शुक्रवार, 29 फ़रवरी 2008

What is Philosophy?

By Mark I. VuleticLast

The Nature of Philosophy
The word philosophy literally means love of wisdom;1 this tells us something about the nature of philosophy, but not much. How does philosophy differ from other disciplines that seek wisdom? A look at the historical development of the field will help us to answer this question. On the standard way of telling the story, humanity's first systematic inquiries took place within a mythological or religious framework: wisdom was ultimately to be derived from sacred traditions and from individuals thought to possess privileged access to a supernatural realm. However, starting in the sixth century BCE, there appeared in ancient Greece a series of thinkers whose inquiries were comparatively secular. Presumably, these thinkers conducted their inquiries through reason and observation, rather than through tradition or revelation. These thinkers were the first philosophers. Although this picture is admittedly simplistic, the basic distinction has stuck: philosophy in its most primeval form is considered nothing less than secular inquiry itself.2
Philosophy is characterized as much by its methods as by its subject matter. Although philosophers deal with speculative issues that generally are not subject to investigation through experimental test, and philosophy therefore is more fully conceptual than science, philosophy properly done is not mere speculation. Philosophers, just like scientists, formulate hypotheses which ultimately must answer to reason and evidence.3 This is one of the things that differentiates philosophy from poetry and mysticism, despite its not being a science.4

The Branches of Philosophy

The four main branches of philosophy are logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics:
Logic is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians explore the structure of arguments that preserve truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence. Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries; the precision of logic helps them to cope with the subtlety of philosophical problems and the often misleading nature of conversational language.
Aspects of each branch of philosophy can be studied in isolation, but philosophical questions have a way of leading to other philosophical questions, to the point that a full investigation of any particular problem is likely eventually to involve almost the whole of the philosophical enterprise.

The Demands of Philosophy

Philosophical inquiry is very demanding, suitable only for those who possess a fair degree of courage, humility, patience and discipline.

Doing philosophy requires courage, because one never knows what one will find at the end of a philosophical investigation. Since philosophy deals with the most fundamental and important issues of human existence, and since these are things that most people initially take for granted, genuine philosophical inquiry has great potential to unsettle or even to destroy one's deepest and most cherished beliefs. Genuine philosophical inquiry also carries the risk of isolation among one's peers, both for the unorthodox views to which it may lead one, and for the simple unpopularity of critical thinking. A philosopher must be able to face both consequences.

---------Doing philosophy requires both patience and discipline, because philosophical inquiry requires long hours of hard work। One must be prepared to commit huge amounts of time to laboring over issues both difficult and subtle। People who avoid philosophy often complain that thinking about philosophical questions makes their heads hurt. This is unavoidable: if the answers come easily to you, your inquiries are almost certainly superficial. To do philosophy, one must commit onself to pain. The only difference between one who chooses to shoulder the pain and one who does not is that the former recognizes that there is no shortcut to truth: every advance must be fought for tooth and nail.

The Rewards of Philosophy
But if philosophy is so demanding, why should anyone even bother with it?

In the first place, there is great utility in philosophical inquiry, even for someone who does not innately care about the pursuit of truth. Consider a random handful of classic philosophical questions: What is the meaning of life? What is the nature of justice? What does it take for a belief to be justified? Is the world we see illusion or reality? The answers to such questions cannot help but to have a critical impact on how one ought to live one's life. Surely one should subject one's intuitive beliefs about these things to critical scrutiny, and work hard to come as close to truth as possible. Many philosophical questions are fundamental to human life; the only reason it often does not seem that way is that people simply assume they know what the answers to these questions are, without ever daring to make a serious inquiry.

This leads us to the second reason why one ought to do philosophy: to understand is ennobling. To go through life simply assuming one understands, is not. To be sure, one can be happy if one manages to make it all the way through life without questioning anything. Philosophical inquiry, on the other hand, can be disquieting, offering no guarantee that your hard work will yield the conclusions you hope for. Even worse, philosophy gives you no guarantee that your investigations will yield any conclusion at all: at the end of the day, you may find yourself not only minus the certainties with which you began, but also with nothing else to put in their place. If you do philosophy, you may well have to learn to live with perpetual uncertainty, while others, in their ignorance, happily profess perfect knowledge of things they do not understand at all. But it is clear who has the better life: far better to understand, even if the main thing you understand is the limit of your own knowledge.

And a final reason for studying philosophy is that, for all of the pains and difficulties associated with it, the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge is enjoyable. To be sure, it is a refined enjoyment, and it is often hard to see from the outside what the appeal is. But once you become immersed in it, it carries its own immediate rewards, and it is difficult to resist becoming addicted to it. I have experienced most of the same pleasures everyone else has,6 but in the end, none of them hold a candle to the pleasures of the mind: the sheer pleasure of studying and investigating, and sometimes even understanding.

