Mr. Spencer’s reply to my criticism is a very strange piece of
controversy and I have actually been at a loss, how to account for it.
The situation can be explained only by assuming that Mr. Spencer,
being an impatient reader, when finding out that he disagreed with my
propositions, could go no further and wrote his reply to me without
having read my articles. This is very hard on a critic who, carefully
avoiding everything that might look like fault-finding, is painstakingly
careful in giving to the author criticised every means of investigating
the truth himself and helps him in a friendly way to correct his errors.
There is only one consolation for me, which is, that I am in good
company. The great thinker of Koenigsberg is very severely censured in
almost all of Mr. Spencer’s writings for ideas which he never held. And
now Mr. Spencer confesses openly and with ingenuous sincerity, that his
knowledge of Kant’s writings is extremely limited. But why he condemns a
man of whom he knows so little Mr. Spencer does not tell us.
Mr. Spencer says:
“My knowledge of Kant’s writings is extremely limited. In 1844
a translation of his “Critique of Pure Reason” (then I think
lately published) fell into my hands, and I read the first few
pages enunciating his doctrine of Time and Space: my peremptory
rejection of which caused me to lay the book down.
“Twice since then the same thing has happened; for, being
an impatient reader, when I disagree with the cardinal
propositions of a work I can go no further.
“One other thing I knew. By indirect references I was made
aware that Kant had propounded the idea that celestial bodies
have been formed by the aggregation of diffused matter. Beyond
this my knowledge of his conceptions did not extend; and my
supposition that his evolutionary conception had stopped short
with the genesis of sun, stars, and planets was due to the
fact that his doctrine of Time and Space, as forms of thought
[sic] anteceding experience, implied a supernatural origin
inconsistent with the hypothesis of natural genesis.”
Kant has been a leader in thought for the last century. It is very
important to criticise his ideas wherever they are wrong, but his errors
cannot be conquered by _ex cathedra_ denunciations.
Darwin’s habits in investigating and weighing the pro and con of a
question were very different from Mr. Spencer’s, and Darwin’s success is
in no small degree due to the sternness with which he adhered to certain
rules of reading and studying. We find in his “Autobiography” certain
reminiscences labeled “important” from which the following is most
instructive:
“I had also, during many years, followed a golden rule, namely,
that whenever a published fact, a new observation or a thought,
came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to
make a memorandum of it without fail, for I had found by
experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to
escape from the memory than favorable ones.”
Experience teaches that we can learn most from those authors with whom we
do not agree. The ethics of reading and studying demand other habits than
laying a book down when we disagree with its cardinal propositions. Such
habits prevent progress and create prejudices.
* * * * *
Mr. Spencer has not answered my criticism at all. Mr. Spencer did
not even take into consideration the passages quoted from Kant. He
republished all the false statements of Kant’s views, so inconsiderately
made, together with all the perverse opinions based upon them. The
assurance with which Mr. Spencer makes statements which have no
foundation whatever is really perplexing even to a man who is well
informed on the subject, and it will go far to convince the unwary
reader. What, however, shall become of the general tenor of philosophical
criticism and controversy if a man of Mr. Spencer’s reputation is
so indifferent about being informed concerning the exact views of
his adversary, if he is so careless in presenting them, if he makes
positively erroneous statements on confessedly mere “supposition,” and
finally, if in consequence thereof he is flagrantly unjust in censuring
errors which arise only from his own too prolific imagination?
We feel confident that Mr. Spencer will explain his side of the question
satisfactorily. His mistakes being undeniable, we do not believe that he
will seek to deny them. Yet we trust that Mr. Spencer as soon as he finds
himself at fault, will not even make an attempt at palliation, that he
will not blink the frank acknowledgment of his misstatements and also of
having treated Kant with injustice. A man who has devoted his life to the
search for truth will not suffer any blot to remain on his escutcheon.