Eimer on Groivth and Inheritance 43 1 



letaphysical doctrines, he is stultifying himself, and runs 

 a risk of stultifying his hearers also. But this is just what 

 such men as Eimer, Weismann, Haeckel, etc., are always 

 doing, and the lecture which terminates Professor Eimer's 

 book is a forcible example of the kind. He objects ^ strongly 

 enough to NageH's attempt to confine biological speculation 

 to 'physiologists by profession.' We sympathise with him 

 in his protest against ' such a close corporation,' and we 

 have no wish to confine speculation to ' philosophers by 

 profession ' ; but what we do affirm is that some preliminary 

 knowledge of philosophy is necessary for any one who would 

 not only speculate, but also teach it. 



On the strength of the familiar facts that all animals feed 

 and get rid of effete material, and that they can, in varying 

 degrees, endure a certain amount of mutilation, he argues ^ 

 that there are really no individuals at all, and that the entire 

 animal world forms one whole, wherein what are commonly 

 regarded as individuals are but so many ' organs.' On the 

 very same system it is quite possible to maintain that 

 animals and vegetables together form one being, or that such 

 is the case with the whole mass of our planet, or of the solar 

 system, or of the whole sidereal universe. 



Dreams such as these are possible enough, and visionary 

 professors may go about preaching them, but plain men will 

 remain quite as certain as before that their individual exist- 

 ence is unaffected by the fact that they can have their 

 hair cut with impunity. Nor will they be persuaded that 

 they, together with their dogs and horses, are but so many 

 mere organs of another individual, and they will be as certain 

 of this as they are sure that they are individually distinct 

 from the plants in their conservatory, or the stars over their 

 heads. 



But Professor Eimer's real end and aim is shown by his 

 1 P. 53. 2 p^ 433_ 