Copyright © 2006-2007, Mark I. Vuletic. All rights reserved.

Tips on Doing, Reading, and Writing Philosophy

Doing Philosophy

Philosophy is a rigorous discipline that demands precision, accuracy, and careful thought. Contrary to popular belief, philosophy isn’t merely about airing one's opinions. In a word, philosophy is about arguments. By arguments, we mean a logically structured set of statements or propositions that, when put together, entail some sort of conclusion. For example, the following is an argument:

(1) All C.U. students are brilliant.
(2) Jill is a C.U. student.
Therefore,(C) Jill is brilliant.

Here, the truth of premises (1) and (2) make the conclusion, (C), true, i.e., it could not fail to be true if the premises are true. Premises are simply statements offered for consideration.

Philosophy revolves around giving arguments for various positions one might take on the nature of reality (metaphysics), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), the nature of morality (ethics) or the nature of a particular subject like aesthetics or science.

There are two important distinctions that should be with respect to arguments like the one above. First, arguments are either valid or invalid. Though we often use the word "valid" in our common everyday language to label a person's point as good or strong, the term as it is used in philosophy is a technical term that refers to the nature of a deductive argument. If a deductive argument is valid, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. That is to say, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An invalid argument is an argument whose premises do not entail the conclusion. That is to say, even if the premises are true, the conclusion may not be true.

The second distinction with respect to arguments in philosophy lies between sound and unsound arguments. If an argument is sound, then it is not only valid, but its premises are indeed true. An unsound argument is an argument in which one or more of the premises are false. Note that an argument can be valid, but unsound.

Here is your first test in philosophy: First, is the above argument concerning the brilliance of C.U. students valid?

If your answer is no, there are no more comments to make, for if an argument is not valid, there is little sense in discussing it beyond making this determination.

But, if our answer is yes, we can ask the further question as to whether the above argument is sound, i.e., are the premises true? Well, what do you think, are they true? Premise (1) is of course the controversial premise; premise (2) we will assume, is a given. Well, premise (1) is probably false, if we mean by "brilliant," incredibly intelligent. Unfortunately, there are most likely at least a few C.U. students that do not fall into this category of brilliance. The good news is that life is not just about being intelligent.

Now that we have the two basic concepts of validity and soundness under our belts, we can begin to do philosophy. To do philosophy well, you will have to think in terms of arguments all the time. This thought process can be a bit daunting for the neophyte, but after a while it becomes second nature. Along with this process of thinking in terms of arguments, you will also have to put your thinking cap on; philosophy, by its very nature, requires you to think hard, to make fine distinctions, and to be extremely careful with how you use words. Often, philosophers use common everyday words in uncommon ways. For example, the word "necessarily" is a word loaded with meaning for the philosopher, though not for the person on the street.

Reading Philosophy

Reading philosophy for the beginner can also be a daunting task. Because philosophers use language so carefully, one can often find their first reading of a philosophy article quite dense, slow and laborious. Philosophers like to condense their ideas into the fewest words possible needed to express them, so reading philosophy can be akin to untying a shoelace which has several knots in it. Unlike reading fiction or the newspaper, reading philosophy is often a grueling process. Adequately understanding what a particular philosopher is arguing may require re-reading the article several times. As with many sorts of texts there are values in reading the text quickly and slowly. If you know that you are going to read a text more the once, it is sometimes profitable to read through it the first time quickly, not getting bogged down too much with sections that are not readily clear to you. On the second time through you can slow down and digest the more difficult parts of the reading. The quick read-through often gives you context such that when you read through the article a second time, you already know what will later be said in the article, thus helping you to understand the difficult passages found earlier in the article. Above all, reading philosophy takes patience. Even if you read an article through several times, there may be portions of the text that are still unclear. Philosophy often leaves one with more questions than answers; hence, if you have in mind that you will develop a bulletproof personal philosophy at the end of one class, give that idea up now. Philosophers study for decades and often never reach a firm conclusion on some matters. Lastly, you will almost certainly come across words that you are not familiar with. Though it is easy to just skip these words, you will gain greater understanding and pleasure from your reading if you look unknown words up. You may have even come across unknown words on this web page like "neophyte." A great tool for the college student is an electronic dictionary, which can be purchased on CD-Rom and then transferred to your hard drive (if you have enough room). Good, unabridged dictionaries on CD-Rom can be purchased for about $25. This tool helps you to look words up quickly (if you're near your computer).

