{"id":2997,"date":"2021-12-16T06:30:03","date_gmt":"2021-12-16T06:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reformsforhumanity.com\/?p=2997"},"modified":"2021-12-16T06:32:02","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T06:32:02","slug":"3-the-primary-concepts-of-positivism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/2021\/12\/16\/3-the-primary-concepts-of-positivism\/","title":{"rendered":"3. The Primary Concepts of Positivism"},"content":{"rendered":"Reading Time: <\/span> 22<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>\n

If we attempt to develop an idea regarding a divine society or a fellowship of men – and by a divine society\nit is understood as one that strives for absolute perfection – then we might, without experiencing the possibility\nof being shunned for attempting to summon a utopia – see some limited success. This fellowship must achieve a sort\nof perfect harmony or unity amongst all those who attend it, as well as a diversity of individuals, and the more\ndeep and detailed this harmony is, the more so must be the diversity of these individuals. In a perfect society,\nwe are able to achieve a level of unity and harmony that is intense and vibrant, but this society should\nalso possess infinite diversity in terms of personalities and experiences on behalf of the individuals that\ninhabit it. In the example of the musical arts, when different types of instruments sound various notes,\nwe might end up with a symphony in which one of the most beautiful manifestations of superpersonal emotion\nis generated and known by humanity, and in this instance similar would be the harmony of a utopian society in\nwhich the dream of all men would be realized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we glance to observe the world around us, what do we end up seeing? We see an entropy of conflicting components,\nparticularly those of individual men and classes of men. The communities in which men reside have become places\nwhere they do battle as opposed to sanctuaries for civility, where conflicting interests and experiences create\ntension and disarray, where one can only help themselves and get ahead if he was to step on the head of his\nneighbor, who must be sacrificed. Known aggrevators will attempt to brainwash the human population with this\nidea, and a variety of catalysts, both practical as well as theoretical, will attempt to establish a working\nrelationship in order to help make it come to fruition. As a result, we are continously faced with the repetition\nof a certain predictable series of courses of social action together with legislative reform being undertaken\nto work towards making this a reality: Those interests that typically conflict need to be balanced against one\nanother, and to be able to provide both with justice despite their opposition to each other. When it pertains\nto the private sphere, this usually encompasses the “rights” or “interests” of two or more individuals,\nwhereas in the political sphere, it would pertain to the various classes. Whether or not this is considered to\nbe one of the practical problems of social life is particularly declared by authoritative thinkers of a great\ncaliber; for example, by Mr. Spencer, in his tome on “Justice”, as well as the final chapters of his “Data of\nEthics”, as well as by Professor Sidgwick, in the final chapters of his “Methods of Ethics”. As we attempt\nto avoid defining the theory of society implied in this treatise, we are able to differentiate it by\nit’s outcome: it is a theory in which the outcome of every practical problem is considered to be one where\nthere is an underlying conflict between that of the interests and rights of various members of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who consider this to be the fact are not the ones who’ve had the last word. If we were to peer into\nhuman society with more steadfast intention than otherwise would be the case, we will realize that everyone\nhas the same origin point, regardless of their bickering and purposeful attempts at creating artificial divisions.\nAt their very core they all share the same commonalities, their ultimate fate of death is also shared, as well\nas tracing back the roots of how they came to be as a species, and what is considered good in one person is\nalso considered good in another. It is through these commonalities that we are able to gain a different\nperception of society – a perception mostly formed by the teachings of Auguste Comte and his contemporary\nHegel. This theory has been advanced by one of Comte’s most stallward critics, Dr. James Martineau, who has\nconsidered making it his own. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To quote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The stages through social evolution man passes through ensures that he himself as well as that of other men\npass through similar stages to the point where causal factors are barely divided up into individual and\nsocial, internal and external. As a physical entity, each man is individually separate from another that is\ncertain, while his family is grouped also distinctly and separately from and around him, but spiritually he cannot\nbe himself when they are not there, and the main thing that makes him the man that he is, that gives him his\nsense of individuality, is explicitly tied to them, as that of his family is tied to him as well. There is not\na single part of his being that is not reflected in his family, as well as none of his family not being\nreflections of him, and this is fervently observable through the moral disconnection, if they were to perish\nand he were to be left alone being tested by the indifference of the universe and what it all means. The same\nessentially happens with the larger and less intimate groups that absorb them into their community and decide\nto share a similar identity in one matter