What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosophy of Style
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1852
53 people are currently reading
463 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Spencer
1,583 books244 followersHerbert Spencer was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.
Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.
Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.
Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.
Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 16, 2015
This book was such a pleasure.
Herbert Spencer sets here to describe the rules that capture how best to use language - namely how to convey ideas in such a way so that they leave their impression while at the same time the mental energies and mental sensitivities of the reader/listener are economised. (Thus for example the principle of the ‘economy of mental energies’ is itself one of the principles of composition.)
Some of the rules Spencer describes are fairly straightforward - eg the rule that one should put the word producing the greatest impression at the end of a list and not at its start.
Other of the rules are more original - eg the one that shorter words are in most cases to be preferred to longer ones (this making in English Saxon words preferable to those of Latin origin). Except, Spencer says, when the word is supposed to produce a great impression, in which case a greater length might be an advantage, because it makes the mind spend a longer time on the idea.
Those rules are not laid out at random; as seen above, Spencer keeps in mind the process of thought-formation while perceiving words, sentences, texts; (the rules can be said to be rules just because their use brings about the least frustration to the perceiving mind, while at the same time producing the greatest impression). This process of thought-formation I find quite interesting to meditate on.
My favourite rule that Spencer mentions is the one that in a phrase the adjective should precede the noun, and not the other way around. That is, it is better to say ‘black horse’ (with the English), rather than ‘horse black’ (as the Spanish say: ‘caballo negro’). This is so, Spencer argues, because if we say ‘horse black’ the mind is first impelled to think about a horse before it hears the specification ‘black’. However, since one cannot imagine a colourless horse, the mind necessarily imagines a horse of a particular colour, say a brown one (since brown horses are most common). Thus the mind has already spent some effort in forming the idea of a horse of a particular colour when, at subsequently hearing the adjective ‘black’, the mind has to modify the idea that has already started to form. All this re-modification wastes mental energy, Spencer argues, and so it is better to put the more abstract, less specified in front - the adjective in front of the noun.
Overall, I really liked the idea of the book. It is basically a search for the most efficient way to use a language system, and it makes me wonder if there is such a thing as an objectively most efficient language. Some of the rules Spencer describes might be controversial, but all are thought-provoking, as is the book itself.
PS: I listened to the LibriVox audiobook - although the narration wasn’t the very best I’ve heard, it is definitely quite good, so I would recommend a listen.
Herbert Spencer sets here to describe the rules that capture how best to use language - namely how to convey ideas in such a way so that they leave their impression while at the same time the mental energies and mental sensitivities of the reader/listener are economised. (Thus for example the principle of the ‘economy of mental energies’ is itself one of the principles of composition.)
Some of the rules Spencer describes are fairly straightforward - eg the rule that one should put the word producing the greatest impression at the end of a list and not at its start.
Other of the rules are more original - eg the one that shorter words are in most cases to be preferred to longer ones (this making in English Saxon words preferable to those of Latin origin). Except, Spencer says, when the word is supposed to produce a great impression, in which case a greater length might be an advantage, because it makes the mind spend a longer time on the idea.
Those rules are not laid out at random; as seen above, Spencer keeps in mind the process of thought-formation while perceiving words, sentences, texts; (the rules can be said to be rules just because their use brings about the least frustration to the perceiving mind, while at the same time producing the greatest impression). This process of thought-formation I find quite interesting to meditate on.
My favourite rule that Spencer mentions is the one that in a phrase the adjective should precede the noun, and not the other way around. That is, it is better to say ‘black horse’ (with the English), rather than ‘horse black’ (as the Spanish say: ‘caballo negro’). This is so, Spencer argues, because if we say ‘horse black’ the mind is first impelled to think about a horse before it hears the specification ‘black’. However, since one cannot imagine a colourless horse, the mind necessarily imagines a horse of a particular colour, say a brown one (since brown horses are most common). Thus the mind has already spent some effort in forming the idea of a horse of a particular colour when, at subsequently hearing the adjective ‘black’, the mind has to modify the idea that has already started to form. All this re-modification wastes mental energy, Spencer argues, and so it is better to put the more abstract, less specified in front - the adjective in front of the noun.
Overall, I really liked the idea of the book. It is basically a search for the most efficient way to use a language system, and it makes me wonder if there is such a thing as an objectively most efficient language. Some of the rules Spencer describes might be controversial, but all are thought-provoking, as is the book itself.
PS: I listened to the LibriVox audiobook - although the narration wasn’t the very best I’ve heard, it is definitely quite good, so I would recommend a listen.