Writing Philosophy

As you can imagine, writing philosophy involves the skills of doing philosophy and reading philosophy. To write philosophy, you must learn to use your own language well. You must learn to use language precisely; you must master syntax (which includes spelling) and grammar. You must also learn to write stylistically, and not in the manner that you speak on a daily basis. Philosophy requires a formal writing style. You must learn to be well-organized in the presentation of your ideas. You must learn to present an argument, and then evaluate it, i.e., give your own argument for why you think the argument under question is a good or bad one. Philosophers are picky, anal, and fastidious when they write, and so must you be if you are to succeed as a nascent philosopher.

Cited from:http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/robertsm/tips.html

गुरुवार, 28 फ़रवरी 2008

Teaching Philosophy

Teaching Philosophy

by M.Hemdev

Philosophy, the oxford dictionary says is (quote) “ the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and reality, especially about the causes and nature of things and principles that govern existence”(unquote). This being the case, while teaching philosophy, teachers have always encountered problems. Teaching Philosophy is different from teaching core subjects like physics or chemistry, for while the latter dwells on a set of conclusions drawn from certain premises or accepted facts, the former is associated with the investigation of concepts using argument and analysis as its tools. This would imply that the process of teaching philosophy involves a completely different frame of mind and distinctively different trend of thought. This would require the student to be open minded and inquiring. The problem about teaching philosophy then is that students generally are more worried about finishing assigned tasks and getting through the reading material than with trying to understand the basic concepts involved. They just do not want to know “how or why”, but want to wade through it without too much effort. They want answers to the problems and blindly adopt methods to arrive at solutions without pausing to question. This is a stumbling block, and a huge one at that, in the way of a teacher who is trying to teach philosophy. In fact as Galileo once said ” You cannot teach a person anything, you can only help him to find it within himself.”

So the question remains” how then do we teach philosophy, if it is so difficult? Some time must be spent in bridging the gap between your expectation and that of the student’s without compromising on your expectations. Slowly drive them through the rough terrain and make them buy your approach. Be direct with them about how they need to change their attitudes and how they need to do so. Help them to develop their critical and independent abilities by way of lectures and assigned homework. This helps to reinforce the fundamentals. Introduce them to new things slowly and do not incorporate all the details at the same time. Leave some questions unanswered and motivate students to find the solutions themselves. It will sharpen their critical skills. Group assignments help to foster integration of ideas and hone analytical skills. Allow the students to discover new things at their own pace and in their own way. The results can be simply amazing.

The inquiring mind needs to be nurtured. Motivate, and encourage the students by appreciating any progress that has been made. Always be available to solve difficulties and assign extra work for the student who is ahead. A combination of individual tasks, group tasks, and assignments followed by effective tracking of progress will make the teaching of philosophy a more realistic task. Teaching Indian philosophy is slightly more difficult. There are 6 orthodox systems, which deal with the perception of truth. The other six systems of philosophy involve exploring the aspects present in religions.

The bottom line here is that while teaching philosophy, the teacher must guide, and motivate the development of critical thinking, stimulate curiosity and enthusiasm for learning, encourage debate and discussion, create the potential for high level intellectual interaction and above all be passionate in your approach. The end result from untutored minds can be very valuable and very very refreshing.

Cited From:http://www.indianchild.com/study/teaching-philosophy.htm
February 28, 2008 12:56 AM

What Do We Mean By "Applied Philosophy"?

By Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

"Classical realists generally define the academic discipline of philosophy as the study of all reality in its ultimate causes and principles through the use of human reason alon. We also differentiate various branches of philosophy, such as metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics, and so fort. We also point out that each branch of philosophy has its own specific object of study: ontology, the study of "being"; epistemology, the study of the verification of knowledge; logic, the methods used in right or correct reasoning; and ethics, the study of right conduct or the means to achieve happiness."

"The term "applied" simply means "to put into practice" or "to be used practically।" From this use of the term "applied," we can formulate a general definition of applied philosophy: it is the application of those principles and concepts derived from and based on philosophy to a study of our practical affairs and activities। Notice that these principles and concepts are used to "study" our practical affairs। The reason why this is important is because applied knowledge is third-order philosophical knowledge and does not necessarily lead to a completed "truth" applicable to all times and places. Let me explain."
"Applied philosophy, however, is never tightly vov. There are many practical issues which we will always be debating. I think of capital punishment, for example. Should the death penalty be part of any society's criminal justice system? There is wide disagreement. It is a practical issue and an important one. We must refer back to second-order knowledge in ethics and politics and from there to first-order knowledge about the philosophy of man or rational psychology. How do we decide the issue? It isn't easy. I am opposed to the death penalty and I use second-order principles to bolster my argument. Unfortunately, these principles cannot be shown to be necessarily true in all cases. I don't have real certainty. I think I have truth beyond a reasonable doubt, but my opponents dispute this, citing other principles which may also be reasonable. The debate continues and reasonable people may reasonably disagree."