or the either. His nation, with it’s historical events and it’s\ninstitutions, and all that these bring with them and matter in significance to all that reside within it, \nis not an external component of his being: the energy that flows within it and that which gives it life and\nmeaning, is interspersed with his own life force. This social inter-crossing of the legs and social genitalia is\nrepresented in a manner which does not do it justice in that it is meant to be an easy, simplistic sort of\nordeal, that is self maintained, that is meant to allow itself to intermingle for more literally roles that it\nneeds to carry out to ensure it’s functioning, for a temporary duration, and then proceeding to dismantle this\ntouching of social genitalia in order to go back to one’s own solace and be a separate entity. It should not\nbe considered something one can scientifically dismantle in abstract ways, that can be applied in more concrete\nways as long as it is shown to be work and be relevant, but a concrete sort of thing in the spiritual sense as\nopposed to the abstract, permeating and absorbing all those who come in contact with it. What is considered\na conflict of interest between public and private parties, and approach in a way that suggests a man’s inner\nself is at odds with that of society, is something separate from each other, which is not, then being at war\nwith oneself is essentially what is, except in a physical revolution or war. The inner side of man is the\nlocation at which enough turbulence occurs, where the public interest is his own interest as well, and the\nsociety in which he conflicts with is in turn his own society, an extension of himself and he an extension of it,\nnor is it some alien and intrusive power that obstructs his ability to roam free, nor the insanity that he is\nsometimes prone to in moments of passion nor his enjoyment, but his part in the concern for the happiness and\nwell being of others that others in their inner self share as he does being part of this greater whole.”<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is as such because men can be considered part of one greater whole, a larger body, as their intelligences,\ninterests, hobbies, rights, duties, desires and beliefs are all both part of the greater whole as well as being\nderived from the greater whole, it is an artificial and unreasonable approach to consider any conflict between\ntwo mutually opposing forces as being a compromise. The conflict in this instance therefore must not be asssessed\nin a way where the parameters are my interest vs. your interest, rather, our interest as part of the greater\ncommon good that we share part of and therefore have a mutual interest in. Our common good is in need of the\nembrace of these three elements: the progression of intellectual development and the pursuit and accumulation\nof scientific knowledge, increasing our capacity to recognize as well as manufacture beauty, and the increase\nin our abilities to carry out those social duties that are generally considered to be practical. The notion is\nthat these three need to have symmetry and synchronization in order for the highest good and order of things\nto come full circle. The problem with contemporary society is that the conditions it provides systematically\nforces the interests of the public and the interests of the individual to be constantly pitted in opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As it pertains to laying out this worldview of society in this way and using it to establish formulations\nregarding it, we can transcended beyond Comte’s philosophical purview, and purified the taint of some\ninconsistencies that appeared to have been present. Comte’s viewpoint suggests that the social union is more\nof a concrete version of a spiritual life force penetrating it’s members, but then one gets to thinking: What\nis the nature of this union? Through what parameters does this life force prove it’s being and manifest itself?\nComte insists that it can only be observed in emotion, or in other words, something that has to do with\nthe heart only. The life of man can be considered to have two divisions in terms of impulsive behavior – \nthe egoistic side and the altruistic side – which are able to act independently of one another as well as man’s\nintelligence. At the beginning our selfish emotions carried much more weight in our decision making process,\nbut conditioning by social experiences and varying circumstances force our less selfish or altruistic side to\ndevelop hastily over time until it dominates our public face. The ideals that we as humanity look forward to\nare ones in which the altruistic side in man predominates and the egoistic side has become exinct. Intelligence\nalso appears to only be used when the pursuit of satisfying either the altruistic or egoistic emotional state\nbecomes apparent. The conclusion gathered in Comte’s view – as per Dr. Edward Caird’s analysis – is that\nintellectualism and the sole concentration thereof is considered an existence that is unsocial, even selfish,\nas reason is not led by an objective purpose that is self reliant, it has to find it’s true reason for existing\nin satisfying needs of personal vanity and selfishness, whenever it is not distracted by it’s altruistic pursuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To presume that the sociability of a human exists only to fulfill it’s emotional requirements, is a limited\nand one sided perception of things. It is easy to resist this one sidedness with yet another one sidedness;\nwhere the social side to a person can be located in our intellectual capacity, where the emotion is specific\nto the individual and the is part of the concepts of separation and isolation. There is almost a certainty\nto the notion that this second perception has ever been held; although many philosophers and thinkers have\nwritten