TRHS AP Euro

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Auguste Comte: A General View of Positivism

Read this excerpt from Comte's work on Positivism. What are his main points? Do you agree with him? Do some background work on Comte... what is his POV?

Due: MIDNIGHT, Tuesday, Jan. 23

posted by RJS at 8:06 AM

8 Comments:

  • In this excerpt of Comte's work, he describes the course of human thought having reached a point in history where society's issues have become the most pressing, and that now human thought can create a new moral power under which humanity can unite to resolve its issues in sort of a social revolution. The revolution would stray most dramatically from Catholicism, it being further behind according to his philosophy of Positivism, more primitive and based on objects that showed no scientific evidence of being holy. This method of thinking scientifically and using hard evidence is a major point of Comte's philosophy, and the ultimate goal it points to very well stems from his earlier involvement in Saint-Simonianism, which portrays a utopian society in which each individual holds the good of the people as his highest priority. I do not think this can be done if not artificially in the present, but if the human conscience continues to develop by the course of positivism, perhaps someday it will, although I don't think so. Positivism is not one of the more intelligent theories we've covered in my opinion. At the end of this piece he adds that the ultimate stage of thought will originate in France, stemming to the rest of the western world, then on to the rest of the white race before any other race is involved. This mentality by scientific standards is obsolete, unique only to the conditions of a period in history where it was prevalent on such a wide scale of european superiority.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:16:00 PM  

  • Well, I see I have the honor of being the first to espouse my views tonight. No classmates to disagree with- how sad.
    Ah well- on with philosophy. Comte describes his philosophy essentially the same way we described it in class- the final arrival at a scientific system of thought which could describe our society and lead to major improvements over sheerly theological and metaphysical thought- with a lot more dramatic flair. He talks on new moral powers, regenerating doctrines, and future progress. But he also has an interesting streak of realism in him. He admits that his philosophy for social change will not be embraced by people for whom society as is is welcomed. He sensibly looks to the working class for support.
    But he also turns to women for the reason that they rely on feeling more than intellect. I don't know for sure, but I think that two or three or nine people in the class might be a tad offended at that. Aside from the feminist slight, I disagree strongly with the suggestion that feelings should control intellect. Feelings are a tool used for encourages certain parts of our intellect- a tool, not the master. How can a man who claims to advocate modern science simultaneously stress the importance of emotions in a social science. How can civilizations be built from an emotional standpoint? How can an understanding of a social system come about if one is both inside of the system and contaminated with its emotions?
    From what I read of Comte's biography, he supported Napoleon but very much yearned for a Republic France. A true revolutionary. This fits in with his reliance on both women (Parisian women's march, anyone) and the working class (socialism, sociology, hmmm). His emphasis on reason is thoroughly colored with lenses of social change. Indeed, he pursues reason as an end to change, not an end in and of itself. Reason is not by any means the End- but it is closer to being end than revolution. What the End is is not for me to say tonight. Don't stay up too late, guys.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:25:00 PM  

  • Correction- second to write. I was the first when I got on here.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:26:00 PM  

  • Basically, Auguste Comte states that Positivism will benefit all and reform society through sociology. He says it is impossible to reconstruct society without at first observing it, which I can see would prove useful. Comte also observes different points in the document to prove that Positivism is the best way to reform. For example, he believes Positivism will greatly increase and provide the people with a "true spiritual power" that is more real than that proposed by the Catholic church. (Yeah I don't understand that because then what are they worshiping? or do they part of some sort of cult?)
    Anyway, Comte's idea was intended for all people of society and he planned to improve the social condition becuase he was concerned for humankind. When he showed his acclaim for women and the working class in this document, it proved his quest(haha just watched Monty Python for the thousandth time) for social change. Which obviously links him to sociology. I think because he was a sociologist and understood human interactions, Comte was able to come up with this idea of Positivism and its philosophy that feelings are the only rational basis for human knowledge and accurate thought.

