The 19th century was a century of revolution, for most what comes to mind is that of the industrial
type, but there was another quietly permeating the minds of many Europeans. Here we see biology
establishing itself as the foundation on which 19th century philosophic thought would rise up;
first in Schopenhauer, then in Nietzsche, Bergson, and finally in our philosopher to which this
video is to be owed, Herbert Spencer. He was born at Derby on April 27th, 1820, and to our surprise
would not endeavor to pursue the fields in which he would be remembered by until the age of 30.
It would not be until 40 that he would seek formal education, "it should be known," he said, "that 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." Rather he would prefer, like the garrulous
Montaigne, the accumulation of knowledge through experience and direct observation. Spenser would not
begin with confidence, the thought of his nearly 40 years compiled with a demoralizing start would
almost see his synthetic philosophy fall before it could stand. It was his greatest rival John Stuart
Mill, who would, when all seemed dark and dim, reinvigorate Spenser and for 40 years thereafter
would see him overcome these hurdles until every line was written and recorded for posterity.
How should we fit these 40 years of quiet dedication into this one short video? Well, we shall discover
them as he did and summarize without, as far as possible, losing the essence of his message.
We will piece together biology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy; so that we may extract from his
countless volumes the intended message. We see here, for the first time Spenser theory of universal evolution.
In order to understand any of his synthetic philosophy we must first understand this
theory and its axioms. It was his belief that there were three key principles that govern the universe;
these were: the law of the persistence of force, the law of the instability of the homogeneous, and the
law of the multiplicity of effects. From its start the universe was a homogeneous substance which had
first gradually, then exponentially transitions into a heterogeneous substance. Eventually it
reaches a state of equilibrium and from this state the universe will go out from the same door which
it came gradually, then exponentially transitioning from heterogeneity to homogeneity. And so this
eternal dance of evolution and dissolution will go on and unceasingly, "whether it be in the development
of the earth, the development of life upon it's surface, in the development of society, of
government, of manufacturers, of Commerce, of language, literature, science, art, this same
evolution of the simple into the complex through successive differentiations holds throughout." This
work of Spencer's would also see him explore those hypotheses regarding the origin of the universe set forth by philosophy and religion. What he finds is this, that philosophy and religion are
like opposite sides of the same coin; never seeing eye-to-eye but bound together in that
eternal search for the ultimate truth. He thought that any and all hypotheses proposed regarding
this origin ultimately bring the individual to inconceivabilities. The recognition of this one
and only truth, that nothing's core nature can be empirically known, is the end of all religion
and the beginning of all philosophy. Allow me to pass on to the ethics of Spenser, this does
unfortunately mean that we will not expound upon his psychology or sociology, but rather he will
gain a glimpse of these as they are invariably intertwined with his ethics. "This last part of
my task... to which I regard all the preceding parts as subsidiary," are the words which Spencer would
choose when describing the final section of "The Principles of Ethics." In this volume the intended
goal was simple, to find a moral code suitable as the replacement to that which was associated
with a traditional faith of his era. He was to assert that "the supposed supernatural sanctions
of right conduct do not, if rejected, leave a blank. There exists natural sanctions no less pre-emptory,
and covering a much wider field. How would he judge a system of morals? Well on its ability to reliably adapt to the great struggle for existence of course, anything unable to withstand this
ultimate test is simply destined for failure. A successful moral code is one that achieves unity
in the midst of diversity. This is to say that it aids in the cooperation of individuals within a
group and promotes equal freedom between each of its members. Spencer, like rival John Stuart Mill,
subscribed to utilitarianism, but would refer to his manifestation of this system as "rational
utilitarianism." Whether the state adheres to a liberal moral code depends on whether industry
or war is the primary societal concern. Spencer's thought was that the further a society ventures
from war the more inner tranquility would flourish. Only once this transition was in motion could the
state move toward his moral Paragon. "Liberty of each limited by the liberty of all; is the
rule in conformity with which society must be organized," here we have, in a sentence, the
essence of Spencer's moral system, let me elaborate. Individual happiness is most completely achieved
when said individuals are free to decide for themselves what makes them happiest. This Liberty
should be guaranteed, insofar as it does not interfere with another's right to pursue their
own form of life and liberty. In general, societies who prioritize equal rights are happier societies,
and while strict adherence to this moral code does not guarantee individual happiness; it does
guarantee the equal opportunity to pursue it. We come at once to a wall, since human beings
are not created equal; not in physical capability, not in mental acuity, and certainly not in their
socio-economic foundations. For Spencer this is where nature's supreme court, natural selection, is
to make the final call. The ill-fated must suffer the evils of unfitness and, the well-fitted profit
by their fitness. These are the two laws which a species must conform to if it is to be preserved .
What is important is that the opportunity to thrive is left open for all to pursue
according to their own individual fitness. As with any ethic it has its flaws, but we can be sure his
motives were of noble aspiration. His influence would spread far and wide, even earning his work
"First Principles" a place among the text-books in the library of Oxford, but this steady flow
of admiration would soon become barren, collateral damage in Europe's resistance to Comp's Positivism.
The scientist would ignore his contributions, the ecclesiastics would damn him to eternal suffering,
and those of the Labor Party, who once praised his chastisement of war, would turn away from him due
to his views on socialism and trade union politics. A fall from such Heights would defeat any man and
as he approached the year of his death in 1903 he couldn't help but feel his work was unavailing.
But time, as it often does has exposed to us the greatness of his achievements, "we are standing now
on heights which his struggles and his Labor's won for us; we seem to be above him because he
has raised us on his shoulders." - Will Durant. There can be no question of his faults but with them as with
those of Aristotle we move a little closer to the truth. I hope I was able to summarize effectively
the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. If you found this video helpful consider subscribing to the
channel, here my goal is the illumination and exaltation of history's greatest philosophers both
of eastern and western origins. As always thank you for talking philosophy with me, until next time.