Page:Philosophical Review Volume 19.djvu/262

248 with him any such passages may be obliterated without affecting the main trend of his argument, in other cases it is difficult to disentangle the positive ideas from the mass of metaphysics with which they are involved, so that any one out of sympathy with the latter can only obtain from them detached thoughts which do not always repay the labor of the search. It is to be regretted that Spencer did not make this separation even more complete; but his explicit statement that his formula of evolution is in no way connected with his reconciliation between religion and science should make the distinction clear to all who attempt to deal critically with his philosophy.

To return from this digression to the conception of universal evolution, we have already seen that the two great generalizations of modern chemistry and physics, slightly modified in form, constitute the basis of Spencer's superstructure. As the ultimate analysis of phenomena brings us down to the primary conceptions of matter and motion, both indestructible and invariable in quantity, therefore all phenomena, from this standpoint, may be regarded as modes of redistribution of matter and motion. It follows that any general principles which pervade this process of change are of supreme importance from the point of view of philosophy.

When this analysis of phenomena is definitely separated from the metaphysics with which only a minority of readers will sympathize, the charge of materialism, or any other 'ism' with a disagreeable connotation, becomes not only false but meaningless. The analysis and consequent synthesis remain purely physical, and it would be just as sensible to complain of the materialism of a text-book of mechanics. Certainly Spencer shows that his principles are applicable to inorganic and organic alike, but so are other great scientific generalizations. Spencer's formula of evolution, if valid, is but one other strand pervading all orders of phenomena. My meaning will best be illustrated by quoting the following passage from his most prominent modern opponent, Professor Ward:

"Whatever be its meaning, its purpose or its life, the cosmos