COSMIC PHILOSOPHY 



cipleship upon the mind, that several of Comte's 

 disciples — Dr. Bridges among others less dis- 

 tinguished — maintain this same opinion, for no - 

 earthly reason, I imagine, save that Comte held 

 it. It is certainly a strange opinion for a philo- 

 sopher to hold. It bears an unlovely resem- 

 blance to the prejudice of the Philistines, that 

 all speculation is foolish and empty which does 

 not speedily end in bread-and-butter know- 

 ledge. Who can decide what is useful and what 

 is useless ? We are told first that we shall never 

 know the distance to a star, and secondly that 

 even if we could know it, the knowledge would 

 be useless, since human interests are at the utter- 

 most bounded by the solar system. Three years 

 suffice to disprove the first part of the predic- 

 tion. In a little while the second part may also 

 be disproved. We are told by Comte that it 

 makes no difference to us whether organic spe- 

 cies are fixed or variable ; and yet, as the Dar- 

 winian controversy has shown, the decision of 

 this question must affect from beginning to end 

 our general conception of physiology, of psy- 

 chology, and of history, as well as our estimate 

 of theology. If it were not universally felt to 

 be of practical consequence, it would be argued 

 calmly, and not with the weapons of ridicule 

 and the odium theologicum. But this position — 

 the least defensible one which Comte ever oc- 

 cupied — may best be refuted by his own words, 

 98 



