On Mr. Spencer's formula of evolution, as an exhaustive statement of the changes of the universe

Introduction

This criticism is not written in a spirit hostile to the doctrine of Evolution, considered as a development ac¬ cording to natural orders of sequence from the more simple to the more complex, nor to the theory of the development of the higher organisms from the lower.

Free from all bias, it is simply intended to be a logical examination of an important theory which has been placed before the thinking world for its acceptance.

This criticism I present in the following manner : —

First, I ask what Mr. Spencer means by Philosophy, and what is the problem it involves. I find, according to him, that Philosophy is completely unified knowledge, and that

The Problem of Philosophy is

To state an intelligible formula , which, by its application to the Homogeneous, will explain, and enable us to construct, ideally, all the changes of the universe .

I then enter upon an inquiry into Mr. Spencer’s For¬ mula of Philosophy, which, though intelligible, appears

b

VI

INTRODUCTION.

to me insufficient, inasmuch as its two factors, Matter * and Motion, do not afford an explanation of the facts of life and mind,

I then attempt to amend the formula by the introduc¬ tion of the term Force, which Mr. Spencer largely employs in his preliminary exposition, hut which he has after¬ wards allowed to drop out of the formula, and I then find that the amended formula, though sufficient, is unintelligible.

I next endeavour, from a study of Mr. Spencer’s ex¬ position, to frame a formula which shall he a true repre¬ sentation of it, but which, at the best, I am only able to make a sufficient formula by making it vague, and to that extent unintelligible.

From which it results, that although the changes of the universe, in all its departments, conform to certain general processes of development or Evolution, and thus present a general similarity in the order of their changes, yet we cannot state an intelligible formula, which, by its application to the Homogeneous, will enable us to account for and construct, ideally, the changes of the universe.

From this it follows, that however much I may ad¬ mire, and however much our thinkers may value, some of Mr. Spencer’s great generalisations, we must come to the conclusion that he has not succeeded in solving the main problem which he submits and sets down as the aim of his work.

The implication is that no such problem of Philosophy

INTRODUCTION.

Vll can ever be solved, and that there is in the universe a factor which is more than Matter and Motion, and more than Force considered as the sum total of them.

This factor, and its import as a matter of science and of individual personal value, is reserved for considera¬ tion in the fifth and concluding portion of this criticism.

As a matter of interest to the student of Mr. Spencer’s Philosophy, I append the results of a task which I lately undertook for my own instruction. This consists of a statement of the principal criticisms affecting the essential theories involved in the work, so far as they have come under my notice.

This work is an elaboration of papers read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, Sessions 1 877-78 and 1878-79. The references are to “First Principles,” third edition, October 1875.

2 Parkfield Load,

Liverpool, June 1879.

Contents

PAGE

Introduction, ....... v

Part II

An Inquiry as to the Intelligibility and the Suf¬ ficiency of Mr. Spencer’s Formula, . . 7

Definitions of Matter and Motion, ... 8

A Study of the Process of Dissolution, . . . 1 1

A Study of “the Homogeneous,” . . . . 17

How Affected by Gravitation, . . , . < 20

On the “ Instability of the Homogeneous,” . . 23

The Formula applied to Primary Evolution, . . 29

The Formula Considered with Respect to the Origin of

Organic Matter and Organisms, ... 30

An Endeavour to Realise what is meant by Resolving all

Changes into Factors of Matter and Motion, . 66

Conclusion of the Argument, .... 69

Part III

An Inquiry as to the Intelligibility and Sufficiency of Mr. Spencer’s Formula, with the Inclusion

OF THE TERM “FORCE,” .... 73

Force in Relation to Matter and Motion, and on Force

as an Unknowable Factor, .... 73

X

CONTENTS.

Criticism of “ First Principles,” .

Of Chapter I. — Philosophy Defined,

Of Chapter II. — The Data of Philosophy,

Of Chapter III. — Space, Time, Matter, Motion, Force, . Of Chapter IY.— The Indestructibility of Matter,

Of Chapter V. — The Continuity of Motion,

Of Chapter YI. — The Persistence of Force,

Of Chapter VII. — The Persistence of Relations amongst Forces, .......

Of Chapter VIII. — The Transformation and Equivalence of Forces, ......

Of Chapter IX. — The Direction of Motion,

Of Chapter X. — The Rhythm of Motion, .

Of Chapter XI. — Recapitulation, Criticism, and Recom¬ mencement, ......

Of Chapter XII.— Evolution and Dissolution,

Of Chapter XIII.— Simple and Compound Evolution, . Of Chapters XIV., XV., XVI., and XVII. — The Law of Evolution, ......

Of Chapter XVIII. — The Interpretation of Evolution, . Of Chapter XIX. — The Instability of the Homogeneous, Of Chapter XXII. — Equilibration,

Of Chapter XX. — The Multiplication of Effects, .

Of Chapter XXI. — Segregation, ....

Of Chapter XXIII. — Dissolution, .

Of Chapter XXIV.— Summary and Conclusion, . Summary of Criticism,

Part IV

An Attempt to Frame a Formula agreeable to Mr. Spencer’s Exposition of Evolution, and an In¬ quiry as to its Intelligibility as the Formula of Philosophy, ....

By the Omission from the Formula of the terms “Matter” and Motion, leaving Integration as the Essence of Evolution, without specifying the Nature of the Factors or Activities, .

Integiation as applied to Sidereal and Geologic

o

Evolution,

1 • • • •

CONTENTS . xi

As applied to Organic Evolution, . . » 133

As applied to Further Organic Evolution, . , 134

As applied to Super-organic Evolution, . 135

As applied to Language, . . . . 136

As applied to Science, . . . . . 137

As applied to the Aesthetic Arts, . . . 137

By the Introduction of a Third Factor into the Formula,

viz., Feeling or Consciousness, . . . 139

Mr. Spencer on the Substance of Mind, . . 143

Mr. Spencer on the Composition of Mind, . . 147

Summary of Criticism, . . . . . 15 1

PART V. Criticism of the Book on “the Unknowable,” . 152

On the Relativity of Knowledge, . . . .152

On Naming and Correlations of Names . . . 153

On the term “the Relative,” . . . . 155

On the term “ the Absolute,” .... 156

Statement of the Argument of the Chapter, with De¬ tailed Criticism, . . . . . 157

On Ultimate Scientific Ideas, . . . .175

As taken from the Formula of Evolution, . . 175

As rendered in this Chapter, . . . . 176

On Ultimate Religious Ideas, . . . .178

The Conflict, . . . . . 180

Any Reconciliation, . . . . .182

Mr. Spencer’s Solution of it, . . 182

Criticism thereof, . . . . .184

Possible Modes of Reconciliation, . . . 186

Conclusion, . . . . . . . 1S8

Part VI

The Foregoing as affected by Mr. Spencer’s “Replies

to Criticism,” . . . . . .189

The Absolute, . . . . . .189

Mind and Matter, . . . • . . 192

Recapitulation, . . . . . .196

XII

CONTENTS .