Selections from Previous Works: With Remarks on Romanes' Mental Evolution in Animals, and a Psalm of MontrealButler, Samuel
Philosophy
Selections from Previous Works: With Remarks on Romanes' Mental Evolution in Animals, and a Psalm of Montreal
Butler, Samuel
English literature -- 19th century -- Miscellanea; Romanes, George John, 1848-1894. Mental evolution in animals
The question of whether it is better to abide quiet and take advantage of
opportunities that come, or to go farther afield in search of them, is
one of the oldest which living beings have had to deal with. It was on
this that the first great schism or heresy arose in what was heretofore
the catholic faith of protoplasm. The schism still lasts, and has
resulted in two great sects--animals and plants. The opinion that it is
better to go in search of prey is formulated in animals; the other--that
it is better on the whole to stay at home and profit by what comes--in
plants. Some intermediate forms still record to us the long struggle
during which the schism was not yet complete.
If I may be pardoned for pursuing this digression further, I would say
that it is the plants and not we who are the heretics. There can be no
question about this; we are perfectly justified, therefore, in devouring
them. Ours is the original and orthodox belief, for protoplasm is much
more animal than vegetable; it is much more true to say that plants have
descended from animals than animals from plants. Nevertheless, like many
other heretics, plants have thriven very fairly well. There are a great
many of them, and as regards beauty, if not wit--of a limited kind
indeed, but still wit--it is hard to say that the animal kingdom has the
advantage. The views of plants are sadly narrow; all dissenters are
narrow-minded; but within their own bounds they know the details of their
business sufficiently well--as well as though they kept the most nicely-
balanced system of accounts to show them their position. They are eaten,
it is true; to eat them is our intolerant and bigoted way of trying to
convert them: eating is only a violent mode of proselytising or
converting; and we do convert them--to good animal substance, of our own
way of thinking. If we have had no trouble with them, we say they have
"agreed" with us; if we have been unable to make them see things from our
points of view, we say they "disagree" with us, and avoid being on more
than distant terms with them for the future. If we have helped ourselves
to too much, we say we have got more than we can "manage." But then,
animals are eaten too. They convert one another, almost as much as they
convert plants. And an animal is no sooner dead than a plant will
convert it back again. It is obvious, however, that no schism could have
been so long successful, without having a good deal to say for itself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account