186 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 



'But why, if there is no hereafter? This desire which men have 

 for immortality, which is shown in so many ways, and which must 

 liave an object somewhere, has its birth in the pneuma rather than 

 the ^j.s2/c/i(S ; and hence, if the distinction between these two forms 

 of mind is admissible, and men and animals participate in the 

 23syche, but not in the j^^'^^uma, we can see why animals should not 

 have this desire. 



Such are a few among the many reasons which may be offered for 

 refusing to admit the view that the lower animals have minds the 

 ■same in kind as men, difTering only in degree of development. 



The reasons that have been given have been selected rather than 

 -others, because it was supposed their discussion would prove the 

 most suggestive. I say suggestive, because my opinion is, that if 

 what is said on such an occasion as this is said only to convey 

 mere information, rather than to provoke and direct thought, we 

 -eome together for little purpose. 



But it is impossible in one short discourse to adequately state, 

 much less discuss, in a satisfactory manner, such a theme as this. 



As a result of my studies, which have been long turned in this 

 •direction, I have been led to admit that the lower animals, even 

 the lowest, have minds generally the same in kind as men, but 

 >with important differences. 



In the lower animals, the mental faculties involved in percep- 

 -tion and memory, and the instincts and propensities, and the lower 

 phases of moral sentiment, may be compared with men, in 

 -the natural state, viz.: with the savages. But in the higher prov- 

 inces of mind, especially those which are the seats of the esthetic, 

 moral and religious activities, the lower animals are separated 

 ■from man by a vast difference in degree of development, if not of 

 kind. It is on these latter grounds that the distinction is the 

 most profound as between men and the lower animals when com- 

 'pared mutually. 



Why should we deny that animals have minds? Why deny 

 that they are immortal? By admitting these positions no harm 

 -is done, so far as I can see, and we avoid thereby a host of un- 

 co mfortable questions and inferences, which we can neither an- 

 rswer nor parry in a rational manner, and many of which strike at 



