The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-20
(From the Presbyterian Banner.)
Not the First Thinker.

conclusiveness, the vagueness and the
oarrenness OF his statements and reason
lngs, 1T mas always seemed strange that
so many preachers should think it neces-
sary to hurl brick-bat at him or give
him sly dig every now and then. And
what there is in all that he has ever pro-
posed to excite such adulation as has
been lavished upon him by a part of the
secular press, no one can see, who has
even mere general knowledge of phil
osophlcal systems AS Mr.. Spencer is an
evolutionist and also an agnostic, it is
easy to see why infdels admire him.
since the number of philosophers whom
they can claim as their own is very
small. That banquet should have been
gwen to him in New York as " the lead
ing English thinker of the day." shows
that those who got it up had very in
adequate idea of what a leading"
thinker" is.
In recent lecture Professor Laid,
who is Instructor in psychology in Yale
College, and is widely known as scholar
and thinker, expressed surprise at the
position given him by his admirers at the
New York banquet. One of Prof. Ladd' s
pupils, who as matter of course knows
all about Herbert Spencer's philosophy
and every thing else, took exception to
what the Professor had said and crit
clsed him through the college press in
tue most approved undergraduate style.
The professor would have been UNSUITABLE
in not noticing the attack from such
source and in such manner, neverthe-
less he devoted late lecture, to an ex-
PLANTATION of what he had previously
said, and also to the position of Mr..
Spencer as a thinker. His words were
about these:
1t is as candid to consider Spencer
not the first English philosopher as that
he IS | do not say anything about our
indebtedness to him as a sociologist.
do not allow that he is conceded to stand
at the head of English thinkers, as has
been claimed. But whatever might be
the opinion of the majority, l have
right to my own. views, and, as your
teacher, should have the right to
express them. This position is not,
however, unanimously conceded to Spen.
Ger. There are many right about
here who have spent their lives in the
study OF science and philosophy, and
have become famous and respected as
thinkers who would not concede it. In
two ways we might find out whether the
concession Is universal: Grst, by studying
the thinkers of all countries or by writ
ing to them and forming our opinion by
induction second, by a wide reading Of
books and magazines. l do not profess
to having read or written so very widely
but L have thought somewhat, and ex
press what think to be true. In Eng
land there is a small class who support
and defend Spencer-men who as a rule.
have never read much philosophy but
IN the universities the majority not only
do not concede his position, but antago-
n1ze 1T: In this country, those who pro-
claim him are not men given up to phil
osophy, highly respectable though thew
may be. The majority of such men as
DR.. Harris, who is better versed in phil
osophy than is Spencer, do not concede
the position. In France it is the same.
In Germany, we may judge by the tones
OF current philosophical literature
Wundt, In his great work, makes no re-
terence to Spencer anywhere. Hence
liberal men may believe that Spencer's
position is not largely conceded. Yet we
must think for ourselves, and I shall tell
you frankly what l think. I am not in
tallible, L do not teach dogmat;eally; I
only say that [ think l know a thinker
when | see him. Spencer is an enduring
workman and as such is to be commend
ed. But when you have learned more
OF the drift of our philosophical thought,
you may know some reasons why not
to accept his philosophy. FIRST: the
method in which his philosophy is
developed and presented makes me
cautious about assigning any perma-
nent place to it. The universe is
large, and it is a great undertaking
to attempt to give complete sys-
tenn of it. 1t has been tried by great
men in vain. But how does Spencer an
nounce the law of the universe? Born
in 1920, civil engineer without phil
osophical reading, he wrote few news
paper articles and his Principles In
1860 he first announced his system; in
twenty-five years the whole system has
been completed At forty years of age, in
his first volume, he announces irrevocablv
his whole scheme. This is enough to
assure one Of dogmatism and prejudice
in the work Second, l am suspicious
because the foundation of the work is
that of mechanical evolution. There is
a wide distinction between evolution
and development. All scientists believe