Darwin's dilemma 235 



example of the plant. He allows that a plant struggles, but 

 of course a plant does not struggle in the way a dog does; 

 and a dog does not struggle in the way a man does to solve 

 a problem. Further, we must notice that, still within the 

 realm of plants, in one case we can say more truly that they 

 struggle than in other cases. But a meaning of struggle is still 

 retained somewhat. It is not quite the struggle of a man, it is 

 not quite that of a beast, but it is not confined to that of a 

 plant merely needing moisture either. One plant can somehow 

 compete with another and, as a result, the most favored, 

 either by quality or by circumstance, will survive, or its 

 progeny. " The mistletoe . . . may methodically be said to 

 struggle with other fruit-bearing plants." So that the plants, 

 in a sense, truly struggle after all. 



This passage from the Origin of Species reminds us of Aris- 

 totle's caution in using the simple term " life." If we compare 

 plants to animals, he says, they are not alive; but compared 

 with other forms of matter, they are indeed alive. So " alive " 

 or " life " are equivocal terms, they have many meanings. 

 There is a meaning of life verified in a beast, not verifiable in 

 the plant; and one of man, that is not verifiable in a beast. 

 Aristotle held that such terms are homonymous by design, 

 not by chance (as the word " seal ") . Terms or expressions 

 that are equivocal by design are called analogous. Bertrand 

 Russell speaks of " systematic ambiguity." But Darwin said 

 that he was using " struggle for existence " in a large and 

 metaphorical sense. Now analogy and metaphor are not the 

 same. I mean that a " large sense," and a " metaphorical 

 sense " are not necessarily the same, and that is where we 

 run into difficulty." Take for instance the word " light," or 

 the word " to see." " To see " means first of all, " to see 

 with my eyes." But when you explain to me some problem 



^ Not even those of Darwin's followers who opt for sheer metaphor quite succeed 

 in circumventing such words as " good," " favorable," " advantageous," " better," 

 " improvement," and the like. This is strikingly borne out in an excellent paper, 

 " Darwin and Religion," by Prof. John C. Greene, which appeared in the Pro^ 

 ceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CII (1959), 716-725. 



