Page:Philosophical Review Volume 19.djvu/129

115 animal kingdom in general and particularly with his most closely allied species, the anthropoid ape—that droll caricature of human form, and crude but clever imitator of human activity? This question at one time stirred the philosophical and more especially the theological world to its depths, and yet it has long since lost its former interest. For, it is recognized that man's origin in this respect does not affect his present status. Other considerations determine that, and not his remote ancestry:—Does man at present represent a term in the series of evolution which has a unique worth and significance? Is he in the animal progression and yet not of it? Such are the problems which deserve a more careful consideration. II. There is a second question which in the earlier discussions was debated with much vehemence and acumen on either side. It concerns the ground motif of a Naturphilosophie: Does the unfolding of the evolutionary series in forms increasingly complex give evidence of a teleological factor? Darwin's contribution to our knowledge of the processes of evolution has tended to effect the elimination of the teleological factor. His description of the external features at least of a progressive development of plant and animal life through natural causes, particularly through the working of natural selection, has set aside the traditional explanation which was expressed in terms of a crude conception of an extrinsic teleology exhibited in the structure and function of specific organisms.

The question of purpose in nature has been superseded by that of purpose in human nature. Regarding man as a member of the organic series, what is the significance of the appearance in the midst of this series at a certain stage of an evident purpose, directing activity toward a definite end? What is the meaning of this peculiar fact, that what is concealed in nature is revealed in man?

III. The third question which was raised at the beginning of the Darwinian discussion, and which has failed of a satisfactory answer even to this day, is this: "Are the processes of life to be regarded as mechanical or are they vital?" Mechanism has not as yet spoken the last word upon this subject. Its explanations are felt to be inadequate even on the part of the most