"By the way, many years ago as part of my graduate program in philosophy, I took courses in philosophy of literature, philosophy of education, and philosophy of religion। In all of these courses we applied principles and concepts from metaphysics and ethics to the specific subject under study.As a matter of public disclosure, I must say that the individual members of the class did not arrive at a consensus about what was "best" or "true" in any of these courses in applied philosophy. The debate continues, as it always will."
For detail article go to the following link:
Cited from:http://radicalacademy।com/philapplied1.htm
February 28, 2008 12:53 AM

बुधवार, 27 फ़रवरी 2008

Auguste Comte:Course of Positive Philosophy

Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)

by Auguste Comte

View of the Nature and Importance of the Positive Philosophy

A general statement of any system of philosophy may be either a sketch of a doctrine to be established, or a summary of a doctrine already established. If greater value belongs to the last, the first is still important, as characterizing from its origin the subject to be treated. In a case like the present, where the proposed study is vast and hitherto indeterminate, it is especially important that the field of research should be marked out with all possible accuracy. . . .

In order to understand the true value and character of the positive philosophy, we must take a brief general view of the progressive course of the human mind, regarded as a whole, for no conception can be understood otherwise than through its history.

From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions -- each branch of our knowledge -- passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive. In other words, the human mind, by its nature, employs in its progress three methods of philosophizing, the character of which is essentially different, and even radically opposed: namely, the theological method, the metaphysical, and the positive. Hence arise three philosophies, or general systems of conceptions on the aggregate of phenomena, each of which excludes the others. The first is the necessary point of departure of the human understanding, and the third is its fixed and definitive state. The second is merely a state of transition.

In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects -- in short, absolute knowledge -- supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.

In the metaphysical state, which is only a modification of the first, the mind supposes, instead of supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities (that is, personified abstractions) inherent in all beings, and capable of producing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of phenomena is, in this stage, a mere reference of each to its proper entity.

In the final, the positive, state, the mind has given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws -- that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance. Reasoning and observation, duly combined, are the means of this knowledge. What is now understood when we speak of an explanation of facts is simply the establishment of a connection between single phenomena and some general facts, the number of which continually diminishes with the progress of science.

The theological system arrived at the highest perfection of which it is capable when it substituted the providential action of a single Being for the varied operations of the numerous divinities that had been before imagined. In the same way, in the last stage of the metaphysical system, men substitute one great entity (Nature) as the cause of all phenomena, instead of the multitude of entities at first supposed. In the same way, again, the ultimate perfection of the positive system would be (if such perfection could be hoped for) to represent all phenomena as particular aspects of a single general fact -- such as gravitation, for instance.. . .

The progress of the individual mind is not only an illustration, but an indirect evidence of that of the general mind. The point of departure of the individual and of the race being the same, the phases of the mind of a man correspond to the epochs of the mind of the race. Now, each of us is aware, if he looks back upon his own history, that he was a theologian in his childhood, a metaphysician in his youth, and natural philosopher in his manhood. All men who are up to their age can verify this for themselves.

Besides the observation of facts, we have theoretical reasons in support of this law.

The most important of these reasons arises from the necessity that always exists for some theory to which to refer our facts, combined with the clear impossibility that, at the outset of human knowledge, men could have formed theories out of the observation of facts. All good intellects have repeated, since Bacon’s time, that there can be no real knowledge but that which is based on observed facts. This is incontestable, in our present advanced stage; but, if we look back to the primitive stage of human knowledge, we shall see that it must have been otherwise then. If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts cannot be observed without the guidance of some theory. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them.

Thus, between the necessity of observing facts in order to form a theory, and having a theory in order to observe facts, the human mind would have been entangled in a vicious circle, but for the natural opening afforded by theological conceptions. This is the fundamental reason for the theological character of the primitive philosophy. This necessity is confirmed by the perfect suitability of the theological philosophy to the earliest researches of the human mind. It is remarkable that the most inaccessible questions -- those of the nature of beings and the origin and purpose of phenomena -- should be the first to occur in a primitive state, while those that are really within our reach are regarded as almost unworthy of serious study. The reason is evident enough: that experience alone can teach us the measure of our powers; and if men had not begun by an exaggerated estimate of what they can do, they would never have done all that they are capable of. Our organization requires this. At such a period there could have been no reception of a positive philosophy, whose function is to discover the laws of phenomena, and whose leading characteristic it is to regard as interdicted to human reason those sublime mysteries that theology explains, even to their minutest details, with the most attractive facility. It is just so under a practical view of the nature of the researches with which men first occupied themselves. Such inquiries offered the powerful charm of unlimited empire over the external world—a world destined wholly for our use, and involved in every way with our existence. The theological philosophy, presenting this view, administered exactly the stimulus necessary to incite the human mind to the irksome labor without which it could make no progress. We can now scarcely conceive of such a state of things, our reason having become sufficiently mature to enter upon laborious scientific researches without needing any such stimulus as wrought upon the imaginations of astrologers and alchemists.

