Essentials of psychology

Introduction

Psychology is that section of philosophy which considers the soul. The soul, in its most general sense, denotes that which makes a being live; it is the first principle of life in a living being.

If we regard only the etymology of the word, the object of psychology should be co-extensive with all living beings, vegetable and animal as well as man. Custom, however, has restricted it at the present day, so that psychology is generally limited to the study of man. Accepting this restriction, we know from the direct testimony of consciousness that man who is a living, sentient and rational being is one being. It is the man who feels and thinks, not his soul only, just as it is the man and not his body only that works when his hands are in motion. Hence we must consider the complete human nature as the seat of life, sensation and thought, and look upon the soul as the first principle in virtue of which we are alive, sentient and capable of rational thought.

To include all living beings we may define psychology as the science of the vital principle which intrinsically constitutes living beings.

The proper' object of psychology, then, is the vital principle inasmucVi as it is the constituent part of the organized body, and we may be warranted in extending our study to the various forms of life — organic life, sentient life, and rational life.

Chapter I Idea Of Life In General

Thesis 1 — Life Consists in the Poiver of An Agent to Perfect Itself by Immanent Activity.

Statement of the Question — 1. Life and movement are so intimately associated in the popular mind that the absence of all movement is considered an infallible sign of death. However, not every kind of movement means life, but only that movement which is immanent, whose principle is intrinsic to the agent. Hence life may be defined as the power of an agent to perfect itself by immanent activity, or, the power of self -movement.

2. Life, we say, consists in' the power, etc. Life may be considered in the first place as embracing the vital faculties and their substantial principle, and, secondly, as immanent or vital action. The vital faculties are the proximate principle of immanent activity, whilst the vital principle is the ultimate principle.

We say that life consists in the poiver, etc., because actual immanent action is not absolutely necessary for the essence of life. Facts prove that there is latent life in seeds, microbes, or in dried-up spores of certain plants. As long as they remain in this state such beings are only potentially alive, they are but machines ready for action. For them to become actually alive certain material conditions are necessary, such as moisture, certain degrees of heat, etc.

We say, moreover, that life consists in the power of immanent activity. Here lies the essential difference between living and non-living beings. Immanent activity is action by which a being moves itself. It implies two things :

(a) that the action proceeds from a principle

intrinsic to the agent;

(b) that the action terminates in the agent. Hence, the living being is both the principle

and the term of the action. Therefore, every action that passes over to the perfection of another being is non-vital because it is transitive.

We say in so far as it is "transitive," since an action which is immanent may at the same time produce an effect outside of the agent; e. g. the action of a sculptor in the use of a chisel.

Non-living beings merely have the capacity of passive motion, that is, the power of being moved.

It must also be observed that the words "movement" and "move," in the present connection, include every kind of internal activity, vegetative, sentient and rational, not only local movement.

Life consists in the power of an agent to perfect itself, etc. Since the effect of immanent activity remains within the agent and consists in the exercise of its faculties, it is clear that immanent activity perfects the agent.

By agent we mean created agents. Our definition of life cannot apply to God, since life in God is without any imperfection and implies the fulness of perfection.

Note — The thesis is an explanatory one and consequently cannot be strictly demonstrated. Proof must be furnished whenever we apply the definition to a particular class of beings. However, it must be noted that the definition is not an "a priori" one ; it is based on observed facts.

We may show the correctness of the definition in the following way :

That definition of life is correct which contains those essential notes whose presence constitutes a being a living being and whose absence classifies it as non-living.

Now the power of immanent activity contains these notes. Therefore.

To illustrate : All admit that animals are living beings. Now, as soon as an animal is capable of exercising immanent activity it lives, and it continues to live so long as it has this power.

THE VITAL PRINCIPL;E

A. Existence of the Vital Principle

Thesis 2 — In All Living Beings a Vital Principle Must Be Admitted Which Is Essentially Different From the Forces of Matter.

