91 



♦ KNOV\ALEDGE ♦ 



[Jan. 30, 1885. 



^I^^^'^^^M^ 



" Let Knowledge grow from mere to more." — Alfbed TEXNYgos . 



Only a small proportion of Letters received can possilly he in- 

 serted. Correspondents mvst not le offended, there/ore, should their 

 letters not appear. 



All Editorial communications should he addressed to the Editob o? 

 KxcwLEPGE ; all Business communications to the PCBLISHEES, at tht 

 Office, 74, Great Quetn-street, fT.C. If this is not attended to 



DELAYS ABISE FOB WHICH THE EdITOB IS NOT KESPOXSIBLE. 



All Re7nittances, Cheques, and Post Office Orders should he made 

 payalle to SIessbs. Wyuan & Sons. 



The Editor is not responsiUe for the opinions of correspondents. 



Ko COMUUNICATIOXS AKE ANSWEBED BY POST, EVEN THOUGH STAMPED 

 AND DIBECTED ENVELOPE BE ENCLOSED. 



JIATTER. 



l1o72j — Your short answer to my last completely meets the 

 case; certain theories are receired more readily by" some^ minds 

 ;han by others. 



ilr. Koutledge (letter 1,501) does nut consider Hjeckel's state- 

 ments logical. I can only say this is a matter of opinion on which 

 I differ from him. If ilr. Eontledge applies Prof. Clifford's 

 "Ethics of Belief" to Ha-ckel's statement, saying, "How can 

 Ha?ckel, or anybody "else, adduce logical evidence that atoms during 

 the eternity that is past and the eternity of time that is to come," 

 etc., let him also apply it to Du Bois Raymond's dictum, which Mr. 

 Koutledge considers more reasonable. Ha^ckel, at all events, con- 

 iines his statement to the properties of atoms as they appear to hi? 

 mind ''at present" ; but Raymond dogmatically predicates ou tL. 

 past, present, and future nature of atoms, assuming the position c: 

 the prophetic seer, who declares to us what is "absolutely and 

 for ever inconceivable to ns." I can only call this slamming the 

 door into the face of all inquiry after truth. Does not Mr. Rout- 

 ledge see that he swallows the camel of Raymond whilst straining 

 at Ha^ckel's gnat ? If Mr. Routledge acknowledges being attracted", 

 unconsciously, by the earth, perhaps he will on searching find that 

 he also has unconscious likes and dislikes. At all events, do we 

 not say that plants like warmth, light, and certain soils — do they 

 do so consciously ? jr. \f. H. 



OBSCURUM FACERE PER OBSCUEirS. 



[1573J — In the interest of scientific truth and soljer criticism, I 

 shall be obliged by the insertion of this curt minute on the " short 

 and sweet" review of the tract: " Wliat is Religion r" in Kxow- 

 lEDGE of January 16. 



It is there airily stated that the " Ei/o and non ego are here once 

 more warmed up ; that the universe must be held to consist of Dr. 

 Lewins' sensations"; ending with the remark, " We seem to have 

 heard something remarkably like this before." Xow I quite con- 

 fess the latter soft impeachment, which reminds me of Gretchen's 

 parallel between the priest and Faust's views about Deity. There 

 is really nothing absolutely new imder the sun. But siinilarity is 

 not identity, and the utilisation of a few handy metaphysical 

 shibboleths by no means implies that the idea conveyed by the 

 term "Brain theory of mind and matter" is that of Messrs. 

 Berkeley, Hegel, Fichte, &c., but vice versa. My view is a strictly 

 physical and physiological, not a metaphysical,' one ; quite within 

 the limits of research, and may well be termed ]S'eo-phrenology. 

 It is entirely materialistic or hnmanistic. It reproduces tlie 

 Protagorean Hylozoism that each sentient being is its own tmi- 

 versal standard, and thus gets rid entirely of the nons the above 

 ontological gentry, as also your able contributor Air. Cave- 

 Thomas, introduce, as the primum mohile, altogether. This 

 somatism resolves, or dissolves, all things into inter- 

 craneal concepts, of which brain is the protoplasm, or 

 officina, and thus may be said to reduce all knowledge 

 to a system of cerebral semeiotics. The macrocosm, as an object 

 of consciousness, is thus the content of the microcosm, the seat, or 

 rather creator, of consciousness. All natural law, including gravi- 

 tation, on which so much solemn and elevated eloquence is ex- 

 pended in the same number of Knowledge, is a law, not of 

 " external," bat of our own nature — true " externality " ha^-ing 

 for ns no real existence whatever — rerff causm, or actual cetiologr, 

 lying in regions to which the mind has no access, and, therefore, as 



good as non-existent. The relative, or phenomenal, sphere botmds 

 human vision, and Xewton's law only rationalises, in no degree 

 " explains," the principle of motion, each self, and not an exoteric 

 "noiif," or nature, being man's /.)/!mi(m raolilc, which he can only 

 know by sensation — a natural function of his own, and of nothing 

 else. Coleridge well says, wide as he departs from the spirit of the 

 canon in his " Spiritual Philosophy, 



" We receive but what we give. 

