New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-01-16
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
MAX MuLLER'S MATERIALlsM.

THE scIENcE OF. THOUGHT. Byr,M,x MULE !.,.:
Ssnb~sr's esss
Professor Muller puts upon the title page OF THIS
work the motto No Reason without Language
No Language without Reason" The work ITSELF
he says In the preface, has been written for my
self, and for few friends with whom have been
travelling with for many years on the same road
What he undertakes to demonstrate is, as he HIM
self puts 10 that there is no such thing as intel
iect, understanding, mind and reason but that
all these are only different aspects OF language.
This ecr,ainiy sounds startling, but after all II ~
evident that whatever Professor Mailer may choose
to call them. the things themselves to which the
names he objects 20 have been gwen
will remain what they have ever
been. Professor Muilers arguments are, ms
always with him able and ingenious, but We 40
not think they will be held conclusive. The CEN
trail proposition that without language general
concepts are impossible, is very inadequatcly
demonstrated. The argument from the
conditions of animals is remark
able for its omission than for its i'm
piications. The philosopher who sets out 10 prove
that there be reason without language is
certainly under obligations TO explain away the
crowd of analogies between those human acts
which are by one consent ascribed 10 reason and
ccrtion is concerned resemble in every respect the
effects of human reason.
Professor Muller does not deal with this diff
entity at all adequately His references and COM
parsons are TO and with domestic animals. in
whose case human training can of course be alleged
as the efficient cause. and which do not as rule
exhibit degree of intelligence justify ing the belief
that they are able to form general concopts
Yut far more favorable examples Of animal intelli-
gcnce are found among creatures incapable from
their cOnd tions OF learning anything from man,
and when the case of these creatures is considered
Professor MuIlers axiom mo Reason without Ian
guagen may we'll seem rashly dogmatic Take for
example the ant one Of the least
Of animals yet which displays capaci-
ties indistinguishablc from the opera
ton Of reason upon any honest hypothesis To
deny a creature which possesses all tho outward
appearances OF what may be Justly termed civili-
zation. the power OF forming general concepts, is
clearly to land those who take that position in an
omharraSsmentfrcm which extricatiOn will he diff
cult. For we see that the AM has in effect sur
rasscd many human families in Developments that
it has organized ordered community life: that II
has erected conditions strlxincy ANALOGOUS to
what call the State; that its society is divided
into distinct classes having we!l-deined ard care
TINT it has capacity to conduct regular wars
that slavery instIt ltion has been established
by IT.: that il knows how to utilize the SER ices Of
o,hr animals, Of wholly alien species, such as the
anhiae: that it possesses no mean knowledge of
architecfurc-a knowledge which, when exhibited
in the works Of extinct human races. We accept as
demonstrating acquaintance with the laws OF me-
chanics; and that in many other ways this little
crcature exhibits faculties which, il not rational
there is no meaning in the word.
There are many backward tribes OF savagcs
With having language. display fax less intelligence
than the ant or the beaver These are incontro-
ycrtihle facts and rs such they should have been
frankly considered by Professor Muller BUT ne
does not consider them; he ignores them aito-
together: and in so doing he exposes the weakness
NJ his uostion If there is no reason without
language how is il that animals without IAN
aunge exhibit reason? Perh1ps 1t might DC con-
tended that the ant has a language, nut lhau 'he
human ear is incapable Of apprc hendlng IT, JusC Dis
some people whose hearing is otherwise normal are
incapable If distinguishing very high notes IKE
the shriI chirp Of the cricket, for example But
sucb a contention is not scientifically tenaoie we
are entirely justified in concluding that the ant
bas no language other than one Of gesture ana
therefore us manifestation of intelligence cannot
he made to consist with the theory here advanced
hv Professor Muller. We prefer to take no Illus
trations from animals which have been doInesu-
Gated though we have NJ doubt that ample ~S'l-
mony could be adduced from the study OF the doe
alone. TO the power of forming general concepts
eaI able of develo ment in animals. Nor 90 we
make use Of any Of those instances OF subtlety
and acutencss often shown by animals III pro-
curing food and in avoiding their enemies
because there is room in such cases Tor Tue lneofS
of n nomatism. But the ant does great many
h;nos the like Of which savage man cannot do
and in doing these things il displays all the cou
sc'cusness II knowing what it is about that men
themselves show. The old attempt to get rld 0i
this kind Of evidence by drawing an imaginary
line between reason and instinct must De aoan-
doned If the ant is an automaton, so also Is
nan. If man is not an automaton, neither is the
ant.
II appears 10 us that the omission to deal with
this situation leaves gap in Professor MuleTs
argument which practically destroys its effect. 1t IS
only necessary 10 prove that single species oil
any kind maifests Reason without Language TO
overthrow completely the position that there can
be no Reason without Language; and upon that
contention hangs the whole labored argument
which Professor Muller has here erected As to
his views concerning the non-existence of reason,
mind. understanding and intelligence. their mere
statcmtn ut suggests a certain conf sion o. terms
not far separated in degree from the disputes
over words which he justly accuses philosophers
OF falling into For if there is no such thing as
Reason, how can Language be the parent OF Rea-
SOM And again. il there can be no Languag"
without Reason, it follows that Reason must pre-
cede Language. and it is therefore inevitable that
IL can exist without the latter. In effect these
propositions are mutually destructive.
Professor Muller anticipates the reproaeh OF
naterialisIn in his preface. and not without rea-
SON. lie is certainly a matcriaist and might be
called an ultra nominalist also His position that
all thought must be phenomenal. that is, clothed
In words, involves complete exclusion OF IN
tuition, which no doubt he would reiegate TO the
limhn Of such obsolete terms as mind, memory,