New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-09-23

FlSKE CONTRAsTED.
rdtto. ofThe Tribune.
.;r. Iorr cor,r> pondcnt. the president OF the
prookvn Ethical Association. in his discussion OF tue
true nature of the maciialsm ana aeho>u'>m Vi ''''
.pencers evolutionary philosophy ana OF the oo''r'
~ the correlation Of forces, does me an nnmcrnc"
homo, when he attributes ingenuity to what he calls my
si>>.cton of the closing paragraph OF FIRST Prin'
Mr. speuccr'> allurcm-ut to tie Spirituast I"
,cromc reconccd 10 tho Maeriali>t-in terms winch can
to MUD The famous allocuti"n Of the SPIDER 1" III"
Nv, Ingenuity hardly requisite to the exposure
~ GU transparent effort Of >Nnc~>. The snare
VA, 20, too openly the sight 81 the bird. and II Wa
only necessary understand the pluI' Of EnEl.h to
.ce how II offers Ia the Mdcla>t al argument WHICH
# tr,,e would be under hi position imprtSnaoic While
10 the Spiritua>t it prop"~c, thai he shall only e'
n c,,n..t bv ,o,pinc tLr cucmv's forcc,. But
Your correspondent exercises the extreme oil III
cenuity in his effort cvade the inevitable c'ncn
SION II he fail>. he than suffers the fate oil
Mr. spencer. but why should not he fdil, whch l"
succeed would only lie to show that what Mr. spencer
alirm> he may be understood 10 deny. or that what
he dcnic, he in reality afrm>! says Your cor
Respondent MIR. Wilder seems to have overlooked
most fundamental difference i'll The statements III Nr.
Spencer and Mr.. TIskc. which he thus contrasts. lie
fore :. philosopher can lie justly charged WITH
material. m. SAYS Mr. Fi>kc absolutely necc>
.ary that he should hold that p>ychlcal phenomena
are inter prct.blc III terms of matter and motion ="
'
SAYS Your correspondent. this Is precisely what ne
does bot do. He proposes the Interpretation OF all
phenomena IN terms of matter. motion ana force. Inns
it'll. word force all important. and its insertion 10y
Mr. spencer harmonzc> his thought substantially with
that Of Nj. F>kc.' The difference. thinks your
torrc> p,ldcnt. between cXpounding phenomena III
terms g: and motion, md i'll terms of matter,
mu,iou AID force. has no resemblance to that between
taccd!rirm ard iwccdlcdec but Is altogether fundl-
rcntlI - spencer and Mr.. Fi>ke will II"
Doubt open wide with surprise 1T their own
lich "t .tcuncn in not having anticipated your cor
respondent III ti> discovery. For surely neither OF
these philosophers ever thought OF 20 unique plan
for Gctim: tn matcria>m out of evolution by mar
lO"zlnc assertion with denial.
Let Il moment how it WORKS Nlr. Fislc bases
his denial Of macraii~in the correlation of force.
What l. that hut another WAY of saving that the opera
Of phi, seal forces fails To eNp,in the phenomena
Of the human inind Mr. spencer however, assures
rs. that ANY hesitation admit ihi, between the
phy steal forces and the sensations there exists
coi relation lhc that 'c:wccn the physical forces them
selves disappear remembering that the one
coi relation like The other is not qualitative only.
hut ouarti,ativc." Now. If coud only remember
lie alleged premise. doubt the CONCLUSION wuld
follow. But Y i Just here that the difficulty begins
s,nce Mr.. Fi>hc has shown. such correlation ex
ISIS. How, then. we remember it SAYS Mr..
Iske here. words which acain call the attention
OF Your corrc>p oHdcnt: Whatever goes in any way
rs physical force. and phase o: every
Transformation who" Il undergo the mean
tine must ~" r.-orJI>ly accounted for n oi
phvsica, fore" else the law Ui ;he cou-ciNa
ton Of cnrl+y viii not he satisfied" Now.
what MIR II>kc here declares L. ~. non>cn>e
is What Iir. spencer holds b., ilu" AID both dcal
and affirmation cou,hcd identical of IN,
correlation Of forces
Your core pordci thinks thar il should l." em.n
l~rcd that Mr.. spencer in Stain: tLt, what cAi~i
ia consciousness under the form OF feeling is iran
fornable into unit Of hanca motion i, avowrdN
stating net hi own pp>ton. hut that of tho materials
asan-t whose d"cina> nc i ar-unc. \ more carci !!
II aiding OF The passage H. whole VIII convince him.
however. that w. spencer i stating the argument
which hi system iurn~h, to the naicria>t. and tia.
he Is arguing for aud not against the aI~ird dogma.
which he maintains Necessary deduction frun the
correlation Of forces: I'M h"!n; vi. Tl>,c clearly
.I-w-. the unrsi,.r ~. re TIE way .: oar
belief IN H. tcr'aIHy Nh Fi-ke does not believe in
IT. brt ho~ hoth T." ard v"nr CORE >pond"' caa ~
g. i VII. Spencer 90 II the face "i H. repeated ,
+'"Na!> II ! nm - cay I" understand. II he Will
- rNduiTr "a" context. omission of which he ~
ru'h ltrcut~. VuIr >pondcnt whl also find that
". >p.n,": G,"- 'ot ~ DENY the ma'eria>m with
w!i.h 'i,I'-c riul. Lat HAT. on the contrary he
openly av"w> the rtI'non Of .'thc p'icao1cna Of
h:r. t'ad. did Of "c"jy. 10 level vii tin>.~ II
matter. at Il" denies ,",nS on!v thai h~ constitutes
mat"ii!i-.r. H. denial. Therefore. puts Inn IN con
f., with Mr.. fi>k". al two p,iGt. instead Of one
l. :..it.',lu- L." docs That Tn" cll:iral theory
l. tri" ll:i inirrali-i VI. F!>l" miartainu,
III. CONTRARY Wat ii i mAe!illi,iic but untrue.
Nor j. the approved in the lc.t By tic pa,,as,
i' NL.ci referred by your cores Ondelt IL a
fItlcy proof Of the coirectne> of hi> Representative
g. Mr.. spencer view, and Of their agreement with Mr.
>ncs. T"r adequate attention to the reconcile.
anon which there attempted. and comparison OF il
with Mr spcmcc!> numerous avowal-. will disclose the
ALI, NcfV VIII, hay.
e. exist. I'll" passage referred t. "Cv>fnlc Pio,o
pls one III winch Mr.. Fi>he seeks to eliminate the
tatrrsll tie implications involved the Technology
which Mr. spencer hahitually uses: and TO show by the
substitution Of Il le> Objectionable term tina: il i il
the form 81 expression and not IN the .oian. INTENDED
Ia b. conveyed
Numerous passages are to DC found throughout The
greater part q, First Principles" which art tie the
ur Of mechanical cau~atlon which ttut"> material
>nI. II would bc impossible to read them without Won
Gering al the ntrIaon Of your pondcnt that The
doctrine OF til" passage which am said To- have GIssc't
d conir:,ctcd by tho immediate context and bv al.
mat Nr. spencer has elsewhere written have already
,ed attention 10 the fact that Nj. >l".r"r doc not
contradict the doctrine one p in the inic
date context bnt that on TIE contrary lie openly
H. den. Inc only that If constitutes mat .rali,in
l ha, dcna! may for the present leave Mr.. spencer
ana >pondcnt to etIr with Mr.. F>hc, while
| call attention to passage. l. which other Il,
pertinent might be added ,sdul. showing that the
doctrine is taught aN not denied contr,dict"d
elsewhere II: Mr. spencer writing. The words winch
follow from the concluding portion Ot tie chapter
The Transformation and Equiv aIca'r Of Forces,
sid constitute the conclusion Of Argument running
Though the chapter:
REGARDING an induction. the doctrine sci forth IA
thS chapter Will most likely b" met by a demurrer
Many who admit that amor ply steal phenomenal. al
least, Transformation Of force, established Will
probably say that inquiry has not Yet gone far enough
10 enable Us to predict ci'dlcHc". And III RESPECT {"
inc forces Chased vital. mental and social the cr
den'c assigned. however little 10 b" explained aWdy
they Will consider Ly NJ mean, ,,.clu>Ivc even ol
tran. >iO.iiatiOi much c,, of u,IvaIr,.cr
i" those who think ;lus II Inu. u.,. how Ncr D.:
P'lFn "U' t"dt inc universal above ILLUSTRATED