“Sensations and emotions are parts of consciousness, and so far from being its minor components, they are its major components.... Like respirations and winkings of the eyes, their unceasingness makes us oblivious of them. Yet every instant emotions are present. No movement is made but what is preceded by a prompting feeling as well as a prompting thought.... The emotions are master, the intellect is the servant. The guidance of our acts through perception and reason has for its end the satisfaction of feelings, which at once prompt the acts and yield the energy for performance of the acts” (10: pp. 36-38). But overemphasis on academic training, which is necessarily artificial and intellectual, also tends to the neglect of emotional elements even in art, whose proper domain is emotion. “Not the arousing of certain sentiments, but the communication of certain ideas is thus represented as the poet’s office.” “It is not enough for a picture to gratify the æsthetic perceptions or raise pleasurable emotions” (10: pp. 44-45). The drama or music is valued on the basis of its serviceability to moral instruction or intellectual enlightenment, while the primary and all-sufficient purpose of art is pleasure. From this dislike of academic education, his opposition to compulsory universalizing of this form of training by the power of authority is only natural. His plea is for an educational individualism, that each member of society should be “left to do his best for himself and children.” It rests upon his two fundamental conceptions in regard to the social organism. First, that the “social organism grows”; it is not artificially formed. Secondly, that the law of its growth is a progressive individualization. If his argument is now behind the times, it is not without much historical interest for us. For he is the best representative of that educational conservatism which has long withstood, in Great Britain and America, the modern tide of state education which started from Germany. Moreover, it is still a strong voice deserving attention as a warning against the dangers and defects of state education. The contention of the state educationists, as Spencer understands, is that parents, and especially those whose children most need instructing, lack knowledge and judgment in the matter of education. But Spencer thinks that the implication that “the interest and judgment of a government are insufficient security” is “a very questionable assumption.” The government’s interest, according to him, would necessarily tend to conservatism, and likewise the school-teacher’s interest, while a true education must always be a revolutionary force of society--“always fitting men for higher things, and _un_fitting them for things as they are” (9: p. 373).