perceptions were not supplemented by our tactile, so, as it seems to me, our interpretation of the phenomena of the Universe must be very inadequate if we do not mentally coordinate the idea of force with that of motion, and recognize it as the "efficient cause" of those phenomena—the "material conditions" constituting (to use the old scholastic term) only "their formal cause." And I lay the greater stress on this point, because the mechanical philosophy of the present day tends more and more to express itself in terms of motion rather than in terms of force—to become kinetics, instead of dynamics.
Thus, from whatever side we look at this question—whether the common-sense of mankind, the logical analysis of the relation between cause and effect, or the study of the working of our own intellects in the interpretation of Nature—we seem led to the same conclusion—that the notion of force is one of those elementary forms of thought with which we can no more dispense than we can with the notion of space or of succession. And I shall now, in the last place, endeavor to show you that it is the substitution of the dynamical for the mere phenomenal idea which gives their highest value to our conceptions of that order of Nature, which is worshipped as itself a god by the class of interpreters whose doctrine I call in question.
The most illustrative, as well as the most illustrious example of the difference between the mere generalization of phenomena and the dynamical conception that applies to them, is furnished by the contrast between the so-called laws of planetary motion discovered by the persevering ingenuity of Kepler, and the interpretation of that motion given us by the profound insight of Newton. Kepler's three laws were nothing more than comprehensive statements of certain groups of phenomena determined by observation. The first, that of the revolution of the planets in elliptical orbits, was based on the study of the observed places of Mars alone; it might or might not be true of the other planets; for, so far as Kepler knew, there was no reason why the orbits of some of them might not be the eccentric circles which he had first supposed that of Mars to be. So Kepler's second law of the passage of the radius vector over equal areas in equal times, so long as it was simply a generalization of facts in the case of that one planet, carried with it no reason for its applicability to other cases, except that which it might derive from his erroneous conception of a whirling force. And his third law was in like manner simply an expression of a certain harmonic relation which he had discovered between the times and the distances of the planets, having no more rational value than any other of his numerous hypotheses.
Now, the Newtonian "laws" are often spoken of as if they were merely higher generalizations in which Kepler's are included; to me they seem to possess an altogether different character. For, starting with the conception of two forces, one of them tending to produce continuous uniform motion in a straight line, the other tending to produce
