29 
This is very much akin to Mr. Spencer’s “ intuition of 
space.” What is space ? It is “ room,” says one whose 
“ intuition ” has got at least two words by which to express 
itself! Then, what is “room”? We are not anxious as to 
words, but we do desiderate that they shall mean something, 
or at least an honest “ nothing ” “ Space,” or “ room,” in 
which there is nothing else but “ space,” or “ room,” what is 
it ? There is a certain space, and it is at present full of some- 
thing. Take that something away, and allow nothing else to 
enter, the space or room remains ; but what is it ? Nothing 
remains. But nothing is not something. The “ intuition ” 
of this philosopher called “ space ” is the same as his “ ego” 
the intuition of only nothing ! 
We cannot rationally seek the origin of the moral sense 
here ; if anything be evident that is evident ; nor do we 
seek it in any organization of nerve. The sense that feels an 
idea is something never to be confounded with nerve, though, 
like all other senses, it is associated with nerve in our present 
state of existence. The poisonous liquid or fumes that affect 
the nerve affect the sense, just as the harmonious wavelets of 
sound affect the soul ; but that does not necessitate our con- 
founding ear and soul. Water has an effect on rocks, and 
rooks affect water, too; but we do not think it necessary to 
confound the two : neither do we need to confound nerve 
and mind. 
But, even if we should so far give way to his confusion, 
a very brief appeal to the facts of the case would dissolve 
Mr. Spencer’s view of evolved intuitions. Is it true that one 
man bequeaths to another his experiences of Utility ? Is it 
matter of fact that a father bequeaths to his son any experi- 
ences whatever, organized or unorganized? What are ex- 
periences ? Are they not facts of consciousness ? If they 
are organized, they are still facts of consciousness. Can the 
facts of a father’s personal consciousness become the facts of 
his son’s ? If Mr. Spencer means that the effects of these 
experiences on the father’s brain, or nerves, become states of 
the brain of his son, we must still insist that the idea is not in 
the slightest degree borne out by fact. The rule in society is, 
that the son is found utterly unfit for the path which his father 
has pursued with success, and fit for one altogether different. 
And even where there is special fitness for a similar path, an 
amount of training of no inconsiderable measure is required, 
in order that the son may follow in his father’s track. If 
Mr. Spencer’s theory were true, there would be no training 
required to make the son follow the father. Leave him to 
grow up as he lists, and the “ organized experiences ” must 