 And in our life alone does Xature live." 



In late numbers of the Journal of Science are some more ex- 

 plicit papers and letters of " C. N." and myself on this argument. 

 Certainly both of us are under the impression, spite of om- having 

 used some familiar metaphysical nomenclature, that our view is a 

 complete change of front from that of either English or German 

 transcendentalism. Robert LEvnxs, M.D. 



Army and Xavy Club, Jan. 17. 



[Whether the perusal of Dr. Lewins's letier will induce the 

 reviewer of " What is Religion ? " to modify his criticism I regard 

 as in the last degree doubtful ; I rather insert it that others may 

 obtain an idea of the natitre of the hypothesis to which the notice 

 on p. 56 has reference. — Ed.] 



THE ORIGIN OF MYTH. 



[1574] — A series of articles on dreams and myths have lately 

 occupied your pages, in which Mr. Clodd has collected many facts 

 of the greatest interest which go far to show that the notion of a 

 soul or shade distinct from the body has been among many primi- 

 tive peoples an inference from the phenomena of dreams. 



These articles have also contained a number of speculations aud 

 assertions more or less remotely connected with their ostensible 

 subject, in which the author appears to assunte : — 



1. That belief in a soul can never have had any other foundation 

 than that to which he refers : the fact beim; that, so far as I am 

 aware, no philosopher in ancient or modem times who has believed 

 in a soul has rested his belief on dreams. 



2. That, if dreams are an insufficient basis for the belief referred 

 '' '^ " "=* ocessarily be erroneous. 



' existence of a distinct soul is a necessary condition 

 ,.^. >.._... „i a future life. 



4. That science deprives us of the hope of asi hereafter, but gives 

 us more than its equivalent in return. 



It seems to me that otir belief in a future life must consist in 

 reliance on the wisdom aud goodness of God. 



If the Supreme Being, the Eternal Energy (to use Herbert 

 Spencer's phrase) , the one First Cause (whose existence, universality, 

 and power are evidenced by the unijormitu of ;he laws of nature) 

 be wise enough (as I believe He is) to know all the soitows and 

 aspirations of His creatures, how sad the lives of many of them are, 

 bow little relieved by happiness, how often, when the brightness 

 seems to be coming at last, it is forestalled by death ; and it He is 

 righteous enough (as I believe He is) to feel for them and give 

 that elsewhere which they have vainly longed for here, then there 

 must be a life to come. 



Shall we. His children, deny to the All-Father knowledge and 

 goodness .' Surelv, never, unless we have ahsolutc proof of His 

 want of those qualities ; and that could never be, unless we had a 

 ceilainfij that there was no future life. 



When this present life has ceased, and oiu' earthly body has 

 become useless to us, God (if He is such a God as we have a right 

 to believe Him to be) will give ns a new bodily frame which will 

 preserve to us our own thoughts and sympathies, just as science 

 tells us He has done many times in the lives of most of us. Whether 

 our personal identi'ty includes what is termed a soul (as I think, 

 for reasons I need not detail here) , or consists solely of our charac- 

 ters, memories, and associations, that identity can be preserved as 

 much after death (if God so will) as it has been through all the 

 physical changes of our bodies since our childhood. 



No man loves science more than I do — its beauties, its sirrprises, 

 and its grandeur, and few have spent more time in their study 

 and pursuit ; but, if I were robbed of my belief in a life to come, 

 how could these, much as I value them, compensate me for the loss 

 of those dearer to me than life, from whom death will one day part 

 me, or has parted me already, and yet the awful feeling that there 

 is no justice or mercy to be looked for from above ? But I am 

 happy to feel that my belief rests on nothing that science can take 

 away. With regard to the letter of " F. W. H." He says thai the 

 can't understand how a human will can coexist with a universa 

 will ; is it incomprehensible that God should wish ns to be able to 

 exercise our wills so as to influence (by means of our bodily frame) 

 surrounding circumstances, and that He should accordinglj- exei'cise 

 His will so as to give effect to ours ? 



Again, we may correctly say that anything happens from natural 

 causes when it is the result of the operation of the laws and customs 



