What do you think?
Rate this book
First Principles
Herbert 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. As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, astronomy, 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 the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined 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.
310 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1862
88 people are currently reading
1040 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Spencer
1,590 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 2, 2018
Spencer’s prose is long and dense. His ideas are complex and they are difficult to understand and summarize. This is not an easy book to read, but there are three reasons to appreciate it. First, Spencer’s intent is to ground philosophy in science. Second, in an era when knowledge is increasingly specialized, Spencer looks underneath for those structures that, he believes, govern everyday phenomena. Third, even if Spencer is wrong in general or in the particulars, his attempt to grasp the whole of knowledge is Hegel-like in scope and ambition.
First Principles is the starting point for Spencer’s synthetic philosophy. This is Big History all the way. Spencer starts by separating the unknown from the known. From the latter, he ferrets out those underlying, universal principals that he believes govern the whole of reality. In Part I, “the unknowable,” Spencer acknowledges that the origins of a universal invisible agency – the ultimate metaphysical question – is insoluble, and that knowledge is plagued with this fundamental uncertainty. The difference between religion and science he says is that the former is comfortable dwelling in the realm of the unknowable, “the remote or invisible side.” In contrast, science works in the world of the knowable, “the near or visible side,” and divides that world into classes of likeness and unlikeness that, provisionally, correspond “with the facts as directly observed.” (1) But Spencer does not dwell on this basic division between religion and science. In the end, he says they are united in one key respect: both see matter in motion but, ultimately, they become high centered on the Unconditional Cause that cannot be proved by any other cause. On this point, Spencer concludes that “We are eternally debarred from knowing or conceiving Absolute Being.”
Spencer acknowledges the possibility of the transcendent, but that’s it for that world. His focus is to unify knowledge of the phenomenal world. Science is hampered from unifying knowledge because it is subdivided into specialties. Spencer believes philosophy’s role is to unify these separate disciplines and weave them into an integrated whole. That knowledge involves relationships between parts and their classification into ever-greater wholes which is philosophy’s task. “Philosophy,” he says, “is completely unified knowledge.”
The physics of Newton is present throughout First Principles. It’s Force or, in what Spencer articulates as a principle, “The Persistence of Force,” that manifests itself as matter in motion. These are the “actions of the unknowable” across space and time. It’s like Schopenhauer’s Will. It’s the source of universal causation, that goes two ways: matter attracts matter to itself or repels it. Force is perpetual, an oscillating rhythm of matter and energy acting and reacting to itself. (2)
These horizontal relationships are only half of Spencer’s story. There’s a vertical and progressive side to the cosmos as well. This is Spencer’s law of Evolution or Progress. Though Spencer himself does not use this terminology, the process he outlines is thoroughly dialectical. In its horizontal dimension, just described, it is matter and energy “acting” in the cosmos in relation to other matter and energy that “reacts” in turn. But in that dynamic, a synthetic transformation occurs where action and reaction create something new, something that combines the elements of the past, yet it is something that is more ordered and organized.
Through dialectical interactions, the impulse of the cosmos is inherently, though blindly, progressive. Persistence of force is defined as matter that moves across space and time in relation to other matter. Matter is indestructible per the law of conservation, but that matter is always changing form in its interaction with other matter through “the law of continuous redistribution of Matter and Motion.”
In language that at times sounds akin to general relativity theory, movement occurs along an energy gradient of least resistance (least repelling power) or greater traction (greatest attracting power). Nebular gases gather and concentrate through the power of a greater gravitational force to form star and solar systems. This is the pulling together of aggregate parts into a homogenous whole that functions as a “system” that binds the energy of the parts and lessens their (individual) freedom. At the initial levels of homogeneity, the coherence of the system is indefinite and weak and the system is vulnerable to other systems that pull them into new collective forms where they become parts of greater, more complex and coherent wholes. This is what Spencer calls the instability of the homogenous. It’s the creation of the heterogeneous, where the motion of aggregate parts is lessened by the power of a new whole, which is a stronger and more complex system.