    By Blogger taylor, at Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:55:00 PM  

  • Comte is saying that people and society have pretty much come to that place in time where something has to be done. Specifically the regeneration of western europe. In order to have one general human thought there must be progress. Well of course this is true, mankind is pretty much progressing toward a single point that we will reach eventually (or you know the end of the world). but that point is essentially a single state of the world with one general human thought, one set of morals, and all that. That would be the ideal state anyway which is what any ruler would want, with one set of morals there would be no argument over what is right or wrong. Crimes would be punished. Not that this is neccessarily a good thing, i don't think a world like that would constitute a successful society, but anyway. In order to prgress where we're at now we have to change. duh. thats what he's saying. and that since things had become so set in their ways revolt or reform would be the best ways. Comte wanted the best for people as a whole, that whole saintsimonism thing. so he's thinking that change is good for people and that people also want what is best for them and will work for the change. but people always want what is worst for them and rarely work for anything.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:58:00 PM  

  • I'm going to try and do the best I can with the 4 random sentences I managed to understand.

    --and although I read the parts mentioning feeling and women.. I can't believe I understood Thomas Batson before I understood someone else. (now, down to business)
    Comte talks firstly about society and the understanding thereof. Human intellect and society (I think?) is based on an exact science and knowledge. He talks about Positivism as if it's a great awakening of sorts, bringing about much needed reform, causing shifts in moral, understanding, and behavior. Comte is expecting this movement or period to cause a disturbance, educate society, and work toward reform he thinks is neccessary. Comte would have wanted to appeal to women for fact that women were looking for social reform, which, partially, could have been a reason for him to appeal to workers. Being in agreement with other thinkers, Comte wanted social change because he was unhappy with the lack of proper education that society at that time was putting out. I'm not big on being sided with politics, so I can't say a thing against the man. He's got some lovely ideas, as far as I can understand. Considering that he lived so long ago, and that I have no idea what it's like to live in the 1800's, he must have had a reason to have wanted, even expected, a great educational and social change in his society.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:54:00 PM  

  • This is, as has already been said, Comte's opening work on positivism, as described in our book, though this tends to focus a surprising amount on how to popularize positivism rather than the actual theory of it, though it was apparently only the opener for a longer treatise. The book's paraphrasing did more to convince me than the actual document here due to that preoccupation with popularizing, and the assertions that women would be the primary target and that France and then the western world would lead the positivist charge, followed by the other "two great races"... I agree more or less with the main idea, about the evolution of man's conception of nature, though people tend not to follow his pattern in direct chronological order at all, given that polytheism and monotheism are early on in the cycle and are still followed by the majority of humanity as an explanation of nature, despite science's advances. I see that Brazil's flag's motto "ordem e progresso" comes from Comte, as just a fun fact. I'm not sure about Thomas's bio talk of him following Napoleon, as he would have still been just fourteen when Napoleon was first deposed, so it hardly seems noteworthy whether or not he was for him at the time, unless you mean Napoleon III. Comte had to separate from his catholic, monarchist family due to his differences in belief, so I think that definitely shows his point of view.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:17:00 PM  

  • A few of Comte's main points were that moral and eventually legislative law would adher to a social law of sorts, that the general moral sentiments of a nation would gradually lead it away from such long standing institutions as the Catholic Church. And it is not only the Church which would be done away with, but all the old regime-esque policies of squabbles over land and power. He seemed to think that with the introduction of an organized mass of largely felt emotions would override the pre-existing establishment in conflict with those feelings and spur forth change, and that only by recognition of these feelings could the state of revolution be brought to an end.
    I do not necessarily agree with Comte, especially on his views of women since apprently the prescence of two x chromosomes leaves one inclined to emotions over rational thought. Not that I'm a feminist. Nor do I think it very wise to use something so victim to change as emotions. Such a structure would seem to force itself to cater to the whims of the masses, which, as we see with the introduction of reality tv, are not always the best.
    Comte's comments on women and his desire to first spread his ideas to the white race is characteristic of European supremecy and the general thought of the time that women were simply inferior.

    By Blogger laura, at Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home