362 The, Flillosopiiij of Kcolution. 



ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION. 

 Mk. Raymond S. Pebrin : — 



Wlien asked to criticise a lecture upon the Philosophy of Evo- 

 lution, to be delivered by Mr. Starr H. Nichols, I anticipated, in 

 accepting, a pleasure, because I knew the lecturer was capable of 

 dealing with the subject. I knew that he had familiarized him- 

 self with the general logical results of the doctrine of universal 

 filiation or descent, so firmly establislied by the investigations of 

 Charles Darwin; and I knew also that he had applied this doctrine 

 to the phenomena of mind or consciousness, which is pre-eminently 

 the realm of Philosophy. I must confess that I have been disap- 

 pointed. The lecture has closed without any explanation of the 

 nature of mind.* The argument has been confined to a very inter- 

 esting account of the materialistic theory of society. The human- 

 izing inrtueuces of modern industrial development have been 

 pointed out. We have been shown how industrial progress pro- 

 duces social progress. The lecturer has also emphasized the uni- 

 versality of physical law, i^ointing out how it repeats its operations 

 with di\ine uniformity in all time and space, bringing into inter- 

 dependence and into fundamental similiarity all the systems of 

 the universe, and he has declared boldly and distinctly that the 

 prime power in all this is not spiritual but material. We can only 

 admire the courage of the lecturer in making this assertion, for 

 the reason that it is so unpopular. The great majority of relig- 

 iously inclined i)ersons are repelled by the assertion that matter 

 can explain everything to us. They feel instinctively that such a 

 philoso^jhy is coarse, that it lacks sublimity, and as philosophy is 

 largely a matter of definition I must confess to a sympathy with 

 the religionists in their aversion to materialism. For matter is. 

 not the ultimate fact, it is only an aspect, the statical or restful 

 aspect of universal activity, or life, and if a name must be given 

 to the philosophy of evolution which shall distinguish it, once for 

 all, from the religious or supernatural systems, I think that name 

 should be the vital not the materialistic philosophy. For Life is 

 the universal fact, and Evolution teaches us that all iihenomena^ 

 whether physical or spiritual, are forms of life. This vital jirin- 

 ciple is not unknowable, for it is the simplest of all exiieriences ; 

 it is the first element of knowledge. In mathematics it is called 

 motion, in physics foi'ce, in biology life, in psychology mind, in 



*In justice to Mr. Perrin, it should be remarked that to the lecture in its 

 present form, as revised by the author betore printing, this criticism would 

 jiot strictly apply. 