and spoken about it as if they did hold this perception. Through what means do we judge between these\ntwo polar opposites? This process eventually leads us to consider one of the most important tests of truth that\nwe might come across, which is necessary to be applied to all of our endeavors. We consider it necessary to\ngive attention to this test of truth as it is something that is a recurring issue in human thought that two\nopposing ideologies are frequently created and then maintained. This is particularly relevant when it comes\nto matters of philosophy, as well as that of political and social ethics. Aristotle’s teachings point to\nthe idea that every such case requires rational discrimination that allows us to bridge the gap between the\ntwo extremes on each and come to a satisfactory compromise in the middle. There is no need to explore an\nexplanation of this phenomena, as it is so universal putting words together to elaborate on it would be a \nwaste of effort. We eventually conclude there are two ways to determining the mean of two polar opposites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first way is to take what commonalities both polar opposites might share, and to discard of any differences\nthey might not. We also take note of the general applicability of the fact that the differences between these\ntwo said ideologies are so numerous, where on one end of the spectrum of the extreme form of state socialism,\nand the other end of the spectrum being the extreme form of individualism, where the only middle ground or\n“mean” that we are able to obtain between both of them, is essentially a result of nothing, where we have only\na very glimmer of suspending our judgement toward one ideology or the other. Despite the simplicity of arriving\nto this conclusion, it is often treated as if it were some profound intellectual process deserving of praise,\nconjured up by a mind free from the taint of bias derived from his own perspectives. In most instances it can\nbe, regretfully, perceived as the mark of intellectual insolence or an intellectual lack of bravery. But there\nexists another approach for determining the golden middle, a middle way in which there is no less of either\nextremes, yet more than either extremes. This was the “mean” that Aristotle had in mind, and in order to attain\nit, we would need to be reasonable or rational in our endeavors. This does not mean that we should consistently\nbe arguing or endeavoring to transcend from premises to conclusions by discursive argument, where the most\nrational among the community are not continously engaged in the process of rationalization for philosophical\npurposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This degree of rationalization is a result of acquiring the best education, or the best training of one’s mental\nabilities, as to expand the mind’s horizons so they begin to possess the depth and dimensions required for this\nlevel of rational discrimination. It requires the entirety of man’s being, his innermost abilities, not just\nhis capacity for analytical comprehension, to discover the true mean between both extremes. In order for\nus to accomplish this feat, we must reach a level beyond ourselves that puts us ahead of both these things,\nbut first we must understand the truth that both of these things contain, and combine them to form a higher\ntruth. It is never a simple task to figure this out, yet whenever we are able to accomplish it with two\ncontradictory doctrines or beliefs, we can be certain to some degree that we have transcended both philosphies\nto attain a deeper truth. How the value of their conflict is assessed, together with the value of their\nopposition to eachother, is a suggestion that deeper truth needs to be attained to break this conflict,\nas well as a suggestion as to how the gap can be bridged between two opposing ideas in order to break\nthis conflict. The case that was being referred to, before divulging into this digression, is relatively\nsimple to assess. We were able to ascertain two opposing assertions: where the only social bond between human\nbeings is one based on feeling, where rationality is more conducive of selfishness and isolation, and the\nexact opposite of bonding via emotion, where the words “emotion” and “rationality” have switched places.\nThe middle way in between these two extremes is to acknowledge of the “social impulse” on both sides of the\ncoin that leads us to go either one way or the other, something that unconsciously drives us as a result of\nbeing at the very fabric of our being, and manifesting itself through every bit of mental exertion and thought\nwe may conjure up. Our intelligence is not here to serve the sole purpose of functioning to calculate in cold\nmeans, as calculations are done as a means to figure out things outside it’s being, and our intelligence has\nstructure and laws that govern it’s existence, just as a living organism would have in it’s physical biology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rationality is of a social nature, as rationality in itself cannot function as intended unless it is compatible\nwith the rationality of man’s peers, as these same rules that govern our own intelligence govern the same in\nothers. Through this way rationality takes me beyond the confines of my own mind and unites my mind with those of\nothers. The tradeoff that occurs is that where we have unity in some ideas, there are also differences in others;\nand different personalities often clash during the intermingling of these ideas, and coming together to make them\nall work in cohesion, is not the product of who has the superior ability to reason as a way to push their idea,\nbut by determining the common root of all ideas, particularly the opposing ones. Through this dynamic, we can\nalso come to the conclusion that feeling is social. While every man’s emotions and feelings belong to himself,\nand through them he transcends his own being to connect to other humans and things, and is restless until\nhe achieves a state of equilibrium harmonizing his reason and feeling with those of other human beings.