Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

distinction. There can be no doubt that the book was timely and has done much good.

It would be out of place for me to make a critical estimate of his work, even if I felt equal to the task, but I give instead his own modest estimate of it, as furnished in his autobiography, which is certainly an underestimate.

Now, looking back over a long life of incessant activity, what have I done of value to the world? What have I added to human thought? What influence for good may I hope to leave behind?

I. In science. To touch only on the most important points:

(a) My paper in 1859 On Correlation of Vital and Physical Forces, I think, gave both impulse and greater definiteness to scientific thought on that subject. Carpenter, in the last edition of his physiology, gives me credit for distinct advance on this subject.

(b) My researches on the phenomenon of binocular vision, I am sure, did clear up the thought in this field. I claim, and have been generally accorded, the credit of several original thoughts which have remained the permanent possessions of science: (1) Demonstration of the real nature of the Horopter. (2) Demonstration of the true theory of binocular perspective. (3) Demonstration of certain fundamental psychical phenomena in binocular vision, and a new mode of diagrammatic representation based thereon. These phenomena had been observed by some, but not understood. Their explanation had been hinted at by others, but never clearly brought out before. (4) Certain peculiarities of phantom planes not explained before.

(c) In geology, I believe some real substantial advance in science was made in my series of papers: (1) On the Structure and Origin of Mountain Ranges. (2) On the Genesis of Metalliferous Veins. (3) Especially those on the Critical Periods in the History of the Earth. (4) The demonstration of the Ozarkian, or, better, the Sierran, epoch as one of great importance in the history of the earth. I might mention several others that I believe are of prime importance, but I am willing to stand by these.

(d) In biology, my views on glycogeny, although not yet certain, have undoubtedly contributed to clearness of scientific thought on that important subject.

II. In philosophy. I look back with especial pleasure on my writings on evolution. I lay no claim to the discovery of new facts bearing on the theory of evolution, but only to have cleared up the nature and scope of evolution, and especially to have shown its true relation to religious thought. It is well to stop a moment to show the different rôles of different thinkers on the advance of this subject. Leaving out of account mere vague philosophic speculations like those of ancient philosophers, and those of Swedenborg in modern times, I would say that the role of Lamarck was to introduce evolution as a scientific theory. The rôle of Darwin was to present the theory in such wise as to make it acceptable to, and accepted by the scientific mind. The role of Huxley was to fight the battles of evolution, and to win its acceptance by the intelligent popular mind. It was the rôle of Spencer to generalize it into a universal law of nature, thereby making it a philosophy as well as a scientific theory. Finally, it was left to American thinkers to show that a materialistic implication is wholly unwarranted--that it is entirely consistent with a rational theism, and with other fundamental religious beliefs. My own work has been chiefly in this direction.

If one were asked to characterize his activities in a single sentence, it could be best done in his own words:

The domains of science and philosophy are not separated by hard and fast lines; they largely overlap. It is in this border land that I love to dwell.

Perhaps one of the most interesting of Professor Le Conte's addresses was the one he delivered before the Philosophical Union of the University of California, at its public annual meeting in 1895. The address of the evening had been on the theme The Conception of God, by Prof. Josiah Royce, of Harvard University. In the course of the discussion Professor Le Conte said:

I can only admire, not criticise, the subtle method of Professor Royce in reaching the conclusion of the personal existence of God. I have my own way of reaching the same conclusion; but, in comparison, it is a rough-and-ready way. His is from the point of view of the philosopher; mine from that of the scientist. I am not saying that his is not the best and the most satisfactory, but only that

it is a different way. He has given you his; I now give you, very briefly, mineas I have been accustomed to give it:

Suppose, then, I could remove the brain cap of one of you and expose the brain in active work, as it doubtless is at this moment. Suppose, further, that my senses were absolutely perfect, so that I could see everything that was going on there. What would I see? Only decompositions and recompositions, molecular agitations and vibrations; in a word, physical phenomena, and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing else to see. But you, the subject of this experiment, what do you perceive? You see nothing of this; you perceive an entirely different set of phenomena, namely, consciousness-thought, emotion, will, psychical phenomena; in a word, a self, a person. From the outside we see only a physical form, from the inside only psychical phenomena.

