A REVIEW OF MR. HERBERT SPENCER’S "THEORY OF THE WILL."

Dunstan Times, Issue 1036, 24 February 1882, Page 3

A REVIEW OF MR. HERBERT SPENCER’S "THEORY OF THE WILL."

At tlhccml er meeting i f the V'ctmh Philosophical Insrituto of Eiigl.jnl, which took [lace at ita house, 7, Adephi Terraoc, London, the Secretary, Captain P. Petrie, announced that tl is S .piety, founded to investigate philosophical ami scientific questions, especially those sai l to militate against the truth of lUvrlati«n had enrolled 122 members during the year. o F whieh 03 were resident in America and the Colonies, the total number of its m mbora was now 940 j it was fur'her s’ato'l iliat this year many of its American mem es had combin' d and founded the “ American Institute of Christian Philosophy," a Society to carry out the same objects ami whole scheme, mu that while taking this atep its founders had decided to keep up their individual connect on wiih the Ins itate in England. After this a paper was iead on Mr Herbert Spencer’s “Theory of th<- Will.”

Tne author showed that Mr Spencer’s philosophy doni-d all f eedorn of will, and made deliberation to be only ihc mental aspect of the commingling of nerveniolc•eules. (n the time of indeci-ion these were coliding one against another, hut when a decision had been reached the strongest nerve-stream had made Inal against all the rest, and was flowing nnolistinoted on its way. Such, according to Mr Spencer, was Ilia passage of deliberation into decision, hesitancy into volition Manifestly this set aside all freedom of will, made the whole process merely mechanical, and as MrSpem-er allowed, was the nega tion of moral obligation. The paper criticised Mr Spence’s argument, and main tained chat Mr Spencer, from first to last, had only made one hold assertion, and ha 1 repeated it many times, hut had given not one iota of proof. Thirteen of his arguments all he had presented—were carefully examined, and shown to be nothing more that coiiii lent asseition. Thrv were classified nn I replio Ito as follows F ; 'a f , Mr Spencer «aid that “the real proportion involved in ihe dogma n:' f ce will” is “ that every one is at lib ny to desire or not to desi.e.’’ Against this Kant and Hand ton were quote ', as admitting that we mutt desire, but holding that free will can restrain desire The mar yrs could net hut desire to avoid the (limes, but their sublime will hold in control iheir lower nature an ! compelled it ro obey the law of righteousness. Secondly, Mr Spencer simply assumed that the wll had no control or power of free choice, which was the very tiling he was bound to prove. He next called it “an illusion ” to think “ that ; t each moment the (go is something more than the aggregate of feelings and i leas actual and nascent which then exists.” Evidently, this was confounding substance phenomena, between the elsewhere he care fully decrlminated, and it was making the ego only a succession of states, and denvimr all substance of mind, which was going "contrary to one of the structural doctrines of his philosophy. .Mr Herbert Spencer had frequently stated that the ego was nothing else than the state of consciousness passing at the moment, hut this statement was never sought to ho proved, indeed he contradicted himself, inasmuch as ho spoke of “the subject of such psychical changes.” Now “subject’’ is that wlrch underlies phenomena lint ho had said the ego was only phenomena, so that his subject was only an hypostatizrd zero. He next suggested that the will seems to he free because its action is incalculable. .This was shown to bn only an ad caplandum argnmenh, for the flight of a bird through the air semi" tube untrained intelligence to b..- fie-, but, the student of sc’ece saw ti at every movement, of its w ing« was according to tix-d law. Mr Spencer lastly nrgt d that if psychical changes conformed to law there could mu. be such a thing as freewill. In rot) y to this, it was shown that, the w ill might make its own law, to whn-Ii psychical changes would conform ami yet bo free, and that the will would, in this way, a lumbr.ate its own mo-al nature. Taking for a moment thn Theistic position : surely (lid was free, and yet Ho perfectly conformed to his own law. so also mm might he free, purposely made so by (Tod, in order that, being free, he might acquire the true valour of righteousness. Tims all Mr Spcncei’s arguments had seemed ti mil when examined thoroughly, and the matter stood whore it was. Finally, it was contended that the freedom of the will was the unassailable citadel from which alone the doctrine of moral respomdbi'ity cuM bo def-nde and as such it was a question appeal dig powerfully to all, and having in it. the gravest, moral issues. With the avid free, conscience was seated on tho throne, and life was a great moral teat of fitness for an eternity of righteousness.