This movement of matter along the energy gradient is continuous until the energy differential runs its course and the gradient flattens to reach what Spencer calls “equivalence,” when a state of balance is reached. But equivalence constitutes the instability of the homogenous just mentioned because the leveling of the energy gradient is temporary. It is susceptible to new forces that break down the whole into its aggregate parts, freeing that energy and making it available to form ever more complex heterogeneous forms. (3) Spencer calls this process “dissolution.” It is the “disintegration of matter caused by the reception of additional motion from without.” It’s the dissolution of masses into molecular motion where “the motion of units replace the motion of the masses,” though there’s “always a differential progress towards either integration or disintegration.” “The lapse of the homogenous into heterogeneous, and of the less heterogeneous into the more heterogeneous,” Spencer writes, is “the necessary consequences of force.” (4) This statement makes more sense for pockets of localized, cosmic phenomena interacting with each other in what Spencer refers to as “speculative astronomy,” though he also hints at what might be seen as a perpetually contracting and expanding cosmos.” (5)
Three more dynamic factors are also at work and these can be seen best at levels operating at less than cosmic scale. Uniform force effects give rise to the multiplication of forces (motions) and effects (matter), like the que ball hitting the set up on the pool table. One impacts many and this creates new, emergent phenomena (matter and motion).
Then there’s the issue of segregation. Ever greater homogenous wholes consist of aggregates of unlike parts that are separated into similar and dissimilar components, creating new forms of matter and motion. A mountain side is eroded by water. Stream courses and deltas separate by size into rocks, gravel and sand. In the evolution of life, simple forms multiply into separate forms that are, simultaneously different, yet the same. With the human species, groups form subgroups and in turn become parts of a larger whole. A child’s vague fear becomes differentiated into specific forms of fear (shame, penitence, sorrow). It is the same for languages and for knowledge. Subject-matter is grouped into what is the same and what is different, into parts that in turn become units of a larger whole. (6) Hence, the independence, autonomous subject fields of science are, for Spencer, and in First Principles in particular, united in philosophy.
The third dynamic factor is Spencer’s distinction between primary and secondary evolution. In primary evolution, the integration is weak and loose, and the motion within the system, though bound some, still allows for “a large quantity of motion.” When there’s more space with chemical bonds, there’s more freedom for the molecules to move and with more heat, chemical stability decreases. Secondary evolution is possible only after primary integration occurs and motion is contained. This is seen with organic, compound evolution where there’s great motion yet “a great degree of concentration” and such “contained motion has become small.” Here, Spencer details how this works for life: matter is contained by highly organized structures that have a high concentration of motion. (7)
First Principles is a tour de force. It is an incredible mental feat how he took the whole of the material world to posit its underlying form and structure. In example after example, he then applied the dynamics and principles that he saw at work to various cosmic, geological, biological, sociological, psychological and ethical phenomena. Hence, his synthetic philosophy. Agree with him or not (8), it’s admirable that he does not shy away from placing philosophy on a materialist and scientific foundation.
Of course, Spencer gets negatively critiqued for Social Darwinism and an anything-goes philosophy, and his sociological theory. It is true that Spencer’s scientific philosophy operates in a valueless world. What is, just is. Yet in his ethics, the last volumes of his Synthetic Philosophy, fellow-feeling is critical to the integration of individuals with groups, and group integration with ever-larger groups, multiplying their effects and power vis-à-vis other groups (a la Dawkins’ notion of the extended phenotype). This results in his, and Darwin’s, view that some groups are superior in culture, organization and enlightenment relative to others. There’s no doubt that this leads to his survival-of-the-fittest mentality and ethic. The strong, cohesive group survives and, as for Darwin, that group was of European origin.
But negativity was not what Spencer saw as the implication of his theory. A libertarian, laissez faire world is the logical conclusion and grand finale to what he puts forward. Yet this is a world where the freedom of one meets the freedom of another, and each therefore limits the freedom of the other, resulting in the dissipation of social evolution to the point of complete equilibration. That point occurs when all individuals abide by the self-limiting principle that each respects the others’ freedom. This governing principle that results in social harmony is embedded in Spencer’s First Principles. “Evolution can end,” Spencer writes, “Only in the establishment of the greatest perfection and the most complete happiness.”
But Spencer’s logical, self-limiting principle is pervaded with a fatal flaw. Human nature is pervaded at its core with two contrary pulses about how to promote one’s freedom: self-interest can be promoted individually regardless of the other, or it can be promoted as part of a larger whole. For those who are moved to self-aggrandize, individually or as part of a group, the motivation is to serve the self at the other’s expense if need be and to act without limits. Despite Spencer’s attempt to place the best gloss on human relationships, Social Darwinism is embedded in his theory. Spencer’s principle of dissolution still is at work, and self-aggrandizement (attracting the world to itself) can be repulsed (resisted) only if and when a counter-power is established to reestablish the balance between one self and another, one group and another, and the relationship between the individual and the group. Only checks and balances work but, even then, Spencer’s state of equilibration is fragile and the “instability of the homogenous” still applies. As applied to social order, rhythm and oscillation pertain. Perfection does not or, if it does, it is only temporary.
