COMMENSAL ISSUE 100

An Original Research Paper

In 1873, at the age of 72, Fechner published a small booklet of 109 pages in which he presented his version of Darwinian evolutionary thought. This booklet went relatively unnoticed, even compared with the notable lack of success of Fechner's earlier philosophical works. Ulrici, who habitually commented upon Fechner's writings, published a brief review of it in Fichte's Zeitschrift... a year later; but otherwise, there is no striking evidence that Fechner's evolutionary theory received more than a fleeting attention in his lifetime. Even later, his biographers(1), eulogizers(2), and commentators(3) either mentioned this work in passing, without discussing its contents or merits; or ignored it altogether. It is not surprising, therefore, that the booklet was never translated into English or any other language. The first unpublished, working translation into English has only recently been completed by the present author.

The purpose of this original research paper is, first, to introduce, in brief summary form, Fechner's evolutionary theory as it appeared in 1873 under the title "Some Ideas about the Creational and Evolutionary History of Organisms"(4). The second purpose will be to discuss the several motives which led Fechner to take up the evolutionary theme so late in his life. It will be suggested that Fechner probably wrote about Darwinism because he could no longer ignore it; because he saw another vehicle in it for his "Tagesansicht" (Day View); and finally, because he wanted to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity. In sum, Fechnerian Darwinism forms an integral part of Fechner's work, thought, and lifelong quixotic plight.

Fechner admits, in his introduction to the booklet, that after long belligerence he himself became a convert to Darwinism, but with serious reservations. His purpose was, therefore, constructive criticism, which entailed the modification of certain major Darwinian principles; and the contribution of new ideas. The booklet consists of 12 chapters of varying lengths.

The first begins with a distinction between organic and inorganic molecular states and conditions. Fechner characterized the inorganic condition as having fixed internal order and passivity, and the organic condition as having changing internal order and spontaneous activity. This distinction, however, is not to be thought of as absolute, since there are many marginal cases or mixed systems. For example, every organism may be seen as a mixed system of organic and inorganic constituents, and Fechner spent his entire second chapter justifying this view, primarily on the basis of plausible analogies. A perfect crystal would be an example of the inorganic condition while the solar system represented an analogy to the organic condition; and Fechner went to great lengths to develop his arguments by analogies, sometimes by analogies built upon further analogies. Although by the late 1860's it was widely known that the organic-inorganic distinction was a mere theoretical convenience since explanations for divergent physicochemical and biochemical phenomena were to be found in differing degrees of chemical complexity; Fechner rejected this view. He preferred his own theory of molecular kinetics as developed in his 1855 "Atomenlehre"(5)- a theory of motion, forces, and equilibria. As a matter of fact, the first two chapters of the 1873 evolutionary booklet are but regurgitations of the "Atomenlehre" and Fechner included them for purposes of introduction and physicalistic basis for the ideas developed in the rest of the booklet.

In Chapter III Fechner introduced a grand hypothetical construct called the Principle of Tendency toward Stability; the essence of which is that everything tends toward an ultimate state of equilibrium, stability, and harmony. This is a curious mixture of Aristotelian physics, metaphysics, and XIXth-century physical theorizing, which included the least action idea of Maupertuis and Hamilton, as well as physicochemical kinetics and thermodynamic equilibria. Fechner distinguished degrees of stability, roughly, based on the idea of periodicity; or the conditions of motion around the gravitational center of any given mass. Approximate stages of stability within a system are eventually succeeded by full stability; and when this state of affairs is attained by all systems, absolute stability ensues. Fechner regarded the entire Universe as a (thermodynamically) closed system, in which the ideal state of affairs is harmonious (Aristotelian) rest; i.e. equilibrium or absolute stability. In a closed Universe, the total energy is constant- according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Energy Conservation; energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Energy transformations always take place so that the total quantity of energy remains constant throughout the Universe. Fechner compared his Principle of Tendency Toward Stability with the First Law of Thermodynamics; and claimed similar significance and universality for it. The two grand principles together demonstrate that although the total energy of the Universe is quantitatively constant, energy changes its form in the direction of ever-increasing stability. Thus, his principle would be the qualitative complement of the First Law; and he explicitly stated that this claim is of overwhelming importance.

In the next Chapter, Fechner applied his Principle of Tendency Toward Stability to organic conditions; and affirmed, that inorganic states have the distinct advantage of greater stability and harmony over organic states. He depicted organismic growth as occurring in stages of approximate stability, forever in the direction of greater stability. Once life stops, the organism reaches inorganic status and full stability.

