in] OTHER DEFINITIONS 83 



cannot possibly be used as the basis for the definition 

 of the other. 



Another and a very different view is taken by 

 Le Dan tec (11), who, sticking to etymology, gives 

 the following definition : " Tindividu vivant est done 

 un corps qui ne peut 6tre divis^ sans que Tune au 

 moins des parties resultant de la division perde la 

 vie." This happens, he says, only when there exists 

 a nervous system, and one where the nervous elements 

 are concentrated at certain points to form centres of 

 control and co-ordination, a process which as its 

 climax produces the brains of the higher insects and 

 mammals 1 . Each nervous centre constitutes then in 

 some way the nucleus of an individuality and only 

 animals with highly-centralized nervous systems can 

 properly be called individuals. 



The real error of this view lies far back in its 

 premises. The definition contains an error of logic. 

 You may correctly insist on etymology and say that 

 an individual is something which cannot be divided 

 without losing its essential quality : but when you 

 say that the essential quality is life, you are not 

 talking sense. The essential quality of an individual 

 is not life but individuality. As a matter of fact, an 



1 As a matter of fact there are animals, such as the sea-urchins, 

 where death results from division of the body and yet is certainly 

 not caused by any dislocation of nervous centres, for the sea-urchins 

 have a very feeble and very decentralized nervous system. 



62 



