Page:Philosophical Review Volume 23.djvu/252

236

[ABBREVIATIONS.—''Am. J. Ps.=The American Journal of Psychology; Ar. de Ps.=Archives de Psychologie; Ar. f. G. Ph.=Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie; Ar. f. sys. Ph.=Archiv für systematische Philosophie; Br. J. Ps.=The British Journal of Psychology; Int. J. E.=International Journal of Ethics; J. of Ph., Psy., and Sci. Meth.=The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods; J. de Psych.=Journal de Psychologie; Psych. Bul.=Psychological Bulletin; Psych. Rev.=Revue Psychologique; Rev. de Mét.=Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale; Rev. Néo-Sc.=Revue Néo-Scolastique; Rev. Ph.=Revue Philosophique; Rev. de Ph.=Revue de Philosophie; R. d. Fil.=Rivista di Filosofia e Sciense Affini; V. f. w. Ph.=Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie; Z. f. Ph. u. ph. Kr.=Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik; Z.f. Psych.=Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, I. Abtl. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.''—Other titles are self-explanatory.]

This article is an argument, based upon the fitness of the physical environment, for a teleological interpretation of evolution. The author cites Professor L. J. Henderson's recent volume "The Fitness of the Environment," for evidence of the suitableness of the principal chemical constituents of the earth's surface and atmosphere to meet the requirements of organic life. He endorses Professor Henderson's assertion that "logically, in some obscure manner cosmic and biological evolution are one," while he criticizes his assumption that the underlying cause of this unity, although now not at all explainable mechanistically, will ultimately become so explainable. For though mechanistic hypotheses are perhaps justifiable and even necessary within the restricted domain of a particular science, they are totally inadequate for a world view. In this connection Professor Hobhouse's recent "Development and Purpose" is cited for support. The author concludes that we are inevitably led to a spiritual interpretation of nature based upon environmental fitness, "and upon the gradual awakening and uprising of consciousness till it becomes not merely conscious of its life as a unity, but of the conditions under which it has come into being, and, controlling these, moves as the ultimate Reason," and as such, "shows forth more and more of itself in human personalities and society." The argument is logical and cogent, and deserves to be read.

This whole article is devoted to a reply to McDougall's attack on all forms of parallelism in "Body and Mind, a History and a Defence of Animism." The main argument consists in showing that while most of McDougall's