\nYou could also say that we are meant to service this ideal of personality, a supreme good that reigns over\nus as the utmost unified goal of our lives, which is also in unity with all sides of our own human nature,\nand requires cohesion between different actors and conflicting personalities among humans to be achieved,\nwhere the unity and diversity are necessary in that they are equitable in order for this to be achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This allows us to discern another issue with Comte’s way of thinking. He considers the egoistic and altruistic\nlusts of man are two distinct impulses of human nature – distinct in a manner where the selfish impulses might\ncompletely dissipate throughout the pursuit of social progress, and the tendencies to engage in selfless behavior\nbe what makes them pure. There is an air of nobility as well as luxury surrounding this notion, but in reality\ntends to confuse it’s practitioner and shows contradictory results when speaking from matters of experience.\nIf we were to take this all seriously, what would it end up meaning? That in this utopian society \nany individual human being, when considering his duty, would see himself as being on one side of things and the\nremainder of the community on the other, and that the human should see himself as nothing else other than being\na tool or organ of the community, an extension of it, as completely devoting himself to the service of the community.\nThe same line of thinking is utilized in Comte’s dictum, “the individual is an abstraction, nothing is real but\nhumanity.” The individual can be considered as nothing, and should consider himself as nothing except as a means\nto an end in the service of others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this were the primary mode of thinking among men, social life would become impossible, since the goal of life\nin all men would contradict those of other men. The unmoving reality is that making a total distinction between\nthe selfish and unselfish tendencies of human nature, Comte is to some extent negating the things he is most nervous\nin confirming – the unity of society. By acheiving a theoretical split between these two ideologies, and by that\nmeaning one can exist without the need for the other to also exist, and the conflict between them solved only by\ndenying the existence of one or the other. This is not to say that there is no definite conflict between them\nto begin with, because the fact that there is a conflict and considerable distinction between them is essentially\nthe most serious problem in life that people have. This practical problem needs a solution using a similar approach\nto that of a theoretical problem, and not by accepting as one of these extremes as being sufficient to solve\nthe problem and flat out denying the efficiency of the other, but by finding a middle compromise that combines\nthe truth and justice attainable by both extremes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As has been previously stated, this practical problem is much more easily examined when it arises out of a conflict,\nespecially a partial and constrained conflict, between the various types of ultimate good or ultimate ideals\nwhen it comes to life, and not between the interests of different classes of people. A better way to see this\nis that mankind can be united by the pursuit of a common good. The ways that men might seek good or the good of\nothers comes in various forms and all are applicable to achieiving this common good, and whatever distance there\nmight be between these two as a rule regarding our context specific efforts or motivations, that the highest\ngood for the individual is unattainable unless he helps his fellow man reach that same good. This seems to be\nthe ultimate end in life, and the primary requirement for achieving that end, and this is the most practical way\nto define the unity of society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It therefore seems a tad bit too much if we were to agree with Comte regarding the individual being an abstraction\nand a product of society in his entirety. We have seen demonstrations of man’s ability to live beyond his own\nexistance and when the purpose is mutual with that of his fellow man or which binds them together but is beyond\nthemselves, although it can be said that this is not what defines man, where the individual is not produced by\nsociety entirely in this way. If we were to insist that a person was a product of their environment, we must consider\nthe environment to be the entire cosmos that is reality, that includes all time and all existence, and that this\nquestion should be consiered as purely a metaphysical one. If by environment we actually mean to refer to the\nsolidarity and continuity of society, then one can say that it is no more true for a life to be defined by his\nenvironment as to say a thought is the product of language. Green put it well when he stated “social life is\nto personality what language is to thought.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thought should be viewed as more than the language used to organize it as it has a deeper origin in consciousness;\nyet language being the primary medium through which thought is expressed has an overarching influence on thought.