The Doctrine of Evolution. % 465 



much as that transcends a plant's functions." These convictions are 

 forced upon us by logical necessities of thought. They are the com- 

 mon property of all who have completely thought out the problems 

 involved in this discussion. Their inference from the admitted facts 

 of psychological science follows by an inexorable law. The philosophy 

 of evolution as expounded by Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fiske can have 

 no quarrel with dogmatic materialism, or the soi-disant objective 

 monism of our friend Wakeman, since they can not meet upon a mu- 

 tual plane of thought. The one rests on the proved and admitted 

 facts of psychological science as interpreted by strictly logical infer- 

 ences. The other ignores both the facts and the logic, making its ulti- 

 mate appeal to the crude, uncorrected data of immediate sense-im- 

 pressions. If any one can derive any consistent and rational idea 

 from Mr. Wakeman's talk about "feeling-time," and feeling being 

 " the fact- or event-side of nervous changes " as if these changes were 

 not themselves " facts " or " events " he is more fortunate than myself. 

 Our friend should take his own advice and " bottom on fact "not 

 on " words, words, words," which have a learned sound, but convey no 

 intelligible meaning. 



MR. S.H. WILDER: 

 May I be permitted to ask a question! 



THE PRESIDENT: 



Certainly; you may ask the lecturer any question you desire only 

 please state it briefly. 



MR. WILDER (to Mr. Fiske) : 



Is not the doctrine of the passages which you have quoted from 

 First Principles, and which you have stated to be, if literally inter- 

 preted, " untrue, and, in fact, nonsense," the doctrine taught by Mr. 

 Spencer throughout two thirds of that book, and which you have de- 

 nominated materialism! 



MR. FISKE: 



There may doubtless be other passages besides those which I have 

 quoted which, literally interpreted, would imply materialistic ideas. 

 For reasons which I have already given, however, I do not think that 

 these passages, so interpreted, express Mr. Spencer's matured opinion. 

 When he wrote these passages he probably had not thought out the 

 questions involved as thoroughly as he did subsequently, and, using 

 language in a somewhat free and popular way, he did not see what in- 

 ferences might be drawn from such modes of expression. 



