페이지 이미지
PDF

evolution, and of the certainty of the action of natural selection” (p. 49).

I do not quite see, myself, how, if the action of natural selection is certain, the occurrence of evolution is only probable; inasmuch as the development of a new species by natural selection is, so far as it goes, evolution. However, it is not worth while to quarrel with the precise terms of a sentence which shows that the high water mark of intelligence among those most respectable of Britons, the readers of the Quarterly Review, has now reached such a level that the next tide may lift them easily and pleasantly on the once-dreaded shore of evolution. Nor, having got there, do they seem likely to stop, until they have reached the inmost heart of that great region, and accepted the ape ancestry of at any rate, the body of man. For the Reviewer admits that Mr. Darwin can be said to have established:

“That if the various kinds of lower animals have been evolved one from the other by a process of natural generation or evolution, then it becomes highly probable, d priori, that man's body has been similarly evolved; but this, in such a case, becomes equally probable from the admitted fact that he is an animal at all” (p. 65).

From the principles laid down in the last sen

tence it would follow that if man were constructed

upon a plan as different from that of any other

animal as that of a sea-urchin is from that of a

whale, it would be “equally probable” that he

[graphic]

had been developed from some other animal as it
is now, when we know that for every bone, muscle,
tooth, and even pattern of tooth, in man, there is a
corresponding bone, muscle, tooth, and pattern of
tooth, in an ape. And this shows one of two things
—either that the Quarterly Reviewer's notions of
probability are peculiar to himself, or that he has
such an overpowering faith in the truth of evolution
that no extent of structural break between one
animal and another is sufficient to destroy his con-
viction that evolution has taken place.
But this by the way. The importance of the
admission that there is nothing in man's physical
structure to interfere with his having been evolved
from an ape is not lessened because it is grudg-
ingly made and inconsistently qualified. And in-
stead of jubilating over the extent of the enemy's
retreat, it will be more worth while to lay siege to
his last stronghold—the position that there is a
distinction in kind between the mental faculties
of man and those of brutes, and that in consequence
of this distinction in kind no gradual progress
from the mental faculties of the one to those of the
other can have taken place.
The Quarterly Reviewer entrenches himself
within formidable-looking psychological outworks,
and there is no getting at him without attacking
them one by one.
He begins by laying down the following pro-
position. “Sensation' is not ‘ thought, and no

[graphic]

amount of the former would constitute the most rudimentary condition of the latter, though sensations supply the conditions for the existence of ‘thought’ or ‘knowledge’’ (p. 67). This proposition is true, or not, according to the sense in which the word “thought" is employed. Thought is not uncommonly used in a sense coextensive with consciousness, and, especially, with those states of consciousness we call memory. If I recall the impression made by a colour or an odour, and distinctly remember blueness or muskiness, I may say with perfect propriety that I “think of" blue or musk; and, so long as the thought lasts, it is simply a faint reproduction of the state of consciousness to which I gave the name in question, when it first became known to me as a sensation. Now, if that faint reproduction of a sensation, which we call the memory of it, is properly termed a thought, it seems to me to be a somewhat forced proceeding to draw a hard and fast line of demarcation between thoughts and sensations. If sensations are not rudimentary thoughts, it may be said that some thoughts are rudimentary sensations. No amount of sound constitutes an echo, but for all that no one would pretend that an echo is something of totally different nature from a sound. Again, nothing can be looser, or more inaccurate, than the assertion that “sensations supply the conditions for the existence of thought or knowledge.” If this implies that sensations supply the conditions for the existence of our memory of sensations or of our thoughts about sensations, it is a truism which it is hardly worth while to state so solemnly. If it implies that sensations supply anything else, it is obviously erroneous. And if it means, as the context would seem to show it does, that sensations are the subject-matter of all thought or knowledge, then it is no less contrary to fact, inasmuch as our emotions, which constitute a large part of the subject-matter of thought or of knowledge, are not sensations. More eccentric still is the Quarterly Reviewer's next piece of psychology.

[graphic]

“Altogether, we may clearly distinguish at least six kinds of action to which the nervous system ministers:– “I. That in which impressions received result in appropriate movements without the intervention of sensation or thought, as in the cases of injury above given.—This is the reflex action of the nervous system. “II. That in which stimuli from without result in sensations through the agency of which their due effects are wrought out. –Sensation. “III. That in which impressions received result in sensations which give rise to the observation of sensible objects.-Sensible perception. “IV. That in which sensations and perceptions continue to coalesce, agglutinate, and combine in more or less complex aggregations, according to the laws of the association of sensible perceptions.—Association. “The above four groups contain only indeliberate operations, consisting, as they do at the best, but of mere presentative sensible ideas in no way implying any reflective or representative faculty. Such actions minister to and form Instinct. Besides these, we may distinguish two other kinds of mentalaction, namely:“V. That in which sensations and sensible perceptions are reflected on by thought, and recognised as our own, and we ourselves recognised by ourselves as affected and perceiving.— Self-consciousness.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

“WI. That in which we reflect upon our sensations or perceptions, and ask what they are, and why they are.-Reason.

“These two latter kinds of action are deliberate operations, performed, as they are, by means of representative ideas implying the use of a reflective representative faculty. Such actions distinguish the intellect or rational faculty. Now, we assert that possession in perfection of all the first four (presentative) kinds of action by no means implies the possession of the last two (representative) kinds. All persons, we think, must admit the truth of the following proposition :

“Two faculties are distinct, not in degree but in kind, if we may possess the one in perfection without that fact implying that we possess the other also. Still more will this be the case if the two faculties tend to increase in an inverse ratio. Yet this is the distinction between the instinctive and the intellectual parts of man's nature.

“As to animals, we fully admit that they may possess all the first four groups of actions—that they may have, so to speak, mental images of sensible objects combined in all degrees of complexity, as governed by the laws of association. We deny to them, on the other hand, the possession of the last two kinds of mental action. We deny them, that is, the power of reflecting on their own existences, or of inquiring into the nature of objects and their causes. We deny that they know that they know or know themselves in knowing. In other words, we deny them reason. The possession of the presentative faculty, as above explained, in no way implies that of the reflective faculty; nor does any amount of direct operation imply the power of asking the reflective question before mentioned, as to ‘what' and ‘why.’” (Loc. cit. pp. 67, 68.)

Sundry points are worthy of notice in this remarkable account of the intellectual powers. In the first place the Reviewer ignores emotion and

[graphic]
« 이전계속 »