VIE CHOW AND EVOLUTION. 285 



have two sides ? This is the very core of the difficulty. There are 

 plenty of molecular motions which do not exhibit this two-sideness. 

 Does water think or feel when it runs into frost-ferns upon a window- 

 pane ? If not, why should the molecular motion of the brain be yoked 

 to this mysterious companion — consciousness ? AYe can form a co- 

 herent picture of all the purely physical processes — the stirring of the 

 brain, the thrilling of the nerves, the discharging of the muscles, and 

 all the subsequent motions of the organism. We are here dealing with 

 mechanical problems which are mentally presentable. But we can form 

 no picture of the process whereby consciousness emerges either as a 

 necessary link or as an accidental by-product of this series of actions. 

 The reverse process of the production of motion by consciousness is 

 equally unpresentable to the mind. We are here, in fact, on the boun- 

 dary-line of the intellect, where the ordinary canons of science fail to 

 extricate us from difficulty. If we are true to these canons, we must 

 deny to subjective phenomena all influence on physical processes. The 

 mechanical philosopher, as such, will never place a state of conscious- 

 ness and a gi'oup of molecules in the relation of mover and moved. 

 Observation proves them to interact ; but, in passing from the one to 

 the other, we meet a blank which the logic of deduction is unable to 

 fill. This, the reader will remember, is the conclusion at which I had 

 arrived more than twent}^ years ago. I lay bare unsparingly the cen- 

 tral difficulty of the materialist, and tell him that the facts of observa- 

 tion which he considers so simple are " almost as difficult to be seized 

 mentally as the idea of a soul." I go further, and saj^, in eflFect, to 

 those who wish to retain this idea, " If you abandon the interpretations 

 of grosser minds, who image the soul as a Psyche which could be 

 thrown out of the window — an entity which is usually occupied, we 

 know not how, among the molecules of the brain, but which on due 

 occasion, such as the intrusion of a bullet or the blow of a club, can fly 

 away into other regions of space — if, abandoning this heathen notion, 

 you approach the subject in the only way in which approach is possible 

 — if you consent to make your soul a poetic rendering of a phenomenon 

 which, as I have taken more pains than anybody else to show you, 

 refuses the joke of ordinary phj^sical laws — then I, for one, would not 

 object to this exercise of ideality." I say it strongly, but with good 

 temper, that the theologian, or the defender of theology, who hacks 

 and scourges me for putting the question in this light is guilty of black 

 ino-ratitude. 



D 



Notwithstanding the agreement thus far pointed out, there are 

 certain points in Prof. Yirchow's lecture to which I should feel inclined 

 to take exception. I think it was hardly necessary to associate the 

 theory of evolution with socialism ; it may be even questioned whether 

 it was correct to do so. As Lange remarks, the aim of socialism, or of 

 its extreme leaders, is to overthrow the existing systems of government. 



