What do you think?
Rate this book
Force and Matter; or, Principles of the Natural Order of the Universe
Force and matter or, Principles of the natural order of the universe. With a system of morality based thereon. This book, "Force and matter or, Principles of the natural order of the universe," by Ludwig Buchner, is a replication of a book originally published before 1884. It has been restored by human beings, page by page, so that you may enjoy it in a form as close to the original as possible.
- GenresPhilosophy
558 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1855
2 people are currently reading
100 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 23, 2023
In the mid-to-late 19th century, just post Darwin and at the dawn of modern physics, more than a few thinkers wrote about the material basis for life. This book (I read the paperback, not the e-version) is one such account. It especially counters supernatural, especially Christian, explanations. “Nature knows neither a supernatural beginning nor a supernatural continuance,” Buchner writes. “Nature, the all-engendering and all-devouring, is its own beginning and end, birth and death. She produced man by her own power, and takes him again.” The book also provides, by implication, a material foundation for philosophy. Buchner argues that we are material beings who, like all matter, move, which affects other material beings (thus, force).*
Buchner was strong on science and facts,** but he took them into directions that reflected the common prejudices of the time. Women were intellectually inferior to men; educated men had larger hat sizes than uneducated men; negros were mentally inferior to whites; and American Indians were so inferior that their extermination was likely. Unfortunately, Buchner did not take his own acknowledgement that science and fact were subject to interpretation error and that his perspective very much reflected what he noted elsewhere was a problem: the human desire to be regarded as the center of things, thus illustrating once again the wisdom of Hume’s observation that reason serves the passions.
This extreme subjectivism, cloaked as objective science and facts, live with us today in the form of colonial legacies, hierarchical meritocracies and disdain for the “uneducated,” a Western-centric viewpoint that values intellect over character. How many, how many especially, intelligent people are out there who value their interest at the expense of others and the whole? Buchner’s book in this regard reflected a perspective that was prominent then and is prominent now.
As much as Buchner’s materialism rested on a biological foundation, he pretty much followed Newtonian physics** by presenting a point of view that had the environment forming human nature. It was an empiricism in the extreme. There is no innate being inside. The newborn is a blank slate ready to be filled, via the senses, with the inputs of the environment. Since all interactions with the environment are infinitely variable, so too is the variability of humankind. That is true at one level, but not true at a more fundamental level. If our physical being is different, why wouldn’t our dispositional makeup be different as well? Why would biology only half work? Underlying tendencies, say, based on degrees of need and fear, determine how we interact with the world. Such tendencies constitute biological form that the environment then fills with specific content. The debate between the two camps - biology and the environment - continue to this day, but erroneously framed as an either-or dynamic when it is more that biology gives form to environmental input.
Buchner is an excellent writer, with well-turned phrases throughout (e.g., “the gloomy rage of the priest;” ideas that dissolve “in a philosophical mist”). He is straightforward, both in style and in the way he makes his points. Some of these are the clearest statements I’ve seen. Of Descartes’ “I think, and therefore I exist,” for example, Buchner writes that the “‘I think’ presupposes the ‘I am,’ for he who is not, thinks not.” He gives a nod to Buddhism (the Buddha himself, and not its subsequent transcendental religious capture) as a religion that is possible without “the assumption of a supernatural being.” Buchner goes on to suggest the possibility of the “Religion of the Future” that is based on “a naturalistic system, in which the principle of humanity may supersede that of fear and self-interest.” In phrasing it this way, Buchner places fear and need (self-interest) at the heart of human (and life) motivation. Also, Buchner takes on the West’s preoccupation with consciousness, as opposed to recognizing the forces of the unconscious, by referencing this Spinoza quote: “‘Human liberty, of which all boast,’ says Spinoza, “consists solely in this, that man is conscious of his will, and unconscious of the causes by which it is determined.” (This was the same idea as Schopenhauer’s who asked that we are free to choose, but on what basis do we make our choices.) At the end of his book, Buchner alludes without elaboration to the possibility that necessity (naturalism) might be replaced by reciprocity but here he runs into the same problem: If ego-only self-interest is in the driver seat, as it is for many, on what basis does one choose to be other-regarding? Then it is up to those who are, consciously or unconsciously, other-regarding by nature (by their “material” nature) to become the enforcers (via the use of “force”) of reciprocity.
