COSMOLOGY
415
COSMOLOGY
The conslititcnl cnuse.i of the world. — The composi-
jn of corporeal beings is also the subject of much
scussion. There are actually four systems of note,
,ch promising to solve this delicate problem: Mech-
lism; Hylomorphisra (the Scholastic system);
ynamic Atomism; and Dynamism proper.
The characteristic tendency of Mechanism, i. e. of
e mechanical theorj-, is to disregard all qualitative
fference in natural phenomena and to emphasize
eir quantitative differences. That is to say, in this
stem the constituent matter of all corporeal beings
everywhere the same and is essentially homogene-'
is; aU the forces animating it are of the same nature;
ey are simply modes of local motion. Further-
ore, there is no internal principle of finality; in the
orld everj'thing is determined by mechanical laws.
3 explain all cosmic phenomena, nothing is needed
it mass and motion; so that all the differences ob-
rvable between corporeal beings are merely differ-
ices in the amount of matter and motion. Mechan-
m appeals especially to the law of the correlation of
rces in nature and of the mechanical equivalent of
'at. Heat, we know, does work; but it consumes
?elf in pro|)ortion to its own activity. In like nian-
■r mechanical causes ))rnduce heat and grow weaker
proportion to the intensity of their effect. So it is
Ith all corporeal energy; one form may be substi-
itetl for another, but the quantity of the new force
ill be always equivalent to the quantity of the force
lat has disappeared. Having in this way identified
echanical force with motion, the holders of this
leorj' felt authorized to imify all forces and reduce
lem'to local motion; and it was then an easy step
I consider substance as homogeneous since its only
16 is to serve as a background for phenomena,
ther arguments are drawn from chemistry, espe-
ally from the facts of isomerism, polymerism, and
lotropism.
The mechanical theory* is of ancient origin, mongst its earliest partisans were Thales, Anaxi- ander, and Heraclitus, whose chief concern was to •ove the derivation of the workl from one simple •imitive sulistance. Empedocles, however, held out r four elements — air, earth, water, fire. But De- ocritvis, and later Epicurus, suppressed this dis- nction between theelements, proclaimed theessential jmogeneity of matter, and referred the variety of itural phenomena to differences of motion. After le time of Epicurus (270 b. c), this system disap- ?ared from philosophical thought for eighteen cen- iries. Restored by Descartes, it soon won the favour ' most scientists, and it is still dominant in scientific search. The Cartesian philosophy was a restate- ent of the two bsusic principles of the old theory, the 5mogeneity of nature and the reduction of all forces I terms of motion; but it got new vigour by contact ith the natural sciences, especially physics and chem- trj'; hence the name Atomissm (q. v.) by which it is iually known. It should, however, be noted that lere are two .\tomisms, the one purely chemical, the
- her philosophical. According to the former all sim-
le bodies are made up of atoms, i. e. of particles so nail that no chemical force known to us can divide lem, but which have all the properties of visible adies. Atoms form grovips of two or four or some- nies more; these small tenacious grou]is, known;ls lemical molecules coalesce in physical molecules, and om these in turn are built up the material Ixxlies we 18 around us. The material body thus results from a rogressive aggregation of molecules, and the very nallest portion of it that is endowed with the proper- es of the compound contains many atoms of various secies, since by definition the compound results ■om the union of numerous elements. On this ato- lic theorj', independent a.s such of all philosophical ^stems, was grafted during the last century that liilosophical Atomism which, while ascribing to all
atoms the same nature, differentiates them only by
varj'ing amounts of mass and motion.
Another explanation of the material world is offered by Dynamism. If Mechanism attributes extension to matter and complete pas.sivity to corporeal substances. Dynamism sees in the world only simple forces, unex- tended, yet essentially active. There is nothing strange in the antithesis of these two systems. The Dynamism of Leibniz — it was In- who jiropounded it — was but a reaction against llic Miihaiiism of Descar- tes. To these two matrix-ideas of uiicxtended, active forces the majority of Dynamists adtl the principle of actio in distiins. They soon found out that points without extension can touch only by completely merging the one with the other, and on their own hypothesis the points in contact would amount to nothing more than a mathematical point which could never give us even the illusion of apparent extension. To avoid this ]>itfall, the Dynamists bethought them of consiilcriiig all Ijodies as aggregates of force unex- tended indeed liut separated by intervals from one an- other. Conceived by Leiliniz, who lield the monads to be dowered with an immanent activity, this system has been amended and modernized by Father Bos- covich, Kant, Father Palmieri, Father Carbonelle, Hirn, and Father Leroy. On the whole it has found few supporters; scientists as a rule prefer the mechan- ical view. It would seem, however, that a reaction towards it has set in since the discovery of the radio- activity of matter. The property manifested by a considerable number of bodies of emitting at ordinary temperatures a seemingly inexhaustible quantity of electric rays suggests the idea that matter is a focus of energy which tends to diffuse itself in space. But in point of fact there are only two arguments in favour of Dynamism. One is drawn from the difficulties of grasping the concept of extension; the other from the fact that all we know of matter comes to us through its action on our organs of sense; hence the inference that force is the only thing existing apart from ourselves.
Between these two extremes stands the Schola.stic theory, known as Hylomorphism, or theory of matter and form (tJ\?), matter; /lopip-^, form), also as the Aris- totelean theorj', and later as the Thomistic theory from the name of its princi|)al defender in the Middle Ages. Aristotle (:i84-!i2'J n. c), who was its author, gave it a large place in his treatises on physics and on metaphysics. It was discussed during centuries in the Peripatetic and neo-Platonic schools and in the schools of Constantinople and Athens; but from the sixth century to the twelfth, though its essential prin- ciples survived, it was an insignificant factor in philo- sophic thought. An exception, however, must be made in favour of Avicenna in the East (980-1037) and of Averroes in Spain (112(>-1198), both famous commentators on the Aristotelean encj'clopedia. In the thirteenth centurj', the Golden Age of Schola,sti- cism, the svsteiii was restored, thanks to a number of Latin translations, and its long-forgotten treasures were brought to light bj- daring prospectors, such .a.s Alexander of Hales, Albertus XIagnus, .St. Thomas Aquin.as, St. Bonaventure, and Henrj' of Ghent. Dur- ing the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the cosmo- logical theory, and indeed the wlicile Scholastic sys- tem, suffered a decline which lasted till the nineteenth century, though during the interval it found ardent supporters in some of the religious orders. The res- toration movement began about the middle of the nineteenth century with the works of Kleutgen (181 1- 188.S); San.sevenno (1811-18(>5), and Liberatore (1810-1892); but it was especially owing to the im- pulse given it by the famous Encj'clical of Leo XIII, "^Etenii Patris" (1879), that Scholasticism regained its place of honovir beside the great modern sj'stems.
The Scholastic theorj' can be summed up in the fol- lowing propositions: (1) Bodies both elementarj' and compound have an essential unity; they differ spe-
