[218] Pol. Pos. II, 226. [219] Pol. Pos. II, 220-1. [220] Pol. Pos. II, 217. [221] Pol. pos. I, 288-9. [222] Pol. pos., II, 250-1. [223] Pol. pos., II, 254-6. [224] Pol. pos., II, 240-1. [225] Pol. pos., II, 260-2. [226] Pol. pos., II, 237. [227] Pol. pos., II, 254-6. CHAPTER II GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON SOCIAL SCIENCE Social science had at first been called social physics by Comte. Later on he invented the name of “sociology”[228] for it. It stands at the summit of the encyclopædic ladder of the sciences. Accordingly, it offers certain characteristics which the other sciences do not present. Undoubtedly, by the definition of its object and by its method, it is perfectly homogeneous with the rest of positive knowledge. Sociology studies the laws of social phenomena as mathematics inquires into the laws of geometrical phenomena. In this sense, between these extreme sciences there are no other differences than those which arise from the diversity of the phenomena which are studied. But mathematics, and the other fundamental sciences, excepting sociology, are distinctly preliminary. Sociology is final. Each of the preliminary sciences should be cultivated only in the measure necessary in order that the following one may in turn assume the positive form. Social science, which is not preparatory to any other, establishes the principles of morals and of politics. It is, as has been seen, the key-stone of positive philosophy. It is in it, and through it, that positive philosophy acquires the universality which hitherto it had lacked. Finally, there is a last difference which Comte likes to think he is successfully removing; the other sciences are more or less formed; everything has to be done for social science. Not that many trials have not been attempted. Comte does not ignore them, and he prides himself upon doing justice to his precursors. He goes back to Aristotle, in whom he admires an incomparable scientific and philosophical genius. In him he sees the inventor of social statics. His _Politics_ are still read with profit.[229] But Aristotle could have no idea of a sociology, and in particular of positive social dynamics. For that he lacked (without speaking of the fundamental sciences which excepting mathematics were yet to be born), a sufficiently wide and varied knowledge of history and the idea of progress.