*Taking this materialism, and the cue from the law of conservation of energy, to its ultimate implications, Buchner says that matter is eternal. It neither arises anew or disappears “but only changes its combinations.” In other words: The cosmos was not created. It is eternal. There is no extraordinary First Cause. Motion, rather, is a property of matter itself.
**He believed that “the whole organic world” did not originate “from a single centre. All facts and investigations prove, on the contrary that it must have arisen from innumerable independent central points, both as regards the vegetable and animal world. The similarity and differences between these centres prove the fundamentally independent force of nature.”
***Force comes, Buchner writes, in definite equivalents. This reflects the early findings of modern physics but also applies to human motivation, thereby giving additional support to the notion that we are material beings. An emotional force that reacts to internal need or external threat comes in gradient form: Need or fear can exist as internal states only without active or reactive form until intensity is such that the motive force pushes the self outward as behavior, or pushes an external force away, again as behavior.
Buchner was strong on science and facts,** but he took them into directions that reflected the common prejudices of the time. Women were intellectually inferior to men; educated men had larger hat sizes than uneducated men; negros were mentally inferior to whites; and American Indians were so inferior that their extermination was likely. Unfortunately, Buchner did not take his own acknowledgement that science and fact were subject to interpretation error and that his perspective very much reflected what he noted elsewhere was a problem: the human desire to be regarded as the center of things, thus illustrating once again the wisdom of Hume’s observation that reason serves the passions.
This extreme subjectivism, cloaked as objective science and facts, live with us today in the form of colonial legacies, hierarchical meritocracies and disdain for the “uneducated,” a Western-centric viewpoint that values intellect over character. How many, how many especially, intelligent people are out there who value their interest at the expense of others and the whole? Buchner’s book in this regard reflected a perspective that was prominent then and is prominent now.
As much as Buchner’s materialism rested on a biological foundation, he pretty much followed Newtonian physics** by presenting a point of view that had the environment forming human nature. It was an empiricism in the extreme. There is no innate being inside. The newborn is a blank slate ready to be filled, via the senses, with the inputs of the environment. Since all interactions with the environment are infinitely variable, so too is the variability of humankind. That is true at one level, but not true at a more fundamental level. If our physical being is different, why wouldn’t our dispositional makeup be different as well? Why would biology only half work? Underlying tendencies, say, based on degrees of need and fear, determine how we interact with the world. Such tendencies constitute biological form that the environment then fills with specific content. The debate between the two camps - biology and the environment - continue to this day, but erroneously framed as an either-or dynamic when it is more that biology gives form to environmental input.
Buchner is an excellent writer, with well-turned phrases throughout (e.g., “the gloomy rage of the priest;” ideas that dissolve “in a philosophical mist”). He is straightforward, both in style and in the way he makes his points. Some of these are the clearest statements I’ve seen. Of Descartes’ “I think, and therefore I exist,” for example, Buchner writes that the “‘I think’ presupposes the ‘I am,’ for he who is not, thinks not.” He gives a nod to Buddhism (the Buddha himself, and not its subsequent transcendental religious capture) as a religion that is possible without “the assumption of a supernatural being.” Buchner goes on to suggest the possibility of the “Religion of the Future” that is based on “a naturalistic system, in which the principle of humanity may supersede that of fear and self-interest.” In phrasing it this way, Buchner places fear and need (self-interest) at the heart of human (and life) motivation. Also, Buchner takes on the West’s preoccupation with consciousness, as opposed to recognizing the forces of the unconscious, by referencing this Spinoza quote: “‘Human liberty, of which all boast,’ says Spinoza, “consists solely in this, that man is conscious of his will, and unconscious of the causes by which it is determined.” (This was the same idea as Schopenhauer’s who asked that we are free to choose, but on what basis do we make our choices.) At the end of his book, Buchner alludes without elaboration to the possibility that necessity (naturalism) might be replaced by reciprocity but here he runs into the same problem: If ego-only self-interest is in the driver seat, as it is for many, on what basis does one choose to be other-regarding? Then it is up to those who are, consciously or unconsciously, other-regarding by nature (by their “material” nature) to become the enforcers (via the use of “force”) of reciprocity.
