The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-01-28
A Review of Mr.. Herbert Spencers
Theory of the WILL"

At the December meeting Of the Victoria Phi
lOsophical Institute Of England, which took
place at its house, Z, Adelphi Terrace, London
the Secretary, Captain +. Petrie, announced
that this Society founded to investigate philosO-
phicaI and scientific questions, especially those
said 70 initiate against the truth OF Revelation
had enrolled l22 members during the year, of
which d3 were resident IN America and the Colo
MES, the total number of its members was now
$40: it was further stated that this year many of
its American members had combined and found
ed the 50 American Institute of Christian PhilO-
sophy, " q Society to carry out the same objects
and organization in America, and for that pur-
pose it had adopted the same objects and whole
scheme, but that while taking this step its found
ers had decided to keep up their individual con-
nectiOn with the Institute in England. After
this a paper was read on Mr.. Herbert Spencer's
Theory of the Will
The author showed that Mr.. Spencer's philos-
ophy denied all freedourrof will, and made delib-
eratiou to be only the mental aspect of the com
mingling of nerve-mOlecules. Ia the line of in
decision these were cOlliding agains' another,
but when n decision had been reached the strong
est nerve stream had made head against all the
rest and was flowing its way. Such accord
ing to Nr. Spencer, was the passage of delIbera-
ton into decision, Of heSitancy into vOlitiOn.
Manifesty this set aside all freedom of Will,
made the whole process merely mechanical, and
ns Mr.. Spencer allowed, was the negation of NOR
al obligation. The paper criticised Mr.. Spen-
GERS argument, and maintained that MIR. Spen-
cer from first to last, had only made one bold
assertion, and had repeated II many times, but
had given not one iOta of proof. Thirteen Of his
arguments-all he had preseuted-were carefully
examined, and shown TO be nothing more than
confident assertion. They classified and
replied 10 "a follows :-Frst, Mr.. Spencer said
that % the real proposition involved in the dogma
of free-vilI Is % that every one i at liberty to
desire or not to desire" Against this Kant and
Hamilton quoted, admitting that we
must desire, but holding that free-wIH can re-
strain desire. The martyrs could not but desire
he I'm their 5ulI vii leI
in control their lower nature and compelled II to
obey the law Of righteousness. Secondly, Mr..
Spencer simply assumed that the will had no
control or power Of free choice. which was the
very thing he bound To prove. tie next
called it an illusion - to think that at each
moment the eJO Is something more than the
aggregate Of feelings and ideas actual and
uusceut which then exists. ~ Evidently this was
coufoundihg substance with phenomena, be-
tween which elsewhere he carefully Disseminated,
and il was making the ego only succession Of
states and denying all substance Of mind, which
was ls0iug, contrary to of the structural
doctrines Of his philosophy. Mr.. Herbert
Spencer hal frequently stated that the ego was
nothing else than the state Of consciousness
passing ut the moment, but this statement was
never sought % be proved. indeed he con-
fradicted himself iuasmuch as he spoke Of - the
subject Of such TsychIcal changes Now, Sub
ject Is that which underlies phenomena, but
he had said the sgc was only phenomena, so
that His subject was only hypOStatiZed zero.
because its action - iucalcuiable- This was
shown 20 be only an ad e1p'aHdHar argument, for
the flight Of n bird through the air scenes to the
unframed intelligence to be free but the student
of science saw that every movement Of Its wings
was according to fixed law Mr. Spencer lastly
urged that II psychical changes cOniorEned to law
there could not be such thing as free-wlN. In
reply TO this, il was shown that the will might
make its own law, tO.which psychlcal changes
conform and vet be free, and that the will
would, in this way, adumbrate its own moral
nature. Taking for a moment the IheIstlc po-
sitiOn surely God was free, and yet He perfectly
cOnformed To His own law, also man might be
free pUrpOsely made so by God, In order that,
being free, he might acquire the true valor of
righteousness. Thus all Mr.. Spencer's argu-
Ineuts had seemed to fail when examined thor
oughly, and the matter stood where It was.
Finally it was contendsd that the freedom of
the will was the unassaiiable citadel from which
alone the doctrine Of moral responsibility could
be defended, aud as such 1t was question APP
peaIing powerfully to all, and having in 1T the
Rravest moral issues. With the will free, con-
science was seated on the throne, and life was a
great moral test of fitness for an eternity of
righteousness