LIBRARY NOTES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13894, 4 May 1907, Page 13

LIBRARY NOTES.

"EVOLUTION THE MASTER KEY" [ is fhe title of r.n interesting philosophical work recently added to the Athemeuin library. The author is Dr C. \V. Saieeby, who ailempt.i io show how the syiithclio pViilo.-.opli.v of Herbert Spencer stands in relation to the most advanced knowledge of our time. The work is written in a lucid manner, and serves admirably the purpose of giving !he average reader, who is unablo to understand the more abstruse writings of Spencer, a very good general idea of tho moaning of revolution i:i its widest, sense. The author points out. that evolution dees not mean, as many suppose, that man descended from a monkey. " This philosophy of ovohition teaches that all [■litimiinona th:ui;4o in accordance with certain laws, and attempts to give the 1 laws expression. It explicitly denies that theic aro any exceptions. Tho law applies to stars and souls, to atoms and oak trees, lo states and religions alike. With ihe exception of the law of the conservation of pnerifv. upon which its author built, it, I,his statement of absolutely universal evolution in surely tho greatest of all generalisations. . . . The popular use of tho lorm evolution, to signify the notion that man

descended from a monkey, is little less thin au abuse. of the term. Similarly .indefensible is the use of this term lo signify orgajiio evolution—tho theory that animals and plants, tu seen in existing specie', .".re evolved from other forms. Slill more indefensible is Ihe ridiculous identification of evolution with natural selection. ... It is here claimed for evolution—all such ridiculous limitations of ils moaning being repudiated—that, it is iho kev-lo the problems of all phenomena.: necessary alike lo tho chemist, (.he politician, and tho theologian." In referring to the law of tho conservation of energy—or, as Spencer preferred to eall it, tho persistence of force,— upon which the synthetic philosophy was founded. Dr Saieeby alludes to t.bo fact that at ono time energy was considered to ho (lislinct from, and almost antithetical to, matter. " Each was regarded as ultimate r.iul irresolvable. To-day . . . matter i'i not regarded as an ultimate, and the. statement of ils conservation is merged in t.!io newer and greater dogma—lho conservation of energy. But Sponcer anticipated this view nearly half a century ago, when radic-aelivily and the new thorny of matter were undreamed of." After showing (hat tho genesis of tho : dea of evolution was not to lie found in any intuition, bat \r,:9 n generalisation basjd upon the sum of facts known to the author. Dr Saleeby points out that in very many inslancc-s Iho views hold .50 years ago were irreconcilable with Iho doctrine of universal evolution. "Many, for instance, thought, the solar system io be stable and permanent, cnlculatod to last for over. Men s.pokn of the 'fixetl slats,' as many of ns si ill do, and regarded t hem as ficrnal. Tho author of the doctrine of nnivorsr,) evolution could not concur in those viowSj and time has proved him l'ijrhl. Similarly, tho belief in the ultimate^ 'elements' of matter was universally held."" It ws3 thought that an atom of carbon or iron lwd boon an atom of iron ov carbon since tho creation, and would bo until the sound of tho last trumpet. Spencer could not aceopt this view; and again tho verdict of time is on his side. When wo turn from pbvsies lo biology we find again that tho authority of the time was totally opposed to tho idea of evolution in the reslni of living realtor. The first independent thinker to'declare that the facts pointed to evolution, and not to opccial creation, was Herbert Sponcer," Dr Raleeby further shows (hat hi other fields of study—in psychology, in sociology, and. in ethic*— tho author of Iho synthetic philosophy inaugurated a now era bv his application of the law of evolution to those studies. In Ihis connection he also observes that it would bo to lack any adequate appreciation of the facts to suppose that Spencer merely took tho scicntific knowledge of his time' and built, upon that. Ho did. indeed, build upon the knowledge of his time; but, ho had first, to remake much of it. No mero study of Ihc recognised toxt-bonki of the various sciences could have yielded t.ho generalisation which is now the masterkey to nil our thinking." To follow Dr Ralooby through tho rest of his work, even if a mere indication were, given of tbo subjects touched upon by him, would take up too much space; but in view of the fact that Sponcer lias suffered a good deal from misrepresentation at the hands of the metaphysicians what the author of "Evolution the Master-key" has to say in regard to this may be briefly referred In. " Spencer," lie observes, "was not primarily an ontologist. His philosophy, designed to deal with phenomena, was nr.l at first intended to include any ultimate considerations. The section upon the unknov;1 able was not included as ih" basis for tho rest of the philosophy, which, as a unification of our phenomenal is independent, of any statement of any ontobgiejil position, just as is the law of gravitation. It. was very wisely' pointed out to Spencer that, in tho absence of any Gtatement as to his ultimate beliefs, misconception would arise. It-would naturally bo supposed that ho imagined his description of phenomena,to be a description of reality. Ho would, indeed, 1» accused of being a materialist. The section upon the unknowable was, therefore, included, under tho very natural expectation that it would remove all misconception and leave him free to develop his philosophy of phenomena without let or hindrance from the ontologists. This, however, was an entire miscalculation. Despite tho unequivocal assertions of this section ami their frenuent repetition end amplification elsewhere . . . the academic opponents ' of Spencer luive never slickled at misrepresentations which cannot possibly he explained wilhoul an assumption of either wilful misrepresentation or sheer stupidity.

• . . It is a curious, but perfectly intelligible, fact that the opponents of Sponsor that have attempted to refute him, have confined Ihomselvcs to thin small section of his work—a section upon which the validity of the synthetic philosophy does not obviously, mill cannot, depend." Dr Silecbv's work, which must bo regarded as ail' admirable defence of the synthetic philosophy, .should induce many who have not previously made the • acquaintance of Herbert Spencer to learn something more of that greatest achievement of human thought, either at the fountain head or from the writings of some of Spencer's disciples. To those who have not the time to peruse (he ponderous volumes of the "Synthetic Philosophy," a thorough study of which might well engage oue for half a life-time, Hudson's brief and popular exposition of the philosophy may be recommended, or "Herbert Spencer: the Man and His Work." by Hector Macnhcrson. " An Epitome of the Synthetic PhiloEonhy of llorliQrk Spencer," by F. Howard Col-' lins. to which Spenocr has contributed a preface, including an epitome of Iho epitome, may also he rend with ndvanti<re. Bui perhaps the best of all the expositions of the synthetic philosophy is Fished " Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," although it miift be admitted that more enthusiasm for writing of the character is required on the pari of the reader for the perusal of this werlc than for any of those previously mentioned.

OTHEtt ACCESSIONS TO Till' liIBRAY.

Tim following is a list of tho books atUod to the lilirarv during tho paM -week: Scicnno. —" Tlio Life of Animals," by Ernest InßOrec.ll.

TSiography.—" The Private Lives of William IT and His Consort," by Henry \V. l r ischor.

Essays.—" I Believe, and Other Essay?," by f'Uv Thorno.

Fiction.—"Tho Bishop of Cottonfnwn," by John Trotwood Moore: "Tl.o Kincmakers," by Armagh Barclay. "The Point. iti£ Firmer," bv " Itira" ; " Temptation." by Richard Bacjot: "The Story of Martin Coo," by Ralph 1). Paine.