1. With time, there’s a progressive correspondence of the subjective to the objective. The subjective are ideas (“faint manifestations” about space-time, matter-motion and force). The objective is their real (“vivid”) manifestation. To say this differently, the mind views the world subjectively, but picks up resistance from what is viewed until the subjective is modified to correspond with the objective.
2. Spencer prefers force to energy, though the two are close in meaning. Energy transforms from one form to another whereas force accounts for the actual or latent “movement of masses.” Objects attract and repel each other, which gives rise to attractive and repulsive forces. This is commonly understood with electromagnetic polarities, but not with gravity’s attraction force, unless inertia (relative mass subject to the inverse square law) can be understood as repulsive (resistant). With life, attraction can be understood as bringing needed objects into itself, and resisting those objects that are threats. Elsewhere, Spencer notes that in the inorganic world there’s the passive integration of matter (simple molecular attraction), in contrast to the active (seeking) integration of the organic world (absorbing the motion latent in heat via food) that in turn is expended in motion.
3. “[A]fter the completion of those various equilibrations which bring to a close all the forms of Evolution we have contemplated, there must continue an equilibration of a far wider kind. When that integration everywhere in progress throughout our Solar System has reached its climax, there will remain to be effected the immeasurably greater integration of our Solar System, with other such systems. There must then re-appear in molecular motion what is lost in the motion of masses; and the inevitable transformation of this motion of masses into molecular motion, cannot take place without reducing the masses to a nebulous form.”
4. This quote is preceded by the following: “To the conclusion that the changes with which Evolution commences, are thus necessitated, remains to be added the conclusion that these changes must continue. The absolutely homogeneous must lose its equilibrium; and the relatively homogeneous must lapse into the relatively less homogeneous. That which is true of any total mass, is true of the parts into which it segregates. The uniformity of each such part must as inevitably be lost in multiformity, as was that of the original whole; and for like reasons.”
5. “Motion as well as Matter being fixed in quantity, it would seem that the change in the distribution of Matter which Motion affects, coming to a limit in whichever direction it is carried, the indestructible Motion thereupon necessitates a reverse distribution. Apparently, the universally co-existent forces of attraction and repulsion, which, as we have seen, necessitate rhythm in all minor changes throughout the Universe, also necessitate rhythm in the totality of its changes—produce now an immeasurable period during which the attractive forces predominating, cause universal concentration, and then an immeasurable period during which the repulsive forces predominating, cause universal diffusion – alternate eras of Evolution and Dissolution. And thus there is suggested the conception of a past during which there have been successive Evolutions analogous to that which is now going on; and a future during which successive other such Evolutions may go on – ever the same in principle but never the same in concrete result.” Interestingly, Spencer elsewhere notes “atmospheres of force” surrounding matter, suggesting field theory, and he writes that the notion of fixed points in space and absolute motion “cannot be imagined, much less known.”
6. The mind moves from parts to ever greater wholes. There are relations of sequence. We abstract these from concrete experience to see movement in one direction, and time becomes a universal form. We see co-existence, and movement in two (or more?) directions. This becomes the universal form of space. Concrete experience begins with our movement in the world and our encounter with resistance (���of the thing being touched”). When abstracted, this relationship becomes matter and force existing in time and space.
7. Protein molecules concentrate “a comparatively large amount of motion in a small place,” colloid structures (the union of groups of individual atoms or molecules), nitrogenuous compounds that absorb heat, and “water that permeates organic matter” that gives “mobility to organic molecules partially suspended in it.”
8. A general criticism of First Principles is that Spencer misunderstands entropy – the general cosmic movement from order to disorder, from heat to the dissipation of heat, from a unified whole to its dispersal into the infinite void. Entropy, though, applies to a closed system, whereas the universe is an open system where everything influences everything else and it’s this “ebb and flow” process that Spencer’s book details.
