242 CHARLES DEKONINCK 



(3) Now, once we have recognized goodness in these things, 

 we can still ask whether nature acted " for the sake " of this 

 goodness, or whether it came about for no purpose at all, just 

 by chance, as some of the ancient philosophers held, in common 

 with some more recent ones. The Darwinian philosophers who 

 deny action for a purpose in nature should realize that they 

 have been anticipated by the earliest philosophers; they are 

 somehow regressing to ancient positions. 



Sir Julian's view is that all can be rendered intelligible with- 

 out purpose — by blind forces. Just what is meant by " blind 

 forces," by " blind," on the one hand, and " forces " on the 

 other — not to mention the equivocity or ambiguity of the two 

 words taken together in " blind forces " — is not clear. I know 

 what a " blind man " is, but a " blind stone " is something 

 else — I mean that a stone is not expected to see. This makes 

 a considerable difference. I know fairly well what I mean 

 when I say that stones have neither eyesight nor understanding 

 (and even Sir Julian insists upon the uniqueness of man as to 

 understanding and purposeful action) . 



Remember Darwin's plant struggling at the edge of the 

 desert. Huxley will state that this struggle and its result are 

 the product of blind forces, as in the falling of a stone. Darwin 

 did not say this, although he did leave us with a dilemma when 

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

 and Tnetaphorical sense. Darwin would not have held that 

 stones struggle to fall, and to say that they do would be poor 

 metaphor. But if taken as a mere metaphor apropos of living 

 things, why should it then be good? What does it convey that 

 the fall of a stone does not.'^ If I understand him correctly, Sir 

 Julian would make no distinction here. The result is that 

 " struggle for existence " said of plants and beasts is not only 

 poor metaphor; it is also utterly misleading. We must admit 

 all the same that Darwin made it possible for some people to 

 to hitch on to a metaphorical sense, which, upon closer analysis, 

 turns out to be unfelicitous and unscientific; and for others to 

 allow an extended, large, and yet true meaning. He might have 

 uiifolded himself a bit more. 



