230 DOGMATISM AND EVOLUTION 



will, perhaps more, perhaps less, but certainly to an appreciable 

 extent. 



The argument is fallacious, but it conceals a truth which has 

 been highly estimated by the moral sages of ancient and modern 

 times. Let us consider the truth first. The importance of a 

 thing for our happiness depends upon our volitional attitude 

 toward it. If we can maintain our indifference to the thing and 

 its consequences, it is in so far nothing to us. The traveler is 

 not lost if he does not care to find his way; the peasant is not 

 poor, if his wants do not exceed his income. It is easy to multiply 

 examples. Buddha, Antisthenes, and Rousseau, and countless 

 lesser preachers have sufficiently familiarized us with the prin 

 ciple. But let us not mistake its scope. The object of interest 

 may be pleasurable or painful. It is equally real in either case. 

 And in neither case does the fact that it is of interest to us make 

 it forthwith amenable to our control. 



So much by way of criticism of the supposed foundations of 

 humanism. Let us append a few queries with regard to the 

 significance of the doctrine itself. 



Humanism asserts the reality of change; and finding that 

 change in a deterministic universe leaves the laws of change, 

 and hence certain fundamental characteristics of the changing 

 substances, unchanged, it declares that change in such a universe 

 is illusory. Now would a change in the laws of change take place 

 in accordance with the laws of change, or not? And would a 

 change in the fundamental characteristics of substance be char 

 acteristic of the substance, or not? 



It declares for the efficacy of human purposes. Is this a plea 

 for a psychophysical interactionism? If so, it has weighty bio 

 logical support. But we feel vaguely that it is intended to mean 

 something more. 



It urges us to assert our freedom by freely willing and striving 

 for what seems good to us. Is it possible to strive intelligently 

 except in accordance \vith the admitted laws of nature? Is it 

 possible to strive to change a law of nature? If we succeeded 

 in changing one, how would we be aware of the fact? 