First Principles is the starting point for Spencer’s synthetic philosophy. This is Big History all the way. Spencer starts by separating the unknown from the known. From the latter, he ferrets out those underlying, universal principals that he believes govern the whole of reality. In Part I, “the unknowable,” Spencer acknowledges that the origins of a universal invisible agency – the ultimate metaphysical question – is insoluble, and that knowledge is plagued with this fundamental uncertainty. The difference between religion and science he says is that the former is comfortable dwelling in the realm of the unknowable, “the remote or invisible side.” In contrast, science works in the world of the knowable, “the near or visible side,” and divides that world into classes of likeness and unlikeness that, provisionally, correspond “with the facts as directly observed.” (1) But Spencer does not dwell on this basic division between religion and science. In the end, he says they are united in one key respect: both see matter in motion but, ultimately, they become high centered on the Unconditional Cause that cannot be proved by any other cause. On this point, Spencer concludes that “We are eternally debarred from knowing or conceiving Absolute Being.”
Spencer acknowledges the possibility of the transcendent, but that’s it for that world. His focus is to unify knowledge of the phenomenal world. Science is hampered from unifying knowledge because it is subdivided into specialties. Spencer believes philosophy’s role is to unify these separate disciplines and weave them into an integrated whole. That knowledge involves relationships between parts and their classification into ever-greater wholes which is philosophy’s task. “Philosophy,” he says, “is completely unified knowledge.”
The physics of Newton is present throughout First Principles. It’s Force or, in what Spencer articulates as a principle, “The Persistence of Force,” that manifests itself as matter in motion. These are the “actions of the unknowable” across space and time. It’s like Schopenhauer’s Will. It’s the source of universal causation, that goes two ways: matter attracts matter to itself or repels it. Force is perpetual, an oscillating rhythm of matter and energy acting and reacting to itself. (2)
These horizontal relationships are only half of Spencer’s story. There’s a vertical and progressive side to the cosmos as well. This is Spencer’s law of Evolution or Progress. Though Spencer himself does not use this terminology, the process he outlines is thoroughly dialectical. In its horizontal dimension, just described, it is matter and energy “acting” in the cosmos in relation to other matter and energy that “reacts” in turn. But in that dynamic, a synthetic transformation occurs where action and reaction create something new, something that combines the elements of the past, yet it is something that is more ordered and organized.
Through dialectical interactions, the impulse of the cosmos is inherently, though blindly, progressive. Persistence of force is defined as matter that moves across space and time in relation to other matter. Matter is indestructible per the law of conservation, but that matter is always changing form in its interaction with other matter through “the law of continuous redistribution of Matter and Motion.”
In language that at times sounds akin to general relativity theory, movement occurs along an energy gradient of least resistance (least repelling power) or greater traction (greatest attracting power). Nebular gases gather and concentrate through the power of a greater gravitational force to form star and solar systems. This is the pulling together of aggregate parts into a homogenous whole that functions as a “system” that binds the energy of the parts and lessens their (individual) freedom. At the initial levels of homogeneity, the coherence of the system is indefinite and weak and the system is vulnerable to other systems that pull them into new collective forms where they become parts of greater, more complex and coherent wholes. This is what Spencer calls the instability of the homogenous. It’s the creation of the heterogeneous, where the motion of aggregate parts is lessened by the power of a new whole, which is a stronger and more complex system.
This movement of matter along the energy gradient is continuous until the energy differential runs its course and the gradient flattens to reach what Spencer calls “equivalence,” when a state of balance is reached. But equivalence constitutes the instability of the homogenous just mentioned because the leveling of the energy gradient is temporary. It is susceptible to new forces that break down the whole into its aggregate parts, freeing that energy and making it available to form ever more complex heterogeneous forms. (3) Spencer calls this process “dissolution.” It is the “disintegration of matter caused by the reception of additional motion from without.” It’s the dissolution of masses into molecular motion where “the motion of units replace the motion of the masses,” though there’s “always a differential progress towards either integration or disintegration.” “The lapse of the homogenous into heterogeneous, and of the less heterogeneous into the more heterogeneous,” Spencer writes, is “the necessary consequences of force.” (4) This statement makes more sense for pockets of localized, cosmic phenomena interacting with each other in what Spencer refers to as “speculative astronomy,” though he also hints at what might be seen as a perpetually contracting and expanding cosmos.” (5)
Three more dynamic factors are also at work and these can be seen best at levels operating at less than cosmic scale. Uniform force effects give rise to the multiplication of forces (motions) and effects (matter), like the que ball hitting the set up on the pool table. One impacts many and this creates new, emergent phenomena (matter and motion).
