Northern Europe has been under the influence of Cartesianism, but it
is highly commendable that he openly confesses his change of opinion
because the facts under observation demonstrate its erroneousness.
Dr. Lehmann no doubt will find that the normal phenomena of psychic
life are by no means in accord with the Cartesian doctrine. Indeed
by showing how the abnormal and normal states agree, he implicitly
confesses that the theory that proves untenable for the former ought
to be regarded as untenable for the latter. We have instances of
men who believe in the Cartesian doctrine, or at least by a natural
predisposition have a tendency to believe in it, wavering in their
belief, because the data of the normal states of psychic life so little
favor the dualism of the great French philosopher. Now it almost
seems as if the discoveries and the strangeness of hypnotic phenomena
had contributed a great deal towards turning the tendency toward a
monistic solution of the psychological problems back to the almost
abandoned dualistic solution. We are fully confident that this reaction
will not last, because in spite of all the strange mysteries that
surround modern hypnotism, it will after all only find a satisfactory
interpretation in some monistic conception.
Dr. Lehmann in abandoning the Cartesian theory, says: "The bodily and
psychical states are as a matter of experience given as two series
intimately connected the one with the other. Their connection can be
explained in two different ways: Either the phenomena of the one are
effects of the other, or both series are effects of one and the same
unknown cause."
Dr. Lehmann considers either solution as a priori equally acceptable,
yet he favors the latter, which might briefly be called (although
the author does not use the expression) "the agnostic solution." Dr.
Lehmann characterises it as "_die Spinozistische Annahme_" and calls it
Psycho-physical Materialism.
One of his colleagues, Professor Kroman has proposed in his "Logik and
Psychologie" a theory that is called by the same name. Yet Kroman's
psycho-physical materialism, Dr. Lehmann declares, is widely different
from his own; the former being "a mutual causal relation between the
Physical and Psychical within the limits of the Atom," which, says Dr.
Lehmann, "would make the explanation of complex psychical phenomena
impossible."
The psycho-physical materialism of Dr. Lehmann, our author maintains,
agrees in all essential points with the views of Professor Münsterberg
(Freiburg in Baden).[65]
[65] The observations of Professor Münsterberg were reviewed
in _The Open Court_ No. 134.
The laboratory work done by Professor Münsterberg was published after
Dr. Lehmann had finished his lectures. A certain similarity between Dr.
Lehmann's views and those of the Freiburg Professor cannot be denied,
yet it is more than doubtful whether Professor Münsterberg would
recognise this similarity in the same measure as Dr. Lehmann does. The
fact is that Dr. Lehmann has progressed in the direction which the
German school of Wundt has taken; yet he has not as yet reached the
same clearness; he is still entangled in Cartesian ideas, as is shown
by his way of proposing problems: for instance in his treatment of the
problem of will, which he justly calls "_der eigentliche Probirstein
der Hypothese_," and of Attention, "the most enigmatic of all states
of the soul" (_der räthselhafteste aller Seelenzustände_). In these
and in other considerations Dr. Lehmann shows that he is still far
from the positive standpoint by which Münsterberg's investigations
are distinguished. It is very strange that in speaking of Attention
M. Ribot's name has not even been alluded to. If the author had
shown a familiarity with some of the monographs of this great French
psychologist, he might have saved himself much work.
κρς.
DER HELIOTROPISMUS DER THIERE UND SEINE UEBEREINSTIMMUNG MIT DEM
HELIOTROPISMUS DER PFLANZEN. By _Dr. J. Loeb_. Würzburg: Verlag von
George Hertz.
The object of this work is to fill a gap in the treatment of the
subject of animal movement depending on light, and to explain it by
a consideration of the actual facts. After stating that the effect
of light upon animal movement is purely mechanical, and that it is
governed partly by the action of the light as the exciting cause,
and partly by the structure of the sensitive organisation, Dr. Loeb
proceeds, "I will now prove that the direction of the light rays
determines quite generally the movements induced in animals by the
light, no less than the direction of plant movement, and that the
orientation not only of plants but of animals, depends upon the bodily
form of the latter, in so far as the dorsiventral animals themselves
move with the median plane in the direction of the light rays," etc.
