388 THE INFLUENCE OF THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 



problem. The " Infinite and Eternal Energy " must at least be 

 equal to its highest product. Dr. Edward Cairo puts this point 

 very clearly when he says : 



" It lies in the very nature of the case that the earliest form of 

 that which lives and develops is the least adequate to its nature, and, 

 therefore, that from which we can get the least distinct clue to the 

 inner principle of that nature. Hence, to trace a living being back 

 to its beginning, and to explain what follows by such beginning, 

 would be simply to omit almost all that characterises it, and then 

 to suppose that in what remains we have the secret of its existence. 

 That is not really to expla in it, but to explain it away; for on this 

 method, we necessarily reduce the features that distinguish it to a 

 minimum, and, when we have done so, the remainder may well seem 

 to be Itself reducible to something in which the principle in question 

 does not manifest itself at all. If we carry the animal back to proto- 

 plasm, it may readily seem possible to explain it as a chemical com- 

 pound. And, in like manner, by the same minimizing process, we 

 may seem to succeed in reducing consciousness and self-consciousness 

 in its simplest form to sensation, and sensation in its simplest form 

 to something not essentially different from the nutritive life of plants. 

 The fallacy of the sorites may thus be used to conceal all qualitative 

 changes under the guise of quantitative addition or diminution, and 

 to bridge over all difference by the idea of gradual transition. For, 

 as the old school of etymologists showed, if we are at liberty to 

 interpose as many connecting links as we please, it becomes easy to 

 imagine that things the most heterogeneous should spring out of 

 each other. While, however, the hypothesis of gradual change — 

 change proceeding by infinitesimal stages which melt into each other 

 so that the eye cannot detect where one begins and the other ends — 

 makes such a transition easier for the imagination, it does nothing 

 to diminish the difficulty or the wonder of it for thought.* 



The product of the universe, then, being psychical or ethical, 

 the substratum must surely be psychical or ethical in its nature 

 and purpose. Here we are on the heels of the ancient contro- 

 versy between ethics and metaphysics — a controversy into which 

 I do not propose to enter. I cannot agree with those who say 

 that we must first arrive at some conclusion with regard to the 

 Ultimate Reality of things before we can frame any consistent 

 ethical theory. Our Knowledge of that Ultimate Reality is 

 necessarily fragmentary, partial, inadequate, and therefore pro- 

 visional, and subject to revision in the light of wider knowledge. 

 Indeed, I think it would be easy to show from history that men's 

 conclusions in regard to that Ultimate Reality have frequently 

 stood in the way of ethical advance, and have led to con- 

 duct which we now condemn as unethical. Life is a warfare. 

 Every waking moment has its ethical constraints and behests, 

 and the result or outcome of these enters into our estimate of 

 the nature of Reality. I have my own view as to the nature of 

 the Ultimate Reality, but I should not care to say that this parti- 

 cular view is necessary to any fruitful or consistent ethical theory 

 for another man. We must be prepared to recognise tempera- 

 mental differences in this matter, for our outlook upon the uni- 

 verse is determined largely by our temperament, that is by our 

 hereditary mental endowment. It will be sufficient for my pur- 

 pose here if I indicate my standpoint, which, briefly, is this — that 

 inherent in every form of life, however lowly, there is a desire, 

 a craving, a love, for something higher than self. This some- 



* The Evolution of Religion, Vol. I., pp. 49-50. 