Then there’s the issue of segregation. Ever greater homogenous wholes consist of aggregates of unlike parts that are separated into similar and dissimilar components, creating new forms of matter and motion. A mountain side is eroded by water. Stream courses and deltas separate by size into rocks, gravel and sand. In the evolution of life, simple forms multiply into separate forms that are, simultaneously different, yet the same. With the human species, groups form subgroups and in turn become parts of a larger whole. A child’s vague fear becomes differentiated into specific forms of fear (shame, penitence, sorrow). It is the same for languages and for knowledge. Subject-matter is grouped into what is the same and what is different, into parts that in turn become units of a larger whole. (6) Hence, the independence, autonomous subject fields of science are, for Spencer, and in First Principles in particular, united in philosophy.
The third dynamic factor is Spencer’s distinction between primary and secondary evolution. In primary evolution, the integration is weak and loose, and the motion within the system, though bound some, still allows for “a large quantity of motion.” When there’s more space with chemical bonds, there’s more freedom for the molecules to move and with more heat, chemical stability decreases. Secondary evolution is possible only after primary integration occurs and motion is contained. This is seen with organic, compound evolution where there’s great motion yet “a great degree of concentration” and such “contained motion has become small.” Here, Spencer details how this works for life: matter is contained by highly organized structures that have a high concentration of motion. (7)
First Principles is a tour de force. It is an incredible mental feat how he took the whole of the material world to posit its underlying form and structure. In example after example, he then applied the dynamics and principles that he saw at work to various cosmic, geological, biological, sociological, psychological and ethical phenomena. Hence, his synthetic philosophy. Agree with him or not (8), it’s admirable that he does not shy away from placing philosophy on a materialist and scientific foundation.
Of course, Spencer gets negatively critiqued for Social Darwinism and an anything-goes philosophy, and his sociological theory. It is true that Spencer’s scientific philosophy operates in a valueless world. What is, just is. Yet in his ethics, the last volumes of his Synthetic Philosophy, fellow-feeling is critical to the integration of individuals with groups, and group integration with ever-larger groups, multiplying their effects and power vis-à-vis other groups (a la Dawkins’ notion of the extended phenotype). This results in his, and Darwin’s, view that some groups are superior in culture, organization and enlightenment relative to others. There’s no doubt that this leads to his survival-of-the-fittest mentality and ethic. The strong, cohesive group survives and, as for Darwin, that group was of European origin.
But negativity was not what Spencer saw as the implication of his theory. A libertarian, laissez faire world is the logical conclusion and grand finale to what he puts forward. Yet this is a world where the freedom of one meets the freedom of another, and each therefore limits the freedom of the other, resulting in the dissipation of social evolution to the point of complete equilibration. That point occurs when all individuals abide by the self-limiting principle that each respects the others’ freedom. This governing principle that results in social harmony is embedded in Spencer’s First Principles. “Evolution can end,” Spencer writes, “Only in the establishment of the greatest perfection and the most complete happiness.”
But Spencer’s logical, self-limiting principle is pervaded with a fatal flaw. Human nature is pervaded at its core with two contrary pulses about how to promote one’s freedom: self-interest can be promoted individually regardless of the other, or it can be promoted as part of a larger whole. For those who are moved to self-aggrandize, individually or as part of a group, the motivation is to serve the self at the other’s expense if need be and to act without limits. Despite Spencer’s attempt to place the best gloss on human relationships, Social Darwinism is embedded in his theory. Spencer’s principle of dissolution still is at work, and self-aggrandizement (attracting the world to itself) can be repulsed (resisted) only if and when a counter-power is established to reestablish the balance between one self and another, one group and another, and the relationship between the individual and the group. Only checks and balances work but, even then, Spencer’s state of equilibration is fragile and the “instability of the homogenous” still applies. As applied to social order, rhythm and oscillation pertain. Perfection does not or, if it does, it is only temporary.
1. With time, there’s a progressive correspondence of the subjective to the objective. The subjective are ideas (“faint manifestations” about space-time, matter-motion and force). The objective is their real (“vivid”) manifestation. To say this differently, the mind views the world subjectively, but picks up resistance from what is viewed until the subjective is modified to correspond with the objective.
