eeking
formulas for the growth of moral experience. Instead of questioning the
heart, he somewhat satirically described its history. At the same time
he was heir to that mythology which had deified the genetic or physical
principle in things, and though the traditional myths suffered cruel
operations at his hands, and often died of explanation, the mythical
principle itself remained untouched and was the very breath of his
nostrils. He never doubted that the formula he might find for the growth
of experience would be also the ultimate good. What other purpose could
the world have than to express the formula according to which it was
being generated?

In this honest conviction we see the root, perhaps, of that distaste for
correct physics that prevails among many who call themselves idealists.
If physics were for some reason to be adored, it would be disconcerting
to find in physics nothing but atoms and a void. It is hard to
understand, however, why a fanciful formula expressing the evolution of
this perturbed universe, and painting it no better than it is, should be
more worshipful than an exact formula meant to perform the same office.
A myth that enlarged the world and promised a complete transformation of
its character might have its charms; but the improvement is not obvious
that accrues by making the drift of things, just as it drifts, its own
standard. Yet for Hegel it mattered nothing how unstable all ideals
might be, since the only use of them was to express a principle of
transition, and this principle was being realised, eternally and
unawares, by the self-devouring and self-transcending purposes rolling
in the flux.

[Sidenote: The conservative interpretation.]

This philosophy might not be much relished if it were more frankly
expressed; yet something of the sort floats vaguely before most minds
when they think of evolution. The types of being change, they say: in
this sense the Aristotelian notion of a predetermined form unfolding
itself in each species has yielded to a more correct and more dynamic
physics. But the changes, so people imagine, express a predetermined
ideal, no longer, of course, the ideal of these specific things, but one
overarching the cosmic movement. The situation might be described by
saying that this is Aristotle's view adapted to a world in which there
is only one species or only one individual. The earlier phases of life
are an imperfect expression of the same nature which the l