January 8, 2019
To the modern ear, a lot of the "philosophy" here will sound either strange or common. It's worth a glance if you're an stylistic aficionado.
Writer as chameleon: that is the message I will carry away from Spencer.
the prefect writer will express himself as Junius, when in the Junius frame of mind; when he feels as Lamb felt, will use a like familiar speech; and will fall into the ruggedness of Carlyle when in a Carlylean mood.
Writer as chameleon: that is the message I will carry away from Spencer.
September 20, 2012
Good advice, but with great irony the writing is unnecessarily convoluted.
April 1, 2018
Alternative title: "on good style, written in bad style"
Even an experienced philosopher can make the mistake only a novice linguist does: See his own language as the apex of logic, the pinnacle of human thought, lucidity itself.
Consider the case Spencer makes for the superiority of Adjective+Noun constructs in English. As a positivist, he claims that the human mind doesn't think in abstracts, only particulars. When you say 'cup', the image that comes to mind is nothing but an image of a particular cup you saw before. Therefore, when you say "blue cup", you conjure the image more clearly than if you say "cup blue" because your image might be a white cup, so adjectives modify your mental image and avoid conflict of images. This is very well-reasoned nonsense.
Unlike what positivists claim, the human mind IS capable of thinking in abstracts; their view may be plausible in material objects, but what about concepts like 'color'? It does not conjure an image of a particular color, nor a visual image at all (or it would be the image of that color itself), but yet one can understand it completely. So the case for noun+adjective constructs (used in the Romance and Semitic Languages) is in fact more convincing.
The writing is anything but clear. some parts have to be read over and over to be understood. The examples are not all that illuminating. Some sentences drag on for so long that my inner English teacher is screaming in agony.
The point is that Spencer is neither an authority on human mind nor good style. He was right about one thing: we do need a philosophy of style.
Even an experienced philosopher can make the mistake only a novice linguist does: See his own language as the apex of logic, the pinnacle of human thought, lucidity itself.
Consider the case Spencer makes for the superiority of Adjective+Noun constructs in English. As a positivist, he claims that the human mind doesn't think in abstracts, only particulars. When you say 'cup', the image that comes to mind is nothing but an image of a particular cup you saw before. Therefore, when you say "blue cup", you conjure the image more clearly than if you say "cup blue" because your image might be a white cup, so adjectives modify your mental image and avoid conflict of images. This is very well-reasoned nonsense.
Unlike what positivists claim, the human mind IS capable of thinking in abstracts; their view may be plausible in material objects, but what about concepts like 'color'? It does not conjure an image of a particular color, nor a visual image at all (or it would be the image of that color itself), but yet one can understand it completely. So the case for noun+adjective constructs (used in the Romance and Semitic Languages) is in fact more convincing.
The writing is anything but clear. some parts have to be read over and over to be understood. The examples are not all that illuminating. Some sentences drag on for so long that my inner English teacher is screaming in agony.
The point is that Spencer is neither an authority on human mind nor good style. He was right about one thing: we do need a philosophy of style.
June 22, 2021
Spencer is not wrong in some of his advice, and I admire the aspiration of laying out some principles of good writing and style explicitly. But boy is he the wrong man for the job. First of all, he does not really know enough about language to write on the subject. How could he? He was writing when linguistics was in its infancy as a field, and he was no linguist himself. Second, he manages to violate every one of his principles in this book. He never uses one English word when ten Greek and Latinate loans will do. He also uses the most baroque, awkward syntax he can.
I was listening to this as a Librivox audiobook, and it is so awkwardly written that the reader kept getting lost in convoluted clauses and stumbling over unfamiliar words (hyperbole, polysyllabic, synecdoche). That is a good test of well-written prose, by the way, Mr. Spencer: when you read it out loud, if you stumble, that means the paragraph could be simpler. But one does not write advice like this thinking he needs it himself. One writes such a book because one thinks himself a better writer than everyone around him. Occasionally, a good writer will produce a good writing book. But this is not a good writer or a good book.
I was listening to this as a Librivox audiobook, and it is so awkwardly written that the reader kept getting lost in convoluted clauses and stumbling over unfamiliar words (hyperbole, polysyllabic, synecdoche). That is a good test of well-written prose, by the way, Mr. Spencer: when you read it out loud, if you stumble, that means the paragraph could be simpler. But one does not write advice like this thinking he needs it himself. One writes such a book because one thinks himself a better writer than everyone around him. Occasionally, a good writer will produce a good writing book. But this is not a good writer or a good book.
