New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-28
POPULAR OBSERVATIONS.
AGNOSTICISM AND EVOLUTION.
THE UTTERANCEs OF MR. SPENCER AND MR..
FISKE.

TO the Editor Of The Tribune
sir Mr.. s. II. wdcr's letter in recent number Of
The Tribune propounds certain questions and makes
certain assertions concerning the problems discussed
in my recent article "Agnosticism and MetagnOst
csm," in such courteous and argumenatvc form that
/ am constrained to ask the privilege OF replying
thereto.
The ingenuity with which Mr.. Wilder dissects a
paragraph from the last chapter of Spencers First
Principles"-a paragraph which, though somewhat
ambguousy expressed, in itself and with its natural
context is certainly intended by its author to be a
complete reputation, to the understanding mind, of the
charge Of materalism-and sets against it an as
sumed opposing statement Of Mr. FisAe is worthy Of
all praise-frOm those who admire the rcfnements of
textual exegesis. With all his ingenuity. however.
Mr.. Wilder seems to have overlooked a most funda~
mental difference in the statements Of Mr.. Spencer
and Mr.. Fiske which he thus contrasts: " BEFORE ..
philosopher correctly be charged with nateriasm
says MI. Flskc, 1t is absolutely necessary that he
should hold that physical phenomena . are
lntrprctable in terms Of matter and notion" As the
quotAtlon from Mr.. Spencer shows this is
precisely what lie does not do He nro
poses "tae Interpretation of all phenomena in
terms Of matter. motion and force.o This 1T.
lie WORD force is all-mpOrtant and IFS insertion
by MI. spencer harmonizes his thought substantaIv
win that Of Mr.. Fiske Mr.. Fiske has clearly shown
uIat the word force" is merely verbal metaphor
descriptive OF some observed observable sequence
VI P"O"VHo"@ lhtt III dOcS not imply the negative
oil the theistic idea. the interPositiOn OF entitled
natter as an active agent in the production of
phenomena. on the contrary, we only know Force
directly as resistance and the correlation Of forces
Is proved not by logical deduction from the observa
tlon Of material phenomena but by psychological
demonstration, through experience In other words,
Force as known to us Is spiritual or VITAL rather
than a materiastic concept. Moreover it should be
remembered that Mr. spencer in stating that what
exists in consciousness under the form of feeling is
uansformable into an equivalent of mechanical mo-
ton' is avowedly stating not his own position but
t.at OF the materalistc against whose dOgmas he is
arguing Unqucstionably Mr.. FiSle does not accept
this nateraliSiic statement, nor do /. Neither am
sure, does Mr.. Spencer though his language in this
isolated paragraph is less carefully guarded than
usual against such miSinterpetatOn. lie explicitly
declares the contrary view 10 be his OVID, in
Principles Of Psychology" volume l. page l5s,
and elsewhere. Mr.. spencer reduces both matter
and motion TO differently conditioned manifesto
tons Of Force G. First Prncples.") They arc, he
declares, "cOncrecS built up from the contents of
various mental redtiOns'-a definition which certainly
savorS more of idcalism than of materiallsm Else.
where he calls them modes of consciousness" and
afrns that while all other modes Of consciousness arc
dcrivable experiences Of Force experiences Of
Force are not derivablc from anything else" From
very nature ultimate relation in consciousness
however this undecomposabe element OF our
KNOWLEDGE is inscrutabe' Force cannot be itself the
power manifested 10 through phenomena but can
only lie regarded certain conditioned effect Of an
unconditional cause-as relative reality Indicating 70
us an absolute reality by which 1t Immediately pro-
duced.' Aud this absolute reality, lie elsewhere dc