Statement of the Question — 1. Materialists derive all vital activity from the forces of inanimate matter. They endeavor to explain the phenomena of life along mechanical lines, by various vibratory motions of the atoms, or by the interplay of physico-chemical forces ; so Tyndall, Huxley, Spencer, Vogt, Du Bols Reymond, Haeckel, and others.

2. The Schoolmen, while contending that the vital principle is distinct from matter and its forces, do not by any means exclude the activity of the latter. They admit that the vegetative process in plants, animal and man, and the sensitive process in animal and man, largely depend on physical and chemical forces; but they rightly maintain that these forces are guided by the vital principle so that they may perform their proper activities.

3. The vital principle is a substantial something which by its presence in the an organism is the last source of the entire organization and of every vital activity. (Gruender.)

4. Living beings are organized bodies; or, those bodies w^hich are composed of heterogenous parts so united that each part exercises its own proper function, yet dependent on the rest, and in such a manner as the well-being of the whole organism demands.

5. Although the thesis is true also of man, yet we do not expressly speak of man here since we shall make the human soul the subject of a special treatise.

6. By inorganic matter we mean dead matter. Proof — A vital principle, essentially different

from the forces of inorganic matter, must be admitted in those beings which manifest actions and properties essentially different from the actions and properties of inorganic matter.

But living beings manifest such actions and properties. Therefore.

Proof of the Minor — 1. Living Beings Manifest Actions

(a) There is an energy in living beings which enables them to evolve themselves into a complete organism from a tiny cell by means of assimilation of extraneous matter.

This complex activity, however, is essentially different from the physico-chemical forces of inorganic matter.

For the physico-chemical actions pass over to foreign subjects and do not begin and terminate in the agent, so as to enable it to grow from within and construct its own organism. - (b) In living beings by the same energy by which they grow into complex organisms, a process of metabolism — of waste and repair — goes on incessantly, and, as the one or the other is more active, we have growth or degeneration.

This fact proves that there is a marvelous unity of direction in the various parts of the organism whereby the inferior functions are made subservient to the superior, and whereby all conspire to the one end of procuring the well-being of the individual and the preservation of the specific type.

But, this unity and harmony cannot be explained unless we admit in living beings a principle which controls these varies forces and directs them to their proper end.

If this is not conceded, we cannot explain why living beings should be governed in their entire existence by laws peculiar to themselves, or why their actions and effects are admittedly different from those of non-living beings.

(c) Whenever the organism of a living being is turned aside from its natural condition by sickness or any external cause, it endeavors by an innate force to repair the injury inflicted and protect itself against agencies constantly working towards its destruction.

Now, such an effect cannot be attributed to physico-chemical forces because it is well known that inorganic beings are preserved by a state of changeless repose.

Therefore this effect must be attributed to a principle essentially different, to an internal force which governs the stream of activities described as the phenomena of life.

This force we call the vital principle.

2. Living Beings Manifest Properties

Living beings differ from inorganic beings : —

(a) in Shape and Structure.

Living beings have a determined shape varying according to each specific type.

Inorganic bodies have no determined shape, unless we except crystals. Even in the case of the latter there is a ' difference. The shape of crystals is angular whereas living beings, both in their complete organisms and in their several parts, are usually bounded by curved lines.

Again, living beings are differentiated organisms ; whilst inorganic bodies are homogeneous.

(b) In Origin.

Living beings take their origin from living beings of the same specific type ; whilst inorganic bodies arise from chemical analysis or synthesis of bodies specifically different.

(c) In Chemical Composition.

All living beings are compounded from elements which, in order to constitute the organism, are united into compounds quite peculiar to living beings.

Though these compounds consist of the same elements as inorganic bodies, they have this peculiarity that they are of highly complex proportions.

Moreover, scientists admit that protoplasm is so complex chemically as to defy complete analysis, although the most important constituents are few and when found in other chemical compounds are more readily analyzed. This is true even of dead protoplasm,

(d) In Nutrition.

Living beings have the power of assimilation, i. e., they manufacture proteids out of inorganic matter and elaborate foreign substances into their own. Living beings change constantly; there is a continual process of decay and repair.

