The herald., 1895-06-10
limit OF UNDERSTANDING
According to Herbert Spencer's
Philosophy
Mr.. BAUMGARDT'S PAPER
Deals With the Finite, the Infinite and
Various Isms
Matter and Its Divisibility, the Anthropo-
morphic God, and the Phenomena of
Hind and Force

club on the Limit of Human Under
standln gAccording to Herbert Spencer S
Philosophy:
Is il possible for man to know every
thing? Are all the imaginings OF the hui
man mind equally valid?
These are questions with which we are
At the very outset confronted IN studying
the Synthetic philosophy of Herbert
Spencer. To these questions ne replies,
that as man is finite there must needs be
Q limit to his power OF understanding,
that there is sphere of movable
and veri fable truth; but also. is there a
sphere beyond it, where inquiry leads
only to pseudo acknowledgement Elusive
appearance of knowledge without any
reality behind it. There never will come
4 time when the whole region of possible
thought will be filed with absolute
knowledge. At the very limit of human
discovery there arises. and ever will
arise. the question, What lies beyond?"
1t is i'm possi BILE for us to frame state OF
consciousness answering to the concep
tion of infinite time, but it is equally
difficult to conceive of time when there
will be no time. Nor is it possible to
conceive of such limits to space as to ex-
Clude the idea OF space lying outside of
that limit. Spencer likens our knowl-
edge to a gradually increasing sphere
brought out i'll contrast with the sur
rounding nescience of the unknowable.
Man, being finite, can only hope, there
fore, tc understand the finite, and is by
the very nature Of the organically i'm
posed limits to his faculties debarred
beyond the finite. ITO know more, man
must be more"
rhe reason for this defect in the hui
man mind, to deal with that which tran
scends experience, is to be found in what
Snencer terms the relativity OF all knowl-
edge.
But what is knowledge? What is it to
understand? Obviously to know we must
know something, and OF course we have
to know it as this or that. as like some
thing else or different from something
else. We know things only by their con-
, trasts or by their resem blances-that is,
we know them in their relations to one
another. All analyses OF human intelli-
gence brings out this as its fundamental
element, and this principle Spencer des.
ignates as relatlvity of all nowledge.
Whatever transcends these rela-
tions and cannot be compared or
classed or contrasted; whatever is
unrelated, unconditional or absolute, is
therefore beyond our mental reach---is
unthinkable and belongs to the realms o i
the unknowable.
To the contemplative mind as it in
Course VI e'oiutloH ueVeloPS III specula-
tive power. the problem OF the universe
presents itself for solution. Whau is the
universe and why is it? Whence
came it, and what is it's ultimate des-
tiny? These are questions that press
for solution when from time to time,
the imagination rises above the trivialties
of the everyday theater of life. History
has shown that in the absence of correct
theories, any one proposed easily gains a
looting and afterward for a long time
maintains its ground. An examination
OF the matter with Spencer as guide,
is 10 current hypothesis tenable. but even
more than this-that no tenable hypothe-
SIS can possibly be framed.
There have already been three SUPPOSE
tions among thinking men, to account for
the origin and existence of the universe
the atheistlc, the pantheistic and the
theistic. representing respectively self
existing. a sclf-evolved and a universe
created by external agency.
The first, or atheistc asks us to think
of the universe as always having been
self-existing and self-supporting. 1t
in other words conveys a direct denial of
a creation or "a beginning. But this nee
essarily invol yes infinite past duration
for matter and force, and as this is un-
thinkable to the finite mind, therefore
the atheistic doctrine, into which it en-
ters. is equally unintelligible.
Inc pdutuelSb ASKS us lO lUlnk OF Gne
universe as being self-evolved. But how
can we possibly form a conception an
swering to this statement? To do so we
must conceive of the universe as having
existed from eternity in potential state,
then at some time, without any external
or additional impulse. passing into an
actual state--a change without any cause,
which is an absurdity. Then. again,
how can we define this potential panthe-
istic existence of the universe from the
actual existence in which we see it to-
Gay. Eit her potential existence must be
something or it must be nothing. But
there is a contradiction in either. for if
it is something, then necessarily it must
be something actual; while on the other
hand if Eve represent it in thought as
nothing. we arrive at the absurdity that
one nothing is distinguished from all
other nothings by it's power to develop
into something.
The theistic view is likewise beyond
the limits of the human understanding.
at least in its ultimate nature. Many of
us who find 1T impossible to represent in
thought self-existing universe, think
that 1T Is easier to comprehend O self-eX-
listing external agency or creator. But in
this we are mistaken. Self-ex stence is in
its very nature beyond our mental reach,
and this holds true whether the object
oe a universe. fancled potential some-
ling or an external agency. The fact is
lat tnelsm simply removes the difficult
"a step further back.
Yet the paradox remains, that one of
'cse three suppostions must be true.
IS. then. we find that the universe as
'ole. both as regards it's nature and
'rigin, as wella as the conditions
IN surround it-time and space-are
nd the limits OF the human concep-
Again, if we turn to the constituent
is OF the universe the same difficulties
sent themselves in all directions.
;e for instance, the old metaphysicaaI
blem OF matter and its divisibllity.
can divide and divide again piece
matter. naive 1T and naive it again and
gain, until at last we cannot imagine the
! agment to be further physically divisibles
Then we can mentally carry on the pro-
cess until the mind tires, and we give up
the task, declaring that our particle or
rather atom-of matter is so inf nitely
small that it cannot be further subdi-
vded. "But, tasks Spencer. has it not
got an upper and lower side, and a
right and q LETT side Just like any large
fragment OF matter?' "Yes. certainlv."
well. then, it car again be subdivided,
for We cannot imagine two sides being
so close together that plane OF cleavage
cannot pass between them"
Difficulties of the same nature present
shomse ives when we contemplate motion
and its various phenomena. or in con-
sidering force OF any kind in It's ulti-
mate nature.
The explanation of mind. too, as shown
as in the phenomena of thought, feeling
and consciousness, is likewise beyond the