126 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



develop in response to the " order " of nature ;° but this response is 

 itself only another term for causation, and must, in order to ensure con- 

 sistency, itself be interpreted like other cases of causation. But this 

 means that everything is brought within a causal " order " which is 

 held to be only assumed but not proved or provable. And yet it would 

 seem that the very attempt to ground this general view presupposes the 

 contradictory position, namely, that there is a causation, a necessary 

 connection, a unique determination and " order," which are more than 

 assumed. That there is this causation is, however, a view quite com- 

 patible with the discontinuity view previously advanced. 



Professor Brooks is seemingly not aware of this last possible sup- 

 plementation of his view, but yet he says nothing which would con- 

 tradict it. By it the causal connection, discontinuous though it be at 

 certain points, the " order," etc., are more than assumed ; although as- 

 sumptions may be made about them, they are factual. 



In accordance, now, with this whole general position, Professor 

 Brooks (rightly) finds freedom quite possible logically because, as a 

 fact, it is quite compatible with " order," and does not mean disorder, 

 nor yet ultimate necessity. " We know we are free to do as we like ; and 

 we also know there are reasons why we like to do as we do." Briefly 

 " The reduction of all the phenomena of life to mechanical principles 

 would show that our likings and dislikings are what they might have 

 been expected to be," and " would not disprove the reality or the value 

 of any one thing we discover in our nature."^ 



Quite in line with all this is also the " immanent teleology " which 

 Professor Brooks accepts and which may be made clear by a quotation 

 both apt and amusing : " He who admits that cats are part of nature, 

 and that skill in catching mice is important to the race of cats, must 

 admit that nature is, so far, useful to itself."** Thus the teleology falls 

 within the " order " of nature, is quite compatible with it, and indeed 

 applies to a special group of phenomena within this (assumed) causal 

 order. Either description may be made and both are correct. 



Concerning the other philosophical aspects of Professor Brooks's 

 writings much need not and indeed can not be said. To be sure, 

 all through tlie Foundations he is continually quoting from some phi- 

 losopher, or is raising some philosophical problem, but furtlier than this 

 he does not go. He does not contribute very much at least to the solu- 

 tion of these problems, but, rather, chooses certain statements and points 

 of view of the philosophers as contributing to his own views. But he 

 thus at all times reveals the heartiest sympathy for the results of the 

 philosopher's reflections. " Whether it is desirable to place a prohibi- 



•For example, in the chapter on "The Mechanism of Nature." 

 * Foundations, pp. 310-12. 

 » Ibid., p. 305. 