Now, take external nature-the cosmos-instead of the brain. The observer from the outside sees, and can see, only physical phenomena; there is absolutely nothing else there to see. But must there not be in this case also, on the other side, psychical phenomena-consciousness, thought, emotion, will; in a word, a self, a person? There is only one place in the whole world where we can get behind physical phenomena-behind the veil of matter—namely, in our own brain, and we find there a self, a person. Is it not reasonable to think that if we could get behind the veil of nature, we should find the same, that is, a person? But, if So, we must conclude an Infinite Person, and therefore the only complete personality that exists. Perfect personality is not only self-conscious but self-existent. Our personalities are self-conscious, indeed, but not self-existent. They are only imperfect images and, as it were, separated fragments of the Infinite Personality, God.

He went on to agree with the explanation given by Professor Royce as to the necessity for moral evil in the world-that it would be impossible for a moral being to exist without freedom to choose between right or wrong-and continued: As already said, then, I believe Professor Royce gives a true answer so far as moral evil is concerned, although he misses the emphasis which evolution gives that view. But other evil-physical evil-he gives up, in his book, in despair. And yet, from the point of view of evolution, this is exactly the form of evil that is most explicable. For as moral evil is a necessity for a progressive moral being, just so, and far more obviously, is physical evil a necessity for a progressive rational being. As one form of evil is closely connected with our moral nature, so is the other indissolubly connected with our intellectual nature. Let me explain: The necessary condition of any evolution is a struggle with an apparently inimical environment. For example, the end and goal, the significance, the only raison d'être, of organic evolution in general is the achievement of a rational beingman. The necessary condition of that achievement was the struggle with what seemed at every stage an inimical-i. e., evil-environment. But looking back over the course in the light of its glorious result-the achievement of man-we at once see that what seemed evil is really good. Now, it is equally the same with human evolution in relation to physical evil. The goal and end, the raison d'être, of social progress is the achievement of the ideal man, both in knowledge and character. But the attainment of perfect knowledge is impossible except in the presence of what seems at every state an evil environment, and by conflict with it. But evidently such an environment is evil only through ignorance of the laws of nature. Evil is therefore the necessary spur that goads us on to increase of knowledge. We are but foolish little children at school. Nature, our schoolmistress, chastises us relentlessly until we get our lessons. It is quite evident that without this scourge of evil humanity would never have emerged out of animality, or, having emerged, would never have emerged beyond the lowest stages. It is also evident that perfect knowledge of the laws of nature would remove every physical evil. Looking back over the course, then, from the elevated plane of perfect knowledge, and perceiving that the attainment of that plane was conditioned on the existence of evil-on punishment for ignoranceshall we any longer call it evil? Is it not good in disguise?

But it may be answered, "Yes, this is all true, if we accept evolution by struggle as a necessary process; but why may not that same result have been attained in some less expensive and distressing way?" I answer, because, as already seen, no other process is conceivable that would result in a moral being; and the achievement of such a being is the purpose of all evolution. One law, one process, one meaning and purpose, runs through all evolution, and that purpose is only revealed at the end. As, in biology, the laws of form and structure are best studied in the lowest organisms, where these are simplest, but those of function are studied

best in the highest organisms, because only there clearly expressed, just so the laws of process in evolution are best understood in its lower and simpler stages; but the end, the purpose and meaning of the whole process from the beginning, is not fully declared until the end. That end is the achievement of a moral being; a moral being without struggle with evil is impossible because a contradiction in terms; and the same law must run throughout.