. . . The human understanding, slow in its advance, could not step at once from the theological into the positive philosophy. The two are so radically opposed that an intermediate system of conceptions has been necessary to render the transition possible. It is only in doing this that metaphysical conceptions have any utility whatever. In contemplating phenomena, men substitute for supernatural direction a corresponding entity. This entity may have been supposed to be derived from the supernatural action; but it is more easily lost sight of, leaving attention free for the facts themselves, till, at length, metaphysical agents have ceased to be anything more than the abstract names of phenomena. It is not easy to say by what other process than this our minds could have passed from supernatural considerations to natural, from the theological system to the positive.

The law of human development being thus established, let us consider what is the proper nature of the positive philosophy.

As we have seen, the first characteristic of the positive philosophy is that it regards all phenomena as subjected to invariable natural laws. Our business is -- seeing how vain is any research into what are called causes, whether first or final -- to pursue an accurate discovery of these laws, with a view to reducing them to the smallest possible number. By speculating upon causes, we could solve no difficulty about origin and purpose. Our real business is to analyze accurately the circumstances of phenomena, and to connect them by the natural relations of succession and resemblance. The best illustration of this is in the case of the doctrine of gravitation. We say that the general phenomena of the universe are explained by it, because it connects under one head the whole immense variety of astronomical facts; exhibiting the constant tendency of atoms towards each other in direct proportion to their masses, and in inverse proportion to the squares of their distances; while the general fact itself is a mere extension of one that is perfectly familiar to us and that we therefore say that we know -- the weight of bodies on the surface of the earth. As to what weight and attraction are, we have nothing to do with that, for it is not a matter of knowledge at all. Theologians and metaphysicians may Imagine and refine about such questions, but positive philosophy rejects them. When any attempt has been made to explain them, it has ended only in saying that attraction is universal weight, and that weight is terrestrial attraction -- that is, that the two orders of phenomena are identical, which is the point from which the question set out. Again, M. Fourier, in his fine series of researches on heat, has given us all the most important and precise laws of the phenomena of heat, and many large and new truths, without once inquiring into its nature, as his predecessors had done when they disputed about calorific matter and the action of a universal ether. In treating his subject in the positive method, he finds inexhaustible material for all his activity of research, without betaking himself to insoluble questions.

Before ascertaining the stage that the positive philosophy has reached, we must bear in mind that the different kinds of our knowledge have passed through the three stages of progress at different rates, and have not therefore arrived at the same time. The rate of advance depends on the nature of the knowledge in question so distinctly that, as we shall see hereafter, this consideration constitutes an accessory to the fundamental law of progress. Any kind of knowledge reaches the positive stage early in proportion to its generality, simplicity, and independence of other departments. Astronomical science, which is above all made up of facts that are general, simple, and independent of other sciences, arrived first; then terrestrial physics; then chemistry; and, at length, physiology.

It is difficult to assign any precise date to this revolution in science. It may be said, like everything else, to have been always going on, especially since the labors of Aristotle and the school of Alexandria, and then from the introduction of natural science into the West of Europe by the Arabs. But, if we must fix upon some marked period, to serve as a rallying point, it must be that about two centuries ago -- when the human mind was astir under the precepts of Bacon, the conceptions of Descartes, and the discoveries of Galileo. Then it was that the spirit of the positive philosophy rose up in opposition to that of the superstitious and scholastic systems that had hitherto obscured the true character of all science. Since that date, the progress of the positive philosophy and the decline of the other two have been so marked that no rational mind now doubts that the revolution is destined to go on to its completion -- every branch of knowledge being sooner or later brought within the operation of positive philosophy. This is not yet the case. Some are still lying outside, and not till they are brought in will the positive philosophy posses that character of universality that is necessary to its definitive constitution.

