of religious and racial animosities.[1] A suggestion, however, must be made by way of calling attention to the difference between evolution and development.
The view, variously expressed in the preceding quotations, is to the effect that the goal towards which humanity is moving is not in sight, and is in no sense willed. Such a view is not surprising in thinkers who have regarded the development of mind as not different from the evolution of nature or life. But now even scientists themselves have observed that the element of reason, possessed by man, sets, as they say, all biological principles at defiance. Romanes has written that "the dominion of natural selection, as between different races of mankind, is greatly restricted by the presence of rationality."[2] And Mr. Spencer in a sentence, which, coming from him, is little less than remarkable, has lately admitted that 'the doctrine of evolution has not furnished guidance to the extent he had hoped.' 3 Thus it would almost appear that consciousness, so far from going steadily forward, as does life, may turn right about face, or stand still, or wheel towards any quarter. But that is surely not the case. The truth is that, while the work of every great thinker does in fact mark a phase of thought higher than the thought of his predecessors, it is only by his direct effort to appreciate them that the higher is ever secured. This conscious contact with the work of a preceding generation, ignored by the philosophy of evolution, is assigned its due place by the theory of development.
But the phrase 'conscious contact with existing thought' requires explanation, and that explanation may be put first of all in the form of a choice of alternatives, (1) It may be argued that consciousness has progressed only when the systematic reflection of previous thinkers has been comprehended. (2) On the other hand it may be argued that the higher light is not obtained by a direct study of realized thought, but by a
