By Dr. R. VON LENDENFELD.
[The following article appeared originally, last year, in the German
scientific monthly, _Humboldt_. It, is reproduced here (by
permission)--the English from the hand of Mr. A.E. Shipley--as a
specimen of the kind of general speculation to which modern biology is
giving rise.--EDITOR.]
To Weismann is due the credit of transforming those vague ideas on the
immortality of the germ plasma which have been for some time in the
minds of many scientific men, myself among the number, into a clear
and sharply-defined theory, against the accuracy of which no doubt can
be raised either from the theoretical or from the empirical
standpoint. This theory, defined as it is by Weismann, has but
recently come before us, and some time must elapse before all the
consequences which it entails will be evident. But there is one
direction which I have for some time followed, and indeed began to
think out long before Weismann's remarkable work showed the importance
of this matter. I mean the origin of the conception of the immortal
soul.
Before I approach the solution of this problem, it may be advisable to
recall in a few words to my readers the theory of the immortality of
the germ plasm.
All unicellular beings, such as the protozoa and the simpler algæ,
fungi, etc., reproduce themselves by means of simple fission. The
mother organism may split into two similar halves, as the amoeba does,
or, as is more common in the lowest unicellular plants, it may divide
into a great number of small spores. In these processes it often
happens that the whole body of the mother, the entire cell, may
resolve itself into two or more children; at times, however, a small
portion of the mother cell remains unused. This remnant, in the
spore-forming unicellular plants represented by the cell wall, is then
naturally dead.
From this it follows that these unicellular beings are immortal. The
mother cell divides, the daughter cells resulting from the first
division repeat the process, the third generation does the same, and
so on. At each division the mother cell renews its youth and
multiplies, without ever dying.
External circumstances can, of course, at any moment bring about the
death of these unicellular organisms, and in reality almost every
series of beings which originate from one another in this way is
interrupted by death. Some, however, persist. From the first
appearance of living organisms on our planet till to-day, several such
series--at the very least certainly one--have persisted.
The immortality of unicellular beings is not at any time absolute, but
only potential. Weismann has recently directed attention to this
point. External occurrences may at any moment cause the death of an
individual, and in this way interrupt the immortal series; but in the
intimate organization of the living plasma there exist no seeds of
death. The plasma is itself immortal and will in fact live forever,
provided only external circumstances are favorable.
Death is always said to be inherent in the nature of protoplasm. This
is not so. The plasm, as such, is immortal.
But a further complication of great importance affects the
reproduction and the rejuvenescence of these unicellular organisms;
this is the process of conjugation. Two separate cells, distinct
individuals, fuse together. Their protoplasmic bodies not only unite
but intermingle, and their nuclei do likewise; from two individuals
one results. A single cell is thus produced, and this divides. As a
rule this cell seems stronger than the single individual before the
union. The offspring of a double individual, originated in this way,
increase for some time parthenogenetically by simple fission without
conjugation, until at length a second conjugation takes place among
them. I cannot consider further the origin of this universally
important process of conjugation. I will only suggest that a kind of
conjugation may have existed from the very beginning and may have been
determined by the original method of reproduction, if such existed.
At any rate conjugation has been observed in very many plants and
animals, and is possibly universally present in the living world.
Conjugation does not affect the theory of immortality. The double
individual produced from the fusion of two individuals, which divides
and lives on in its descendants, contains the substance of both. The
conjugating cells have in no way died during the process of
conjugation; they have only united.
If we examine a little more closely the history of such a "family" of
unicellular beings from one period of conjugation to the next, we see
that a great number of single individuals, that is, single cells, have
proceeded from the double individual formed by conjugation. These may
all continue to increase by splitting in two, and then the family tree
is composed of dichotomously branching lines; or they may resolve
themselves into numerous spores, and then the family tree exhibits a
number of branches springing from the same point.
The majority of these branches end blindly with the death, caused by
external circumstances, of that individual which corresponds with the
branch. Only a few persist till the next period of conjugation, and
then unite with other individuals and afford the opportunity for
giving rise to a new family tree.