. . . It would be absurd to pretend to offer this new science at once in a complete state. Others, less new, are in very unequal conditions of forwardness. But the same character of positivity that is impressed on all the others will be shown to belong to this. This once done, the philosophical system of the moderns will be in fact complete, as there will then be no phenomenon that does not naturally enter into some one of the five great categories. All our fundamental conceptions having become homogeneous, the positive state will be fully established. It can never again change its character, though it will be forever in course of development by additions of new knowledge. Having acquired the character of universality which has hitherto been the only advantage resting with the two preceding systems, it will supersede them by its natural superiority, and leave to them only a historical existence.

. . . The purpose of this work is not to give an account of the natural sciences. Besides that it would be endless, and that it would require a scientific preparation such as no one man possesses, it would be apart from our object, which is to go through a course of not positive science but positive philosophy. We have only to consider each fundamental science in its relation to the whole positive system, and to the spirit which characterizes it; that is, with regard to its methods and its chief results.

The two aims, though distinct, are inseparable; for, on the one hand, there can be no positive philosophy without a basis of social science, without which it could not be all-comprehensive; and, on the other hand, we could not pursue social science without having been prepared by the study of phenomena less complicated than those of society, and furnished with a knowledge of laws and anterior facts that have a bearing upon social science. Though the fundamental sciences are not all equally interesting to ordinary minds, there is no one of them that can be neglected in an inquiry like the present; and, in the eye of philosophy, all are of equal value to human welfare. Even those that appear the least interesting have their own value, either on account of the perfection of their methods, or as being the necessary basis of all the others.

. . . The general spirit of a course of positive philosophy having been thus set forth, we must now glance at the chief advantages that may be derived, on behalf of human progression, from its study. Of these advantages, four may be especially pointed out.

1. The study of the positive philosophy affords the only rational means of exhibiting the logical laws of the human mind, which have hitherto been sought by unfit methods. To explain what is meant by this, we may refer to a saying of M. de Blainville, in his work on comparative anatomy, that every active, and especially every living, being may be regarded under two relations -- the static and the dynamic; that is, under conditions or in action. It is clear that all considerations range themselves under the one or the other of these heads. Let us apply this classification to the intellectual functions.

If we regard these functions under their static aspect -- that is, if we consider the conditions under which they exist -- we must determine the organic circumstances of the case, which inquiry involves it with anatomy and physiology. If we look at the dynamic aspect, we have to study simply the exercise and results of the intellectual powers of the human race, which is neither more nor less than the general object of the positive philosophy. In short, looking at all scientific theories as so many great logical facts, it is only by the thorough observation of these facts that we can arrive at the knowledge of logical laws. These being the only means of knowledge of intellectual phenomena, the illusory psychology, which is the last phase of theology, is excluded. It pretends to accomplish the discovery of the laws of the human mind by contemplating it in itself; that is, by separating it from causes and effects. Such an attempt, made in defiance of the physiological study of our intellectual organs, and of the observation of rational methods of procedure, cannot succeed at this time of day.

The positive philosophy, which has been rising since the time of Bacon, has now secured such a preponderance that the metaphysicians themselves profess to ground their pretended science on an observation of facts. They talk of external and internal facts, and say that their business is with the latter. This is much like saying that vision is explained by luminous objects’ painting their images upon the retina. To this the physiologists reply that another eye would be needed to see the image. In the same manner, the mind may observe all phenomena but its own. It may be said that a man’s intellect may observe his passions, the seat of the reason being somewhat apart from that of the emotions in the brain; but there can be nothing like scientific observation of the passions, except from without, as the stir of the emotions disturbs the observing faculties more or less. It is yet more our of the question to make an intellectual observation of intellectual processes. The observing and observed organ are here the same, and its action cannot be pure and natural. In order to observe, your intellect must pause from activity; yet it is this very activity that you want to observe. If you cannot effect the pause, you cannot observe; if you do effect it, there is nothing to observe. The results of such a method are in proportion to its absurdity. After two thousand years of psychological pursuit, no one proposition is established to the satisfaction of its followers. They are divided, to this day, into a multitude of schools, still disputing about the very elements of their doctrine. This interior observation gives birth to almost as many theories as there are observers. We ask in vain for any one discovery, great or small, that has been made under this method. The psychologists have done some good in keeping up the activity of our understandings, when there was no better work for our faculties to do; and they may have added something to our stock of knowledge. If they have done so, it is by practicing the positive method by observing the progress of the human mind in the light of science; that is, by ceasing, for the moment, to be psychologists.

The view just given in relation to logical science becomes yet more striking when we consider the logical art.

The positive method can be judged of only in action. It cannot be looked at by itself, apart from the work on which it is employed. At all events, such a contemplation would be only a dead study, which could produce nothing in the mind that loses time upon it. We may talk forever about the method, and state it in terms very wisely, without knowing half so much about it as the man who has once put it in practice upon a single particular of actual research, even without any philosophical intention. Thus it is that psychologists, by dint of reading the precepts of Bacon and the discourses of Descartes, have mistaken their own dreams for science.

Without saying whether it will ever be possible to establish a priori a true method of investigation, independent of a philosophical study of the sciences, it is clear that the thing has never been done yet, and that we are not capable of doing it now. We cannot as yet explain the great logical procedures, apart from their applications. If we ever do, it will remain as necessary then as now to form good intellectual habits by studying the regular application of the scientific methods which we shall have attained.

This, then, is the first great result of the positive philosophy -- the manifestation by experiment of the laws that rule the intellect in the investigation of truth and, as a consequence, the knowledge of the general rules suitable for that object.

2. The second effect of the positive philosophy, an effect not less important and far more urgently wanted, will be to regenerate education.

The best minds are agreed that our European education, still essentially theological, metaphysical, and literary, must be superseded by a positive training, conformable to our time and needs. Even the governments of our day have shared, where they have not originated, the attempts to establish positive instruction; and this is a striking indication of the prevalent sense of what is wanted. While encouraging such endeavors to the utmost, we must not, however, conceal from ourselves that everything yet done is inadequate to the object. The present exclusive specialty of our pursuits, and the consequent isolation of the sciences, spoil our teaching. If any student desires to form an idea of natural philosophy as a whole, he is compelled to go through each department as it is now taught, as if he were to be only an astronomer, or only a chemist; so that, be his intellect what it may, his training must remain very imperfect. And yet his object requires that he should obtain general positive conceptions of all the classes of natural phenomena. It is such an aggregate of conceptions, whether on a great or on a small scale, which must henceforth be the permanent basis of all human combinations. It will constitute the mind of future generations. In order for this regeneration of our intellectual system, it is necessary that the sciences, considered as branches from one trunk, should yield us, as a whole, their chief methods and their most important results. The specialities of science can be pursued by those whose vocation lies in that direction. They are indispensable, and they are not likely to be neglected; but they can never of themselves renovate our system of education, and, to be of their full use, they must rest upon the basis of that general instruction that is a direct result of the positive philosophy.

3. The same special study of scientific generalities must also aid the progress of the respective positive sciences: and this constitutes our third head of advantages.

The divisions that we establish between the sciences are, though not arbitrary, essentially artificial. The subject of our researches is one: we divide it for our convenience, in order to deal the more easily with its difficulties But it sometimes happens -- and especially with the most important doctrines of each science that we need what we cannot obtain under the present isolation of the sciences -- a combination of several special points of view; and for want of this, very important problems wait for their solution much longer than they otherwise need do. To go back into the past for an example: Descartes’s grand conception with regard to analytical geometry is a discovery that has changed the whole aspect of mathematical science and yielded the germ of all future progress; and it issued from the union of two sciences that had always before been separately regarded and pursued. The case of pending questions is yet more impressive; as, for instance, in chemistry, the doctrine of definite proportions. Without entering upon the discussion of the fundamental principle of this theory, we may say with assurance that, in order to determine it -- in order to determine whether it is a law of nature that atoms should necessarily combine in fixed numbers it will be indispensable that the chemical point of view should be united with the physiological. The failure of the theory with regard to organic bodies indicates that the cause of this immense exception must be investigated; and such an inquiry belongs as much to physiology as to chemistry. Again, it is as yet undecided whether azote is a simple or a compound body. It was concluded by almost all chemists that azote is a simple body; the illustrious Berzelius hesitated, on purely chemical considerations; but he was also influenced by the physiological observation that animals that receive no azote in their food have as much of it in their tissues as carnivorous animals. From this we see how physiology must unite with chemistry to inform us whether azote is simple or compound, and to institute a new series of researches upon the relation between the composition of living bodies and their mode of alimentation.

Such is the advantage which, in the third place, we shall owe to positive philosophy -- the elucidation of the respective sciences by their combination. In the fourth place:

4. The positive philosophy offers the only solid basis for that social reorganization that must succeed the critical condition in which the most civilized nations are now living.

It cannot be necessary to prove to anybody who reads this work that ideas govern the world, or throw it into chaos -- in other words, that all social mechanism rests upon opinions. The great political and moral crisis that societies are now undergoing is shown by a rigid analysis to arise out of intellectual anarchy. While stability in fundamental maxims is the first condition of genuine social order, we are suffering under an utter disagreement that may be called universal. Till a certain number of general ideas can be acknowledged as a rallying point of social doctrine, the nations will remain in a revolutionary state, whatever palliatives may be devised; and their institutions can be only provisional. But whenever the necessary agreement on first principles can be obtained, appropriate institutions will issue from them, without shock or resistance; for the causes of disorder will have been arrested by the mere fact of the agreement. It is in this direction that those must look who desire a natural and regular, a normal, state of society.

