New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-10-24

NOT positive. The phenomena OF nature nave
been observed IS closely by inquirers who BE-
leyed in the munitions Of the soul, which Comte
di,cards. and who resolved all finite canses int,
the agency Of the In6oite IS BY the would-'e
Positive philosophers, who like the celebrated
French astr, ,mer could hud mo God AZ the
end of their telescopes" Indeed. in the course
Of his speculatons Comte admits this difhcuity
himself, and attempts TO set it aside by the re-
mark that the three periods may exist simul'ane-
ously. The three states, theological, metaphysl-
cal and positive, may be found at the same time
in the same mind in regard TO different sciences.
But be does not fully meet epregnant objection.
We contend that they cocxist in the same mud
in regard TO the same sciencs-and that they msy
coexist at the same period in regard to the
whole circle OF sciences. They occupy differ
ent spheres, but they do not necessarily exclude
each other The metaphysical phase, in fact has
been almost invariably coDjoined with the theo-
logical phase; so far from forming transition
from theology, metaphysics has been its feeder
and adjuvant the Absolute Ideas Of the one have
led to the Absolute Being of the other; Nature
has rarely been conceived as a finite entity with
out involving the conception of God as an Infinite
entity. The antagonist Of Theology is not Meta
physics, but Materialism-the narrow, one-sded
Posityism of such thinkers as Comte, who recog-
nize DO reality but that Of sensible pheuomen4.
Nor is there necessarily an antagonlsm between
Metaphysics and true Positivism-the Possivism
which makes facts the basis of theory, which is
devoted to the observation of objects within the
sphere of those objeets-not looking for the con-
ceptiOns of the intellect among the phenomena OF
sense-nor expecting to exhibit the soul on the
point of needle or to detect the Deity at the
bottom of crucible. Many Of the most acute
observers of modern times, in the sphere OF ply
steal seience-Sir John Herschel, Sir Humphrey
Davy, for instance, not to mention host of names
equally eminent-haye been strenuous advocates
of metaphysical conceptions, to say nothing of
theological beliefs. But, failing to prove the con
secutveness of development in the three phases of
thought, (Which he claims as his own peculiar
thunder, ~ COmte ia left without any FONDA
ton for his tower of Babel, and it crashes and
tumbles in ruins about his ears.
But not to dwell on the untenablensss of his
theory, for lack of historical proof, let US inquire
if Comte has succeeded in annihilsting by the
mere breath of his nostrils, the conceptions of
II eoiog and Metaphysics, against which he de-
claims with such solemn gravity. He insists on
facts as pertinacousy and exclusively as the i'm
mortal Mr. Gradgrind, in Dickens's Hard
Times.i stick TO facts, gentlemen, stick to
facts" is the refrain of his perennial, ever echo
ing song. Correctly understood, this is not so
bad advice Our controversy with COmte is not
because be appeals to facts as the basis of his sys
TEN, but bee use he fails to take cogniz ince Of
an immense class of facts, which have no less re.
alty than those which he vouchsafes to recognize
as the only verites for scientific research. God
angel and spirit of course he eliminates from the
Universe, as the rubbish of theological fancies
Soul, cause, substance, personal identity, share
the same fate as the spawn of fiction loving meta
physics. After this implacable analysis, nothing
remains but the phenomena of sense, which it is
the sole function of science to observe, describe
and arrange according to their relations of sue
cesson and resemblance.
But this portion of Comtes the Dry labors under
the saue objection that We have before alleged
against his historical procedure His assumptions
are utterly out of proportion to his premises.
Before he could thus peremptorily shove aside
everything but sensible phenomena, he was bound
to demonstrate that the senses the only
of knowledge. This he has not even attempted
to do. He supposed that all super-sensual phi
lOsOphies had so slight hold of life, that they
would give up the ghost at the bare pointing of
his finger. Wholly ignoring the wide field Of
facts presented by the conceptions Of reason,
he lodges the question in regard to their
origin, their validity, their contents, and cooly
takes it for granted that all the realities of the
universe can be detected by the di-sectDg knife,
or the telescope, or the operation Of che nicsl
solvents. 1t is true. he leaves place for mathe-
mates; he ackno Wedges the Unreasonable i'm
portance Of this branch of science, even in its
purely rational elements; but he does not conde-
scend to inform us on what ground he accepts the
intuitions Of reason in this sphere, while he re.
pudates them in that of psychology and meta
physics. Comics exclusive claim of sensible
phenomena Is the subjects of scientific inquiry is
a chain hanging in the air. Itrests upon nothing,
and is wholly imaginary. Even if his assumption
lie true, IL was NOT tlubh lor MS purposes. Hc
had no right TO make use of it, until he had sho wn
some foundation for IFS support. Allowing the
legitimacy of Positivism, 10 comprehensive aud
enlarged view Of the term the rejection of all real
titles but the phenomena Of sense had not yet been
brought into the domain of Positvsm. There
were two questionsto be settled previously, which
be unceremOnously neglected, and "whistled
down the wind" The first u.s. Has The reason any
conceptions of truth beyond the impressions of