The more refrangible are the rays of light the more efficacious is its
mechanical action upon animal and plant movement, which is affected
also by the constant intensity of the light and its temperature. Thus
it appears that the moth's flight into a flame must be considered
as the same mechanical process as, for instance, the motions of
sunflowers, the growth of the sprouting axis in buds, etc. Dr. Loeb's
conclusion that the circumstances which govern the movements of animals
towards the light are conformable to those which have been already
recognised in relation to plant-movement, is supported by numerous
facts, which appear to fully establish the accuracy of his observations
and deductions.
The diligent author who is at present engaged in scientific
investigations at the _stazione zoologica_ in Naples, has in the mean
time published a series of further observations on the same question,
all of which, as was to be expected, corroborate the propositions
set forth in the above mentioned little book. We have before us two
reprints, one from the _Biologische Centralblatt_, Vol. X, Nos. 5 and
6, 1890, the other the _Archiv f. d. ges. Phys._, Vol. XLVII, with one
plate and two wood-cuts, the former treating of the heliotropism of
the nauplii of _Balanus perforatus_, whose periodical migrations are
shown to depend upon the action of the light, the latter discussing the
common features of heliotropism in animals and plants.
UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR PHYSIOLOGISCHEN MORPHOLOGIE DER THIERE. 1. UEBER
HETEROMORPHOSE. By _Dr. Jacques Loeb_. With 1 plate and 3 figures.
Würzburg: George Hertz.
Julius von Sachs, Vöchting, Noll, and other botanists have successfully
opened the way to a knowledge of the growth of plants in their causal
conditions. This method has been applied to the physiology of animals
by Pflüger. The present pamphlet is a contribution to this endeavor by
Dr. Loeb, whose special object has been to determine the laws of the
restoration of lost organs in animal organisms. Botanists have found
that if a plant that has undergone the loss of an organ has to build it
up again, the new organ will be different from the original organ, and
this difference can be determined by law. Dr. Loeb inquires whether the
same can be said of the reconstruction of the lost organs of animals.
There are, as a rule, in animal organisms two poles, viz. the oral
pole, forming the head, and the aboral forming the tail. It has
been generally supposed that living animal substance possesses the
tendency to develop in one special direction oral organs, and in the
other aboral organs. This was called Polarity and is based upon the
experiments of Allman, Trembley, Dalyell, and others. The experiments
of Dr. Loeb, made with the view of testing the polarity theory, show
that it is possible to develop in animals possessing physiologically
distinct heads and tails, heads instead of tails in the aboral pole,
and to do so without any serious interference with the vitality of
the creature. The experiments have been made chiefly on _Tubularia
mesembryanthemum_, _Aglaophenia pluma_, _Plumularia pinnata_, and other
species.
Dr. Loeb proves by his experiments that external conditions control the
reproduction of organs, so that artificially oral organs can be made
to grow where aboral organs have been, and _vice versa_. It is this
faculty of animal organisms which Dr. Loeb calls _heteromorphosis_.
κρς.
DIE ETHISCHE BEWEGUNG IN DER RELIGION. By _Stanton Coit_, Ph. D.
Uebersetzung von Georg von Gizycki. Leipsic: O. R. Reisland.
This series of Sunday lectures by Dr. Stanton Coit, the speaker of the
South Place Ethical Society of London, England, has been translated
into German, in the shape it is now before us, by Dr. Coit's friend
and teacher Prof. George von Gizycki; they have not yet appeared in
English. The South Place Ethical Society is not directly affiliated
to the Ethical Societies of North America, but it stands with them in
friendly relations. Dr. Coit, a native American, is strongly biased
in his views by his American co-workers; he is the youngest among
them, and is, I believe, to be considered as a disciple of Professor
Adler. He has inherited from Professor Adler the idea that we can have
ethics without a world-conception or a religion; yet this idea has been
considerably modified, and an approach to more positive and practical
views is perceptible in many passages of his sermons.
In the lecture "Which Ethics?" Dr. Coit says: "We need (_bedürfen_) a
theory concerning the universe and our position in it instead of the
old faith." Yet in contradiction to this, he declares that theories
are of little use. He adds: "If two men come down from their abstract
theories into real life and to the forces which create action, it is as
if they descend from two opposite mountain peaks into a warm and rich
valley where rivulets run down from both sides to unite their waters
inseparably into one continuous stream."
Is not this beautiful allegory, true as it certainly is in one sense,
after all misleading? Is not theory and theory different? If theory
means mere speculation, we heartily agree with the proposition to keep
clear of and far away from theorising. It is at best a harmless play,
and certainly a loss of valuable time. Yet if theory means methodical
systematisation of facts, it is not mere waste of time; in that case it
is the indispensable condition of all truly practical work. And it is
this latter kind of theory which also in the practical work of ethical
culture must be sought to be established. We must at least be clear as
to basic principles so that the efforts of ethical teachers may not be
at random, but directed by the progressive spirit of the age in harmony
with our best scientific and philosophic thought.
Concerning religion Dr. Coit says (p. 19) in his article "Why Ethics
Instead of Religion": "My own opinion is that there is one feature
which distinguishes Religion from all other doctrines, ceremonies,
and rules. This feature characterised Matthew Arnold's view. For he
insisted not only upon morals and their importance, and thought of
means for their propagation, but he proclaimed also that there was a
power above the will of man to which he must bow. In the very moment
he proposed that power which we have to obey, his ethics became
religious.... But the recognition of this higher power, if I am allowed
to propose my own views, appears to me of very little importance."
If there is such a power, and we have sufficient reasons not to
doubt its existence, I should say that for ethical purposes it is of
paramount importance to recognise it and to obey it. In another and a
more recent lecture, Dr. Coit pronounces a very different view, he says:
"Anybody who has ever reflected a moment, must have discovered how
dependent he is upon a power outside of his own will. He has no
strength either for good or for evil, which he has made himself. The
more he thinks about it, the deeper must become the feeling of his
dependence. And being aware that God, or whatever we call that power
in all things, does not mind his whims, he will find it easier not to
mind, himself, his own whims. The constant thought that we are not
the powers of life and death, will take away conceit and vanity and
foolishness. And in this way, it brings us in times of tribulation to a
quick resignation. It makes us loving brothers and sons."
Dr. Coit indeed aspires to make of ethical culture a religion for the
people. He speaks on this subject in his last lecture. He opposes
the Churches for mixing their ethics with theology, and he speaks
with great enthusiasm about the poetry of ethics, which is much more
powerful than the prose of ethics. He does not seem to see that the
influence of the churches is mainly due to their poetry of ethics.
Would it not be advisable to point out the prosaic truth in this poetry
for the purpose of freeing the human mind of the obnoxious elements of
a misunderstood poetry? Would it not be advisable to investigate the
poetry of the basic idea in ethics, viz., of the God-idea, so as to let
the ethical movement develop itself historically from the past. Dr.
Coit's method of dealing with the God-idea is far from satisfactory. He
is neither a theist nor an atheist. Sometimes he appears to appreciate
the moral importance of the God-idea in its purified shape, and then
again he seems to consider it as an ethically indifferent idea. Should
not this problem be settled by every one who undertakes to preach
ethics. It appears almost as if all the leaders of the ethical culture
societies underrated the ethical importance and indispensableness of
thought in general and of science and philosophy in particular.
The contradictions which appear in Dr. Coit's lectures show that he is
still developing. The book is full of promise and we have every reason
to hope that its author will overcome the unclearness that is still
lurking in his mind, and that he will grow with the work he is doing.
κρς.
FREMDES UND EIGENES AUS DEM GEISTIGEN LEBEN DER GEGENWART. By Prof. Dr.
_Ludwig Büchner_. Leipsic: Max Spohr.
Opinions admittedly are still divided with respect to the laudable
efforts of a large class of scientists and writers whose main object
is that of presenting the results of scientific research in an
intelligible, popular form. Every department of the natural sciences,
geology, astronomy, even psychology and comparative philology, each
and all, are now represented by able and ardent popular interpreters,
who at the same time by their aggressive style and by their polemical
methods not unfrequently seem to impart a kind of militant and
apostolic attitude to the cause of science. It must further be
admitted, that many of these writers, by the unanimous verdict of the
present age, are among the most instructive, readable, and actually
the most widely read authors of contemporaneous German, French,
and Anglo-American literature. At first glance, it accordingly may
seem rather strange, that these same popular authors should also be
subjected, not unfrequently, to their commensurate share of unfair, and
even offensive, popular criticism; and yet it could hardly be otherwise.
The well-known writer of these scientific and critical essays, Prof.
Ludwig Büchner, affords an exceptionally striking instance of the
unenviable lot of some of our most popular writers of science. In
one of these essays inscribed "Meine Philosophie," Professor Büchner
has been compelled to defend the arduous work of his laborious life
against a decidedly unfriendly and unappreciative criticism of his
philosophy and whole scientific activity, that some time ago appeared
in the American _Freidenker_ of Milwaukee. Prof. Büchner, with a touch
of legitimate bitterness, repudiates the imputation of having been,
or still being, as he himself calls it, only the "popularisator,"
expounder and commentator, of the theories and systems of other
thinkers; that, on the contrary, in Germany and elsewhere, among
the highest representatives of science, for more than thirty years
Professor Büchner himself has been recognised and honored as an
original worker and thinker. His book on "Force and Matter" (_Kraft
und Stoff_) was published five years before Darwin's great work on the
"Origin of Species." Subsequently his well-known popular Lectures
in connection with Darwin's work claim the distinguished merit, of
having more widely generalised and extended the Darwinian theory by
embracing the origin and evolution of man, which had until then been
overlooked by Darwin himself. By the contemporary press of Germany
Professor Büchner was then charged with premature rashness, and with
being only a shallow, imitative scientific dilettante; but all this
vituperative criticism was for ever silenced, when in the year 1871
Darwin's own work appeared on the "Descent of Man," in which Darwin
himself accepted all the consequences of the theory of evolution,
as set forth in Professor Büchner's Lectures, and, somewhat later,
in Professor Haeckel's "Natural History of Creation" (_Natürliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte_). Professor Büchner, moreover, is the author
of the widely popular work "The Future Life and Modern Science"
(_Das künftige Leben und die moderne Wissenschaft_). To deny him,
accordingly, the rank and merit of a solid and original scientist
and thinker, as he himself says, is to do him a signal injustice, a
positive injury.
Let all this be willingly granted; but this concession, at all
events, does not settle his final, mediating attitude to the entire
satisfaction of philosophy, regarded as an independent science.
Professor Büchner openly declares himself in favor of popular science.
He maintains, that "Philosophy ought to step down from her lofty
state of independent science, and henceforth content herself with the
humble rôle of simply mediating the results of individual scientific
research; that science, in such case, would no longer run the risk
of being exposed to the scorn and contempt of the masses(!) ... In
popular scientific writings, at all times, there can and must occur
contradictions, superficial estimates, even trivialities, but all this
is perfectly understood by any fair-minded reader." ... These remarks
might almost tempt the reader to believe, that Professor Büchner,
in his eagerness to popularise science, really ignores the value of
philosophy as an independent science, and of philosophical research,
irrespective of all popular results, and that the Professor wishes to
inculcate a narrow and purely utilitarian estimate of philosophy. But,
the impulsive Professor, of course, knows better; his mental vision
embraces the entire field of the sciences, and he has written admirably
and entertainingly upon almost every scientific topic, and moreover he
admits, that possibly he sometimes contradicts himself.
