as this, where men assemble whose duty it is to study the human mind in all
its aspects.

I presume that just as, and just because men have minds AND bodies, an
evolutional history in the ordinary sense and a mental history in a sense
not commonly considered, so there will always be two, or perhaps three,
parties among psychologists and men of science, and each one, in so far as
it is limited in its vision, may be considered as abnormal, if one will. I
decline, however, to admit that the temperamental peculiarities of one group
are more in need either of justification or of rectification through
psychoanalysis than those of the others. It is probably true that emotional
tension often plays a larger part among persons who love a priori
reasoning--the "tender-minded" of Dr. James--than it does in those who work
through observation; but on the other hand exclusively empirical attitude
has its limitations and its dangers. Philosophy and metaphysics deal more
distinctively with essential function--that is with real existence,--while
natural science and the genetic psychology (of which psychoanalysis,
strictly speaking, is a branch) deal rather with appearances and with
structure. Both are in need of investigation. The FORM which art, religion,
and literature assume is determined by men's personal experiences and
special cravings. The essential motive of art and religion is, however, the
dim recognition by men of their relation to the creative spirit of the
universe.

No one can doubt that function logically precedes structure; or if any one
does doubt this, he need only observe his own experience and see how in
every new acquisition of knowledge or of power there come, first, the
thought, the idea, then the effort, next the habit, and finally the
modification of cerebral mechanism, in which the effort and the habit become
represented in relatively permanent and static form. In fact, the crux of