THE PHILOSOPHY OP AUGUSTE COMTE EECONSIDERED. 253 



support of his system. So far, we need scarcely say, sncli 

 evidence has not been forthcomiu.^. Hence Comte's phre- 

 nology has to encounter all the difficulties which beset the 

 system of Gall without its a pof<teriori evidence. The two are 

 not in harmonj^. It must, hoAvever, be noticed that Comte 

 does not fall into the error of denying to the lower animals 

 the possession of the moral sentiments, despite the evidence 

 of such sentiments in their conduct and despite the fact that 

 the brains, e.g., of tlie anthropoid apes do not differ from 

 our own in the manner and to the extent which this assump- 

 tion would involve. 



In that Comte has thrown no novel, guiding light upon 

 the philosophy of life, but by rejecting the principle of 

 evolution he has done his best to extend and perpetuate 

 darkness. 



We must now turn to the final member of Comte's hier- 

 archy, Sociology, or Social Science. He certainl}^ proclaimed 

 that human society has its inherent laAvs, not depending 

 upon the caprice of rulers or statesmen, or upon the noisy 

 utterances of ochlocratic stump-orators, laws capable of 

 being discovered by methods similar to those which we are 

 successfully following in chemistry or in biology. Few 

 competent judges will here join issue. Yet I do not find 

 that he anywhere recognises the necessity of studying the 

 simpler societies of the lower animals — such as ants, rooks, 

 etc. — before proceeding to examine the more complicated 

 polity of our own species. But has Comte really placed in 

 our hands any distinct clue capable of being followed up ? 

 Are we taking- any steps toM'ards constituting the promised 

 science ? Look, for instance, at our late '• Social Science 

 Congress." Its transactions were filled not so much with 

 attempts to reduce social phenomena under laws capable of 

 verification and leading us to a prevision of facts not yet 

 observed, as with so many disconnected declamations on every 

 possible subject that can be construed as having any bearing 

 on human society. But is Comte to be blamed for this failure? 

 By no means : but that such shall we say failures can still 

 be enacted in the name of social science shows that no definite 

 plan has yet been drawn out. 



On no ground has Comte been more strongly censured and 

 at the same time with less justice than anent his rejection of 

 " political economy." He condemns it as the outcome of a 

 merely critical and negative philosophy, isolating itself from 

 the whole to which it should rightfullv belong, and seekina: to 



T 2 



