Jennings, Uexkilll on Physiology of Behavior. 329 



see also 20). This noinciiclature has philosophical value and has 

 ' been used by a few authors, though its employment is by no means 

 common. There is difficulty, as with all ideal system of nomen- 

 clature, devised before investigation is complete, in the fact that its 

 use often implies a precise knowledge of the nature of the phenomena, 

 when such knowledge does not exist. To give precisely the correct 

 name to a process inqdies that we know fully the nature of the 

 process. 



The author's abhorrence of the vague later jjocomes still more 

 accentuated iu the (IciiiaiKl (which we have noticed above in our ac- 

 count of his investigations) that work shall be presented always iu a 

 way that is "anschaulich" ; that is, in such a way that one can see 

 just how the processes would occur, as one sees how a machine works 

 from knowing its structure. It is extraordinary to what an extent 

 the author makes the attainment of this "Anschaulichkeit" the chief 

 object of biological science; he declares it plumply to be the "most 

 essential character of all" ("die allerwesentlichste") for the science 

 of biology (31, p. 184). "Biology is in its essence 'Anschauung' " 

 (33, p. 10).^ "Only the anscJiaidich structural diagram, not prov- 

 ing, but sli airing the unified working together of different factors, is 

 adequate to the requirement of bringing the life processes together 

 into an intelligible unity without omitting life itself" (31, p. 185). 

 It is only by grasping fully the fact that "Anschaulichkeit" is the 

 author's ideal, that one can understand many of the peculiarities of 

 his work. 



The first far-reaching consequence of this ideal arises from the 

 fact that that which is "anschaulich" is not always that which is 

 verifiable. The author is therefore sometimes compelled to a choice 

 between the two, and in his later papers he at such times deliberately 

 chooses the "Anschaulichkeit" in preference to verifiableness. He 

 thus falls into contradiction with his own earlier requirement that we 

 shall deal only with what is objectively demonstrable ("objectiv 

 nachwcisl)ar," !), p. 5,59), as well as with the procedure of other in- 



'Tlie word intuition, hy wbicli "Aiisrhaiiiinf/" is commonly translated, cer- 

 tainly fails to carry to most minds the same graphic idea as the German word, 

 so that I do not employ it. 



