THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN REASON.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
do not appear to have been so fortunate as to have. made my meaning clear to your reviewer. I therefore ask of your courtesy space for the following explanatory statements.
My method consists in a careful examination of the theory criticised by me, not in ridiculing it or depreciating its author I regard a "mental nature" as a term denoting the psychical power inherent in a material body. Its independent existence is then far indeed from being my "main position."
The word "soul" is used by me to signify what Aristotle' meant by psyche, and as such an entity was supposed to exist in every plant, it could hardly be called an " emotional entity.' My reviewer makes a supposition which is not mine, and adds : "This is hardly to be called an explanation of mind at all." Permit me, Sir, to remind your readers that my book was not intended to be an explanation of " mind " or of "human reason." It is an "Examination of Recent Hypotheses Con-
Previous page