In Chapter V, he reversed the evolutionary view that the organic kingdom arose from the primordial inorganic one. Fechner maintained that the Darwinian view contradicted the Principle of Tendency Toward Stability; and that we should therefore assume the genesis of inorganic conditions from the primordial organic conditions of the Earth. He designated these as cosmorganic. Cosmorganic primordial conditions arose with the gradual condensation of the solar system which was originally in a state of dispersion and random fluctuation, i.e. conditions then were maximally unstable. The primordial Earth acquired its gravitational center by condensation and the resulting gravity was the sole force which gradually imposed a pattern on spontaneous molecular motions. As heat was gradually lost by radiation, there arose from these cosmorganic conditions, molecular-organic, and finally, molecular-inorganic, conditions; constantly guided by the Principle of Tendency Toward Stability.

In Chapter VI, Fechner introduced the heart of his evolutionary view: his Principle of Purposive Differentiation. He stated that the Darwinian principle of struggle for existence or survival of the fittest was subordinate to the law of mutual interdependence. Each organism is dependent on others and its environment for survival; thus destruction would be suicidal for the individual as well as for the species. He saw the apparent struggle for existence as a symptom of territoriality defense; and the surplus of organisms as serving feeding purposes only; rather than as the Darwinian maternal stock from which only the fittest can survive. Further, Fechner argued that Darwinian natural selection exaggerated the role of accidental mutations in particular and chance coincidence in general. He emphasized instead the complementary and mutually supportive nature of biological life; and explained that the molecular-organic and the molecular-inorganic kingdoms are mutually interdependent. The two kingdoms evolved side-by-side from the primordial cosmorganic conditions, in constant interaction, guided by the Tendency Toward Stability, and the pattern of Purposive Differentiation. The molecular-organic kingdom first included the common ancestors of plants and animals; these Fechner called as "plantanimal creatures". Later, the molecular-organic kingdom differentiated into plant and animal kingdoms which belong together and are mutually adapted to each other; inside both kingdoms more specific differentiations took place, whereby the two sexes, and parasites and their hosts, and so on; have arisen. When offspring arose from an organism and became different, this differentiation was purposive in the sense of perpetuating those characteristics that ensured the survival of the maternal organism, plus developing new characteristics better fit for a changing environment. Thus such differences were significant for continued survival; and represented mutual, complementary conditions for better adaptation of organisms to their environments than it could have been the case with accidental mutations. Fechner thus modified the Darwinian tenet of natural selection; and claimed that the successive and purposive differentiations represent progressive steps toward stability. His chief support was his contention that conditions today are much more regular and stable than ever before; and his claim that evolution seems to have run its course. It no longer takes place. By eliminating the role of chance, Fechner substituted strict determinism.

Chapter VII completed this line of reasoning by introducing yet another grand principle, that of Decreasing Malleability or Modifiability. Although everything in the primordial cosmorganic condition was plastic, labile, or malleable; by taking on successive forms from the original vast reservoir, with increasing organization and stability, this reservoir gradually disappeared (somewhat similarly to the statistical concept of sampling without replacement) and malleability decreased. Mature, final forms are no longer capable of any modification, affirmed Fechner.

In Chapter VIII Fechner rejected the protoplasm as possible maternal stock by saying that today's protoplasms are not capable of spontaneous evolution. He further rejected the view that evolution started from simple germs. Rather, it started from a multipotential, highly complex common ancestor, which was the cosmorganic system itself. Then he rejects the idea of genesis under only ideal conditions or centers of evolution. He felt that the cosmorganic system contained all predispositions necessary for evolution. Finally, he even rejects the Darwinian dictum: "Natura non facit saltum", i.e. that evolution is continuous rather than jumpwise; by tracing the different species to common ancestors and these to the basic common ancestor itself- the cosmorganic Earth.

Chapter IX is concerned with the descent of Man. Fechner argued that Man is not the product of an ape ancestor; and that we should not be offended by being related to apes. He claimed that Man and ape arose from a common ancestor; which is not offensive, especially if we consider that even today, both gifted and imbecile children may be born from the same parents.

Chapter X lists some ideas that Fechner himself calls geological hypotheses and paleontological fantasies. These are concerned with his speculations about earthcrust formation, simultaneous generation of terrestrial and aquatic creatures, spongy life-generating slime precipitating on primordial Earth, and so on.

