KAFKA'S "EINFUHRUNG IN DIE TIERPSYCHOLOGIE" 479 



experience of the facts for which comparative psychology seeks 

 is no more a criticism of the scientific character of the field than 

 is the impossibility of an immediate experience of the center 

 of the earth and of the back side of the moon an objection to 

 the sciences there concerned. 



There is as much justification for attributing consciousness 

 to animals as to one's fellow men. In neither case can immediate 

 experience be had. It is useless to seek for objective criteria 

 of consciousness, although one feels impelled to do so. One 

 of the most important criteria proposed is the "associative 

 memory" of Loeb and Bethe. This, however, assumes that 

 memory is the first thing in the way of consciousness, — a theory 

 which can be traced as far back as Hobbes and Locke. [K. 

 does not mention the fact, but this criticism has been urged by 

 other writers, S. J. Holmes, et. al.] Other criteria based upon 

 the analogies of human and animal sense organs and nervous 

 systerns ignore the possibility of the existence of consciousnesses 

 different from the human. The legitimate use of analogy directs 

 attention to the similarity throughout the animal kingdom with 

 respect to biological adjustments : self-preservation, continuation 

 of the species, avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure. 

 The continuity of life on the physical side suggests a similar 

 continuity on the mental side. The psychologist's task is to 

 trace origins and growths within the subjective realm which 

 it is necessary to posit beside the physical world. From the 

 uncertainty which attaches to any subject matter not open to 

 immediate experience, comparative psychology derives only the 

 "Verpflichtung, sich streng an die Ergebnisse der objektiven 

 Forschung als ihre einzige Grundlage zu halten, ohne sich dazu 

 verleiten zu lassen, psychologische Interpretationen als kausale 

 Erklarungen der physischen Phanomene auszugeben." (S. 13). 



The reviewer can heartily commend Kafka's general point of 

 view. A safe middle ground is held with respect to a question 

 where extreme doctrines are only too frequently current. 



