The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1878-01-10
srHEAGE mATExIALnssacs
To Prot. JOHN FISKE,
Hn...o,-g T,,i,

Harvard University.
DEAR SIR have read with care
and as underssandingly as l could your
article In the Jan-Feb. number OF
the North american RsUiet0, en-
titled "a Crumb for the Modern Sym
postum" 1 had already become suffi-
GENTLY acquainted with your writings, to
be deeply impressed with your intellectu-
al attachments, and ability to carry out
discussion OF any of the great questions
If the day to its logical issue. Your two
volumes on "Cosmic Philosophy" are on
this point evidence enough to any
thoughtful and unprecedented mind. NOT
only dees that work evince deep ana
keen knowledge of the Philosophy oil
Evolution, as it is being expounded IN
its extent and depth by Herbert Spencer
but It also renders 1t much more per-
spicuous TO mind that mas not
gone through long and severe
course of drilling, or that hiss not be
come thoroughly familiarized with
modern phllosophlc terms, than rs IN
either Spencer's First Principles, or any
OF the expository or Laboratory volumes
that have succeeded it. No doubt many
have felt much indebted to you for your
simplifcation, might almost say trans
lstion, OF his definition of evolution. 1t
is true, rs You say, that the "terms" OF
of the definition "are teither obscure IN
themselves, nor newly coined" yet GER
tainly they have been rendered, especially
As combined into long sentences, less
obscure by your pen, and may henceiorth
be Used much more freely and readily.
make these statements by way OF &C
counting for what / may almost call the
uvrdltv with which l seek and read any
of YOUR productions, and especially if
learn from their titles or otherwise that
they discuss any of the great questions
Ina, are agils.ing the thought OF this day.
| could not well mistake the
line OF discussion along which
YOU would run in an article
bearing the title. a Crumb for the Mod
crn Symposum." | had become some
what acquainted with the dolngs OF the
"Modern Symposium" from the accounts
published in the Nineteenth Century and
ISSUED in the supplement to the Popular
Scie,.ce Monthly. And now | have TO
thsLk you Tor much IN that "Crumb."
Some of It's molecules have indeed re
newed my intellectual, and l think
may say my theologic strength. These
molecules were found in the CoSnalc
Phiio,cphy but they are larger and more
nouri: hing in this article. L refer more
particularly To the stand that you have
trkcu, NJ d the argument from Science
herself that you have constructed, Oh the
great question OF Mdtertatism. L confess
that | cannot, rs you would seem TO have
us DO, return negative answer TO your
question 10. 30) SIS the present DRIFT oil
scientific thought really setting toward
maLeraIism, or is it notP L certainly
think that 1t Is. l desire to- guard
against the "yituperstive" use OF
this or any other term. L am
ready to accept whatever definition
of it Yourself and and other scientific
men will give TO it, and to use 1t In that
sense IN an honest spirit, and without
attempting or wishing TO apply 1t to any
one Tor the purpose OF fastening upon him
Opprobium. know too well IN my own
limited experience the injustice and
wrong that may be done one by an lg-
norant and malicious application to hlm
o. terms which in the mouths of the
many mean opproblum.
1t should be known more widely, and
remembered more widely that the term
MateJidliSm is used in NJ least two
clearly distinct senses. This fact you
bring out in this article, though 1t would
be well, / think, to have 1t more heavily
emphasized. Materiallsm, as james Mar
tinean shows, has ut least two antltheses.
II is antithe.Ic to InimateriGilSm and
heaHsnl. The latter kind of msterislism
is, rs you say, Up. 81 system OF op'n-
ions based on the assumption that "the
group of phenomena constituting the
table" or any other material OBJ
Jet "hss an objective existence
Independent of consciousness" or, 1t
might be said, that matter possesses q
real substance or basis of matter OF the
phenomena. Now, using the term IN
this sense, believe it 10 be true that
most, if not all, of our highest thinkers
are anti-materialsts. Ia this sense j. \. !
Mill is an snti-msteriaiist, and will |
doubt or deny the substantial existence |
of matter altogether" Up. S0), no less than
Berkeley or even Hegel, Tor with him
(Ex'n OF Sr VIM. H., p. 1881, Matter
is permanent possibility of sensations"
rs our knowledge OF 1t is only OF the |
sensations which it in US produces. To |
this suti-msteriaism you yourself also |
stand committed. The former kind OF |
materialism, to-wli: that which is the |
antithesis of immsterlsism, you have |
represented Up. 32) ss bsving for ITS con-
spicuou. characteristic "the endesvor 10 |
interpret mind as a productions the |
transient result OF certsln speflnc Ag- |
gregstion of matter" THIS msteris.Ism
Is expressed openly in such phrases MS
though, is motion of mat
ter"-"Sithout phosphorus no thought"
Thought stands in the same rels
ton to the brain rs bile to the liver" and
there subsists the same relation between
the thought and the electrical vibrations
ct the tiaments OF the BRAIN rs between
color AID the vibration OF ether 1t ls
this msterislism that you have IN this
article so successfully asssiled. and our
most sincere thanks are extended to You
for that the assault has been made and
the victory gained by Il purely scientific
weapon, the doctrine of The Correlation
OF Forces" confess that canno, see how
any mind that understands this doctrine
and the use you have made OF it, especI-
ally II 1t lays claim to follow the scientific
method, can resist your arguments as
laid down from the middle OF page 81 To
the middle of psge Sc, Certainly he
must have philosophy and logic both,
and | think very bad philosophy and
logic, mixed in with science. Not only