164 COSMIC miLOSOPEY. \pt. i. 



into an organized body of doctrine resting upon an indestruc- 

 tible basis in consciousness. 



Since, then, the foundations of the scientific philosophy here 

 expounded were laid down by Bacon, Locke, Hume, and 

 Kant, and since that philosophy has first been presented as 

 a coherent body of uuiversal truth by Herbert Spencer, it is 

 clear that there exists a very considerable body of philosophic 

 doctrine, which is uot metaphysical or theological, and which, 

 nevertheless, does not owe its existence to Comte. It is clear 

 that we cannot concede to Comte such a monopoly of the scien- 

 tific method of philosophizing that all scientific philosophy must 

 be designated as Positivism. It does not yet appear, from 

 the foregoing summary, that scientific philosophy owes any- 

 thing whatever to Comte. Yet if we were to rest in any such 

 conclusion as this, we should be seriously in error. It is not 

 to be gainsaid that the speculations of Comte have played a 

 most conspicuous and important part in directing the course 

 of philosophic inquiry in the nineteenth century. A thinker of 

 Comte's calibre does not live and write to no purpose. And 

 while it will appear, in the course of the following discussion, 

 that the peculiar theories of Comte are such as philosophy 

 cannot possibly adopt, it will also appear that these theories, 

 besides containing a germ of truth, are instructive even in 

 their erroneousness Even while demonstrating that we cannot, 

 without grievously retrograding, consider ourselves followers 

 of Comte or advocates of the Positive Philosophy, we must 

 at the same time freely admit our indebtedness to Comte for 

 sundry suggestions of the highest importance. We must 

 not refuse to Comte the meed of acknowledgment which we 

 should have no hesitation in giving to Kant, or Spinoza, or 

 even to Hegel, if occasion were to be offered. Least of all 

 can we acquiesce in Prof. Huxley's opinion that there is 

 nothing whatever of any value in the philosophy of Comte 

 which is not also to be found in the philosophy of Hume. 

 The point is one of such importance in itself, and is so 



