the Fundamental Problem of Nature. 21 



isted fii*st under the form of chemical affinities. The same is the 

 case in regard to plants ; all the energies in operation in the plant 

 are in like manner derived from the nutriment received through 

 its leaves and rootlets. 



This, doubtless, is true ; but it is of no service to the physical 

 theory, as we have seen; for the fundamental question is not what 

 are the energies in operation, but what is it that determines their 

 mode of operation ? It does not necessarily follow, as the advocates 

 of the physical hypothesis would seem to suppose, that because 

 the energies which move the molecules had a chemical or a phy- 

 sical origin, these energies have the same mode of operation as the 

 chemical or the physical energies have. It does not follow that 

 these energies are either chemical or physical merely because 

 they have had a chemical or a physical origin. Animal heat is 

 derived from the chemical energies of the food we eat ; the me- 

 chanical power by which we raise our arm or move our legs is 

 also derived from the same source; but we do not on this account, 

 as has already been stated, call either animal heat or the power by 

 which we move our limbs chemical energy. We call it physical 

 and mechanical energy. The energy is no longer chemical after 

 it has changed its mode of operation. Then, if there are energies 

 in organic nature which operate in a different way from those 

 which we call chemical and physical, we have no warrant for call- 

 ing them either chemical or physical merely because they may 

 have had a chemical or a physical origin. But if energies are to 

 be named according to their mode of operation (which is the 

 practice in science), then energies differing from those of che- 

 mistry and physics must have a name by which they are to be 

 distinguished. Why not call them "vital euergies^'? 



But the advocates of the physical hypothesis do not admit that 

 there exists in organic nature any form of energy different in 

 character from that to be found in the inorganic world. 



We shall now consider whether any thing which that school 

 has advanced on the subject does in any way explain how mole^ 

 cular motions are determined according to the objective idea in 

 nature. Energy, chemical and physical, accounts for molecular 

 motions in organic nature; but how is it to account for the de- 

 termination of those motions ? If the determinations of mole- 

 cular motion are to be attributed to these energies, it must be to 

 their tnodes of operation — the way in which the energies are ex=- 

 erted — and not to the mere exertion itself. Suppose that the 

 determinations of molecular motion could be accounted for from 

 the known modes of the operation of physical energies. The 

 ultimate problem would then be. What is it that determines those 

 modes of operation ? In other words, the problem would resolve 

 itself into this, viz. What is the cause of the determination of 



