244 



Thoughts on Causality. 



phenomena have been investigated by science until the 

 chain of causation has been traced back to portions of 

 matter which elude observation ; and, by a leap, she has 

 c oncluded that divisibility extends to those inconceivably 

 smaller portions called molecules and atoms. These sup- 

 posed atoms are, then, the ultimate realities of science; 

 and all other forms and conditions of material substance 

 result from their mutual interactions. The interactions 

 of atoms and their resulting aggregates are admitted to 

 be the effects of causes. The universal and individual 

 reason would rebel against the converse hypothesis. Now 

 those causes lying out upon the utmost verge of intellect- 

 ual exploration, have been designated forces. Their modes 

 of activity are their " laws," and produce, severally, those 

 correlate orders of phenomenal sequence called the " laws " 

 of phenomena. Now force, it must be perceived, is the 

 name of an entity unknown to science. It is another 

 symbolical term employed for convenience, the symbolism 

 of which, as in other cases, long usage is liable to disguise. 

 We are absolutely certain, nevertheless, that the cause 

 called force is a reality. 



Where, now, does this reality reside ? I do not inquire 

 where it acts, but where, in reference to matter, is its own 

 subjective essence ? Here opinion bifurcates. A few main- 

 tain that matter itself is the subjective ground of force, 

 while others believe that force is external to matter. Sup- 

 pose we assume matter itself to be the author of energy. 

 The supposition involves the absurdity of confounding 

 subject and object. Moreover, as matter must be either 

 intelligent or unintelligent, we may suppose, at first, that 

 it is unintelligent. If unintelligent, then the interaction of 

 dead atoms gives rise to a universe of phenomena among 

 which are life, volition and thought. I am willing to con- 

 sider as final, the admissions of Tyndall and Dubois-Key- 

 mond on this point, both of whom explicitly assert the im- 

 possibility of eliciting intellectual fire from the collision of 