One might further be inclined to ask, whether, in view of his
self-imposed, familiar contact with the popular mind, Professor Büchner
upon the whole displays the expected equanimity and broad-minded
consistency when resenting the harsh criticism of antagonists, which
he does with a singularly thin-skinned sensitiveness scarcely worthy
of a true philosopher. In all his other works and throughout these
critical essays, Professor Büchner himself shows no tender regard
for the feelings of his philosophical antagonists. In the critical
essay "Against Materialism," (_Wider den Materialismus_), for
example,—mainly directed against Prof. Harald Höffding,—he bluntly
affirms that Professor Höffding's works have produced upon him the
impression that the author is a man without the philosophical and
scientific knowledge requisite for the solution of the problems he has
ventured to approach.
From what has been said, the reader may expect to find much important,
instructive, and readable matter even in Professor Büchner's critical
essays, bearing upon the intellectual life of the period; but he also
must be prepared to find them leavened in no small degree with the
characteristic mental idiosyncrasies of their ever polemical author.
γνλν.
DEACON HERBERT'S BIBLE CLASS. By _James Freeman Clarke_. Boston: Geo.
H. Ellis.
This booklet is an unassuming little publication, but it is important
as a symptom of the times. It was written by the late Mr. James
Freeman Clarke many years ago as a series of papers for the _Christian
Inquirer_. Yet it is well that they should not be forgotten and the
lessons contained therein should be heeded by the clergy as well as the
laity of this country. It is an attempt to make religion practical and
to point out the true direction in which church-life has to develop.
There is a great truth in the general complaint made throughout the
world that the religion of civilised mankind, especially Christianity
in the shape it exists at present, has lost its life, its influence,
and its usefulness. Our religious views must be transformed, they must
be reconciled with the principles of science and must be adapted to the
real needs of the people. The problem is, how to do it.
If a solution of the problem shall be found, it is certain that it will
be first put into practice in the United States of America; for here
the church is free. The many different churches of our country, with
few exceptions (the Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the only one) are
in principle churches of the people. A change of opinion, of belief, of
religious conviction among the people will result in the appointment of
such pastors and leaders as are in agreement with their congregations.
Clergy and laity form here one organic body. The clergy are not imposed
upon their congregations by the state; they are the exponents of their
congregations, the representatives of the religious ideas (perhaps upon
the whole of the conservative religious ideas) of their churches.
How different things are in Europe, where the state-churches of England
and Germany, for instance, prevent all progress in religion, theology,
and church-life.
Mr. Clarke's book, if read with these considerations in mind, shows
the agencies that are at work in this country and that will (as we
confidently hope) result in a new phase of religious life. Among the
chapters of the book we note the following titles: "The way we helped
our minister to write good sermons"; "Aim of Life"; "Temptation of
Jesus"; "The Miracles"; "The Sermon on the Mount"; and others. The
spirit in which the book is written is not exactly rationalistic,
yet it shows in every line a strong monistic bias. For instance, the
usual definition of miracles as a suspension of the laws of nature is
discarded; and yet it would be erroneous to suppose that the style
of the book is marked by a radical tendency. Not at all. Every
faithful Christian can read it line for line without feeling the least
offence. But it is plain that herein lies the author's force. The
book is popular, but behind its popularity, unusual depth of thought
is noticeable. In a similar way St. Paul gave milk to his followers
because they were babes in Christ, and could not bear heavier food.
Mr. Clarke's book is written especially for babes in Christ, yet
every one who has given any serious thought to the religious problem
will appreciate at once the difficulty and the importance of such an
undertaking.
κρς.
PERIODICALS.
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY. September, 1890. Vol. III. No. 3.
CONTENTS:
ON THE BRAIN OF LAURA BRIDGMAN. By _H. H. Donaldson_.
A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF REFLEX ACTION (II). By _C. F. Hodge_.
ON A CURIOUS VISUAL PHENOMENON. By _Joseph Le Conte_.
A COUNTING ATTACHMENT FOR THE PENDULUM CHRONOSCOPE. By _William
Noyes_.
PSYCHOLOGICAL LITERATURE. The Nervous System—by _H. H.
Donaldson_; Experimental Psychology; Criminology—by _Arthur
MacDonald_; Psychiatry—by _William Noyes_; Miscellaneous.