dynamic dimensions of a clock. The at- 

 tack was made in many different columns, and 

 upon various points of the fortress ; and the most 

 flaming bulletins were from time to time issued, 

 describing their successes. The confidence of the 

 besiegers grew stronger, until from a "drawn 

 battle " they began to claim an absolute victory. 

 I have heard skillful chess-players say that noth- 

 ing is more dangerous than to attempt to win a 

 drawn game, as it almost always results in utter 

 ruin. It would appear to be the same in material- 

 istic polemics. One of these columns, which may 

 be distinguished as the "Protoplasm" division, 

 advanced to the attack with the loudest war-cries 

 and much martial music. But the leader was 

 smitten in full career by a " smooth stone from 

 the brook," disguised as a scientific fact, from the 

 sling of an obscure warrior, which sank into his 

 forehead — he murmuring only that his opponent 

 was not only uneducated in the science of pro- 

 jectiles, but had not " even reached that state of 

 emergence from ignorance in which the knowl- 

 edge that such a discipline is necessary dawns 

 upon the mind." 2 Since that time little has been 

 heard of this detachment, and until very recently 

 the other columns have exercised more discretion 

 in their advances. Lately, however, the automa- 

 tism of human nature and the consequent irre- 

 sponsibility of man have been formulated in more 

 distinct and positive terms; and we are told, in 

 language so plain as to prevent any possibility of 

 misapprehension, that we have no such thing as 

 volition. Prof. Huxley states that " there is no 



111 The Scientific Aspects of Positivism," "Lay 

 Sermons," etc., p. 164. 



2 See a "lecture on the Study of Biology," by 

 Prof. Huxley, in Nature, January 11, 1877. 