March 30, 2020
A short essay on composition, style, and grammar. It develops a rather coherent and easy to follow argument about the "economy of mind" as the limiting factor in good communication. In short, he thinks that we should make it as easy as possible for the reader to understand what we want to say and the emotional state that we want to impress upon them. In weaker moments, he argues for the superiority of the English word order (adjective before noun) over the French word order (noun before adjective) which to me sounds like motivated reasoning. Some of the central stylistic suggestions include: a) substitute concrete expressions for abstract ones, b) build up towards a uniform climax on the level of the entire work, and c) simultaneously strive for homogeneity and diversity in sections. Since he is an evolutionary thinker, Spencer argues that social evolution will bring about greater complexity and diversity of style until, one fine day, people can take advantage of a wider arsenal of style to suit particular circumstances. In the "perfect" stylist, figures of speech and linguistic styles are perfectly adapted to circumstances. Whether one believes in the psychological and sociological theories that underpin this work, there are enough practical guidelines here that are worth contemplating. Not essential but fun and interesting.
August 5, 2021
Sumo wrestlers should not be teaching ballet. Here's a guy who had this to say about English in his autobiography:
“...neither in boyhood nor youth did I receive a single lesson in English, and that I have remained entirely without formal knowledge of syntax down to the present hour, are facts which should be known; since their implications are at variance with assumptions universally accepted.”
The quote was taken from Will Durant's Story of Philosophy.Unlike Spencer, Durant could write.
Durant also said, that Spencer "lacked humor and had no subtlety or nuances in his style." Which is almost a review of this book.
Here's my guess, Spencer ran out of money- this was his solution.
“...neither in boyhood nor youth did I receive a single lesson in English, and that I have remained entirely without formal knowledge of syntax down to the present hour, are facts which should be known; since their implications are at variance with assumptions universally accepted.”
The quote was taken from Will Durant's Story of Philosophy.Unlike Spencer, Durant could write.
Durant also said, that Spencer "lacked humor and had no subtlety or nuances in his style." Which is almost a review of this book.
Here's my guess, Spencer ran out of money- this was his solution.
October 3, 2024
Notes:
Page 13
"Concrete terms > Abstract terms": Specific words create stronger mental images.
Page 51
"Poetry as instinct": Poets have a unique instinct that transcends ordinary gifts.
Page 48
"Particularizing = Popularity": Authors who focus on specifics are more relatable and memorable.
Page 50
"Imagination in early cultures": Creativity has always been a part of human expression, not just a modern phenomenon.
Page 53
"Figurative language = human expression": Reflects deep emotional and imaginative capacities.
Page 13
"Concrete terms > Abstract terms": Specific words create stronger mental images.
Page 51
"Poetry as instinct": Poets have a unique instinct that transcends ordinary gifts.
Page 48
"Particularizing = Popularity": Authors who focus on specifics are more relatable and memorable.
Page 50
"Imagination in early cultures": Creativity has always been a part of human expression, not just a modern phenomenon.
Page 53
"Figurative language = human expression": Reflects deep emotional and imaginative capacities.
December 28, 2020
The process of mother tongue as the smallest numbers of words and breathe the good results as the brevity increases the greater force of the idea and presentation. The superiority of words can be altered in ascending or descending way by using the specific type of style of sentences.
Nice book on writing philosophy.
Nice book on writing philosophy.
June 27, 2021
Very convincing and helpful for people interested in improve writing skills.
March 18, 2022
Interesting discussion about saving the reader's mental energy in the way you choose your words and the arrangement of phrases within a sentence, but the rest didn't give me much insight.
Read
November 23, 2024This work is...
...required reading for anyone wanting to write effectively. Spencer's timeless system equips the writer for any task and works without fail across all genres.
...required reading for anyone wanting to write effectively. Spencer's timeless system equips the writer for any task and works without fail across all genres.
July 8, 2022
2.5 ⭐️ Spencer describes the rules that capture how to best use language. It’s worth a read if you’re a stylistic aficionado, especially if you’re a poet.
“Thus poetry, regarded as a vehicle of thought, is especially impressive partly because it obeys all the laws of effective speech, and partly because in so doing it imitates the natural utterances of excitement.”
—Herbert Spencer
“Thus poetry, regarded as a vehicle of thought, is especially impressive partly because it obeys all the laws of effective speech, and partly because in so doing it imitates the natural utterances of excitement.”
—Herbert Spencer
March 4, 2022
A very insightful book that provides some pretty solid advice on how to increase your writing skills. I would definitely recommend it, and if anyone reading this knows any books similar, feel free to reach out and recommend them to me!
August 8, 2019
A precursor, and necessary companion to Strunk and White.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews