464 Report S.A.A. Advancement of Science. 



motive in respect of social action. If we can give an answer to this 

 question it will afford a guide such as we need, and such as utili- 

 tarianism provides, in traversing the rest of the field of sociology. 

 It is true that all men are not guided by ideal motives, and, therefore, 

 it would be hypothetical to imagine an entire society guided by such 

 motives, as we have seen that it would be toi imagine a societv entirely 

 guided by selfish motives. But there are two points in which the 

 procedure of working with the ideal motive in .sociology is superior 

 to the procedure of working with the hedonistic motive. In the first 

 place, the world in general has an interest in helping idealists, 

 whereas, as Comte says, every egotist is a formidable competitor to 

 every other; and in the second place, whereas there was no special 

 reason for investigating the hedonistic motive, there is, as we have 

 seen, a special reason for investigating the ideal motive, namely, the 

 incontrovertible fact of the existence of conscience as a sociological 

 factor, demanding special treatment. According to this view a 

 complete sociology must return to the methodology of Plato and 

 Aristotle, who founded the science of politics on Ethics, and who, 

 in fact, did not make an absolute distinction between the two, because 

 they both regarded Ethics as an integral part of sociology. 



But if, as regards methodologyi, nO' advance on the Greeks can, 

 be made, except down a series of blind alleys, as regards the sub- 

 stance of sociolog) thought has advanced enormously. Aristotle 

 was considerably in advance of Plato in clearness and particular 

 knowledge; modern .sociology is vastly in advance of Aristotle. 

 After we have ascertained the ideal motive the questions of 

 sociology will gradually become clear. We shall analyse the different 

 forces with which we have to deal, and which we therefore desire 

 to understand ; firstly, the socionomic forces, that is, the forces other 

 than the purely sociological, and secondly, the sociological forces 

 proper, that is, the general tendencies of men in, and in regard to, 

 society. 



Comte's procedure was of the kind which we have already 

 referred to, namely, tO' regard history as a whole, and to attempt to 

 use the resulting sublimate as a means to- understanding man in 

 society. In a sense Comte was, as he supposed, the father of 

 sociology, but he had nO' more conception of the detailed sub- 

 divisions of the science than Aristotle or e\en Plato. The work 

 of his successors in his own country, for instance, is as far beyond 

 his own as modern astronomy is beyond the astronomy 

 of the Chaldeans. As to his method, we have already 

 expressed an opinion. No doubt histor}', including the histon- of 

 our times, is the laborator}' of sociology, if we add or include our 

 own minds, without an analysis of which history is but a picture in a 

 dark room. Comte did not realise this, but as his disciples have 

 unanimously followed Mill in his criticism of Comte for neglecting 

 psychology, it is not necessary toi labour the point in attacking a 

 position which there is only the reputation of one dead maji to main- 

 tain, nor can we here rlelay to show that Comte's practice belied his 

 iheory in this respect. 