Inorganic matter, on the contrary, is stable and tends to constant stable equilibrium,

(c) l7i Groivth.

Living beings, after they have reached the proper perfection of their species, begin to decay from within and finally perish by disintegration into elements of inorganic matter. The whole' development of organic beings is a "progress towards death."

Inorganic bodies of themselves have no limited or definite duration ; they change only when acted upon by external agents.

B. The Vital Faculties, the Proximate Principles of Life.

1. Idea of a Faculty. The vital principle is the first principle of life. However, in order to exercise its activities, it must be equipped with certain powers, which are called faculties.

In general, a faculty is the 'proximate ground of some kind of activity. A vital faculty is one by which the agent can perform immanent actions.

2. Division of Vital Faculties. The vital faculties are of two kinds : Organic and Non-Organic.

(a) Organic faculties are those which exist in the animate composite and whose activities cannot be exercised without an organ; such are the senses.

(b) Non-Organic faculties are those which exist not in the composite but in the soul alone, and, consequently, can exercise their activity without the concurrence of an organ; such are the intellect and will in man.

3. Classification. The principle by which we may classify the faculties is not something intrinsic to them but rather some sign by which the nature of the being is manifested. Hence, vital faculties are classified according to the nature of each activity and the objects towards which they tend.

This proposition is proved thus: — All beings must possess those powers which are demanded by the end to which they are naturally directed.

Now, the vital faculties are by their nature directed to the exercise of diverse activities regarding certain objects.

Therefore, they must be such by their nature as these activities and their specific objects demand.

Therefore, too, from these activities and proper objects we may recognize the essential difference between the vital faculties.

Chapter II Vegetative Life In Plants

A. Existence and Functions of Vegetative Life in Plants.

Thesis 3 — Plants Exercise Vegetative Life Only. The Chief Functions of Vegetative Life Are Nut7'ition, Grovjth and Reproduction.

Statement of the Question — 1. The lowest and most universal grade of life in the visible universe is the vegetative. It is the lowest, because it is the least independent of matter in its functions. It is the most universal, because it is common to plants, animal and man.

2. Plants, as we take the term here, are all those living organisms which are commonlyjudged to be purely vegetative, such as trees, flowers, etc.

3. The chief functions of the vegetative life are nutrition, growth and reproduction. We say they are the chief functions, because they are directed not as a means to other functions, but because of themselves they obtain their own proper end.

Although nutrition is prerequisite to growth, and growth and nutrition to reproduction, yet each has its independent and proper end. For, nutrition continues even when the vegetal plant being has reached the proper perfection of bulk and shape, and growth and nutrition continues when reproduction has ceased.

The complete and remote end, however, to which all vegetative activities are directed, is the development of the living organism to its proper perfection and the reproduction of the organism; this end is obtained by all three functions conjointly.

Nutrition is the function by which the living organism converts external substances into its own. This process implies various operations on the part of the living being:

(a) Absorption of extraneous substances through roots, leaves, etc.

(b) Preparation of the raw materials by various elaborate chemical processes;

(c) Circulation of the food thus elaborated throughout the organism.

(d) Assimilation or conversion of the food into the living substance of the organism. This is strictly the act of nutrition or the vital act. We may designate the previous actions vital only in so far as they are accomplished under the influence and direction of the living organism and for its benefit.

Growth is that function by which the living being builds up its complete organic structure according to a definite morphological type out of the nutriment assimilated.

Reproduction is that function by which the living organism produces from its living substance a germ, seed or part, capable of evolving itself into a new living organism similar in specific type to the parent plant.

4. Opponents. Ambng the ancient philosophers many maintained the theory of Panpsychism, according to which everything in the world possesses some kind of cognitive life; Enipedocles, Thales, Parmenides, etc.

Among modern philosophers Fechner, the father of modern psychology, defended cognitive life in plants. Fechner has adherents among other modern writers: cf. Titchener, Text Book, p. 451 ; Wundt-Titchener, Principles of Phys. Psychology, v. I, p. 31; Gruender, Psychology Without a Soul, chap. I.

5. By sensation we understand that act by which material objects are vitally represented according to their sensible qualities — color, sound, taste, etc.

Since all orders of animals below the anemone have no nervous system, sensation does not universally depend on the nervous system. It must, therefore, be a property of protoplasm.

6. Spontaneous Movement is that movement which is performed under the direction of the elicited appetitie, i. e., by the tendency towards the good as recognized by sense or intellect.

Pa7't I — Plants Exercise Life.

Proof — Life consists in immanent action, i. e., in action which begins and terminates in the agent.

But, nutrition, growth and reproduction are actions which begin and terminate in the agent. Therefore.

Proof of the Minor — In nutrition extraneous materials are absorbed by the plant and converted into its substance by its own activity.

In growth the plant, by its own energy, builds up a complete structure from the nutriment thus assimilated.

In reproduction the living organism produces from its substance a germ, seed or part, capable of evolving itself into a new living organism, similar in type to the parent plant.

Part II — Plants Exercise Vegetative Life Only

Since there can be no question about intellectual life in plants, we prove our point by excluding sensitive life from plants.

Proof — Plants do not possess sensitive life, if (a) they do not display sufficient signs of sensitive action; if (b) sensation would be useless to them; if (c) it would be harmful to them.

But all this obtains. Therefore.

The Major — If plants do not display signs of sensation, the assertion that they possess sensitive life is gratuitous. If sensation is useless or even harmful to plants, we have positive proof for our denial of sensitive life in plants. For, faculties are a necessary complement of nature; but a necessary complement of nature cannot be useless, much less harmful.

Proof of the Minor — (a) The only signs by which we might judge that beings outside ourselves exercise sensation are:

(aa) similar organs of sensation ;

(bb) similar manner of action.

But both these signs are wanting.

All grant that no organs like ours are found in plants. This is further demonstrated by experiment.

Besides, plants do not exercise any activity like ours in reference to sensitive life. For, when injured, they show no signs of repugnance, no feeling of anger, no emotion, no flight from danger.

(b and c) Senses serve the being which has them to procure what is necessary for it, to remove things harmful to it, to fly from danger, etc.

But plants cannot have senses for this purpose.

For, the necessary nourishment is freely furnished them through the roots and leaves. If the nutriment should fail them, they could not go to seek it, since they have not the power of spontaneous local movement.

Part III — The Chief Functions Are Nutrition, Growth and Reproduction

Proof — The object of vegetative life is the development and reproduction of the living being. Therefore, vegetative life must perform the vital functions necessary for the purpose.

Now, by reproduction the living being acquires existence ; by growth it builds up its organic structure; by nutrition the life of the living being is sustained.

Moreover, these three functions are commonly enumerated by scientists as the principal functions of vegetative life.

B. Two Theories Regarding the Origin OF Life.

I. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

Thesis 4 — The Contention That Spontaneous Gene7'ation Takes Places at the Present Time or Occurred in the Past Is Not Borne Out by Anij Convincing Proof.

Statement of the Question — 1. Spontaneous generation is the origin of a living being from lifeless matter. It is called abiogenesis to distinguish it from biogenesis — the derivation of life from life.

2. We consider spontaneous generation historically and from a twofold aspect :

(a) a class of scientists of the present day claim that spontaneous generation takes place today. They base their contention on various experiments performed by themselves and others on organic substances. Among these are John Butler Burke, Dr. E. Schaefer and others.

In fact, the Materialists in general champion spontaneous generation for the double purpose of destroying the essential difference between living and non-living beings and giving an account of life without the action of the Creator.

The question is not, however, of recent date only. About a century and a half ago it was held by some that spontaneous generation took place in putrified meat and the core of fruits. In the last century some endeavored to show that infusoria arose spontaneously from organic matter which belonged to living beings.

