In this section, Comte begins with a discussion of "the total development of human intelligence [relying upon a] great fundamental law" (1) resting on three developmental states. The first state is "the theological or fictitious state, the metaphysical or abstract state, and the scientific or positive states" (Comte 1).
One of the first things to jump out at me was Comte's and Sir Francis Bacon's idea that "there can be no real knowledge except that which rests upon observed facts" (4). With that said, I cannot help but revisit Fichte, and his cautious avoidance of the idea that our senses may possibly be unreliable. So how can we have knowledge based on observations that rely on our senses or are measured by tools constructed by the foundational rubric of our senses' need to conceptualize? Comte does not address this, but he does discuss the problem of where to start since we cannot observe without theory and we cannot theorize without observation. He solves this problem by saying that we spontaneously develop theories (Comte 5), but it does not solve anything because by what laws are spontaneous generations governed? They cannot be governed if they are spontaneous, but if they happen within our minds, should it not rest in the laws that govern the acquisition of knowledge?
To continue the next question I had in relation to what Comte says on page 16 is: Is specialization really detrimental to positive philosophy? If positive philosophy is meant to be beneficial to people in being the final epoch of the states of intelligence, shouldn't specialization lead people to a better understanding of specific entities relating to the entire whole? Arguably, someone would have to specialize in order for people to gain knowledge about the specifics and so is that person a martyr for the knowledge of mankind? Or does specialization via division of labor only further specialization?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have confidence in claiming that our senses are unreliable because our senses represent what is present. The objective world is sensed through touch, taste, sound, sight and smell and then “re” presented in the brain which consists of a very limited collection of diminutive understandings that barely scrape the surface in understanding what truly the universe is. The mere fact, however, that to a degree we can understand what is going on provides a glimmer of hope that maybe it is possible to understand what the hell the universe is and what our role as thinking, working, and making machines are. If you look at it from a pretty straight forward angle it’s obvious that this ultimate understanding is possible. Hard work, patience, thoroughness, focus and time all contribute to success. From the athlete to the artist, the businessman or the landscaper, teachers and students or monkeys and monsters can all follow this recipe for success to the relative degree by which it is possible to achieve. But maybe that’s it. Maybe all we will ever have is a relative understanding of the event of time space. Something unspecific and untrue to what really it is that is going down.
ReplyDelete