Page:Philosophical Review Volume 7.djvu/671

657 of a necessary connection over and above temporal conjunction. Mach thinks causal connection is similar to mathematical dependence, but Baumann maintains that they are entirely different. The writer continues his critique of Mach's philosophy, and examines his conceptions of mathematics, physics, thing, and phenomenalism.

The author in this article calls attention to the physical theories of Kant, especially as set forth in the Allegemeine Naturgeschichte. He points out that Kant was not the first to explain the origin of the heavenly bodies, though he was the first Newtonian to do so. The first germ of the nebular hypothesis in modern times is found in Descartes's Principia Philosophæ. Swedenborg also published a rational cosmogony, though it contained scarcely any advance upon that of Descartes (Becker refers to an account of Swedenborg's views by N. Nyrén in the Vierteljahrsch. d. Astron. Gesellschaft, 1879, p. 80, which appeared in an English translation in the New Church Review for July, 1897, and also to a paper by E. S. Holden in the North American Review, Vol. CXXXI (1880), p. 377). After giving a summary of Kant's views, and of the deductions which he made from his nebular hypothesis, Becker compares the theory with that of Laplace and of Lord Kelvin. He refers at some length also to Kant's theory of base levelling, and of the final destruction of the solar system by the falling of the planets into the sun.

J. E. C.

The writer of this article aims to show that the central problem of psychology, the relation of mind and body, received from the scholastic Thomas, a solution which is daily being confirmed by the discoveries of experimental science. I. The Emotional Life. According to Thomas, a passion is an affection of the soul producing a certain material change in the organism. Many passages might be stated to prove the substantial agreement of his teaching with that of many modern investigators. In every emotion we have two factors, the psychical and the organic. The disputed question as to the order of these factors is briefly discussed. Although the James-Lange theory seems, on the whole, to be inadmissible, it fits certain cases admirably. It is impossible to establish an invariable theory as to the order of the two sets of phenomena, and this conclusion is a confirmation of the doctrine of Thomas. He is the partisan of a reversible order, and we find him presenting now the one and now the other view. Against the James-Lange theory, two or three facts seem decisive: 1. An appreciable time is found to elapse between the psychical antecedent and the physiological consequent. 2. The James-Lange law