New-York tribune., 1884-03-03
LETTERS FROMTHE PEOPLE
RBER1 SPENCKR'S PHILOSOPRi,
CRITICS.
TO N. Editor Of The Trtbun,

TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: An amusing illustration of the pr0fund,
fly OF the current philosophical criticism IS afforded by
the fact mentioned the cable dispatches from London
published to-day, that Mr.. Spencer has written 20 The
Ahen0ua to complain that the Duke OF Argyll has
attributed to him words that he did not utter II they
had been quoted from his data Of Ethics" and the
parallel fact that for several years. since Mr..
John Fskc, his leading American disciple, has attributed
to him views Numerically opposed to those which he
advances In " First Principles" and which If he held
them would make t absurd for him TO speak Of any data
OF ethics part OF his system, he has never thought
worth while to set himself right either by defending the
position assumed In First Principles" or by openly
ayOving those attributed to him by his distinguishes
disciple and repudlating the former
The position referred TO is the maintained by Mr.
Spencer IN First Principles" that sensation, emotion
thought only transformed manifestations Of certain
physical agencies from which they arise, which he pro-
fesses to found upon the doctrine OF the correlation OF
forces and the contrary position OF Mr. Eke, which ho
also deduces from correlation, that physical phenomena
cannot possibly be Interpreted in terms Of matter and
notion, view which he also attributes TO Mr. Spencer
The why Mr. Spencer has not as yet found 1t
necessary free himself from the mputation OF holding
views regarding the very foundations OF his system which
fatty contradict each other that he has not resented
the OpprObrOus language which Mr. Fske applies to the
views which he plainly ayows, ia OF course that his
covered and have not pressed upon his attention. the
irrecOncable conflict which Mr. Fiske exposes between
his own views and those of his eminent disciple and
FOUNDER, and between his philosophy OF physical phe-
uomena and the doctrine Of correlation from which no
makes a lame attempt TO deduce H. IL Mr.. spencers
critics had studied his works with the very little atten-
ton necessary to enable them to discover such obvious
facts they need have exposed themselves 20 the NOR
tfyng charge OF misquOtng his words In order TO con-
trOver his positions They might In that case even have
the logical improperly involved in attacking
theory OF morals which had any right TO exist for
want connection with IT'S alleged foundations, on
OF its evil consequences IT. as MI F15ke shows,
psyOhica phenomena cannot possibly be eXpOunded IN
terms OF aud motion. then how ,an the data OF
ethics dhat is, the principles OF one branch OF peychl-
cal phenOmena) be legtimately brought into scheme
whose sole basis IL the persistence OF force and the doc
trtne of cOrreaOn Or II the system has no foundation,
why should trouble ourselves to do anything more
than expose its emptiness letting its consequences 90
for what they worth IL would be amusing II II were
serious matter to seem disheartenng to md
after the philosophical learning OF the has well nigh
exhausted itself in the endeayor to refnte Mr. spencers
philosophy that Mr. Spencer Is In position TO say as he
reported to have said and the facts show that he
may Justly say that his critics might have written about
much to the purpose they have done without read
ing his works at ALL and that they coneede upon his nero
assumption what he is utterly unable TO show that bis
system has rational connection with its alleged
foundations in the persistence O force aud the correlation
and conservation OF forces ). H. WILDEs
Netr- York, Feb. II, 1884.