128 



REASONS FOE DISSENTING FROM COMTE. 



position, or a direct negation ; and I not only do it now, but 

 have done it from the time when I became acquainted with 

 his writings. This rejection of his cardinal principles should, 

 I think, alone suffice ; but there are sundry other views 

 of his, some of them largely characterizing his system, 

 which I equally reject. Let us glance at them. 



How organic beings have 

 originated, is an inquiry 

 which M. Comte deprecates 

 as a useless speculation : as 

 serting, as he does, that 

 species arc immutable. 



M. Comte contends that 

 cf what is commonly known 

 as mental science, all that 

 most important part which 

 consists of the subjective 

 analysis of our ideas, is aa 

 impossibility. 



M. Comte s ideal of so 

 ciety is one in which govern 

 ment is developed to the 

 greatest extent in which 

 class-functions are far more 

 under conscious public regu 

 lation than now in which 

 hierarchical organization 

 with unquestioned authority 

 shall guide everything in 

 which the individual life 

 shall be subordinated in the 

 greatest degree to the social 

 life. 



This inquiry, I believe, admits of 

 answer, and will be answered. That 

 division of Biology which concerns 

 itself with the origin of species, I 

 hold to be the supreme division, to 

 which all others are subsidiary. For 

 on the verdict of Biology on this 

 matter, must wholly depend our con 

 ception of human nature, past, pre 

 sent, and future ; our theory of the 

 mind ; and our theory of society. 



I have very emphatically expressed 

 my belief in a subjective science of 

 the mind, by writing a Principles of 

 Psychology, one half of which is sub 

 jective. 



That form of society towards which 

 we are progressing, I hold to be one 

 in which government will be reduced 

 to the smallest amount possible, and 

 freedom increased to the greatest 

 amount possible one in which 

 human nature will have become so 

 moulded by social discipline into fit 

 ness for the social state, that it will 

 need little external restraint, but will 

 be self-restrained one in which the 

 citizen will tolerate no interference 

 with his freedom, save that which 

 maintains the equal freedom of others 

 one in which the spontaneous co 

 operation which has developed our 

 industrial system, and is now develop- 



