ABSTRACT
Spencer’s theory of scientifi c knowledge led him to focus on the external qualities of things – their shapes and surfaces – rather than on their internal structures and their essential or inner beings. His stance ranged him against the Platonism that was a feature of much contemporary philosophy of science. His concentration on externalities was also an integral part of his philosophical and cultural beliefs. Spencer believed that only while looking at surfaces could one perceive the beauty that was one of the scarce non-functional features of the universe. To see, or to touch, beauty was to sense something rare that had not emerged as a product of the normal human drives, which were rooted in reproduction or nourishment. Yet, at the same time, a focus on beauty did not entirely ignore function. Feeling the outside shapes of physical things and organisms did not obscure the fact that they were fashioned by physical forces. For example, it was possible to admire the symmetry or shape of a plant even though its structure could be explained by reference to the most effi cient way of bearing weight. Similarly, while the beauty of a rose or the shape of a human eye might be explained by reference to science, this did not exhaust the subject; Spencer believed that functional explanations always left an unexplored residue. ere would be an extra tincture that was more beautiful and more meaningful than that required by function alone. According to Spencer the perception of beauty or meaning is itself a recognition of regularity that shows the object we perceive to be part of a universe is subject to the forces of evolution. We, as living things, share a common quality with crystals and other physical objects. Spencer took solace from the knowledge that human beings were one with the cosmos; it was a joyful realization that human beings did not have to evolve, or reach perfection, to feel at home in their universe. ey were already part of it.
