Page:Life and death (1911).djvu/241

 We shall carry this discussion no farther. We have examined at some length Le Dantec's views, and we have contrasted them with the doctrine which has been current in general physiology since the time of Claude Bernard, and this comparison does not turn out quite to their advantage. It was inevitable that the experimental and realistic spirit which inspired the doctrine of the celebrated physiologist made his work really too systematic. His formula, "life is death," and the form he gave his ideas, are not always irreproachably correct. They lend themselves at times to criticism. Sometimes they require commentary. These are errors of detail which Le Dantec has summarized somewhat roughly. There is no necessity to do this in his own case. We pay our tribute to the clearness of his language, although we believe the foundations of his system are false and ill-founded. Their rigour is purely verbal. Their external qualities, their careful arrangement are well adapted to the seduction of the systematic mind prepared by mathematical teaching. This new theory of life is presented with pedagogic talent of the highest order. We think we have shown that the foundations are entirely fallacious, in particular the following:—Vital condition No. 2º; the confusion between functional activity and assimilating synthesis; the so-called absolute connection between morphogeny and chemical composition; the fundamental distinction between elementary life and individual life.

Definition of Nutrition.—As we have just seen, the organism is the scene of chemical reactions of two