All the single individuals of such a genealogical table belong to one
another, even though they be isolated. Among certain infusoria and
other protista, they do, in fact, remain together and build up
branching colonies. At the end of each branch is situated an
infusorian (vorticella), and the whole colony represents in itself the
genealogical family tree.
In the beginning, there existed no other animal organisms than these
aggregations of similar unicellular beings, all of which reproduced
themselves. Later on, division of labor made its appearance among the
individuals of the animal colony, and it increased their dependence
upon one another, so that their individuality was to a great extent
lost, and they were no longer able to live independently of one
another.
By the development of this process, multicellular metazoa arose from
the colonies of similar protozoa, and at length culminated in the
higher animals and man.
If we examine the human body, its origin and end, in the light of
these facts, we shall see that a comparison between the simple
immortal protozoa and man leads us to the result that man himself, or
at least a part of him and that the most important, is immortal.
When we turn to the starting point of human development, we find an
egg cell and a spermatozoon, which unite and whose nuclei intermingle.
Thus a new cell is produced. This process is similar to the
conjugation of two unicellular beings, such as two acinetiform
infusoria, one of which, the female ([Symbol: Female]), is larger than
the other, the male ([Symbol: Male]). This difference of size in the
conjugating cell is, however, without importance.
From this double cell produced by conjugation many generations of
cells arise by continual cell division in divergent series. Among the
infusoria these are all immortal, but many of them are destroyed, and
only a few persist till conjugation again takes place. The same is the
case with man. Numerous series of cell families arise, which are all
immortal: of these but few--strictly speaking, only one--live till the
next period of conjugation and then give the impulse which results in
the formation of a new diverging series of cells. The difference
between man and the infusorian is only that in the former the cells
which originate from the double cell (the fertilized ovum) remain
together and become differentiated one from another, while in the
latter the cells are usually scattered but remain alike in appearance,
etc.
The seeds of death do not lie, as Weismann appears to assume, in the
differentiation of the cells of the higher animals. On the contrary,
all the cell series, not only those of the reproductive cells, are
immortal. As a matter of fact all must die; not because they
themselves contain the germs of death and have contained them from the
beginning, but because the structure which is built up by them
collectively finally brings about the death of all. The living plasm
in every cell is itself immortal. It is the higher life of the
collective organism which continually condemns countless cells to
death. They die, not because they cannot continue to exist as such but
because conditions necessary for their preservation are no longer
present.
Thus, while the cells are themselves immortal, the whole organism
which they build up is mortal. The complex inter-dependence between
the single cells, which, since they have adapted themselves to
division of labor, has become necessary, carries with it, from the
beginning, the seeds of death. The mutual dependence ceases to work,
and the various cells are killed.
The death of the individual is a consequence of the defective
precision in the working of the division of labor among the cells.
This defect, after a longer or shorter time, causes the death of all
the cells composing the body. Only those which quit the body retain
their power of living.
Of all those countless cells which, in the course of a lifetime, are
thrown off from the body, only one kind is adapted for existence
outside the body, namely, the reproductive cells.
Among the lower animals the reproductive cells often leave the body of
their parents only after the death of the latter. This is not the case
in man.
All the cell series which do not take part in the formation of
reproductive cells, as well as all the reproductive cells without
exception, or with only a few exceptions, die through unfavorable
external conditions; just as all, or almost all, of the infusoria
which arose from the double cell die before they can conjugate again.
At times, however, some of the infusoria persist till the next period
of conjugation, and in the same way, from time to time, some of the
human reproductive cells succeed in conjugating, and from them a new
individual arises.
A man is the outgrowth of the double cell produced from the
conjugation of two human reproductive cells, and consists of all the
cells which arise from this and remain in connection with each other.
The human individual originates at the moment of the mingling of the
nuclei of the reproductive cells; and the details of this mingling
determine his individual peculiarities.
The end of man is manifestly to preserve, to nourish, and to protect
the series of reproductive cells which are continually developing
within him, to select a suitable mate and to care for the children
which he produces. His whole structure is acquired by means of
selection with this one object in view, the maintenance of the series
of reproductive cells.
