The aegis & intelligencer., 1905-01-20
THE ROSE AND THESOUL
THE IMPOTENCE OF THE BLOSSOM,
THE POWER OF THE MAN.

the SouI-Science shows Us Change
without Destruction, Ce&seless
Transforms ton and No Annihiln-
tiOn.
In responding to an argument for the
Immortality of the soul presented in
balance: The Fundamental Verify
Sir. W. II. Alallock. the author of is
Life Worth Living:" says:
Science, he 1.-THE author of "Balance''l
says shows US that the individual life
must be immortal, because science shows
us that nothing which exists can be de-
StroS ed. That nothing can be destroyed
is in one sense perfectly true. but III an
ether il Is equally false. II science shows
us ti.at i'll sense nothing Is de-
.trcycd it shows us also that in another
sense nothing eudurrs. The material OF
the rose is iudestructible. but the same
r0sc never blossoms twice. Mr.. Smiths
argument apply 10 the soul only on
the assumption tnat the soul is Il non
composite unity. His assumption may be
true, but 1t has no foundation in science.
To this the author of Balance re-
spends:
hold that the theory Of the indie
structibility of matter and force sus-
tains. but do not claim that it proves,
separately and alone, the immortality
of the soul The theory of universal
conservation forms one link in chain
of evidence which appears to me to be
conclusive. / cannot agree with Mr..
Mallock in his statement, IF science
shows us that in one sense nothing is
destroyed, it shows us also that in an
other sense nothing endures." Science
shows us ceaseless transformation and
no annihilation. Matter, which is sense
less. appears constantly in new forms
in Il leaf, Il rose. an animal. There is
also Il thing which is not senseless;
whether it be deStructible or indeStruc-
tihle. let us call it the soul. Is it also
subject to transformation? Yes; it is
constantly changing, growing wiser or
duller, stronger or weaker, better or
worse Under our observation it sur
wives these changes. 1t may descend,
and yet ascend again, and again de-
scend. 1t may suffer Il thousand de-
feats, and yet triumph over all. One
soul may dominate millions of other
souls; it has the power to produce
roses and fruits and mechanisms and
music. to harness the forces and to eX-
plore the secrets of nature. 1t is
wonderful thing, this soul.
Turning to Mr. Mallock's rose. Has
it the power of self recuperation?
Weakening, may it regain its strength?
MAY it grow better or worse through
its own powers or consent? Has it any
dominion over other roses or over the
forces of nature? No; the rose, we
Judge. is nonconscious, senseless, with
no powers of self preservation, self
help, self advancement, self assertion.
There are other distinctions between
the rose and the soul. The rose devel-
ops well only under favorable condi-
tons. In good soil, well protected, with
so much of heat and moisture, it as
cendS in definite time to its maxi
mum and then descendS regularly and
definitely to its transformation. The
soul, on the other hand. often develops
under unfavorable physical conditions.
A great soul thrives in solitude or in
uduSOls. DstLil anu
persecution. Tie soul has no definite
rise to a maximum or descent to Il min
imum. The souls maximum is often
reached in old age, when its body Is
weakest The perfection of the rose de-
pends upon the strength of its roots
and of the stalk upon which 1t grows,
and these upon their physical nutr1-
itc Sto IL no pnlJtilot-
ed the rose will be injured or destroy
ed The souls body, on the other hand,
may be mutilated. its legs and arms
may be amputated. without any mutt
latfon of the soul. The strength of the
soul does not depend upon the strength
of the physical body with which it is
for the time associated. Strong bodies
often contain weak souls. Science has
discovered no definite relation between
the perfection of the physical body and
the perfection of the soul, between di-
gestion and intelligence or between
muscles and morals. No bread or meat.
no system of diet or physical culture,
has been found that will make a fool
wise or Il rascal honest. The culture of
the soul is within the soul 1t thriyes
upon knowledge and high ideals; igno-
rance and vice degrade 1t. No force ex-
ternal to 1t can withhold the souls
food. The supply of good and evil, of
things uplifting and things degrading,
IS inexhauStible and subject to the de-
mand of the soul. The soul pays in its
own coinage for its own food.
The materialists hold that man is
wholly physical; that the soul Is a
product of and necessarily inseparable
from the physical body. If this conten-
ton be sound there should be shown
the same reactions between the body
and soul that exist between the rose
plant and the rosc-it should be shown
that healthy bodies are invariably es'
sential to healthy souls; that strong
bodies produce strong souls and weak
bodies weak souls: that an injury tc
the body produces Il corresponding IN
jury to the soul. If such reactions
complete to the minuteSt degree, can
not be shown between the soul and the
body. IL the soul does not necessarily
sicken with the body's sickness or de
cay with the body'S decay. why should
we assume that the soul must die with