"from top to toe," or of the activity of a special organ, and this organ must be studied in its natural associations with the entire organism. For Černyševskii, psychology is a branch of physiology.
Consistently with his materialism, Černyševskii teaches that egoism is the true motive of every action, however sublime.
Let us pause, first, to consider the metaphysical and epistemological problem.
Feuerbach, when he abandoned his primitive Spinozism, conceived monism in a less materialistic sense than Černyševskii and at least did not, as a positivist, come to a definitive decision upon the problem. Černyševskii had a great esteem for Spinoza as well as for Feuerbach. Accepting Spinoza's monism, he conceived it in a purely materialistic sense, and did this most emphatically, for he would not agree that positivism is metaphysically vague. For Černyševskii, the laws of nature apply equally in the domain of the psyche. Psychical processes are organic processes, and organic processes are no more than partial manifestations of nature, one and undivided.
I shall not undertake a refutation of materialism, nor shall I attempt to test Černyševskii's reasoning, for its weakness is obvious. Černyševskii had never thought out philosophical problems; his psychology and epistemology lacked precision; his work displayed numerous contradictions, the individual thoughts conflicting one with another and with the general principle. Materialism was for him an article of faith and a political program, and this is why his Anthropological Principle became the program of radical youth. Relentless daring, a sovereign tone, the energy of conviction in the name of science and not in that of any official metaphysic, ensured for Černyševskii a literary and political victory in the debates that ensued.
Černyševskii's outlook became the basis of the realism of the sixties, for which Turgenev introduced the name of "nihilism." Liberals as well as conservatives took the field against this realism. Jurkevič, professor at the Kiev seminary, writing as an expert, had little difficulty in indicating the weaknesses of extreme sensualism and materialism, and he was able to point out a number of by no means inconsiderable errors in matters of detail. Moreover, Jurkevič had good reason for his protest against the general tone of Černyševskii's essay. Vladimir Solov'ev endeavoured, though with scant
