Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11), Herbert Spencer [historical books to read .txt] 📗

Part 2 Chapter 3 (On The Genesis Of Science) Pg 100

        _Pneumatogeny_ Being The   Doctrine Of    Immaterial Totalities, And

        _Hylogeny_ That Of    Material Totalities.)

 

 

 

     Part Ii.  Ontology.--_Cosmogeny_: Rest, Centre, Motion, Line,

               Planets, Form, Planetary System, Comets.--_Stöchiogeny_:

               Condensation, Simple Matter, Elements, Air, Water,

               Earth--_Stöchiology_: Functions Of    The   Elements, Etc.,

               Etc.--_Kingdoms Of    Nature_: Individuals.

 

 

 

        (He Says In Explanation That "Ontology Teaches Us The   Phenomena

        Of    Matter. The   First Of    These Are The   Heavenly Bodies

        Comprehended By _Cosmogeny_. These Divide Into

        Elements--_Stöchiogeny_. The   Earth Element Divides Into

        Minerals--_Mineralogy_. These Unite Into One Collective

        Body--_Geogeny_. The   Whole In Singulars Is The   Living, Or

        _Organic_, Which Again Divides Into Plants And Animals.

        _Biology_, Therefore, Divides Into _Organogeny_, _Phytosophy_,

        _Zoosophy_.")

 

 

 

               First Kingdom.--Minerals. _Mineralogy_, _Geology_.

 

 

 

     Part Iii. Biology.--_Organosophy_, _Phytogeny_, _Phyto-Physiology_,

               _Phytology_, _Zoogeny_, _Physiology_, _Zoology_,

               _Psychology_.

 

 

 

A Glance Over This Confused Scheme Shows That It Is An Attempt To

Classify Knowledge, Not After The   Order In Which It Has Been, Or May Be,

Built Up In The   Human Consciousness; But After An Assumed Order Of

Creation. It Is A Pseudo-Scientific Cosmogony, Akin To Those Which Men

Have Enunciated From The   Earliest Times Downwards; And Only A Little

More Respectable. As Such It Will Not Be Thought Worthy Of    Much

Consideration By Those Who, Like Ourselves, Hold That Experience Is The

Sole Origin Of    Knowledge. Otherwise, It Might Have Been Needful To Dwell

On The   Incongruities Of    The   Arrangements--To Ask How Motion Can Be

Treated Of    Before Space? How There Can Be Rotation Without Matter To

Rotate? How Polarity Can Be Dealt With Without Involving Points And

Lines? But It Will Serve Our Present Purpose Just To Point Out A Few Of

The Extreme Absurdities Resulting From The   Doctrine Which Oken Seems To

Hold In Common With Hegel, That "To Philosophise On Nature Is To

Re-Think The   Great Thought Of    Creation." Here Is A Sample:--

 

 

 

"Mathematics Is The   Universal Science; So Also Is Physio-Philosophy,

Although It Is Only A Part, Or Rather But A Condition Of    The   Universe;

Both Are One, Or Mutually Congruent.

 

 

 

"Mathematics Is, However, A Science Of    Mere Forms Without Substance.

Physio-Philosophy Is, Therefore, _Mathematics Endowed With Substance_."

 

 

 

From The   English Point Of    View It Is Sufficiently Amusing To Find Such A

Dogma Not Only Gravely Stated, But Stated As An Unquestionable Truth.

Here We See The   Experiences Of    Quantitative Relations Which Men Have

Gathered From Surrounding Bodies And Generalised (Experiences Which Had

Been Scarcely At All Generalised At The   Beginning Of    The   Historic

Period)--We Find These Generalised Experiences, These Intellectual

Abstractions, Elevated Into Concrete Actualities, Projected Back Into

Nature, And Considered As The   Internal Framework Of    Things--The Skeleton

By Which Matter Is Sustained. But This New Form Of    The   Old Realism Is By

No Means The   Most Startling Of    The   Physio-Philosophic Principles. We

Presently Read That,

 

 

 

"The Highest Mathematical Idea, Or The   Fundamental Principle Of    All

Mathematics Is The   Zero = 0."....

 

 

 

"Zero Is In Itself Nothing. Mathematics Is Based Upon Nothing, And,

_Consequently_, Arises Out Of    Nothing.

 

 

 

"Out Of    Nothing, _Therefore_, It Is Possible For Something To Arise; For

Mathematics, Consisting Of    Propositions, Is Something, In Relation To

0."

