COSMIC PHILOSOPHY 



such a detailed survey is not needful for the 

 purposes of this work. Let us rather return for 

 a moment to our criticism of Comte ; and hav- 

 ing already examined his organization of the 

 sciences both from the historical and from the 

 logical point of view, let us endeavour to ren- 

 der an impartial verdict as to the philosophic 

 value of his achievement. 



If tried by its conformity to the ideal stand- 

 ard of perfection furnished by the scientific and 

 philosophical knowledge of the present day, the 

 Comtean classification of the sciences must un- 

 doubtedly be pronounced, in nearly all essential 

 respects, a failure. As a representation of the 

 historic order of progression among the different 

 sciences, it must be regarded as the imperfect 

 expression of an inadequately comprehended set 

 of truths. We have seen that this order of pro- 

 gression depends upon at least five interacting 

 factors : upon the simplicity, the concreteness, 

 the conspicuousness, and the frequency of the 

 phenomena investigated, and upon the compara- 

 tive number and perfection of the implements 

 of investigation. Of these five factors, the Com- 

 tean series takes into account only the first, or 

 at the utmost only the first and the last. For 

 this reason it unduly simplifies the order of 

 progression. Doubtless it is correct to say that, 

 other things equal, the simpler and more gen- 

 eral phenomena have been interpreted earlier 

 60 