The final two chapters are devoted to the teleological and psychophysical utilization of the Stability principle; and to theosophical considerations. It is here that Fechner integrated his version of evolution with his grand view that the entire Universe was alive and filled with God's warmth. Just as psychic reality mirrors physical reality, and there is a lawful, quantitative relationship between these two aspects which is the basic psychophysical formula (S = k log R) - internal purposiveness mirrors external purposiveness. In short; the laws of causality, such as every event has a cause, etc.; and the laws of teleology, such as every event has a purpose; are mutually complementary; and are even the lawful consequences of each other analogously to the basic psychophysical notion of mirroring aspects. In this sense, the psychic as well as the physical tendencies are ab ovo directed and determined toward the same ultimate goal- which is stability and harmony. Because of divine determinism manifested in the design of such Universe; and since God designed this Universe for perfect harmony; doubting this reality amounts to sacrilegous skepticism in God's wisdom. Consider for a moment, that if the Universe were perfectly orderly from the beginning; then there would be nothing left for God to do. God merely started the pattern; namely the grand Tendency Toward Stability, toward himself; and made a psychic mirror for every aspect of physical reality- a perfectly harmonious design. In this sense, there is universal consciousness or panpsychism. It was the cosmorganic kingdom itself which was the blower filled with God's breath which imparted soul to everything- then the draft went through all conceivable pipes and channels. The emergence of organisms was necessary as vehicles carrying divine consciousness; these creatures have specialized and combined themselves in the most purposeful manner possible- what purpose can make more sense than eventual perfect harmony? Thus the whole conscious life on Earth was brought to a higher stage of harmony than it could have been the case without such purposive evolution. God did not play silly games with his creation.

Fechner concluded by affirming that his evolutionary view offered a clear foundation for a world-view which is equally compatible with our scientific and religious interests; and that his grand synthesis, his "Tagesansicht"(Day-view) offered decisive advantages over the pessimistic, materialistic, and atheistic "Nachtansicht"(Night-view). As such, we can only gain by its unreserved acceptance.

The controversy that followed the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859 spread rapidly to Germany. The champion of Darwinism in Germany was unquestionably Ernst Haeckel(6), the originator of the so-called 'fundamental biogenetic law' that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'. Many German biologists and concerned intellectuals wrote for and against Darwinism in the 1860's(7), whose main objection was that Darwinism seemed to deny divine creation; and as such, undermined religious authority. By the mid-nineteenth century the focus of the scientific revolution of the Age of Realism(8) had shifted from England to Germany. German intellectuals seemed compelled to declare their positions as to the theory of evolution. Materialists in the tradition of Feuerbach, Engels, Vogt, Moleschott, and Buechner had little difficulty in accepting Darwinism. However, idealists, in the tradition of Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, were at first opposed to Darwinism; then later, either sought to modify it or adhere to the rival doctrine of vitalism.

Vitalists maintain that evolution depends on some principle peculiar to life which cannot be explained in terms of materialism, or mechanistic cause and effect; and which cannot be directly observed. Evolution is said to follow an inner directive, or the guidance of some spiritiual or nonmaterial force. A related principle is 'finalism', sometimes called the 'perfection principle'; according to which evolution is directed toward a predetermined goal, or an abstractly determined perfection of living things; a principle of design, which of course needs a designer: God(9).

Darwinism had been 'in the air' a dozen years, and was perhaps the most controversial and oft spoken scientific problem in Germany, when Fechner finally chose no longer to ignore it. Fechner was a deeply religious scientist; a metaphysical poet of the Universe, committed to his 'mission' to restore God in a materialistic Universe of blind mechanical forces. In the best Romanticist tradition of the grand synthesis, he had ernestly attempted the restoration several times (10) even before the evolutionary doctrine became a controversial topic in Germany. For him, Darwinism unchallenged must have been a severe threat. Despite the fact that he was preoccupied with esthetics; once he saw how he might incorporate Darwinism in yet another grand synthesis, he no longer ignored it or felt hostile to it.

Surprisingly enough, Fechner became convinced, that Darwinism could be recruited to the grand synthesis; and seized upon its main tenets eagerly. That his 1873 booklet suffers a great deal from pseudoscientific superficiality is no surprise. True, he was, as William James(11) later suggested; the ideal type of the German erudite, and a scientist loyal to his discipline. But, by 1873, he had, for a quarter of a century, been a wholehearted metaphysician. He was 72 years old, at an age when most men are more dominated by an interest or a hobby (as esthetics was for him) than by professional considerations(12). He was not genuinely interested in Darwinism. However, since he could no longer ignore it; he made one more attempt to rehabilitate God as the conscious designer of a vitalistic, panpsychic, and teleological Universe, using the very Darwinism that seemed to deny such a grandiose conception. If Darwinism had less of an impact on German intellectuals, Fechner might have never bothered to write about it at all. But once he saw in evolutionary thought yet another chance to promote his grand metaphysical scheme; and since the most serious of his attempts to make his views acceptable, i.e. the Zend-Avesta(13), had been received with derision in the scientific community; he may also have felt that within the scientifically acceptable and thus 'secure' framework of Darwinism his "Tagesansicht" would be more acceptable or at least, credible. Especially in the last two chapters of his 1873 booklet, he explicitly affirmed that his version of Darwinism reconciled both scientific and religious interests. If one accepted his "Tagesansicht", evolution would seem to be a gentle and friendly process, pointing toward materialistic and spiritual harmony; rather than the cutthroat cruelty of such principles as 'survival of the fittest', etc.

