UNIVERSITY ! 1 into these - and tively attennd of re are Ferent od of their intel facts cture. nally most any ound stion pared e dis shed sub dbe fact pre The Biological Point of View 7 developed forms and more for the whole group of facts connected with the growth and development of plants. In other words, he studies living things less in cross section and more in their continuity. He raises questions about the physiological processes concerned in the maintenance of the life of the plant. He also wants to know about the functions of its various parts. What special work do the roots perform? What do the leaves contribute? etc. Every fact of structure is viewed as having some probable significance. Concerning it we must raise the question of why? or what for? and also, how did it come to be? It is not a mere fact, however interesting a fact it may be as such, but it is a fact with a history and with a meaning. What is that history? and what is its meaning in the life of this plant-form? From this point of view, everything that in any way serves as a modifying condition is relevant, and its study in relation to the life of the plant is necessary. The botanist, then, inquires into the conditions favorable and unfavorable to the growth and development of the plant. But he also goes farther than this in his interpretation. He tries to find out about any particular form of plant not only the facts of its present life, but also what is its ancestry. Still further, he seeks to learn under what conditions, by what process, in accordance with what laws, it has evolved from more primitive forms. If he finds two plant-forms having a common ancestry, descended from a common stock, even if they differ quite widely in many of their external characteristics, he puts them in the same general class. The method of his investigation and the organization of his material are both dominated by the concept of evolution. (3) Illustrations from other sciences. Not only the immediately biological sciences of botany and zoology have been determined in their method and in their evaluation of fact by the theory of evolution; but also the indirectly biological sciences of history, political science, economics, and sociology have undergone pretty thorough reconstruction under the influence of the same controlling idea. The events of history are not mere events, but they are events to be studied, interpreted, and organized with reference to their relation to human progress. Political and social institutions are viewed as having arisen in the gradual process of attaining better adjustment between social groups and their environments; and the significance of these institutions is to be determined by the value which they have had and are having in the perfection of such adjustment. The dynamic aspects of these sciences are receiving more and more attention. They are less static and abstract, and are becoming more dynamic and concrete. Life, action, process, movement, function, interconnection, law, wholeness, organic relationship are emphasized. Even theology, which seems most of all to deal with absolutes, is bowing to the demand for reconstruction along lines which make it more in harmony with the other sciences, and religion is being viewed as a phenomenon whose great value consists in its vital relationship to the problem of the most complete adjustment in thought and in action to the wealth of social and spiritual values in man's environment. (4) Application to psychology. Now the point of all this discussion is to make clear and meaningful the statement that psychology is feeling the influence of this same type of thought. Psychology is seeking to express itself in biological terms, in terms of the problem of adjustment. This is not at all strange when we think that mind as we know it is a characteristic of living things. Consciousness isolated from the living thing which is conscious is an abstraction. We know of no such thing as consciousness in general; there are only individual consciousnesses belonging to individual living things. The human being is not different in this respect from other living creatures, even though he is characterized by a higher order of mind. As a living being he is a proper subject of study for the biologist. But he is more than a material organism; he is an organism with a mind; he is a psychophysical organism. Here the problems of biology and psychology meet and interpenetrate by virtue of the very nature of man. Who then shall separate them without doing violence to the truth? It is certainly more natural and more reasonable to associate psychology with biology than with philosophy. The reality of the facts of consciousness can be gotten at only by studying it in its setting of life activities. The study of consciousness in cross-section, the analysis of mental processes in terms of their structural differentiations, is not adequate. We must raise the further question of the function and significance of every aspect of consciousness in the life of the whole. That whole is itself not static, but it has come to be what it is as the result of a process. Is consciousness in any way subject to the law of that process? Has consciousness any significance in it? Are there conditions in the lives of evolving organisms which call for the emergence of the various activities of consciousness in order that the situations which confront these organisms may be satisfactorily met? What are these conditions? Just how do special conscious processes become differentiated and organized into forms of mental action which are adapted to meet them? Such problems as these arise the moment we try to apply the method of evolutionary science to the study of consciousness. Psychology, like the other sciences that we have discussed, then becomes vital, dynamic, and functional in character. This line of thought will clear up still further as we proceed. We shall now try to get at it and give it further development through the analysis of the conception of an organism. Before proceeding to the next chapter, however, it may be well to caution the reader against the common materialistic misinterpretation of present day psychology. The psychologist, in limiting his discussions to those conscious powers or processes which he finds, or of which evidence, in the lives of mortal individuals bet limits of birth and death, neither affirms nor existence of any other aspects of mind than t purposely limits his field of investigation to the experience here and now. The empirical field enough and worthy enough of separate treatme this point of view, the problems of the immortal soul and their like belong to the field of the ps no more than they do to that of the physiolog astronomer. The psychologist, however, in exclu problems from his discussion, does not necessarily the ground that their study would not be of grea that some solution justifying faith in the unseen i sible. His legitimate reason for refusing to dis problems is that their solution would require a method of procedure from that employed in dealin empirical facts of mind, and he wishes to get toge the control of the principles of one science all the investigation of which falls under a common met Supplementary Readings for Chapters I an Angell, Psychology, Ch. I. Angell, "The Province of Functional Psychology," March, 1907. Bagley, The Educative Process, Ch. I. Horne, The Philosophy of Education, Ch. II. James, Talks to Teachers, Ch. III. O'Shea, Education as Adjustment, pp. 44-51, 76-93, Sully, Teacher's Handbook of Psychology, pp. 46-47, CHAPTER II THE BIOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW (CONTINUED) 1. GENERAL NATURE OF AN ORGANISM. An organism is quite commonly thought of as something which is complex in structure and possessed of well-defined and distinct parts or organs. But we call every independent living thing an organism regardless of the degree of its complexity. Bacteria, consisting of single cells microscopic in size, are organisms. The stalk of grass, the flowering plant in the window box, the pumpkin vine, the oak of the forest, these all are organisms. All forms of animal life, too, are organisms. The amoeba, which is only a tiny drop of protoplasm, the minutest insect, the angleworm, the oyster, the bird, the elephant, the human being, these are all organisms. From the illustrations given it is evident that some organisms are very simple and some are very complex. It is true that most of the organisms to which our attention is commonly drawn are complex and it is possible to discern in them differentiations of structure for the performance of special functions. But is such differentiation of structure an essential characteristic? or is it the means to a better realization of functions? Evidently the latter. While we see that an organism is some sort of a living whole, we must look deeper yet for its absolutely essential characteristics. 2. ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ORGANISM. If we keep our illustrations in mind, we can see that the essential characteristics of an organism are as follows: (1) When an organism is complex, no one part is an end in itself for the sake of which the other parts exist as mere means to that end. |