TEE PROBLEM OF FINAL CAUSES. 



373 



tween the organization and a machine* In a ma- 

 chine, in fact, each one of the molecules remains 

 fixed and molecularly motionless, without evolu- 

 tion. If any change of that kind occurs, it causes 

 the destruction of the mechanism ; on the con- 

 trary, with molecular change the very conditions 

 of existence of the organism are connected. The 

 mode of molecular association of the immediate 

 principles in the organization permits the cease- 

 less renewal of materials without inducing the 

 destruction of the organs. Still further, the 

 essential characteristic of the organization is 

 exactly the idea of evolution, transformation, 

 development, all which ideas are not to be har- 

 monized or reconciled with the notion of a me- 

 chanical structure. 



Reviewing now the general meaning of those 

 physiological theories we have just examined, and 

 which seem the fittest expression of the present 

 state of that science, we see that not only does 

 physiology, in its methods, throw aside, more and 

 more frankly, the principle of final causes, but 

 besides, in its teachings, it pays constantly less 

 attention to the form and structure of organs, 

 and to their mechanical adaptation for their 

 function : it regards these as mere secondary 

 subjects of description. Organized bodies, the 

 arrangements that build up those bodies, the or- 

 gans combined into those arrangements, are re- 

 garded by it as resultants and complications of 

 certain simple elements, or cells, and of these 

 elements the fundamental properties must be 

 studied, as chemists study the properties of sim- 

 ple bodies. The problem of physiology there- 

 fore is not now, as it was in Galen's time, the ap- 

 pliance or utility of the parts, but it is the mode 

 of action of every element, as well as the phys- 

 ical and chemical conditions which determine 

 that mode of action. According to ancient ideas, 

 the object pursued by the scientist in his re- 

 searches was the animal, or the man, or the plant ; 

 in our day, it is the nerve-cell, the motor cell, the 

 glandular cell, each one of them being viewed 

 as possessed of a peculiar, individual, indepen- 

 dent life. The animal is no longer one living be- 

 ing, it is an assemblage of living beings, it is a 

 colony ; when the animal dies, the elements did 

 one after the other. It is a congeries of little Ps 

 to each of which some even go so far as to at- 

 tribute a sort of dull consciousness, analogous 

 to the obscure perceptions of Leibnitz's monads. 

 If we place ourselves at this point of view, it 

 does seem as if the old comparison philosophers 

 made between organs and instruments of human 

 construction were only an obsolete and superfi- 



cial idea, which is of no use in the present con- 

 dition of science. It does seem as though finality, 

 so long ago given up in the physical and chemical 

 order, were destined also to become a secondary 

 and meaningless phenomenon in physiology. If 

 in truth an amorphous substance is capable of 

 nutrition, reproduction, and movement — if, on the 

 other hand, as in the nerves, no possible relation 

 between structure and function can be detected — 

 what else remains, except to note the fact that 

 in a given condition a given substance has the 

 property of nutrition, another the property of 

 sentience, just as we ascertain that in chemistry 

 oxygen has the property of burning, and chlorine 

 the property of disinfecting ? In a word, nothing 

 is left except causes and effects — nothing that has 

 any likeness to means and ends. 



While modern physiology, following in the 

 steps of Bichat, neglected the structure and use 

 of parts for the study of organic elements, anat- 

 omy, following Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, alike over- 

 looked the superficial form of organs in studying 

 closely their anatomical elements and their con- 

 nections. The law of correspondences rests on 

 this fact, that one organ is always in a constant 

 relation of position with another given organ, 

 which in turn is always in a constant relation 

 of position with a third, so that the position leads 

 to the recognition of the organ, under whatever 

 form it is presented. If you neglect this physi- 

 cal bond which connects one organ with another 

 according to the fixed rule, you will allow appear- 

 ances to mislead, will attach undue importance 

 to the forms and uses of organs, and those differ- 

 ences which are so striking to careless eyes, will 

 conceal the actual nature of the organ ; analogies 

 will disappear before differences ; as many dis- 

 tinct types will be noted as there are accidental 

 forms ; the unity of the abstract animal, which 

 is hidden under diversity of organic forms, will 

 be lost sight of. If, on the contrary, you fix the 

 idea of an organ by its exact and certain connec- 

 tions with the neighboring organs, you are sure 

 not to lose it from view, whatever form it as- 

 sumes. You have a guiding clew, which will per- 

 mit you to recognize the type under all its modi- 

 fications, and will thus arrive at the true philoso- 

 phy of animal existence. Thus anatomy, like 

 physiology, sought the simple in the compound- 

 Both ascertained these simple elements through 

 relations of time and space, either by pointing 

 out the fixed place they occupy in the organiza- 

 tion, or by describing the consecutive phenomena 

 which are linked with them unvaryingly. We 

 recognize here the rigorous method of modem 



