TEE PROBLEM OF FINAL CAUSES. 



371 



Advocates of final causes never weary of com- 

 parisons of that sort — they illustrate by a palace, 

 a statue, a picture, a watch. As to each of these 

 examples, Fenelon asks himself if it can be the 

 result of chance ; then, turning again to the uni- 

 verse, he depicts it to us as more splendid than 

 any palace, more skillfully put together than any 

 machine of man's making, and from the perfec- 

 tion of the work he reasons to the perfection of 

 the workman. Voltaire, too, saw in the universe 

 only a timepiece, and was amazed that any one 

 could suppose this timepiece was without a 

 maker and regulator. Are such analogies well- 

 founded ? Does science at this point come to the 

 support of philosophy, or are they here in oppo- 

 sition ? Does it allow us to attribute design and 

 combination to the universal cause, or does it for- 

 bid us this hypothesis '? We are accustomed to 

 place a high value on such confronting of philos- 

 ophy with science, and in our view it is of im- 

 mense advantage to both. Let us, then, put the 

 question to the sciences ; and to that one among 

 •sciences especially which seems to be the peculiar 

 domain of final causes ; let us consult, upon the 

 subject of our inquiry, the acknowledged masters 

 in contemporary physiology. 



Ancient physiology, following the steps of 

 Galen, busied itself principally with what was 

 called the use of parts, that is, the utility of or- 

 gans, and their adaptation to functions: impressed 

 with that admirable agreement almost always 

 existing between the arrangement of the organ 

 and the use it subserves, it supposed that the 

 structure of the organ reveals its use, as in hu- 

 man industry. From the construction of a ma- 

 chine we can recognize its purpose a priori. 

 Anatomy was held to be the key to physiology ; 

 by means of the scalpel the form and structure 

 of the organs weie studied out, and their uses 

 dedueed inferentially. Sometimes these deduc- 

 tions led to genuine discoveries, as occurred with 

 Harvey in respect to the circulation of the blood ; 

 at other times they were the source of mistakes, 

 and most frequently that which was merely an 

 observation was treated as an inference. The 

 important part assigned to final causes in this 

 stage of physiology may be readily conceived. 



If we take the word of the present masters 

 in that science, this method, which subordinates 

 physiology to anatomy, which infers the use and 

 function of organs from their structure, and is 

 therefore more or less guided by the principle 



of final causes, has had its day ; it has become 

 barren, and another more profound and philo- 

 sophical method needs to be substituted for it. 

 Nothing more strongly contradicts observation 

 than the assertion that the structure of an or- 

 gan gives the clew to its function. A complete 

 understanding of the structure of the liver was 

 of no use whatever in explaining its functions, or 

 certainly one of them at least, that is, the secre- 

 tion of sugar. The structure of the nerves would 

 never disclose to any one that those organs are 

 designed to transmit either motion or sensation. 

 Moreover, the same functions may be exercised 

 by organs that differ most widely in structure. 

 Respiration, for example, may be performed in 

 one case by lungs, in another by trachea?, or eveD, 

 as in some animals, by the skin, and in plants by 

 the leaves. Reciprocally, the same organs may 

 serve in different animals to perform the most 

 diverse functions : thus the swimming-bladder of 

 fish, which is the exact analogue of the lungs in 

 mammals, has nothing, or next to nothing, to do 

 with respiration, and is only an organ for sup- 

 porting and poising. Again, in the lower aui- 

 mals the organs are not differentiated at all ; the 

 same sole, homogeneous, and formless structure 

 contains virtually aptitude for producing all the 

 vital functions — digestion, respiration, reproduc- 

 tion, locomotion, etc. 



From these considerations, M. Claude Ber- 

 nard concludes that the structure of the organs 

 is only a secondary element in physiology, and, 

 still further, that the organ itself is merely a sec- 

 ondary object, and that we must go further, and 

 penetrate more deeply, to discover the laws of 

 life. The organ, like its function, is only a re- 

 sultant. In the inorganic order, all the bodies 

 presented by Nature are always composite bodies, 

 which chemistry may reduce to their simple ele- 

 ments ; and so, in the order of life, the organs 

 are composites, of which Physiology must seek 

 for the elements. This revolution was brought 

 about by the immortal Bichat He first con- 

 ceived the idea of examining and studying the 

 primal elements of organization, which he calls 

 the tissues. The tissues are not organs : the 

 same organ may be made up of several tissues ; 

 the same tissue may serve for several organs. 

 The tissues are provided with elementary prop- 

 erties which are inherent in them, immanent, 

 and specific : it is no more possible to infer the 

 properties of tissues a priori than it is possible to 

 infer those of oxygen ; nothing but experiment 

 and observation can reveal them. In philosophic 

 and in general physiology the sole object, there- 



