140 WHAT IS LIFE 



is not the view of scholastic philosophy. That its 

 attitude has been misunderstood is probably due 

 to the fact that those who have criticised it have 

 often refrained from what they no doubt considered 

 the unnecessary labour of trying to understand its 

 terminology, which is its own and is not to be at 

 once grasped by the casual outsider. Those who 

 are aware of this fact will smile at Professor Hux- 

 ley's statement that he plucked the heart out of the 

 works of Suarez during a summer afternoon's study 

 in the library of a Scotch University. If I say to 

 the man whom I may casually meet in any smoking- 

 room, "H 3 C 6 H 5 O 7 + 3NaHCO 3 = Na 3 C6H 5 O 7 + 

 3H 2 O + 3CO 2 ," he will probably tell me that he 

 has forgotten all the algebra which he learnt as a 

 boy and that my remark is unintelligible to him. 

 Whereas, if I say, "If you add lemon juice to 

 baking-soda the mixture will fizz," his reply will 

 probably be that my information is accurate if 

 antiquated. Yet the two statements are precisely 

 the same or connote exactly the same occurrences 

 only that one is in the language of the chemist, the 

 other that of the kitchen. 



In the same way if we define the animal soul 

 as a simple, incomplete substance or substantial 

 principle immersed in matter, that definition is 

 drawn up with the purpose of making clear the fact 

 that in matter and life we have not two complete 



