34 VITALISM AND SCHOLASTICISM 



In this passage Professor Moore appears to 

 depart from his usual lucid clearness. Two 

 things must be either identical or distinct, and 

 the question as to whether they are distinct 

 or " entirely distinct " is one of degree and of 

 minor importance. Now, on the writer's own 

 showing, his " biotic energy " is not identical 

 with the forms of energy exhibited by non- 

 living matter. It must therefore be distinct 

 from such forms. When this point is taken 

 into consideration there does not seem to be 

 any real difference, save one of terminology, 

 between Professor Moore and other neo-vitalists 

 and the schoolmen who taught, in their own 

 language, which few men of science think it 

 worth their while to try to understand, that the 

 yiial^grmciple (or, if you will, for we will not 

 quarrel over terminology, the " biotic energy ") 

 is a simple principle which is entirely depen- 

 dieirtjipon the organism, or, as again they put 

 it, is completely immersed in^the body. That 

 it should have been called a corporeal soul is 

 again a matter of terminology. Let it be noted 

 that this view is a wholly different one from 

 that which looked upon the soul or vital 

 principle as a kind of little super-man existent 

 Descartes in some part of the body, as Descartes sup- 

 posed it existed in the pineal gland. So far 

 as the present writer is c^paBIe"oTunderstand- 