Professor Boring(14) called Fechner the "inadvertent" founder of psychophysics and experimental psychology; and perhaps rightly so. Fechner developed psychophysical science in an effort to make his grand metaphysical scheme scientifically acceptable. Similarly, he now made an effort to use evolutionary theory for his own purposes; and this effort, although rather feeble when compared to his other works; is another wholly serious, earnest, and dedicated effort to awaken the somnolent world to Fechnerian Truth. His final call, "Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht" in 1879; "Stand Up, Somnolent World!" must therefore be remembered as his eighth, and not seventh call; against the present view as originally suggested by Professor Boring, which only recognized seven calls.

Fechner's mystical illness from 1840 to 1843 put an end to his career as a physicist. It left him a 'full-time' missionary, who from his illness until his death was utterly convinced that, through divine revelation, he alone had solved the mystery of the Universe; in the Schelling-Oken idealist tradition of the grand synthesis. It was his earnest and divine mission to teach the truth to the hapless, helpless, hopeless world; and to save erring souls from eternal damnation thereby. Not that Fechner believed in Hell or Paradise. But he did see divine wisdom in everything; and he firmly believed that life would be much happier if Man lived in harmony with the demands of both Science and Christianity; rather than accepting the partial answers of Science alone. Some of his earlier writings, under the pseudonym of Dr. Mises, such as the 1825 "Comparative Anatomy of Angels"(15), were precisely directed against the shortcomings of contemporary Science, although in an ironical and lampooning style.

Following his illness, all of his major writings were dedicated to showing a better way for humanity. It was his personal tragedy, that he usually managed to say the wrong thing at the right time, the right thing at the wrong time, and the wrong thing at the wrong time. With the exception of his psychophysics, he never said the right thing at the right time. With his quasi-mystical evolutionary theory in 1873; he once again said the wrong thing at the right time, and so failed to awaken the slumbering world.

What he attempted was a grand synthesis of our knowledge of the physical world with our knowledge of divine providence. The Universe is alive, and conscious. Above all, it has purpose. Consciousness parallels everything physical, and there is a quantifiable relationship between the two aspects of reality. Life and consciousness are eternal; they are the original and everlasting activities of the Universe. There is a harmonius hierarchy of consciousness rising to God, or the perfect consciousness. Consciousness is the inner unity of all material systems. We must trust God's wisdom, for, wherever we look, His wisdom is manifest(16). Fechner's pantheism was warmly received in religious circles(17), but looked upon with suspicion by scientists, despite Fechner's early scientific reputation. The Age of Realism could not tolerate lofty metaphysical schemes. We must assume that Fechner was aware that the Zeitgeist was against him; but with typical Fechnerian perseverance, he maintained his views until his very last day.

Fechner's Christian Darwinism is not surprising in the contexts of his life and work. He may have intended his 1873 booklet to be just a minor intellectual excursion; but it soon became a very serious attempt to dress up his grand views with scientific credibility. His main principles; the Tendency Toward Stability, Purposive Differentiation, and Decreasing Modifiability are no small achievements in their own right. Had he refrained from mystical and metaphysical overtones; his work might have been given lasting credit in its own day, even by his scientist opponents. But by 'Christianizing' Darwinism, Fechner undercut his own remaining credibility; at least as far as the scientific Zeitgeist was concerned.

Fechner's theory of evolution in the 1873 booklet does not qualify as a scientific theory. It lacks empirical evidence, and it is even potentially unverifiable. It does propose several modifications of Darwinism; but it is a thoroughly vitalistic, and at best, a pseudoscientific theory. It suffers from logical flaws; such as category mistakes, i.e. arguing from a basis that properly belongs to a different logical category; or limited induction, i.e. generalization from meager premises; 'non-sequiturs', i.e. conclusions that simply do not follow from the premisses; and several internal inconsistencies. It stands as a dynamic metaphysical conjecture; and as an integral part of Fechner's "Tagesansicht" promulgated for the benefit of Mankind.

