Two, in regard to Hegel and the appeal to the ethical as being of a different type from the motive of biological satisfaction. Is not that difficulty only apparent, and is it not answered by Dr. Putnam's own appeal that these matters should be settled independently, and is not it the case that the average sexual man would settle it very differently from Dr. Putnam himself and most of us; and is not it true that, though the ethical determinants of behaviour are not auspicious for the average sexual satisfactions of man, yet are they not themselves forms of hedonistic satisfactions? For a man who would behave unethically would be miserable in doing so by the loss of his own self-respect. So that he already has a hedonistic determinant for his own conduct which is in harmony with the biological concepts of Aristotle. DR. JAMES J. PUTNAM, Boston: I should be very sorry to be taken as wishing to put myself in the sort of adverse position which Dr. Prince and Dr. Williams believe me to assume. I accept, of course, the proposition that there are conflicts which are not ethical, and, as Dr. Williams says, the average man would naturally come to different conclusions from those of the trained man in ethical matters. I want to make a slight movement towards restoring a balance which it seemed to me had become tipped too far one way. Psychoanalysts, for example, actually deal with metaphysics and yet they do not really study out what this involves. If we were nothing but scientific men we could say, "very well, let metaphysics go." But we are not. We are dealing with individuals who are thrilling with desires, hopes and fears, the movements of which cannot be expressed in scientific formulae. Dr. Williams speaks of Darwin. It can be asserted with justice, however, that the genetic method of investigation which is exemplified by Darwin's study of evolution is an imperfect method for discovering the aims of human beings. I refer to the interesting book of Prince Kropotkin in which he studies mutual aid as a factor in evolution, mutual aid being something not adequately contemplated by Darwin, who considers conflict as the essential influence in evolution. Prof. Judd showed in a paper a few years ago the change which has taken place in the attitude of a good many students of economics through the introduction of human intelligence and desires as something quite distinct from the conflicts of interests, and similar arguments have been brought forward by students of evolution. Among others Prof. Cope, the distinguished Zoologist of Philadelphia and Prof. Hyatt of Boston, showed very clearly how the course of evolution becomes materially changed when desires and will become prominent as factors. I agree that, as a partial motive, structure does limit and determine function. There is no question about that. I merely want to say that logically function precedes structure, inasmuch as the wish and desire to do a thing precedes the means