New-York tribune., 1875-03-06
THE COSMIC THEORY AN OLD NOTION

EXCEPTIONS TAKEN TO JOHN FIsKE's CosMIc PHI
IosoPHY-MR SPENCER REDIsCOvERISG WHAT
THE INDIAN sAGEs POE, AND EVERYBODY EISK
KNEW BEFORE
TO the EDITOR Of The Tribune.
SIR: II is not to be assumed that the re-
viewer OF journal III any degree Identifies himself WIN
the books he reviews that the review itself Is liable 10
criticism while 1t states clearly s your review OF MI
Fiske's Cosmic Philosophy" In TIE TRIBUNE OF Jan ~
does what tho book Is 1t is not therefore, as contro
yerting him that desire to q word on the subject
there treated but rs very small number OF your read
ers are likely TO 60 through two volumes OF metaphys-
cal discussion the Cosmos compared TO the largo
number who will read the review In THE TRIBUNE
beg 10 call their attention to the fact that the theory OF
Cosmic Evolution, which Mr.. Fskc claims Is tho dis
coyery of his master and teacher Spencer, while ex
pressed plainly enough thousands of years ago In the
Indian philosophers, and centuries after by Greek
philosophy has been laid down as scientific principle
by Edgar A. Poe in his Eureka" printed In lss ana
elaborated more logically and at the same time moro
iinagnatively, than Mr.. Spencer has been able 10
put IT, and in little book which any one may read IN
an hour.
Tho Indian sages stated thsltheory Of Cosmc Evou'
tion as a fact which they knew from revelation; De-
mocritus as result Of speculation Poe as flight OF
imaginative insight and the end Spencer umbers up
with his ponderous reflections and redlscoVery ot "na'
every body knew well before he stated 1t as after III
curious ignorance II he did know IT, profound dis
honesty II he did 1t Ia reserved for Mr. FSKe 10 do"
the trumpet for this Rip Van Wrinkle Columbus.
With regard to Mr. Fiskes definition OF the unknow-
able" which substantially accords with Mr. spencers'
IL will be permitted TO say that neither MI Spen-
GERS estimate that OF any individual is to be admit
ted as tho OF the unknowablc. What to MT
Spencer Mr.. Fske may be absolutely unknowaDe
may be as clear the TO different kind OF mnd,
lust as the statement OF equation in the diherena
calculus may be fog 10 me and lucid truth to Mr.
Fiske The unknowable" is quantity In inverse
ratio to the capacity OF knowing and there is more
intoerabe arrogance in the mental world than that
which makes its reach the limit OF the possible. III
the school of Mr. Spencer not hOpelessy befogged
with what they style "anthrOpomorphism. they would
ace that in the Intelligent wi which they abolish
djnpantly is comprehended much as human intel
gence can possibly at The end Of any possible
edcafon because intelligence and Will arc the sum and
substance Of all the faculties which make up the mind
of man. and il Deity more than that we should
never be able conceive the moro for want OF the
ground to stand on
When any one succeeds in reducing Mr.. Spcncers
notion OF Deity ordinary nomenclature, II will be
seen that this notion differs from Pao's rather by his
baser standard OF men than his higher OF Deity and
that so far from the truth being that this God OF the
scientific philosopher is s. and must ever be- tho end
of the Christian the Deity Of Mr. Spencer Is so utterly
rreconcable with the Father" OF Christ, that he hes
tatesto announce Him yet, the world is not ready
for the acceptance of the great idea. Al least this b his
own statement in article in one of the reviews ID de-
ense Of his philosophy Now there Is 10 God in Chris
tauity If he be not personal and anthrOpomorphlc Ill
every sense Of the This assertion OF Mr. Fiske re-
minds one of tho saying attributed to Hege mat the
only man who understood his philosophy was A. ana
he misunderstood it, There is nothing In the idea or
ity which Mr. Spencer abhors so much as the perso
oIity: there nothing that Christ INSISTS on 40 inuc
Mir. Spencer Is the head Of the scenhc pIhosOply his
God is the Goa OF tne sc1htlhc .io,oin, ~ -, az" nv ,
identity bich Mr. Fike claims is PROOF tnat ne h
understands the creed he processes or tnat ne mas hOt
the courage OF ms naslcfs op!hons, anu
cessOn fatal TO his consistency III OrlrF 10 coclac
puhc opinion which woht cry out against ihe IogIcI
result OF his premises For tie honor Of philosophy or
of IN nan nature, ut least, let Us have 0Scal ana u
hetaag expression OF tne consequences OF the theory
ri evof1tiOn by natural selection" aud no sneakiDg
around the church doors to dsarm CHRISTIAN pre-
may even be OF the Gospel Of Christ and be-
| Icye in the doctrines OF Darwin ana Spencer
But rs a question the answer 10 when must DE en-
rios and suggestive let me ask II II be true thal the
grand aid ateS; result OF science ana scehtlc plo.
evolution Mr. Spencer states H. how Is II tiat the
laws OF MENU written before the most elementary prn
cipes (s that term IS now universally ac-
ccpted) were known, when the world was sun borne on
fonr eenhants' backs g. g., contain in the most def
mite manner tins law of GvJlution: ON the coming
forth of tnat day tine day OF Brahna or an epoch on
crcaronl ali things proceed from nvisibilly 10 vis
bihty: so on the approach OF night they are ali DIS
solved away INTO that wDIch IL called Invisible. Inc
universe eyen having existed, IL again dissolved; ana
sity il Is eproduced. That which, upon the dissolution
of ain thngs else, destroyed is superior aId OF
another nature from that u-.bity it Is Invisible ani
| eternal" (W. h. Greene, TranscendeDta!smJ VIII
Mr. FIske how 1t IL that, II science Is an evo
tiui. ani the cosmc theory OF Mr. spencer It's hShcst
attainment that theory should nave been anticipated
by indian philosophy before any human knowledge OF
the constitution matter or the order o evouiiol ex
.tcd rhe laws of Menu based on revelation (That
that " discuS-). and II rcVC alton
even when corrupted may far transcend science, why
sould we NOT look teachings for results to
which has not yet ventlred TO speak one ~odi
Yours truly, W. D. SllLi"HAH'
No s Aucnblygh Gardens, CHAPMAN Common Loadon
s. w. Feb 2 1873.