Evolutionism and Systematism 457 
more importance and which epistemology generally overlooks. If 
new variations can arise, not only in organic but perhaps also in 
inorganic nature, new tasks are placed before the human mind. The 
question is, then, if it has forms in which there is room for the new 
matter? We are here touching a possibility which the great master 
of epistemology did not bring to light. Kant supposed confidently 
that no other matter of knowledge could stream forth from the dark 
source which he called “the thing-in-itself,” than such as could be 
synthesised in our existing forms of knowledge. He mentions the 
possibility of other forms than the human, and warns us against the 
dogmatic assumption that the human conception of existence should 
be absolutely adequate. But he seems to be quite sure that the 
thing-in-itself works constantly, and consequently always gives us 
only what our powers can master. This assumption was a con- 
sequence of Kant’s rationalistic tendency, but one for which no 
warrant can be given. Evolutionism and systematism are opposing 
tendencies which can never be absolutely harmonised one with the 
other. Evolution may at any time break some form which the 
system-monger regards as finally established. Darwin himself felt a 
great difference in looking at variation as an evolutionist and as 
a systematist. When he was working at his evolution theory, he 
was very glad to find variations; but they were a hindrance to him 
when he worked as a systematist, in preparing his work on Cirri- 
pedia. He says in a letter: “I had thought the same parts of the 
same species more resemble (than they do anyhow in Cirripedia) 
objects cast in the same mould. Systematic work would be easy 
were it not for this confounded variation, which, however, is pleasant 
to me as a speculatist, though odious to me as a systematist.” He 
could indeed be angry with variations even as an evolutionist ; but 
then only because he could not explain them, not because he could 
not classify them. “If, as I must think, external conditions produce 
little direct effect, what the devil determines each particular varia- 
tion??” What Darwin experienced in his particular domain holds 
good of all knowledge. All knowledge is systematic, in so far as it 
strives to put phenomena in quite definite relations, one to another. 
But the systematisation can never be complete. And here Darwin 
has contributed much to widen the world for us. He has shown us 
forces and tendencies in nature which make absolute systems im- 
possible, at the same time that they give us new objects and 
problems. There is still a place for what Lessing called “the 
unceasing striving after truth,” while “absolute truth” (in the sense 
of a closed system) is unattainable so long as life and experience 
are going on. 
1 Life and Letters, Vol. 11. p. 37. 2 Tbid. p. 232. 
~ 
