65. Auguste Comte and Positivism 

Dr. Gore, you are a great teacher, as usual. I'm so thankful to God that we Christians have a great man like you.

Thank you for making these lectures available. I always wanted to take philosophy in my undergrad and didn't quite get around to it, though I've had an interest in Christian apologetics for years. You're helping me to put some things together, with bits and pieces I had picked up, so thank you. It's good to begin to see how the pieces fit, within a Western historical framework. Thank you, and many blessings. All the best. :)

Thank you very much for teaching us the Philosophies of so many people professor Gore.

I have learned so much from you, Bruce. Thank you!

Dr. Gore. I’m not sure where you went to school, but although you clearly know a lot and are an intelligent person, I believe that your characterization of social science is a little outdated. Over the last few years, I’ve taken sociology, psychology, economics, linguistics, anthropology, history, human geography, and political science, all of which are considered ‘social sciences’. I am eager to take law and jurisprudence which is also considered the same in today’s world. Of course, secular professors behave in ways that are not very favourable to Christ, but all wisdom is grounded in the fear of the Lord and all knowledge is grounded in the Truth, Christ Himself. In every discipline, there is knowledge that the Christian can find and use to better this world, because we are more than merely pragmatically concerned with “the practical bearing we concede the object of our conception to have” (Pierce). It is possible for any Christian who knows the Bible for themselves to accomplish anything they want in His world provided it is Good in the sense it reflects Him, because nothing is impossible for God; if He is with us no one can stand against us!

I love Ride of the Valkeries!

Great lecture! Question: if Comte denies the noumenal (or relegates it to little or no value), then on what basis can he claim that there are ‘universal laws’? The three universal laws are clearly themselves noumenal. Also, it dawned on me as you were listing the phases that this ‘progression’ is exactly the opposite of Aristotle’s teachings in terms of priority and posteriority. Metaphysics is prior to Physics (end of Bk 1 of the Physics). And we learn from the Metaphysics of the necessity of the divine unmoved mover (bk IX). So the order is quite literally reversed. So, Comte’s progress is exactly the opposite of Aristotle’s meaning of prior.

I suppose that I might be here by happenstance, but, I found this interesting and appreciated the opportunity to learn about a man whom I knew not a great deal. I thank the up loader for taking the time, but, wonder if you know who the lecturer is? Many thanks

Dear Mr Gore How should I be thankful with your philosophical teaching .Honestly you are one of the best in this section of human thinking . Pre socratic philosophy division in 3 separate section ,I have listened several times. I comeback again and again . But about” mani” really you think an ugly name !!!???? I have an iranian handsome son and his name is Mani .and In Iran after islamic revolution this name was not permitted to choose .you can guess ,why . I am an immigrant and I live in Netherland therefore I named my son Mani . Never mind ,I follow you ,please your explain about Frankfurt school if is it possible . Thanks a lot Your digital student .Djamal Pourjalili

Comte was a great guy. To bad his Religion of humanity didn't get more followers. Hope someone will revive it someday. Awesome idea that can unite all humanity.

His name is not pronounced Comty, but Comt.

Music has message...huh

What about love? What about hate? what about forgiveness? According to Darwin, we are another form (more developed form) of animal. Are we?

Comte is such an ironically Sad Figure, but the Taproot of so much unexamined "Walking Around Philosophy" today. I'm reminded of Nancy Reagon's ' slogan. "Just do it". How well did that work?,

Very biased and superficial treatment

The point about Christianity vs evolution ignores the part about moving from “relatively inferior to relatively improved explanations for things”. One explanation (god) is an infantile mass delusion based on unmeasurable intuition and the other (evolution) is at least based on some POTENTIALLY verifiable idea (however flawed, it could be further improved upon and deliberated).

Star Wars should be sued lol clearly they stole that song

He does not get programtism, or he midgets it.

Positivists are so lame- who would be stupid enough to believe love is just chemicals, how undialectical

Darwinism is a religion. See Kent Hovind (Dinoland in Lenox AL). He has the science to back up creation.