346 The Philosophy of Evolution. 



Evolution is simply the widest generalization of all facts, 

 gathered from remotest orbs as well as from the gases about 

 us and the grasses beneath our feet. It is a declaration of 

 the procedure of the present from the past, of the future 

 from the present, the statement of belief that this was 

 always so and always will be so, and that the universe is 

 complete and self-regulating under the control of this prin- 

 ciple. 



Being thus a generalization from natural facts, the Phil- 

 osophy of Evolution does not need to borrow weapons from 

 old reasoners or books of the past. It asks nothing of 

 nominalist or idealist ; it shows scant respect for metaphy- 

 sician or logician. It has little to say to the old disj)utants 

 about "coffito, errjo sum,''^ or the essence of being, or the 

 thing in itself, or the ontological proofs of the existence of 

 God. When reading the metaphysical philosophers, one is 

 fain to be persuaded that important interests for humanity 

 are bound up in their conclusions ; but Evolution brings 

 one to his sober senses and discloses the habit of trifling 

 which metaphysical studies give to minds devoted to them. 

 As an example, consider how many hours good minds have 

 wasted over Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," with its 

 fruitless propositions. What is the use of reasoning as to 

 whether space and time have only formal existence or also 

 real existence, excepting as an exercise of ingenuity ? It 

 is a pretty piece of chess-playing, perhaps. And all his 

 learned discussions as to how a priori judgments are pos- 

 sible — as if there were any such reasonable judgments — 

 and the like, are they aught but mere excursions of curi- 

 osity, worthy of attention only from t^ose who have no 

 serious pursuits ? Evolution, not having been rocked in 

 the metaphysical cradle, gives cool recognition of these and 

 similar studies. It merely calls attention to the fact that 

 either side of their questions has no material proof, and 

 therefore lacks in the first condition of a verifiable propo- 

 sition. 



The wide difference of methods existing between the 

 Metaphysical and Evolutionary Philoso])hies is seen nowhere 

 more forcibly than in the systems for discovering truth em- 

 ])l<)yed l)y the Transcendentalist, Hegel, and the Naturalist, 

 JJarwin, respectively. Both were men of extraordinary in- 

 tellect, of great industry, of pertinacious devotion to their 

 ideas, of wide range of investigation, and comprehensive 



