i WHAT LIFE IS 9 



This was written only a year after the celebrated lecture 

 on " The Physical Basis of Life," in which Huxley made 

 statements which seem opposed to those above quoted, and 

 which certainly appear to be less philosophical. For 

 example, he says that when carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and 

 nitrogen are combined with some other elements, they 

 produce carbonic acid, water, and nitrogenous salts. These 

 compounds are all lifeless. " But when they are brought 

 together under certain conditions they give rise to the still 

 more complex body, protoplasm, and this protoplasm 

 exhibits the phenomena of life " (p. 52). Then follows an 

 exposition of the well-known argument as to water and 

 crystals being produced by the " properties " of their con- 

 stituent elements, with this conclusion : 



" Is the case any way changed when carbonic acid, water, and 

 nitrogenous salts disappear, and in their place, under the influetice of 

 pre-existing living protoplasm, an equivalent weight of the matter of 

 life makes its appearance? " (p. 53). 



But here we have the words I have italicised introduced 

 which were not in the previous statement ; and these are of 

 fundamental importance considering the tremendous con- 

 clusion he goes on to draw from them — " that the thoughts 

 to which I am now giving utterance are the expression of 

 molecular changes in that matter of life which is the source 

 of our other vital phenomena." At the end of the lecture 

 he says that " it is of little moment whether we express the 

 phenomena of matter in terms of spirit, or the phenomena 

 of spirit in terms of matter — each statement has a certain 

 relative truth." But he thinks that in matters of science 

 the materialistic terminology is in every way to be preferred. 



This is vague and unsatisfactory. It is not a mere 

 question of terminology ; but his statement that " thought 

 is the expression of molecular change in protoplasm " is a 

 mere begging of the whole question, both because it is 

 absolutely unproved, and is also inconsistent with that later 

 and clearer statement that " life is the cause of organisation " ; 

 but, if so, life must be antecedent to organisation, and can 

 only be conceived as indissolubly connected with spirit and 

 with thought, and with the cause of the directive energy 

 everywhere manifested in the growth of living things. 



