THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 171 



of "to be, or not to be." The policy of "It is, and it is 

 not," is- not likely to win the approval of either mechanists 

 or vitalists. 



§ 6. Hylomorphism versus Mechanism and Neo-vitalism 



Mechanism and Neo-vitalism represent two extreme solu- 

 tions of this problem of accounting for the difference between 

 living and lifeless matter. Strictly speaking, it is an abuse 

 of language to refer to mechanism as a solution at all. Its 

 first pretense at solving the problem is to deny that there 

 is any problem. But facts are facts and cannot be disposed 

 of in this summary fashion. Forced, therefore, to face the 

 actual fact of the uniqueness of living matter, mechanists 

 concede the inadequacy of their physicochemical analogies, 

 but obstinately refuse to admit the legitimacy of any other 

 kind of explanation. Confronted with realities, which simply 

 must have some explanation, they prefer to leave them un- 

 explained by their own theory than have them explained by 

 any other. They recognize the difference between a living ani- 

 mal and a dead animal (small credit to them for their per- 

 spicacity!), but deny that there is anything present in the 

 former which is not present in the latter. 



Neo-vitalism, on the other hand, is, at least, an attempt 

 at solving the problem in the positive sense. It ascribes the 

 unique activities of living organisms to the operation of a 

 superphysical and superchemical energy or force resident in 

 living matter. This unique dynamic principle is termed vital 

 force. It is not an entitive nor a static principle, but belongs 

 to the category of efficient or active causes, being variously de- 

 scribed as an agent, energy, or force. To speak precisely, the 

 term agent denotes an active being or substance; the term 

 energy denotes the proximate ground in the agent of a spe- 

 cific activity; while the term force denotes the activity or 

 free, kinetic, or activated phase of a given energy. In practice, 

 however, these terms are often used interchangeably. Thus 

 Driesch, who, like all other Neo-vitalists, makes the vital prin- 