Now, the existing disorder is abundantly accounted for by the existence, all at once, of three incompatible philosophies, -- the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. Any one of these might alone secure some sort of social order; but while the three coexist, it is impossible for us to understand one another upon any essential point whatever. If this is true, we have only to ascertain which of the philosophies must, in the nature of things, prevail; and, this ascertained, every man, whatever may have been his former views, cannot but concur in its triumph. The problem once recognized cannot remain long unsolved; for all considerations whatever point to the a positive philosophy as the one destined to prevail. It alone has been advancing during a course of centuries, throughout which the others have been declining. The fact is incontestable. Some may deplore it, but none can destroy it, nor therefore neglect it but under penalty of being betrayed by illusory speculations. This general revolution of the human mind is nearly accomplished. We have only to complete the positive philosophy by bringing social phenomena within its comprehension, and afterwards consolidating the whole into one body of homogeneous doctrine. The marked preference that almost all minds, c from the highest to the commonest, accord to positive knowledge over t vague and mystical conceptions is a pledge of what the reception of F this philosophy will be when it has acquired the only quality that it r now wants -- a character of due generality. When it has become complete, its supremacy will take place spontaneously, and will re-establish order throughout society. There is, at present, no conflict but between the theological and the metaphysical philosophies. They are contending for the task of reorganizing society; but it is a work too mighty for either of them. The positive philosophy has hitherto intervened only to examine both, and both are abundantly discredited by the process. It is time now to be doing something more effective, without wasting our forces in needless controversy. It is time to complete the vast intellectual operation begun by Bacon, Descartes, and Galileo, by constructing the system of general ideas that must henceforth prevail among the human race. This is the way to put an end to the revolutionary crisis that is tormenting the civilized nations of the world.

Leaving these four points of advantage, we must attend to one precautionary reflection.

Because it is proposed to consolidate the whole of our acquired knowledge into one body of homogeneous doctrine, it must not be supposed that we are going to study this vast variety as proceeding from a single principle, and as subjected to a single law. There is something so chimerical in attempts at universal explanation by a single law that it may be as well to secure this work at once from any imputation of the kind, though its development will show how undeserved such an imputation would be. Our intellectual resources are too narrow, and the universe is too complex, to leave any hope that it will ever be within our power to carry scientific perfection to its last degree of simplicity. Moreover, it appears as if the value of such an attainment, supposing it possible, were greatly overrated. The only way, for instance, in which we could achieve the business, would be by connecting all natural phenomena with the most general law we know -- which is that of gravitation, by which astronomical phenomena are already connected with a portion of terrestrial physics. Laplace has indicated that chemical phenomena may be regarded as simple atomic effects of the Newtonian attraction, modified by the form and mutual position of the atoms. But supposing this view provable (which it cannot be while we are without data about the constitution of bodies), the difficulty of its application would doubtless be found so great that we must still maintain the existing division between astronomy and chemistry, with the difference that we now regard as natural that division that we should then call artificial. Laplace himself presented his idea only as a philosophic device, incapable of exercising any useful influence over the progress of chemical science. Moreover, supposing this insuperable difficulty overcome, we should be no nearer to scientific unity, since we then should still have to connect the whole of physiological phenomena with the same law, which certainly would not be the least difficult part of the enterprise. Yet, all things considered, the hypothesis we have glanced at would be the most favorable to the desired unity.

The consideration of all phenomena as referable to a single origin is by no means necessary to the systematic formation of science, any more than to the realization of the great and happy consequences that we anticipate from the positive philosophy. The only necessary unity is that of method, which is already in great part established. As for the doctrine, it need not be one; it is enough that it should be homogeneous. It is, then, under the double aspect of unity of method and homogeneousness of doctrine that we shall consider the different classes of positive theories in this work. While pursuing the philosophical aim of all science, the lessening of the number of general laws requisite for the explanation of natural phenomena, we shall regard as presumptuous every attempt, in all future time, to reduce them rigorously to one.

Having thus endeavored to determine the spirit and influence of the positive philosophy and to mark the goal of our labors, we have now to proceed to the exposition of the system -- that is, to the determination of the universal, or encyclopedic, order, which must regulate the different classes of natural phenomena, and consequently the corresponding positive sciences.

[Source: Gertrud Lenzer, ed., Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings (New York: Harper, 1975). pp. 71-86.]

Cited from: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/comte_cpp.html
February 26, 2008 12:43 AM