KANT'S AND SPENCER'S VIEWS OF MATTER AND FORCE 225 



Cause, and design. The transition from the inorganic to the organic is not so direct and simple as some philo- 

 sophers and physicists endeavour to make out. This will be made abundantly clear by a consideration of the 

 exact meanings of the words homogeneous and heterogeneous, and of differentiation in relation to the latter. 

 The term homogeneous is derived from two Greek words, ofjiO'i, the same, and yevot;, race, family, kind. It means 

 of the same kind or nature ; essentially Uke ; having parts of only one kind ; said especially of parts of one whole ; 

 opposed to heterogeneous. 



The term heterogeneous is also of Greek origin, being derived from 'irepo^, other, different, and -yeVo?, kind. 

 It signifies different in kind, unUke, incongruous ; having widely unlike elements or constituents ; opposed 

 to homogeneous. 



The term differentiation is derived from the Latin differentia, difference. It primarily means the formation 

 of differences. It means secondarily, any change by which something homogeneous is made heterogeneous or hke 

 things are made unlike. It also signifies speciahsation of structure and function. 



The vigorous attempts at generalisations made by Immanuel Kant and Herbert Spencer, supposed to explain 

 everything, in reality explain very httle. 



Kant presupposes " an infinite expansion of formless and diffused matter " and the setting up of "a single 

 centre of attraction, which gradually reclaims more and more of the molecular waste, and converts chaos into cosmos," 

 and Herbert Spencer takes for granted " an unceasing redistribution of matter and motion," and the conversion 

 of homogeneous substances into heterogeneous ones, and, conversely, of heterogeneous substances into homogeneous 

 ones. Both authors assume the existence of matter and force, and of a directive agency capable of converting 

 formless homogeneous substances into heterogeneous or differentiated substances. The question, Whence come the 

 matter and force and the directive agency has still to be answered. 



Kant and Spencer, by assuming that the universe (inorganic and organic) is constructed out of a formless homo- 

 geneous mass, virtually ask Nature to make bricks without straw, inasmuch as the heterogeneous materials required 

 for constructing the inorganic and organic kingdoms, and which characterise them, are not forthcoming. They 

 practically ignore modern chemical analysis and the results obtained by the spectroscope, photography, the tele- 

 scope, and the microscope. If the universe is now composed of a large number of heterogeneous elements, it is 

 difficult to conceive that the elements did not exist in a potential or other form at the beginning. If only one kind 

 of matter is required to construct the inorganic and organic kingdoms, it follows that that matter must either have 

 enormous potentiahties, which imply differentiation, or it must, in ultimate composition, be incredibly multiple. 

 Heterogeneous substances, whether organic or inorganic, cannot possibly be produced from absolutely homogeneous 

 substances, whatever the surroundings and whatever the nature of the forces acting upon them. The unhke 

 and the Uke must be placed in different categories ; the one cannot, even by a process of legerdemain, be produced 

 from the other. Either a large number of different substances are required for the production of the different 

 parts of the universe, or the so-called homogeneous substances are complex and compound to an extent not yet 

 dreamt of. 



The complexity in question is no doubt traceable to the atoms and molecules composing inorganic and organic 

 matter alike. Everything points to variety, and endless variety, in the atoms and molecules themselves. While 

 we have positively no knowledge of matter and force as ultimates, recent researches go to prove that the differences 

 and differentiations witnessed on all hands in dead inorganic matter and in hving organic matter are really present 

 in ultimate matter as such. If the differences which characterise primitive heterogeneous matter cannot be demon- 

 strated, neither can the sameness which characterises primitive homogeneous matter be made out.^ The con- 

 tinuity which is claimed for matter in the present day supports the idea of original differences, and the heterogeneous 

 substances in the universe as we know it greatly outnumber the homogeneous ones. If inorganic and organic 

 substances vary, and they do admittedly vary greatly, the primitive or ultimate matter from which both are formed 

 must also vary. Variabihty in ultimate matter would fully account for the occasionally conflicting results obtained 

 from the employment of chemical analysis, the spectroscope, microscope, telescope, and other means of research. 

 " To chemistry has been entrusted the task of tracking matter back to its simplest forms or form. The result 

 is remarkable so far as present knowledge goes. There are found a considerable number of substances (seventy- 

 five have already been discovered) which have defied all attempts to resolve them into further simpUcity. These 

 are also indestructible, passing scathless and invulnerable through every transformation. There is no apparent 

 tendency on their part to lose their peculiar properties or to pass one into the other ; although there are a few 



1 Lord Kelvin, the greatest of physicists, in an eloquent speech delivered by him at the University of Glasgow in 1895, on the 

 occasion of his jubilee as Professor of Natural Philosophy, gave utterance to these remarkable words : " I know no more of electric and magnetic 

 force, or of the relation between ether, electricity, and ponderable matter, or of chemical affinity, than I knew and tried to teach my students of 

 natural jihilosophy fifty years ago, in my first session as professor." 



VOL. I. 



2f 