 

 

 

By Such "Consequentlys" And "Therefores" It Is, That Men Philosophise

When They "Re-Think The   Great Thought Of    Creation." By Dogmas That

Pretend To Be Reasons, Nothing Is Made To Generate Mathematics; And By

Clothing Mathematics With Matter, We Have The   Universe! If Now We Deny,

As We _Do_ Deny, That The   Highest Mathematical Idea Is The   Zero;--If, On

The Other Hand, We Assert, As We _Do_ Assert, That The   Fundamental Idea

Underlying All Mathematics, Is That Of    Equality; The   Whole Of    Oken's

Cosmogony Disappears. And Here, Indeed, We May See Illustrated, The

Distinctive Peculiarity Of    The   German Method Of    Procedure In These

Matters--The Bastard _À Priori_ Method, As It May Be Termed. The

Legitimate _À Priori_ Method Sets Out With Propositions Of    Which The

Negation Is Inconceivable; The   _À Priori_ Method As Illegitimately

Applied, Sets Out Either With Propositions Of    Which The   Negation Is

_Not_ Inconceivable, Or With Propositions Like Oken's, Of    Which The

_Affirmation_ Is Inconceivable.

 

 

 

It Is Needless To Proceed Further With The   Analysis; Else Might We

Detail The   Steps By Which Oken Arrives At The   Conclusions That "The

Planets Are Coagulated Colours, For They Are Coagulated Light; That The

Sphere Is The   Expanded Nothing;" That Gravity Is "A Weighty Nothing, A

Heavy Essence, Striving Towards A Centre;" That "The Earth Is The

Identical, Water The   Indifferent, Air The   Different; Or The   First The

Centre, The   Second The   Radius, The   Last The   Periphery Of    The   General

Globe Or Of    Fire." To Comment On Them Would Be Nearly As Absurd As Are

The Propositions Themselves. Let Us Pass On To Another Of    The   German

Systems Of    Knowledge--That Of    Hegel.

 

Part 2 Chapter 3 (On The Genesis Of Science) Pg 101

 

The Simple Fact That Hegel Puts Jacob Boehme On A Par With Bacon,

Suffices Alone To Show That His Standpoint Is Far Remote From The   One

Usually Regarded As Scientific: So Far Remote, Indeed, That It Is Not

Easy To Find Any Common Basis On Which To Found A Criticism. Those Who

Hold That The   Mind Is Moulded Into Conformity With Surrounding Things By

The Agency Of    Surrounding Things, Are Necessarily At A Loss How To Deal

With Those, Who, Like Schelling And Hegel, Assert That Surrounding

Things Are Solidified Mind--That Nature Is "Petrified Intelligence."

However, Let Us Briefly Glance At Hegel's Classification. He Divides

Philosophy Into Three Parts:--

 

 

 

1. _Logic_, Or The   Science Of    The   Idea In Itself, The   Pure Idea.

 

 

 

2. _The Philosophy Of    Nature_, Or The   Science Of    The   Idea Considered

Under Its Other Form--Of The   Idea As Nature.

 

 

 

3. _The Philosophy Of    The   Mind_, Or The   Science Of    The   Idea In Its

Return To Itself.

 

 

 

Of These, The   Second Is Divided Into The   Natural Sciences, Commonly So

Called; So That In Its More Detailed Form The   Series Runs Thus:--Logic,

Mechanics, Physics, Organic Physics, Psychology.

 

 

 

Now, If We Believe With Hegel, First, That Thought Is The   True Essence

Of Man; Second, That Thought Is The   Essence Of    The   World; And That,

Therefore, There Is Nothing But Thought; His Classification, Beginning

With The   Science Of    Pure Thought, May Be Acceptable. But Otherwise, It

Is An Obvious Objection To His Arrangement, That Thought Implies Things

Thought Of--That There Can Be No Logical Forms Without The   Substance Of

Experience--That The   Science Of    Ideas And The   Science Of    Things Must

Have A Simultaneous Origin. Hegel, However, Anticipates This Objection,

And, In His Obstinate Idealism, Replies, That The   Contrary Is True; That

All Contained In The   Forms, To Become Something, Requires To Be Thought:

And That Logical Forms Are The   Foundations Of    All Things.