*

*

*

The effect produced by this remarkable address was very powerful. It could not be said to be a demonstration in the strictly logical sense, but those who heard him felt that he had reached out into the outer twilight, beyond the daylight of reason, and had grasped something more than a shadow. His characteristic power to produce this effect, in handling a difficult subject, was, no doubt, due to his genius for reasoning by analogy. This is commonly admitted to be one of the most dangerous methods of reasoning. But this has always seemed to me to be only another way of saying that only a man of genius is able to discover the true analogy among the thousand seeming analogies that trap the ordinary mortal. Many of the greatest of scientific discoveries have been made by discovering true analogies, even when it was afterwards necessary to corroborate. them by the logic of mathematics. It was in this method of reasoning by analogy that Professor Le Conte was strongest. His long habit of comparative study in zoology, botany, and geology had educated a faculty naturally very strong in him to the highest state of efficiency. And the skill with which he used it aroused the admiration of all who heard him. It enabled him to bring out the common ideas in apparently conflicting theories and to show that these conflicting views were often only partial views of the same truth which could be wholly grasped only by combining them. No one could be associated with him in the class room without being ever afterwards conscious of a wider and a more generous outlook.

ADDRESSES DELIVERED AT THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY CELEBRATION.

[The celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of Johns Hopkins University and the inauguration of Ira Remsen, LL. D., as president of the university took place February 22 and 23, 1902. In view of the concurrence of the two events mentioned, the occasion was made more than usually imposing. The large number of delegates that attended, representing the principal institutions of learning in the United States and Canada, testified to the deep and widespread interest felt in the proceedings. The following extracts from the addresses delivered on the occasion are here reprinted.]

[From the address of President Emeritus DANIEL C. GILMAN.]

* * * As religion, the relation of the finite man to the Infinite, is the most important of all human concerns, I begin by a brief reference to the attitude of universities toward faith and knowledge. The earliest universities of Europe were either founded by the church or by the state. Whatever their origin, they were under the control, to a large extent, of ecclesiastical authorities. These traditions came to our country, and the original colleges were founded by learned and godly men, most of them, if not all, ministers of the gospel. Later came the State universities, and later still the private foundations like that in which we are concerned. Gradually, among the Protestants, laymen have come to hold the chief positions of authority formerly held by the clergy. The official control, however, is less interesting at this moment than the attitude of universities toward the advancement of knowledge. To-day, happily, apprehensions are not felt to any great extent respecting the advancement of science. It is more and more clearly seen that the interpretation of the laws by which the universe is governed, extending from the invisible rays of the celestial world to the most minute mani

ED 1902-39

festations of organic life, reveal one plan, one purpose, one supreme sovereignty— far transcending the highest conceptions to which the human mind can attain respecting this sovereign and Infinite Power. Sectarian supremacy and theological differences have dwindled therefore to insignificance in institutions where the supreme desire is to understand the world in which we are placed and to develop the ablest intellects of each generation, subservient to the primeval injunction, "Replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Notwithstanding these words, the new biology—that is, the study of living creatures-encountered peculiar prejudices and opposition. It was the old story over again. Geology, early in the century, had been violently attacked; astronomy, in previous centuries, met its bitter opponents; higher criticism is now dreaded. Yet quickly and patiently the investigator has prosecuted and will continue his search for the truth, heedless of consequences, assured by the Master's words-" the truth shall make you free."

Still the work goes on. Science is recognized as the handmaid of religion. Evolution is regarded by many theologians as confirming the strictest doctrines of predestination. The propositions which were so objectionable thirty years ago are now received with as little alarm as the propositions of Euclid. There are mathematicians who do not regard the Euclidean geometry as the best mode of presenting certain mathematical truths, and there are also naturalists who will not accept the doctrines of Darwin, without limitation or modification, but nobody thinks of fighting over the utterances of either of these philosophers. In fact, I think it one of the most encouraging signs of our times that devout men, devoted to scientific study, see no conflict between their religious faith and their scientific knowledge. Is it not true that as the realm of Knowledge extends the reign of Faith, though restricted, remains? Is it not true that Science to-day is as far from demonstrating certain great propositions, which in the depths of our souls we all believe, as it was in the days of the Greek philosophers? This university, at the outset, assumed the position of a fearless and determined investigator of nature. It carried on its work with quiet, reverent, and unobtrusive recognition of the immanence of divine power-of the Majesty, Dominion, and Might, known to men by many names, revered by us in the words that we learned from our mothers' lips, Almighty God, the Father Everlasting.

