74 VITALITY NOT A COLLOCATION 



avoid the difficulty of defining what was meant by life, 

 living, vital, by suggesting that the " life " of any living 

 thing comprised all the phenomena that proceeded in it. 

 But the assertion that the life of a thing is the sum of 

 all the actions going on in its body while it is alive, does 

 not help us in the least degree to understand the nature of 

 life. The items of such a sum would be so very different 

 in different cases that it would be as absurd to attempt to 

 add them together as to add ounces to shillings, yards, and 

 bushels. Neither would any results of the adding up be com- 

 parable, and the one thing required, that which was common 

 to them all, could not possibly be discovered by such a 

 method. In truth those who teach that life is the sum of 

 all the actions going on in a living body, forget that these 

 are not all of the same kind. Of some we know very 

 much, but of the nature of others we know nothing. 



Neither can vitality be regarded as "a collocation of 

 the forces of inorganic matter," as Mr. Bain expresses it, 

 ("Senses and Intellect," page 60). The supposed collocation 

 he says, is " for the purpose of keeping up a living struc- 

 ture." Mr. Bain thinks it unnecessary to account for the 

 collocation. That life is a collocation of forces for the pur- 

 pose of keeping up structure that lives seems a very strange 

 explanation and one that one would scarcely have expected 

 to have found in the " Senses and Intellect." 



In every living thing there are physico-chemical actions, 

 which also occur out of the body, and vital actions. These 

 last are, however, peculiar to living beings, and cannot be 

 imitated. In galvanic batteries, and in other arrangements 

 made by man, we may have physico-chemical actions, but 

 never anything at all like vital actions. Of course, authority 