\nIt appears that some social reforms have a tendency of over exaggerating the influence of the social environment\nupon the lives of men, and thus they tend to exaggerate the influence that social reform will bring about the lives\nof these men, conclusively. This implies a wrong approach to things, as it assumes that we can improve the quality\nof lives of men by shifting the outward order of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also need to take into consideration the notion that the doctrine of social unity that we have been pushing thus\nfar does not guarantee a strive for positive social action in the future. It suggests that men can only be defined\nas to what they are if they have a basis of comparison in other men, that this must take form and not be a chaotic\nsort of unordered entropy, and as a result it does not demonstrate how these forms should be organized in social\nlife of men in order to function as benevolently as intended. The two pragmatic instances derived from this shared\nexperience can be thought of as individualism and institutionalism. The individualism referred to here is not one\nthat by it’s very design seeks to deny the necessity of having social organization in our society. From this\nstems the ideal the most complete version of an individual’s life as it was meant to be lived and developed.\nInstitutionalism, on the other hand, derives it’s ideology from the most complete development of state machinery,\nas well as what is colloquially referred to as “social institutions”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also a need to touch upon Comte’s view of the limited nature of reason; limited in that in relations to\nthe conduct of man, it is not typically used as a means to an end for the satisfaction of emotions and sensations.\nMan often uses reason as a way to create practical results from the fields of theoretical knowledge. Scientific\nknowledge handles only specific relations with certain types of phenomena, at least with factual information\nderived from our senses, and the relations are restricted to those of co-existence and succession, similarity and\ndifference. These are the only crucial things that bind together this phenomena in the positivist world, and the \npurpose of scientific knowledge is to codify and categorize these connections as systematically as is possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The infamous “law of three stages” preposes that this is the ultimate objective from the historical as well as the\ntheoritical perspective. Comte was certain that he could find the passage through which theological into metaphysical\nperspectives took place regarding explanations for the world and our reality, as well as from the metaphysical realms\nof inquiry to those of positivist views. In order for us to transfer metaphysical theories into a practical, positivist\npoint of view, we would first need to examine the Critical Theory of Knowledge, but even when taking in historical\nperspectives it is contradicted by available facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of human experiences inevitably leads to the analogy that ideas are like seeds – they must either die out and\ndisappear or continue to grow, in and of themselves they serve no purpose and conflict in their existence with this\nlack of purpose serving. If they are able to go on existing without changing, in the form of religious or\npolitical doctrines or “established” scientific theories, it is only how they are explained with words that tends to\nstay unchanging in a way, and if the ideas are ones that can return lots of benefits, if they are also able to come\nup with new ideas and theories by criticizing those of the now and the past, then it’s inevitable that these ideas\nand their definition being fixed can be broken up and re-organized into a newer, more improved definition fitting\nof a new enlightened state of realization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new crystal clear expression of the theory must be inadequate as to what the thought is attempting to summarize\ninto words. The thought by itself might be insufficient to describe the reality it is attempting to represent in\nthis synopsis. Alas, since thought is assumed to be a real function or activity of the human mind, with structure\nand laws of it’s own that govern it and the correctness of it’s content and ability to formulate ideas regarding\nreality, and yet it might be completely inept at grasping it’s own nature and goals, and yet, the entirety of the\nmind does not constitute a thinking activity, and there is more to the mind than just producing thought, and these\nthings of nature will often proceed to develop and grow into something more than simply the activity of thinking,\nso that the activity of thinking is incapable of thinking about them or understanding them, and we are ultimately\nleft with a verbal expression regarding theories of metacognition that may be insufficient to describe it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This line of thinking can also be applied to every serious religious movement, especially at the outset when the\nfundamentals are being developed. On the other hand, there might be further intellectual development in other spheres\nas it pertains to the nature of man, and the quality of what this intellect produces will largely depend upon it’s\nself awareness of it’s own principles and ideals. If these principles and ideals are rooted in Positivism only,\nthey will continue to criticize the theory until it is completely destroyed, and enter the realm of Skepticism.\nThe more we ponder about it the more we come to the realization that the entire development of thought and\nintellectualism is contrary to that of this ideal known as Positivism and the lens through which it attempts\nto view the world and the knowledge derived from it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As far as attemping to find that balance or in between that doesn’t please one side or the other, we can observe that\nin the intellectual world, in other words the physical world, the primary way through which we achieve progress\nseems to lie in negative conditions such as conflict, criticism and competition, has turned intellectualism and\nthe realm of thought into a dystopian wasteland where it’s survival of the fittest and a struggle for existential\ncontinuation. This is due to the dynamic nature of human thinkers who will often disagree on different theories\nand approaches and defend their own views which may conflict with others, as where somebody upholds one ideal, someone\nelse upholds a contrasting one, where achieving a truthful conclusion is a possibility, this in and of itself\nsuggests the need for accessibility and systematic approaches of criticism. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter\nthat this or that individual human being, or the leading minds of that particular era, completely sever themselves\nfrom the pursuit of real knowledge, humanity as a whole does not sever itself as well but instead approaches problems\nafter filling up it’s batteries over and over, and retreating to re-strategize it’s approach, with the utmost\ncertainty and confidence that the learning of this real knowledge will finally and inevitably be achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The acquisition of real knowledge in turn provides the benefit to humanity about thinking with consistency about\nreality and the world around us, making it intelligable, rational and comprehensible. It’s noteworthy to consider\nthe word “rational” as a summation for the fact that science and it’s theoretical underpinnings are generally not\nthe result of a post mortem dissection of something that has already occured and in hindsight. A good portion\nof the work of science is of this type of character, surely, and how we might be able to explain the identity\nand characteristics of the common household fern would be formulated based on those data points and ultimately\nit’s varying modes of motion. Through this process, what we know as the fern has disappeared, we have only mechanical\ndata points regarding it’s physical appearance. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet even this process contains the paradigm that it’s a false line of thinking to assume that science is comprised\nof simply laws of coexistence and compassion the positivst often refers to as “phenomena”. It is also reasonable\nto argue when saying that sometimes science can be perceived as beginning where this phenomenon is destroyed;\nand continuing to dabble in some other thing as opposed to it. The phenomenon can be considered something physical\nscience is incapable of providing an explanation for, as it excludes the nature of the mind that is capable of \nthinking about the problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite this, science is not restricted to a purely analytical or dissecting series of approaches in order to be\nconsidered truly legitimate. Human intelligence according to Hegel and Kant’s doctrine of knowledge is something\nthat abides by it’s own principles to explain the world around it, and without these principles an explanation would\nnot be possible. It’s possible that the deepest of these principles can be considered the unity of the world –\nthe thought that we are only capable of comprehending something by seeing the interconnectnedness of things with\nothers in the world and how each causes the other to function. In short, Kant provides us with a perspective in which\nthe positivist restrictions in relations to scientific knowledge can be perceived to be illogical<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once more we must ask ourselves, what is this philosophy or “metaphysics” that Comte is spiteful and doubtful towards?\nHe appears to comprehend it as a way to explain phenomena through the route of abstract conceptualization, which\nis looked upon by thinkers as being the most reasonable explanation for why things are as they are. Yet therein lies\nthe superiority of metaphysics as it is able to explain things in which positivism cannot. This is worthy of mentioning\nas a way to explain philosophy and it’s purpose. We have been discussing the retentive clash between the present\nmodes of thought – scientific, technological, political, ethical, religious. It is through this clash that entices\nthe more thinking crowd among us to develop a philosophy of life, it should not be perceived as a consistent\nintellectual luxury, even for individuals not of this crowd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And even those for Comte this is what may be, the clash that we’ve referred to suggests that it is necessary for\nthe race. Philosophy can be interpreted as the unification of knowledge, and this can further be defined as the\nconsistency in trying to find a reliable foundation by which to criticise the clashing modes of thought that are\nindeed a sizable portion of our intellectual and social environment – to criticize them in order to seek and find\nthe truth in them, and having it surface so it’s more visible and pronounced. If truth then always and everywhere\nbecomes something that is subjective, and if no mistake, if it carries any weight in the matter at all, can be ever\nentirely faulty, and no truth that is finite can be entirely truthful, then philosophical criticism will continue\nto dismantle the truth that lies within these deviant modes of thinking. This also means that philosophical criticism\nis only harmful to those concepts that are erroneous in nature; it can be constructive at the fundamental level,\nin the way that the truth is able to express itself more fully and with less limitations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore philosophy is not meant to be a set of theories that are to be shrugged off because of some others in\ncontemporary science and day to day living, and to be weaponized as a sort of destructive criticism against the\nlatter; whatever “new truth” philosophy might want to bring out in the open can be seen as already implied in\nthought and knowledge that we act upon every day. Professor Sedwick wisely remarked: “the premises of philosophy\nconsist of the different aggregates of what is taken to be knowledge (or reasoned and systematic thought, so\nfar as this is a wider term than knowledge) in the thoughtful part of the community to which the philosophizing\nindividual belongs.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s quite the curiosity that neither evolutionists nor associationists have taken upon the task of elaborating\nwhy “by nature”, all humans pursue comprehension of various things purely for the purpose of understanding them. \nPositivism itself pays a tribute to this inclination, and virtually confirms it’s ideal as being above all else;\nand regading the problem, why is it so important? The question of when does it come, opts for an answer. Underneath\nit all is the native idealistic certainty that the things that we do thanks to our nature which can be observed in\nthe acquisition and realization of truth is one type of the highest good of humans, and this can be argued\nwith with complete synchronization of the religious perspective on the life and fate of human beings.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s also wise indeed to note that religious thinking shares a lot in commonality in regards to this: to consider\nGod as discovered or manifested through the human race, either through the entirety of human history as well as their\nachievements, or through the whims of one man who is pictorally and symbolically taken as an example of the most\nideal human, as a model for the rest. The fact that Comte had been engaging in the deification of humanity in his\nworks implies that he recognizes the truth of God being revealed through human beings. It is this statement – that\nit is revealed through humans – that we disagree with Comte, in which he means it is about acheiving the greatest\ntriumphs a human being can achieve in which “God is revealed”; we in turn use the word “God” as a way to paint\na picture of what the deepest realities mean for us, the fundamental baseline for all existence, which is often\npersonified through national ideals at it’s highest level. The most noteworthy deeds humanity has undertaken are only\nshimmers of light from barely functioning lamposts in the scope of divine reality; and despite the shimmer they give\noff, it is light nonetheless, all eminating from a central source of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe source of all mistakes in Comte’s Positivism can be found in his incorrect perspective on reason – the nature\nand laws governing intelligence. It is this that has Comte convinced that the bond between humans is only one of\nemotion, it is this that has also convinced Comte that nature is simply an organized inheritence of “phenomena”,\nthis seen as a separate thing from humans and treated as an alien power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, we should bring to attention something regarding the various criticisms that have been noted here so far.\nReligious doctrine, as we have observed so far, tends to put an emphasis on the greatness of the human race;\nthe greatness of the deeds it can already call it’s own, and the more wide ranging and far reaching possibilities\nand of it’s fate, compared to it’s present state which appears to be one that does not live up to these expectations\nand desperately needs to meet them to retain it’s reputability. At what point do we find reconciliation by combining\nthe observations of modern science with the nature of the physical universe, and the completely irrelevant speck\nin it that is our world, on which we live? To this we say, just because there are enormous distances between worlds\ndoes not marginalize the importance of human spirits on this one, rather, they suggest the opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this has been pondered about previously in other places: What is greater, the vastness of the universe as a cold,\ndead fact, or the mind of the human being who has finally succeeded in comprehending that vastness in it’s entirety?\nThis immensity is supposed to be so terrible in it’s sheer size that the mind of man has made it out to be more\nterrible and incomprehensible than it is, yet it is the human being that has managed to accumulate the knowledge\nof it, much to the surprise of his own senses that caused him doubtfulness. The senses of humans presented the universe\nas a sparkling dome of blue crystals, that cover a tiny parcel of sea and land, through the work of his own logic\nhe has succeeded in understanding the truth. The Hebrew psalmist wrote: “The heavens declare the glory of God.”\nComte went contrary to this and said that they declare the glory of Newton and Kepler, and indeed it is that\nthey do. Yet both of these recitals do not act in opposition to one another, as he who declares that humans are glorious\nalso declares that God is glorious.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reading Time: <\/span> 22<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span> If we attempt to develop an idea regarding a divine society or a fellowship of men – and by a divine society it is understood as one that strives for absolute perfection – then we might, without experiencing the possibility of being shunned for attempting to summon a utopia – see some limited success. This […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brief-guide-to-philosophy"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2997"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2997"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2997\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3000,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2997\/revisions\/3000"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformsforhumanity.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}