The building of her nest by a bird is an instinctive action; it is done
with a purpose, but it is arbitrary to say that the bird has no knowledge
of that purpose. Some hold that birds when they are building their nest
know as well that they mean to bring up a family in it as a young married
couple do when they build themselves a house. This is the conclusion
which would be come to by a plain person on a _primâ facie_ view of the
facts, and Von Hartmann shows no reason for modifying it.
A better definition of instinct would be that it is inherited knowledge
in respect of certain facts, and of the most suitable manner in which to
deal with them.
* * * * *
Von Hartmann speaks of “a mechanism of brain or mind” contrived by
nature, and again of “a psychical organisation,” as though it were
something distinct from a physical organisation.
We can conceive of such a thing as mechanism of brain, for we have seen
brain and handled it; but until we have seen a mind and handled it, or at
any rate been enabled to draw inferences which will warrant us in
conceiving of it as a material substance apart from bodily substance, we
cannot infer that it has an organisation apart from bodily organisation.
Does Von Hartmann mean that we have two bodies—a body-body, and a
soul-body?
* * * * *
He says that no one will call the action of the spider instinctive in
voiding the fluids from its glands when they are too full. Why not?
* * * * *
He is continually personifying instinct; thus he speaks of the “ends
proposed to itself by the instinct,” of “the blind unconscious purpose of
the instinct,” of “an unconscious purpose constraining the volition of
the bird,” of “each variation and modification of the instinct,” as
though instinct, purpose, and, later on, clairvoyance, were persons, and
not words characterising a certain class of actions. The ends are
proposed to itself by the animal, not by the instinct. Nothing but
mischief can come of a mode of expression which does not keep this
clearly in view.
* * * * *
It must not be supposed that the same cuckoo is in the habit of laying in
the nests of several different species, and of changing the colour of her
eggs according to that of the eggs of the bird in whose nest she lays. I
have inquired from Mr. R. Bowdler Sharpe of the ornithological department
at the British Museum, who kindly gives it me as his opinion that though
cuckoos do imitate the eggs of the species on whom they foist their young
ones, yet one cuckoo will probably lay in the nests of one species also,
and will stick to that species for life. If so, the same race of cuckoos
may impose upon the same species for generations together. The instinct
will even thus remain a very wonderful one, but it is not at all
inconsistent with the theory put forward by Professor Hering and myself.
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