METHODS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL RESEARCH 45 



must be contrasted with all the forces of inorganic nature as a 

 specific vital force, characterising the actions of living organisms 

 only. In other words, by vital force is meant simply the special 

 aspect of chemico-physical forces that lies at the basis of Adtal 

 phenomena. It is evident that no objection can be brought against 

 the facts upon which this idea is based. But it is another question 

 whether the terms " vital force " and " vitalism " are justified in 

 this case. The new idea 'has nothing to do with the old vitalism, 

 which assumed a ''force hypermichaniqv.e" as the cause of vital 

 phenomena. A return to the ill-reputed word, which arouses a 

 well-defined prejudice, is simply to give up the advantage afforded / 

 by the hard-earned conviction of the unity of cause in all nature. 



Psychical vitalism, as defended by Bunge ('94), and essentially, 

 although more poetically than exactly, by Rindfleisch ('95), is 

 something wholly different. It is properly not a physiological 

 but rather a philosophical doctrine, which springs from a correct 

 appreciation of the inadequacy of materialism, and it is to be 

 regretted that it employs the extremely unsuitable names 

 " vitalism " and " neovitalism." 



We will consider somewhat more fully the vitalistic standpoint i 

 of Bunge. Bunge expresses the vitalistic creed unambiguously in 

 the statement : " If the opponents of vitalism maintain that abso- 

 lutely no other factors are present in living nature than simply 

 and solely the forces and substances of inanimate nature, I must 

 take issue with their doctrine." Nevertheless, from his further 

 deductions it appears equally evident that his vitalism is no 

 vitalism at all. Bunge's vitalism in reality is essentially a 

 philosophical idealism arising from considerations similar to 

 those expressed above regarding the theory of knowledge. 

 Bunge is guilty of the one inconsistency, however, that he . 

 ascribes mind to organic, but not to inorganic, nature ; and it is | 

 this inconsistency that leads him to profess vitalism, for to him f 

 mind is the element that distinguishes the phenomena of the living | 

 physical world from those of the lifeless. It is a cause of personal ; 

 satisfaction that one of our most prominent physiologists has i 

 energetically defended views similar to those to which my own 

 general considerations have led, and, therefore, I venture to 

 present herewith the passage in question from the introduction 

 of Bunge's book ; it contains more profound reasoning than is 

 usually realised. Relative to Johannes Miiller's law of the specific 

 energy of the special senses, Bunge says : " I mean the simple 

 law that one and the same stimulus, one and the same event in the 

 external world, one and the same thing-in-itself, acting upon the 

 different sense-nerves always causes (" discharges ") different 

 sensations, and that different stimuli acting upon the same sense- 

 nerve alwa3's cause the same sensation; in other words, that 

 events in the external world have nothing in common with our 