 

 

 

It Is Not Surprising That, Starting From Such Premises, And Reasoning

After This Fashion, Hegel Finds His Way To Strange Conclusions. Out Of

_Space_ And _Time_ He Proceeds To Build Up _Motion_, _Matter_,

_Repulsion_, _Attraction_, _Weight_, And _Inertia_. He Then Goes On To

Logically Evolve The   Solar System. In Doing This He Widely Diverges

From The   Newtonian Theory; Reaches By Syllogism The   Conviction That The

Planets Are The   Most Perfect Celestial Bodies; And, Not Being Able To

Bring The   Stars Within His Theory, Says That They Are Mere Formal

Existences And Not Living Matter, And That As Compared With The   Solar

System They Are As Little Admirable As A Cutaneous Eruption Or A Swarm

Of Flies.[2]

 

 

 

Results So Outrageous Might Be Left As Self-Disproved, Were It Not That

Speculators Of    This Class Are Not Alarmed By Any Amount Of    Incongruity

With Established Beliefs. The   Only Efficient Mode Of    Treating Systems

Like This Of    Hegel, Is To Show That They Are Self-Destructive--That By

Their First Steps They Ignore That Authority On Which All Their

Subsequent Steps Depend. If Hegel Professes, As He Manifestly Does, To

Develop His Scheme By Reasoning--If He Presents Successive Inferences As

_Necessarily Following_ From Certain Premises; He Implies The   Postulate

That A Belief Which Necessarily Follows After Certain Antecedents Is A

True Belief: And, Did An Opponent Reply To One Of    His Inferences, That,

Though It Was Impossible To Think The   Opposite, Yet The   Opposite Was

True, He Would Consider The   Reply Irrational. The   Procedure, However,

Which He Would Thus Condemn As Destructive Of    All Thinking Whatever, Is

Just The   Procedure Exhibited In The   Enunciation Of    His Own First

Principles.

 

 

 

Mankind Find Themselves Unable To Conceive That There Can Be Thought

Without Things Thought Of. Hegel, However, Asserts That There _Can_ Be

Thought Without Things Thought Of. That Ultimate Test Of    A True

Proposition--The Inability Of    The   Human Mind To Conceive The   Negation Of

It--Which In All Other Cases He Considers Valid, He Considers Invalid

Where It Suits His Convenience To Do So; And Yet At The   Same Time Denies

The Right Of    An Opponent To Follow His Example. If It Is Competent For

Him To Posit Dogmas, Which Are The   Direct Negations Of    What Human

Consciousness Recognises; Then Is It Also Competent For His Antagonists

To Stop Him At Every Step In His Argument By Saying, That Though The

Particular Inference He Is Drawing Seems To His Mind, And To All Minds,

Necessarily To Follow From The   Premises, Yet It Is Not True, But The

Contrary Inference Is True. Or, To State The   Dilemma In Another

Form:--If He Sets Out With Inconceivable Propositions, Then May He With

Equal Propriety Make All His Succeeding Propositions Inconceivable

Ones--May At Every Step Throughout His Reasoning Draw Exactly The

Opposite Conclusion To That Which Seems Involved.

 

 

 

Hegel's Mode Of    Procedure Being Thus Essentially Suicidal, The   Hegelian

Classification Which Depends Upon It Falls To The   Ground. Let Us

Consider Next That Of    M. Comte.

 

 

 

As All His Readers Must Admit, M. Comte Presents Us With A Scheme Of    The

Sciences Which, Unlike The   Foregoing Ones, Demands Respectful

Consideration. Widely As We Differ From Him, We Cheerfully Bear Witness

To The   Largeness Of    His Views, The   Clearness Of    His Reasoning, And The

Value Of    His Speculations As Contributing To Intellectual Progress. Did

We Believe A Serial Arrangement Of    The   Sciences To Be Possible, That Of

M. Comte Would Certainly Be The   One We Should Adopt. His Fundamental

Propositions Are Thoroughly Intelligible; And If Not True, Have A Great

Semblance Of    Truth. His Successive Steps Are Logically Co-Ordinated; And

He Supports His Conclusions By A Considerable Amount Of

Evidence--Evidence Which, So Long As It Is Not Critically Examined, Or

Not Met By Counter Evidence, Seems To Substantiate His Positions. But It

Only Needs To Assume That Antagonistic Attitude Which _Ought_ To Be

Assumed Towards New Doctrines, In The   Belief That, If True, They Will

Prosper By Conquering Objectors--It Needs But To Test His Leading

Doctrines Either By Other Facts Than Those He Cites, Or By His Own Facts

Part 2 Chapter 3 (On The Genesis Of Science) Pg 102

Differently Applied, To At Once Show That They Will Not Stand. We Will

Proceed Thus To Deal With The   General Principle On Which He Bases His

Hierarchy Of    The   Sciences.

 

 

 

In The   Second Chapter Of    His _Cours De Philosophic Positive_, M. Comte

Says:--"Our Problem Is,