(b) Though the best scientific opinion today inclines to the belief that life comes from life, yet a further question may be asked: Where did the first Hving being come from? This world was once so hot that no living being could exist upon it. It cooled down and a time arrived when life could exist. Many men of science, unwilling to admit a Creator, have claimed that, although spontaneous generation does not occur at present, it must have taken place at some former period when the conditions of the earth were far different than they are now. Spencer puts the matter thus : "At a remote period of the past, when the temperature of the earth was much higher than at present, and other physical conditions were unlike those we know, inorganic matter, through successive complications, gave origin to organic matter." (Nineteenth Century, May 1886.)

Huxley (Critiques and Addresses, p. 239) thought that, if it were given him to "look beyond the abyss of geological and recorded time" he might expect to "be witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter."

Spontaneous generation is, therefore, the logical postulate of materialistic evolution to account for the first origin of life on earth.

We shall show in part one that the arguments advanced in favor of spontaneous generation at the present time do not prove.

Proof — 1. Regarding the most recent experiments it must be observed that in most cases they are performed on germs which already possess the latent potency of life. Jacques Loeb performed experiments with the eggs of sea urchins.

What he accomplished, and others like him, was to artificially fertilize the eggs and advance the growth of the embryo to maturity. But from this it does not follow that he or others produced life from non-living matter.

The fact is that some scientists vigorously oppose the hasty conclusions drawn from these experiments.

2. (a) In 1698 Redi, an Italian physician, showed that the maggots found in putrified meat had not arisen from the meat, but from the eggs of flies deposited thereon. He demonstrated the fact by covering the meat with gauze, and then no maggots appeared.

(b) Antonio Vallisnieri (1661-1730), professor at Padua, discovered that the insects which infest our apples and pears are the larvae of a nocturnal butterfly, which develop from an egg introduced into the incipient fruit at the time of blooming.

(c) Forced to acknowledge their error in the field of entomology, the adherents of spontaneous generation retreated to the domain of the infinitely small animalculae. They pretended that infusoria and other microscopic animals spring spontaneously, if hot from inorganic matter, at least from organic elements which belong to living beings.

In defense of this position they usually fall back upon the unknown. On account of the imperfect means of investigation, they argue, it cannot be shown that reproduction does not take place in this way.

It needed the labors of Pasteur to solve the question in a definite manner. The experiments of this famous savant began in 1858. In 1860 a prize was offered by the French Academy for the solution of the problem. Pasteur was provoked to activity by two zoologists, Professors Pouchet and Jolly, who upheld spontaneous generation in the case of infusoria in a sterilized liquid. Pasteur demonstrated to his colleagues of the Academy of Science that no organized being, however small, developed in a liquid when germs existing in the neighboring bodies are completely shut out.

For this purpose it was sufficient to raise the •temperature of the liquid to 100 degrees R. and to cork the bottles which contain the liquid with gun-cotton. The latter substance, whilst permitting the outside air to penetrate during cooling, will keep back solid particles and with them the germs of living beings. Under these conditions, if the experiment is performed with some skill, not only no animalcula will develop in the liquid, but this liquid, though suitable for fermentation, will never change.

3. From Authority. Note — Some of the authorities quoted are materialistic evolutionists who postulate spontaneous generation at least to explain the beginning of life on earth.

(a) In 1870 Huxley, then president of the British Association, chose for the subject of his inaugural address "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis." After a careful examination of the case for each he declared that the former was victorious all along the line.

(b) Tyndall, in his Fragments of Science, after describing the experiments devised by him to test the matter, concludes : "The evidence in favor of spontaneous generation crumbles in the grasp of the competent enquirer."

(c) Herbert Spencer has this to say in the Nineteenth Century, May 1886: "Biologists, in general, agree that in the present state of the world no such thing happens as the rise of a living creature out of non-living matter."

(d) Charles Darwin, who is supposed to have upheld the fact of spontaneous generation, in a letter to D. Mackintosh, Feb. 28, 1882, wrote: "No evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being developed from inorganic matter."

(e) Professor Virchow, materialist and evolutionist, said in regard of sponeaneous generation at the Munich Congress of 1877: "We must acknowledge that it (spontaneous generation) has not yet been proved. The proofs of it are still wanting."

(f) Oskar Hertwig, the eminent director of the Berlin Institution for Biology and Anatomy, in his great work General Biology says: "In the existing condition of science there is little hope that any worker will be able to produce the simplest manifestation of life in any artificial way from non-living matter."

(g) Professor B. Moore, whose knowledge of bio-chemistry renders him a peculiarly valuable witness, says: "The mode of production of living matter is characteristic, and cannot be brought about by the action solely of inorganic forms of energy; living matter is produced only by the action of other living matter upon the materials and forms of energy of the non-living world." (Recent Advances in Physiology and Bio-Chemistry, 1906, p. 7.)

In part two we prove that the contention of the materialistic evolutionists is not established, viz., thats pontaneous generation must be postulated to explain the first origin of life on earth.

Proof — 1. It is quite certain that no human being has ever seen living matter produced from non-living matter. There were living beings in existence long before man came on earth, as geology and science testify.

2. It is equally certain that we have no facts on which to base the theory that living beings "\\!e?e 'spbntaneoutely produced at some .former time. Hence the contention that the first living beings sprang from non-living matter, is a mere hypothesis and to be estimated accordingly.

3. Those who have advanced this theory have not given and cannot give the slightest suggestion, as to how the transformation from non-life to life may have taken place, or under what conditions. Nor are we told why it is impossible to reproduce these conditions today in the chemical laboratory.

4. Professor Virchow, says, in an address delivered at Wiesbaden in 1887: "Nor have any fossil remains ever been found of which it could be ever likely that it belonged to a being the first of its kind, or produced by spontaneous generation."

Note — (Two points may be considered in this connection.

1. May living matter come from non-living matter? Though production of living from non-living matter has not yet been demonstrated, it is not, therefore, impossible that it may some day fall to the lot of some fortunate enquirer to announce such a discovery and to have the discovery recognized by science.

Should this ever take place, it may be well to recall the fact that spontaneous generation was held by many, perhaps all the Fathers of the Church, and that St. Thomas himself maintained that if matter does produce life, it is because the Creator has given it the power to do so.

What we claim is this, that if spontaneous generation occurred or should occur, it does so and will do so at the will of the Creator and by a power which He gave to matter. We do not deny that that power may still be latent in non-living matter, and may even continually be manifested, though we are unable so far to recognize the fact.

2. Whilst we allow all this, we must admit with all who studied the question that no approach has been made by any synthesis approaching that which would constitute living matter.

II— EVOLUTION

Note — On this subject confer authorities quoted at the end.

CHAPTER III The Nature of the Vital Principle

Thesis 5 — The Vital Principle in Plants (and A72- imals) Is Entirely Dependent on Matter, Whose Substantial Form It Is.

Statement of the Question — 1. A substantial form is one which determines the specific nature of a substance. When we say, therefore, that the vital principle in plants (and animals) is the substantial form, we mean that the vital principle constitutes them in the species of living beings.

2. We may classify the vital principles according to the manner in which they exist into two classes :

(a) the one is immaterial and capable of existing by itself; such is the human soul.

(b) the other is material and incapable of existing by itself ; such are the vital principles in plants and animals.

3. The words "entirely dependent on matter" do not mean that the vital principle in plants (and animals) is made of matter of quantitative dimensions. The vital principle is, indeed, material, but at the same time it is materially simple — something like a physical energy exercising itself in a physical body. "Entire dependence on matter" signifies that for its existence as well as for its operations the vital principle is intrinsically dependent on matter, so that it cannot exist as such apart from matter. It "is educed from matter," as the Schoolmen express it.

In virtue of its nature the vital principle is destined to constitute in union with matter one complete being. Hence, outside that union the vital principle cannot exist. Therefore, too, it follows that the vital principle is not a complete substance.