One might criticize his omission of references. Although his ideas on molecular kinetics reflect the works of Dalton, Berzelius, Avogadro, etc.; he does not acknowledge his sources. His grand Stability principle is virtually identical with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which by 1873 had been well known for almost a quarter of a century; yet Fechner proposes the principle as his own, without ever mentioning let alone acknowledging the Second Law. Similarly, Fechner's cosmogony was borrowed; it is a somewhat slanted version of the nebular hypothesis of Laplace, the famous French mathematician-astronomer. The rest of his ideas, where not discernibly borrowed; seem purely conjectural, even outright speculative. He certainly made sense out of the Universe, but not in a scientific way.

His scheme does not even qualify as a philosophical theory. Even in metaphysical terms; it is utterly insufficient to state a proposition without proving, at least logically, what the proposition entails. Plausibility and arguments from analogies do not imply necessary existence. Fechner did not even attempt to provide logical proof for his propositions. Instead, he simply affirmed, ex cathedra, on his own real or imagined intellectual authority; what the state of affairs was with respect to evolution. We are expected to take his doctrine as a matter of faith, in fact as a religious substitute, or rather, substitute religion. The best that is possible with Fechner's ersatz religious propositions is a tautology: if they are correct then they are correct. Such circularity is hopeless.

It has been said that the three classical virtues of any philosophical theory are Erudition, Eloquence, and Elegance. It would seem that Fechner's 1873 booklet is moderately erudite, very eloquent, but not at all elegant. Erudition is moderately manifest throughout the booklet, sometimes precise, at other times sweepingly vague, but it is there, nevertheless. Eloquence is omnipresent, from the first to the last page; sometimes even to the detriment of comprehensibility. But elegance is sorely absent. The 'theory', so deceptively simple on the surface, becomes maddeningly complex and hopelessly circular in its depth.

It may perhaps be said that Fechner's Theory of Evolution is not a theory at all; but a fine little revelation of the Gospel, according to Saint Gustav Fechner.

Heidbreder (18) noted in 1933 that; "...Fechner (was), a simple, subtle, profoundly learned man, in the grip of an irresistible impulse to take ideas seriously, and utterly at the mercy of his own intellectual sincerity. Fechner was at once a scientist and a mystic. Torn by rival intellectual claims, he was totally incapable of giving up one for the other and equally incapable of peace without victory..."

Fechner was raised in the traditions of Romanticism and German idealism; in a great age of speculation, of wonder, of grand synthetic schemes to solve the mystery of the Universe. He was a product of his era; and he sought to reconcile and unify all the conflicting interests and tendencies through which he lived. He succeeded, but sadly enough, only to his own satisfaction. Indeed, the world he sought to awake seems to have had taken a rather powerful sedative; for not only did it fail to awake despite eight repeated and energetic calls; but alas, it seems to have been asleep ever since.

As Professor Marshall(19) noted, there is a rebuking trend in our proud century, which tends to read present standards into a different era; and so produces, at best, slanted History. Lest the Historian wishes to be accused of presentism, he must appreciate Fechner's evolutionary theory in the contexts of all of his works, of his personality, of his environment, of his Zeitgeist. In these contexts Fechner's evolutionary theorizing not only makes perfect historical sense; but represents a great creative effort for the benefit of Mankind; that has been, unfortunately, neglected and unappreciated for over a century. The present-day Historian must take it into account if he is to fully appreciate the tragic genius of Gustav Theodor Fechner; the casually inadvertent father of modern psychology.

Originally written : Ottawa, Canada, 1975.

Paper presented at the Cheiron International Congress, University of Colorado at Boulder, June, 1977.

Revised : Budapest, January, 2000.

(frankluger@hotmail.com)

Note : Those in the text refer to footnotes in Frank’s original article, which in turn refer to an extensive bibliography. I have only retained two of these footnotes here, as the full scholarly apparatus covers 5 pages. Since the majority of the texts are in German, I have presumed that those of our readership sufficiently interested and polyglot will be willing to contact Frank directly by email (at frankluger@hotmail.com) or indirectly via the Editor.

(13) "Zend-Avesta" literally means "the living word". Fechner intended this book to be his magnum opus and as such, a kind of oriental beacon shining upon a somnolent world. Full reference: cf. Fechner, 1919, originally published in 1851.

(16) Fechner seems to have laid much emphasis on this idea, since it appears, in one form or another, in practically all of his 'nonscientific' writings after 1845.