an axiom, and imagined that his whole theory was erected on the very
firmest of foundations. According to his theory, it seemed that
since humanity is an organism, the knowledge of what man is, and of
what should be his relations to the world, was possible only through
a knowledge of the features of this organism. For the knowledge of
these qualities, man is enabled to take observations on other and
lower organisms, and to draw conclusions from their life.
Therefore, in the fist place, the true and only method, according to
Comte, is the inductive, and all science is only such when it has
experiment as its basis; in the second place, the goal and crown of
sciences is formed by that new science dealing with the imaginary
organism of humanity, or the super-organic being,--humanity,--and
this newly devised science is sociology.

And from this view of science it appears, that all previous
knowledge was deceitful, and that the whole story of humanity, in
the sense of self-knowledge, has been divided into three, actually
into two, periods: the theological and metaphysical period,
extending from the beginning of the world to Comte, and the present
period,--that of the only true science, positive science,--beginning
with Comte.

All this was very well. There was but one error, and that was
this,--that the whole edifice was erected on the sand, on the
arbitrary and false assertion that humanity is an organism. This
assertion was arbitrary, because we have just as much right to admit
the existence of a human organism, not subject to observation, as we
have to admit the existence of any other invisible, fantastic being.
This assertion was erroneous, because for the understanding of
humanity, i.e., of men, the definition of an organism was