*Taking this materialism, and the cue from the law of conservation of energy, to its ultimate implications, Buchner says that matter is eternal. It neither arises anew or disappears “but only changes its combinations.” In other words: The cosmos was not created. It is eternal. There is no extraordinary First Cause. Motion, rather, is a property of matter itself.
**He believed that “the whole organic world” did not originate “from a single centre. All facts and investigations prove, on the contrary that it must have arisen from innumerable independent central points, both as regards the vegetable and animal world. The similarity and differences between these centres prove the fundamentally independent force of nature.”
***Force comes, Buchner writes, in definite equivalents. This reflects the early findings of modern physics but also applies to human motivation, thereby giving additional support to the notion that we are material beings. An emotional force that reacts to internal need or external threat comes in gradient form: Need or fear can exist as internal states only without active or reactive form until intensity is such that the motive force pushes the self outward as behavior, or pushes an external force away, again as behavior.
February 4, 2023
This looked like a neglected classic. Maybe of some relevance in the history of ideas. Even if just a quick read. Yeah ... Nah.
Written in the 1850s, an earnest defense of materialism( force and matter ) and modern science ( or what was modern then). Stridently against Religion, Spiritualism, mysticism, supernaturalism, romantic idealism and all the other 'isms' - except his. Germany was awash with all sorts of august and pompous 'metaphysical' systems at the time. He ridicules them too.
The science is very dated though to be fair the recent advances in biology and geology were all the rage back then. Darwin had only just published and the immense age of the Earth was only just becoming apparent. A bit older than 4000 years!! There are simplistic, near childish, discussions on the implications for consciousness and free will but probably OK for the time. Certainly he has no time for such fantasies as souls and afterlives, or gods. He touches on but doesn't really address the implications for morality.
There is an appalling and appallingly casual level of sexism, racism and 'class-ism'. Where he confidently relates intellectual superiority to skull and brain size. What!!! At heart he is an arrogant, self-privileged conservative and an elitist and not progressive at all. Despite being removed from his (academic?) position for his unacceptable points of view. His only saving grace.
He seems not to grasp the basic fact about methodology - you don't do science by stridently arguing about it. ( instead build mathematical models, test, observe, experiment, bang the rocks together and see what happens etc - that sort of thing ). Verbal arguments about what must be the case because - blah blah blah - are basically a waste of time.
Finally add in the effect that the digitization into an ebook was deeply flawed. Patches missing, blocks of text mixed up etc. So we can only assume it was done sloppily and therefore opportunistically.
Conclusion - maybe have a glance at paper version if you can find one and have nothing better to do. But otherwise dont waste your time on this. Mostly rubbish.
Written in the 1850s, an earnest defense of materialism( force and matter ) and modern science ( or what was modern then). Stridently against Religion, Spiritualism, mysticism, supernaturalism, romantic idealism and all the other 'isms' - except his. Germany was awash with all sorts of august and pompous 'metaphysical' systems at the time. He ridicules them too.
The science is very dated though to be fair the recent advances in biology and geology were all the rage back then. Darwin had only just published and the immense age of the Earth was only just becoming apparent. A bit older than 4000 years!! There are simplistic, near childish, discussions on the implications for consciousness and free will but probably OK for the time. Certainly he has no time for such fantasies as souls and afterlives, or gods. He touches on but doesn't really address the implications for morality.
There is an appalling and appallingly casual level of sexism, racism and 'class-ism'. Where he confidently relates intellectual superiority to skull and brain size. What!!! At heart he is an arrogant, self-privileged conservative and an elitist and not progressive at all. Despite being removed from his (academic?) position for his unacceptable points of view. His only saving grace.
He seems not to grasp the basic fact about methodology - you don't do science by stridently arguing about it. ( instead build mathematical models, test, observe, experiment, bang the rocks together and see what happens etc - that sort of thing ). Verbal arguments about what must be the case because - blah blah blah - are basically a waste of time.
Finally add in the effect that the digitization into an ebook was deeply flawed. Patches missing, blocks of text mixed up etc. So we can only assume it was done sloppily and therefore opportunistically.
Conclusion - maybe have a glance at paper version if you can find one and have nothing better to do. But otherwise dont waste your time on this. Mostly rubbish.
August 10, 2016
Would only recommend the chapter on free will as actual and relevant.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews