I have shown above that one consequence of the attempt so vigorously
made a few years ago to establish protoplasm as the one living
substance, is the making it clear that the non-protoplasmic parts of
the body and the simpler extra-corporeal tools or organs must run on
all fours in the matter of livingness and non-livingness. If the
protoplasmic parts of the body are held living in virtue of their
being used by something that really lives, then so, though in a less
degree, must tools and machines. If, on the other hand, tools and
machines are held non-living inasmuch as they only owe what little
appearance of life they may present when in actual use to something
else that lives, and have no life of their own--so, though in a less
degree, must the non-protoplasmic parts of the body. Allow an
overflowing aroma of life to vivify the horny skin under the heel,
and from this there will be a spilling which will vivify the boot in
wear. Deny an aroma of life to the boot in wear, and it must ere
long be denied to ninety-nine per cent. of the body; and if the body
is not alive while it can walk and talk, what in the name of all
that is unreasonable can be held to be so?

That the essential identity of bodily organs and tools is no
ingenious paradoxical way of putting things is evident from the fact
that we speak of bodily organs at all. Organ means tool. There is
nothing which reveals our most genuine opinions to us so unerringly
as our habitual and unguarded expressions, and in the case under
consideration so completely do we instinctively recognise the
underlying identity of tools and limbs, that scientific men use the
word "organ" for any part of the body that discharges a function,
practically to the exclusion of any other term. Of course, however,
the above contention as to the essential identity of tools and
organs does not involve a denial of their obvious superficial