2. Spencer prefers force to energy, though the two are close in meaning. Energy transforms from one form to another whereas force accounts for the actual or latent “movement of masses.” Objects attract and repel each other, which gives rise to attractive and repulsive forces. This is commonly understood with electromagnetic polarities, but not with gravity’s attraction force, unless inertia (relative mass subject to the inverse square law) can be understood as repulsive (resistant). With life, attraction can be understood as bringing needed objects into itself, and resisting those objects that are threats. Elsewhere, Spencer notes that in the inorganic world there’s the passive integration of matter (simple molecular attraction), in contrast to the active (seeking) integration of the organic world (absorbing the motion latent in heat via food) that in turn is expended in motion.
3. “[A]fter the completion of those various equilibrations which bring to a close all the forms of Evolution we have contemplated, there must continue an equilibration of a far wider kind. When that integration everywhere in progress throughout our Solar System has reached its climax, there will remain to be effected the immeasurably greater integration of our Solar System, with other such systems. There must then re-appear in molecular motion what is lost in the motion of masses; and the inevitable transformation of this motion of masses into molecular motion, cannot take place without reducing the masses to a nebulous form.”
4. This quote is preceded by the following: “To the conclusion that the changes with which Evolution commences, are thus necessitated, remains to be added the conclusion that these changes must continue. The absolutely homogeneous must lose its equilibrium; and the relatively homogeneous must lapse into the relatively less homogeneous. That which is true of any total mass, is true of the parts into which it segregates. The uniformity of each such part must as inevitably be lost in multiformity, as was that of the original whole; and for like reasons.”
5. “Motion as well as Matter being fixed in quantity, it would seem that the change in the distribution of Matter which Motion affects, coming to a limit in whichever direction it is carried, the indestructible Motion thereupon necessitates a reverse distribution. Apparently, the universally co-existent forces of attraction and repulsion, which, as we have seen, necessitate rhythm in all minor changes throughout the Universe, also necessitate rhythm in the totality of its changes—produce now an immeasurable period during which the attractive forces predominating, cause universal concentration, and then an immeasurable period during which the repulsive forces predominating, cause universal diffusion – alternate eras of Evolution and Dissolution. And thus there is suggested the conception of a past during which there have been successive Evolutions analogous to that which is now going on; and a future during which successive other such Evolutions may go on – ever the same in principle but never the same in concrete result.” Interestingly, Spencer elsewhere notes “atmospheres of force” surrounding matter, suggesting field theory, and he writes that the notion of fixed points in space and absolute motion “cannot be imagined, much less known.”
6. The mind moves from parts to ever greater wholes. There are relations of sequence. We abstract these from concrete experience to see movement in one direction, and time becomes a universal form. We see co-existence, and movement in two (or more?) directions. This becomes the universal form of space. Concrete experience begins with our movement in the world and our encounter with resistance (���of the thing being touched”). When abstracted, this relationship becomes matter and force existing in time and space.
7. Protein molecules concentrate “a comparatively large amount of motion in a small place,” colloid structures (the union of groups of individual atoms or molecules), nitrogenuous compounds that absorb heat, and “water that permeates organic matter” that gives “mobility to organic molecules partially suspended in it.”
8. A general criticism of First Principles is that Spencer misunderstands entropy – the general cosmic movement from order to disorder, from heat to the dissipation of heat, from a unified whole to its dispersal into the infinite void. Entropy, though, applies to a closed system, whereas the universe is an open system where everything influences everything else and it’s this “ebb and flow” process that Spencer’s book details.
March 24, 2020
First Principles is Herbert Spencer's huge prospectus to the rest of his work, the synthetic philosophy. Spencer divides truth into the Unknowable and Knowable. Whether god(s) exists or not, whether the universe is eternal or was created is unknowable. We can't conceive of self-creation, eternity, or nothingness. This makes the positions of theism/deism, atheism and pantheism up to dispute. The ultimate nature of physical reality, or materialism versus idealism, is also unknowable, as we can't conceive of space and time or matter in themselves even though we depend on them. So Spencer's basically an agnostic. We should be open minded and not conflate our beliefs with the truth. What we can know, and this is philosophy, is systematic or general knowledge of phenomena. All we can know are the effects of the ultimate force(s) behind the universe.
Force is the starting point as whatever we know is what impinges on our perception. We give primacy to our ideas of space time matter and energy to this force, though these are meaningful as mental relations and not things in themselves. The truths of philosophy are to be found in the most general scientific truths. The rest of the work focuses on the processes of evolution and dissolution which govern matter. Evolution is a concentration of matter and decrease in motion, dissolution is a decomposition of matter and increase in motion (death). Spencer sees evolution in the formation of planets from stardust and the development from a single cell to the diversity of life, macrocosm and microcosm. Through both evolution and dissolution, Spencer derives the Law of Progress of the universe from a state of homogeneity to a state of heterogeneity, simplicity to complexity. The same cause has multiple effects as forces do not act equally on a body. This is a continuing process of equilibrium in which the universe becomes both integrated and diverse, just as society does with the division of labor and hierarchy from family to clan to tribe to nation. Quite an ambitious work.
The most contentious argument which is the culmination of First Principles is that evolution tends towards greater complexity. The use of progress isn't normative but as states of matter. This seems to be countered by the second law of thermodynamics entropy: in a closed system of transfer of energy but not matter, the amount of entropy or disorder stays the same or increases over time. This is the reverse of homogeneity to heterogeneity, but that applies to closed systems and not the universe as such necessarily, that is as the ultimate unknowable. Nevertheless even with the second law of thermodynamics order can increase locally. Since the 19th century it has been proposed that universal equilibrium is heat death, the death of the universe where no more physical processes will occur, but there is also the Big Crunch where the universe after expansion will fall in on itself in a black hole by force of gravity and will begin anew; a cyclical universe. Spencer's case is more metaphysical than physical though so it isn't clear that the law of progress can be falsified. It is widely held that the universe we know began in a state of high order, of homogeneity, and has grown more disordered so that we have an arrow of time with entropy so we have a meaningful past present and future, though the universe didn't have to begin this way. The recent discovery of dark matter/energy suggests that the universe is continuing to expand at a faster rate instead of slowing down. This could mean the universe is headed toward the Big Rip. So I take Spencer's law of progress to be a local phenomena and not the ultimate fate of the universe which is unknowable as Spencer defines it.
Henri Bergson who was influenced by Spencer in his own evolutionary philosophy nevertheless criticized Spencer for "cutting up present reality already evolved into little bits no less evolved and then recomposing it with these fragments, thus positing everything that is to be explained" (Creative Evolution 1907). Spencer by declaring the internal nature of the world to be unknowable proceeds to take the datum of worldly processes available to consciousness, the effects, to be the basis of evolution. But evolution, which means to unfold, is a process rather than mechanical step by step process. Multiplying the observed steps of this process in space and time doesn't give us its true nature. Spencer's reasoning is purely causal, by external relations where the relation of datum in space and time is what defines something's nature. This kind of thinking Bergson opposed to intuition which gives us a unity of duration in which every moment is linked together and we can't conceive of things in isolation as causal datum.
In Spencer's defense, what he is providing here is a philosophy for scientific investigation. What he calls unknowable are the most fundamental questions of philosophy, for which I do think we can hold reasonable positions on based on our own fundamental beliefs which while not verifiable are meaningful, perhaps the most meaningful. Despite the perhaps unsatisfying and superficial nature of Spencer's reasonings, they are a useful way to think about the world for those who want a unified naturalistic philosophy to unite the special sciences, which is what the rest of Spencer's synthetic philosophy is on biology, psychology, sociology and ethics. So I think Spencer isn't wrong as much as he limits his thinking yet extrapolates greatly on a few principles. I think this is a classic of philosophy and the first great work of evolutionary philosophy, which came out only a year after Darwin's The Origin of Species and doesn't even discuss natural selection.
Force is the starting point as whatever we know is what impinges on our perception. We give primacy to our ideas of space time matter and energy to this force, though these are meaningful as mental relations and not things in themselves. The truths of philosophy are to be found in the most general scientific truths. The rest of the work focuses on the processes of evolution and dissolution which govern matter. Evolution is a concentration of matter and decrease in motion, dissolution is a decomposition of matter and increase in motion (death). Spencer sees evolution in the formation of planets from stardust and the development from a single cell to the diversity of life, macrocosm and microcosm. Through both evolution and dissolution, Spencer derives the Law of Progress of the universe from a state of homogeneity to a state of heterogeneity, simplicity to complexity. The same cause has multiple effects as forces do not act equally on a body. This is a continuing process of equilibrium in which the universe becomes both integrated and diverse, just as society does with the division of labor and hierarchy from family to clan to tribe to nation. Quite an ambitious work.
