 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, in 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. Spencer 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 Spencer 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, Spencer's 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, at first gradually, then exponentially, transitions into a heterogeneous substance. Eventually, it reaches a state of equilibration, 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 unceasingly, whether it be in the development of the earth, in the development of life upon its 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 surge 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 in the beginning of all philosophy. Allow me to pass on to the ethics of Spencer. This does unfortunately mean that we will not expound upon his psychology or sociology, but rather you 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 the 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 exist natural sanctions no less preemptory in 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 will 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 and 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 set 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 socioeconomic foundations. For Spencer, this is where nature's supreme court, natural selection, is to make the final call. The ill-fitted 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 textbooks in the library of Oxford, but this steady flow of admiration would soon become barren, collateral damage and Europe's resistance to comp's positivism. The scientists would ignore his contributions, the ecclesiastics would damn him to eternal suffering, and those of the Labour 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 labour has won for us. We seem to be above him because he has raised us on his shoulders. 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.