From this standpoint the individual loses his significance and
becomes, so to speak, the slave of the reproductive cells. These are
the important and essential and also the undying parts of the
organism. Like raveled threads whose branches separate and reunite,
the series of reproductive cells permeate the successive generations
of the human race. They continually give off other cell series which
branch out from this network of reproductive cells, and, after a
longer or shorter course, come to an end. Twigs from these branches
represent the human individuals, and any one who considers the matter
must recognize that, as was said above, apart from the preservation of
the reproductive cell series the individuals are purposeless.
It is on this basis that the moral ordering of the world must place
itself if it is to stand on any basis at all. It is an easy and a
pleasant task to interpret the facts of history from this standpoint.
Everything fits together and harmonizes, and each turn in the
historical development of civilization when observed from this point
of view acquires a simple and a clear causality.
I cannot enlarge on this topic, engaging as it is, but here a further
question obtrudes itself. May there not be some connection between the
actual immortality of the germ cells, the continuity of their series
and the importance of the part they play, and the origin of the idea
of an immortal soul? May not the former have given rise to the latter?
As a matter of fact, the series of reproductive cells possess the
essential attributes of the human soul; they are the immortal living
part of a man, which contain, in a latent form, his spiritual
peculiarities. The immortality of the reproductive cells is only
potential and is essentially different from that absolute eternal life
which certain religions ascribe to the soul.
We must not, however, forget that at the time when the conception of a
soul arose among men, owing to a defective knowledge of the laws of
logic, no clear distinction was made between a potential immortality
and an absolute life without end.
Herbert Spencer has pointed out that all religions have their origin
in reverence paid to ancestors. Each religion must have a true
foundation, and the deification of our forefathers has this true and
natural foundation inasmuch as they belong to the same series of
reproductive cells as their descendants. Of course our barbaric
ancestors who initiated the ancestor worship had no idea of this
motive for their religion, but that in no way disproves that this and
this alone was the _causa efficiens_ of the origin of such religions.
It is indeed typical of a religion that it depends upon facts which
are not discerned and which are not fully recognized.
With the origin and development of every religion the origin and
development of the conception of the soul progresses step by step.
We find the justification of ancestor worship in the immortality of
the reproductive cells, and in the continuity of their series. This
should also take a part in the origin of the conception of the soul.
Spencer derives the conception of the existence of the soul from
dreams, and from the imagination of the mentally afflicted. The savage
dreams he is hunting, and wakes up to find himself at home. In his
dream he talks with friends who are not present where he sleeps; he
may even in the course of his dream encounter the dead. From this he
draws the conclusions--(1) that he himself has two persons, one
hunting while the other sleeps; (2) that his acquaintances also have a
double existence; and, from those cases in which he met with the dead,
(3) that they are not only double persons, but that one of the persons
is dead while the other continues to live.
Thus, according to Spencer, the idea arises that man consists of two
separable thinking parts, and that one of these can survive the other.
When a person faints and recovers, we say he comes to himself. That
is, a part of his person left him and has returned. But in this case,
as in the dream, the body has not divided, so that in a swoon the
outgoing portion is not corporeal.
The savage will think that this is what remains alive after death,
for he is incapable of distinguishing between a swoon and death. Then
he will associate the part which leaves the body during a swoon with
that which gives life, and some will regard the heart, which fails to
beat after death, and others the breath, which ceases when life does,
as this life-giving part or soul.
Thus far I am quoting from Spencer.
The conception of the soul, which has thus arisen, has been utilized
by astute priests to obtain power over their fellow-men; while the
genuine founders of religions have made use of it, and by threats of
punishment, and promises of reward, have tried to induce mankind to
live uprightly.
With this purpose in view, the teachers of religion have changed the
original conception of the soul and have added to it the attribute of
absolute immortality and eternal duration, an attribute which is in no
way connected by people in a low state of development with their
conception of the soul.
At the present time among the religions of all civilized people the
undying soul plays an extraordinarily important part.
I start from the position that no doctrine can receive a general
acceptation among men which does not depend on a truth of nature. The
various religions agree on one point, and this is the doctrine of the
immortal soul. Such a point of universal agreement, I am convinced,
cannot have been entirely derived from the air. It must have had some
foundation in fact, and the question arises, What was this foundation?
Dreams and phantasms, as Spencer believes? No; there must have been
something real and genuine, and the path we have entered upon to find
traces of this true foundation of the conception of the soul cannot be
distrusted.
We must compare the conception of the soul as held by various related
religions, and strip off from it all those attributes which are not
common to all. But those which all the various religions agree in
ascribing to the soul we may regard as its true attributes.
It would take too long to go into the details of this examination of
the conception of the soul. As the general result of a comparison of
the various views of the soul we may put down the following
characteristics which are invariably ascribed to it:
(1) The soul is living.
(2) It survives the body, and can continue to exist without
it.
(3) During life it is contained in the body, but leaves it
after death.
(4) The soul participates in the conduct of the body: after
the death of the latter, causality (retribution) can still
affect the soul.
The characteristics (1) to (3) hold also for the series of
reproductive cells continually developing within the body; and these
attributes of the germ cells may well be the true but unrecognized
cause of the origin of those conceptions of the soul's character.
This like holds true for (4), although the connection is not so
obvious. For this reason it will be advisable to consider the point in
more detail.
It has been already indicated that the founders of religions have made
use of the survival of the soul after death to endeavor to lead
mankind to live righteously, by threats of punishments or promises of
reward, which will affect the soul after the death of the body.
It is precisely on this point that in the most highly developed
religions there is the greatest falling off from the original
conception of the after-effect of human conduct on the soul, and the
most astounding things are inculcated by the Koran and other works
with respect to this.
But here again we may separate the true kernel from the artificial
shell, and reach the conclusion that good conduct is advantageous for
the soul after the death of the body, and that bad conduct is
detrimental. In no other way can the Mohammedan paradise or the
Christian hell be explained than as sheer anthropomorphic realizations
of these facts, which can appeal even to the densest intellect.
What then is good conduct, or bad?
The question is easily asked, but without reference to external
circumstances impossible to answer. _Per se_ there is no good or bad
conduct. Under certain circumstances a vulgar, brutal murder may
become a glorious and heroic act, a good deed in the truest sense of
the word; as, for example, in the case of Charlotte Corday. Nor must
the view of one's fellow creatures be accepted as a criterion of good
or bad conduct, for different parties are apt to cherish diametrically
opposed opinions on one and the same subject. There remains then only
one's own inner feeling or conscience. Good conduct awakes in this a
feeling of pleasure, bad conduct a feeling of pain. And by this alone
can we discriminate. Now let us further ask. What sort of conduct
produces in our conscience pleasure and what sort of conduct induces
pain? If we investigate a great number of special cases, we shall
recognize that conduct which proves advantageous to the individual, to
the family, to the state, and finally to mankind, produces a good
conscience, and that conduct which is injurious to the same series
give rise to a bad conscience. If a collision of interests arise, it
is the degree of relationship which determines the influence of
conduct on the conscience. As, for instance, among the clans in
Scotland, a deed which is advantageous for the clan produces a good
conscience, even if it be injurious to the state and to mankind.
The conscience is one of the mental faculties of man acquired by
selection and rendered possible by the construction and development of
the commonwealth of the state. Conscience urges us to live rightly,
that is, to do those things which will help ourselves and our family,
whereby our fellow creatures according to their degree of relationship
may be benefited. These are good deeds, and they will merit from the
teachers of religion much praise for the soul. We find, therefore,
that the only possible definition of a good deed is one which will
benefit the series of germ cells arising from one individual, and
further which will be of use to others with their own series of germ
cells, and that in proportion to the degree of connection
(relationship).
It is clear that in this point also the ordinary conception of the
future fate of the soul agrees fundamentally with the result of
observation on the prosperity of the series of germ cells.
As all the forces of nature, known to the ignorant barbarian only by
their visible workings, call forth in him certain vague and,
therefore, religious ideas, which are but a reflection of these forces
in an anthropomorphically distorted form, so the apparently
enigmatical conception of the eternal soul is founded on the actual
immortality and continuity of the germ plasma.
* * * * *