The most contentious argument which is the culmination of First Principles is that evolution tends towards greater complexity. The use of progress isn't normative but as states of matter. This seems to be countered by the second law of thermodynamics entropy: in a closed system of transfer of energy but not matter, the amount of entropy or disorder stays the same or increases over time. This is the reverse of homogeneity to heterogeneity, but that applies to closed systems and not the universe as such necessarily, that is as the ultimate unknowable. Nevertheless even with the second law of thermodynamics order can increase locally. Since the 19th century it has been proposed that universal equilibrium is heat death, the death of the universe where no more physical processes will occur, but there is also the Big Crunch where the universe after expansion will fall in on itself in a black hole by force of gravity and will begin anew; a cyclical universe. Spencer's case is more metaphysical than physical though so it isn't clear that the law of progress can be falsified. It is widely held that the universe we know began in a state of high order, of homogeneity, and has grown more disordered so that we have an arrow of time with entropy so we have a meaningful past present and future, though the universe didn't have to begin this way. The recent discovery of dark matter/energy suggests that the universe is continuing to expand at a faster rate instead of slowing down. This could mean the universe is headed toward the Big Rip. So I take Spencer's law of progress to be a local phenomena and not the ultimate fate of the universe which is unknowable as Spencer defines it.
Henri Bergson who was influenced by Spencer in his own evolutionary philosophy nevertheless criticized Spencer for "cutting up present reality already evolved into little bits no less evolved and then recomposing it with these fragments, thus positing everything that is to be explained" (Creative Evolution 1907). Spencer by declaring the internal nature of the world to be unknowable proceeds to take the datum of worldly processes available to consciousness, the effects, to be the basis of evolution. But evolution, which means to unfold, is a process rather than mechanical step by step process. Multiplying the observed steps of this process in space and time doesn't give us its true nature. Spencer's reasoning is purely causal, by external relations where the relation of datum in space and time is what defines something's nature. This kind of thinking Bergson opposed to intuition which gives us a unity of duration in which every moment is linked together and we can't conceive of things in isolation as causal datum.
In Spencer's defense, what he is providing here is a philosophy for scientific investigation. What he calls unknowable are the most fundamental questions of philosophy, for which I do think we can hold reasonable positions on based on our own fundamental beliefs which while not verifiable are meaningful, perhaps the most meaningful. Despite the perhaps unsatisfying and superficial nature of Spencer's reasonings, they are a useful way to think about the world for those who want a unified naturalistic philosophy to unite the special sciences, which is what the rest of Spencer's synthetic philosophy is on biology, psychology, sociology and ethics. So I think Spencer isn't wrong as much as he limits his thinking yet extrapolates greatly on a few principles. I think this is a classic of philosophy and the first great work of evolutionary philosophy, which came out only a year after Darwin's The Origin of Species and doesn't even discuss natural selection.
April 25, 2007
This is one book I have read that demonstrates Spencer's wonderful contstructive reasoning in Philosophy. It may be a little tasking for an average but it sure has expanded my mind.
July 29, 2023
Reading this somewhat obsolete book, I have nevertheless come to a far-reaching conclusion that I feel could be shocking to some, including Spencer himself. Judging from the past 160 years of scientific progress, it seems that humanity has passed from a position where man first gave a tentative voice to a belief in the principle of natural selection and, nevertheless, affirmed his inability to achieve absolute knowledge in an unstable and homogenous world -- see Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 -- to the creation of a world dominated by artificial intelligence where diversity is devolving into a heterogeneous complex of convergence and speciation, where one species (the humans) can give rise a new and distinctly different species (the generative A.I.-based robots). Perhaps, in response to the decreasing diversity of life on planet Earth in the 21st century, artificially intelligent machines will eventually allow the world to become more diverse by contributing to the expansion of leisure time, as one of the attractions of A.I. is that it improves efficiency in the workplace and increases profitability through a more productive system of business management. This is the most satisfactory outcome to be had, in my opinion and it will happen, God willing.
May 14, 2020
May have been revolutionary for its time, but this is probably the most dated book I have ever read. Interesting nevertheless.
December 29, 2023
Yeni karşılaştığım ,Martin Eden ,in hayatını değiştiren kişi
Read
March 21, 2024If you are interested in hearing a discussion of this book on my podcast, you can check it out here:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2132180/13...
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2132180/13...
March 6, 2015
This was an outstanding read. There were a few points that science has developed better theories on, but his discussions of the Unknowable Power, the flux of matter, and the indestructabilities of force and matter were mind bending. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews