Essays: Scientific, Political, & Speculative; Vol. 2 of 3: Library Edition (1891), Containing Seven Essays not before Republished, and Various other Additions.Spencer, Herbert
Philosophy
Essays: Scientific, Political, & Speculative; Vol. 2 of 3: Library Edition (1891), Containing Seven Essays not before Republished, and Various other Additions.
Spencer, Herbert
Philosophy; Political science; Science
“On conçoit, en effet, que l’étude The historical development of
rationelle de chaque science the sciences _has not_ taken
fondamentale exigeant la culture place in this serial order; nor
préalable de toutes celles qui la in any other serial order. There
précèdent dans notre hiérarchie is no “true _filiation_ of the
encyclopédique, n’a pu faire de sciences.” From the beginning,
progrès réels et prendre son the abstract sciences, the
véritable caractère, qu’ après un abstract-concrete sciences, and
grand développement des sciences the concrete sciences, have
antérieures relatives à des progressed together: the first
phénomènes plus généraux, plus solving problems which the second
abstraits, moins compliqués, et and third presented, and growing
indépendans des autres. C’est done only by the solution of the
dans cet ordre que la progression, problems; and the second similarly
quoique simultanée, a dû avoir growing by joining the first
lieu.” p. 100. in solving the problems of the
third. All along there has been
a continuous action and reaction
between the three great classes
of sciences—an advance from
concrete facts to abstract facts,
and then an application of such
abstract facts to the analysis of
new orders of concrete facts. (See
_Genesis of Science_.)
Such then are the organizing principles of M. Comte’s philosophy and
my reasons for rejecting them. Leaving out of his “_Exposition_” those
pre-established general {131} doctrines which are the common property
of modern thinkers; these are the general doctrines which remain—these
are the doctrines which fundamentally distinguish his system. From
every one of them I dissent. To each proposition I oppose either a
widely-different proposition, 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. The 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account