New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-28

cares, must be greater less, than all that rep
resentable to in terms of human personality and
conscOusness-nnitey greater, therefore, than matter
which in his philosophy is no mysterious substance
or entity" but is wholly phenomenal" built from
the contents Of various mental relations
This bugbcar of materiasm so ingeniousy presented
by Mr.. Wilder will have no weight whatever in the
minds Of those who acquainted with the complete
writings of Mr. Spencer 1t is evidently unfair TO
interpret Spencer in terms Of Fiske. vice versa
but even under this attempted Interpretation, as We
have seen, no necessary antagonism is GSccrhblc.
II Mr.. Wilder had had the grace 10 complete the
paragraph part Of which he has quoted from First
Principles" he would have permitted your readers to
receive Mr.. Spencer's assurance that 81 he who
rightly nterprets the doctrine contained in this work
will see that neither Of these terms Nlacrialist
Spirituality can be taken ultimate. lie viii see
hat though the relation OF subject and oil jet renders
necessary to us these antthetcal conceptions Of Spirit
and Matter the Is 10 less than the other TO be
regarded as hut sign Of the unlnowable reality which
underes BOTH And if Mr.. Wilder had introduced
the previous portion Of the same section. he would
still further have elucidated Mr. Spcncer's anti
materalistc and "agnostic" position. In my sym
postum paper on "The Affirmative side Of AgnOs-
ticismn endeavOrcd terscly TO set forth my under
standing of tho doctrine Of the Synthetic Philosophy
in harmony with the views herewith presented. Nj
Spencer TO whom my statement subsequently sub
mlttPd writes 10 me. 1OHI statement OF my Wow Is
perfectly correct, and could not. | think, lie
more clearly given than you have given it,
That any one after reading the first part Of
First Principles SHOULD take any other view
implies to me either strange mcapacity or strange
pcrversity.7 If further proof Of the cOrprtnc>s
If this representation of Mr. spencer's views and Of
their identity with Mr.. Fske's desired it can be
found. in brief PIP. 443-44s Of the second volume
of CoSmic Philosophy"
While neither Mr. spencer Mr. Fiske Is respon-
slble for the arguments herein presented this Is
appears to me- is the gist of the present situation:
o. Mr.. spencer himself afrms and takes great pain,
to explain that his philosophy is not materialis,ic:
or Mr.. FiSkc, by Mr. Wilder's confession. - has
several times asserted that Mr. spencer does not hold
materalistic Views; (3) my own conviction, amount
ing 10 absolute certainty, after the most careful read
ing, IS to the same effect and my Interpretation Of
Mr.. spencers views ha. received his own Endorsement;
(U Mr.. Fske admittedly does rot hold materiaStid
views and regards Force spiritIaS,c rather than
materialstic conception. The conception Of matter
order Of thought that modern knowledge has entirely
outgrown"; 60 yet Mr.. Wilder assumes it 10 DE
indisputabe truth" that Mr. spencer is material
ist and that his views are IN direct miaconSm 10
those Of Mr. Fishe. j think might we'll leave the
argument to the intelligent Judgment of Your readers,
asking only that they shall duly weigh the evidence
of the passages quoted by Mr.. Wilder with their con
and in the light Of Mr.. spencerN other writings bear
ing upon the subject II is evident from the immediate
antithetcal' not Identical, and rs phcnomcnaly re-
lated to an npd f gnEno%an9 { ,a @ M
motion and force Is viewed by him, not ahodiny
any -ort of knowledge Of the essential nature Of This
ultimate reaty-still less n naterali>tic intcrpr'-
tatiOn hercOf-but merely rs >ymholcal representa-
ton Of its relation fnt" consciousness how
ever much they may be simplihcd. in his view " The
symbols remain symbols still 1t Is manifcsty un-
fair to infer from an isolated paragraph detached from
It's proper context theory Of things which !, contra
dict,d BY Mr.. Spcnccrs most explicit statement I'm that
context, and by all that he has elsewhere written;
The admitted c0ncOmanCc or paraleli-m Of psvchi al
with ratoriaiSt!c states which involve, a definite
though not casual relation II the term, Of matter,
motion and force with the movements 81 our thought
will perhaps in part explain the confusion which ha;
arisen in the minds OF those critics who mpuc mat"
rali,ic views to Mr.. spencer, but IL does not justify