Another danger, thirty years ago, was that of conflict between the advocates of classical and scientific study. For many centuries Greek and Latin were supreme in the faculty of liberal arts, enforced and strengthened by metaphysics and mathematics. During the last half century, physical and natural sciences have claimed an equal rank. The promotion has not been yielded without a struggle, but it is pleasant to remember that in this place no conflict has arisen. Among us, one degree, that of Bachelor of Arts, is given alike to the students of the Humanities and the students of Nature, and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy may be won by advanced work in the most remote languages of the past or in the most recent developments of biology and physics. Two illustrious teachers were the oldest members of the original faculty-one of them universally recognized as among the foremost geometricians of the world, the other renowned for his acquaintance with the masters of thought in many tongues, and especially for his appreciation of the writers of ancient Greece, upon whose example all modern literature is based.

Our fathers spoke of "church and state," and we but repeat their ideas when we say that universities are the promoters of pure religion and wise government. This university has not been identified with political partisanship-though its members, like all patriots, have held and expressed their opinions upon current questions, local and national. Never have the political views of any teacher helped or hindered

his preferment, nor have I any idea what would be the result of the party classification of our staff. This, however, may be claimed. The study of politics, in the sense of Freeman, "History is past politics and politics present history," has been diligently promoted. The principles of Roman law, international arbitration, jurisprudence, economics, and institutional history have here been set forth and inculcated, so that in every part of the land we can point to our graduates as the wise interpreters of political history, the strong promoters of democratic institutions, the firm believers in the merit system of appointments and in local self-government. A phrase which has lately been in vogue is original research. Like all other new terms, it is often misapplied, often misunderstood. It may be the highest occupation of the human mind. It may be the most insignificant. A few words may therefore be requisite to explain our acceptance of this word. When this university began, it was a common complaint, still uttered in many places, that the ablest teachers were absorbed in routine and were forced to spend their strength in the discipline of tyros, so that they had no time for carrying forward their studies or for adding to human knowledge. Here the position was taken at the outset that the chief professors should have ample time to carry on the higher work for which they had shown themselves qualified, and also that younger men, as they gave evidence of uncommon qualities, should likewise be encouraged to devote themselves to study. Even those who were candidates for degrees were taught what was meant by profitable investigation. They were shown how to discover the limits of the known; how to extend, even by minute accretions, the realm of knowledge; how to cooperate with other men in the prosecution of inquiry, and how to record, in exact language and on the printed page, the results attained. Investigation has thus been among us the duty of every leading professor, and he has been the guide and inspirer of fellows and pupils, whose work may not bear his name, but whose results are truly products of the inspiration and guidance which he has freely bestowed.

The complaint was often heard in the early seventies that no provision was made in this country for post-graduate work except in the three professional schools. Accordingly, a system of fellowships, of scholarships, and of other provisions for advanced study was established here, so well adapted to the wants of the country at that time that its provisions have been widely copied in other places. It now seems as if there was danger of rivalry in the solicitation of students, which is certainly unworthy, and there is danger also that too many men will receive stipendiary encouragement to prepare themselves for positions they can never attain. In the early days of the French Academy, when a seat in that body was a very great prize, a certain young man was told to wait until he was older, and the remark was added that in order to secure good speed from horses a basket of oats should always be tied to the front of the carriage pole as a constant incitement. It would indeed be a misfortune if a system of fellowships should be open to this objection. Nevertheless, whoever scans our register of Fellows will discover that many of the ablest men in the country of the younger generation have here received encouragement and aid.

When this university began, the opportunities for scientific publication in this country were very meager. The American Journal of Science was the chief repository for short and current papers. The memoirs of a few learned societies came out at slow intervals and could not be freely opened to investigators. This university in the face of obvious objection determined to establish certain journals which might be the means of communication between the scholars of this country and those abroad. Three journals were soon commenced: The American Journal of Mathematics; the American Journal of Philology; the American Chemical Journal. Remember that these were "American" journals in fact as well as in name, open to all the scholars of the country. Other periodicals came afterwards,

« AnteriorContinuar »