Sartre vs Camus

Introduction on Sartre vs Camus : War & Philosophy : An historical background

The relationship between Sartre/Camus has modeled the post-war french philosophy.

Since 1943, Sartre and Camus, great friends, are everywhere together. The public, without detail, includes the author of ‘Nausea‘ and of ‘The Stranger‘ under the label ‘Existentialist‘.

After the liberation, existentialism is a much more than a fashionable philosophy, it is a lifestyle and a place: Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Paris area). “Existentialism Is a Humanism” conveniently summarizes this philosophy.

For the public it can be summarized in one phrase: “existence precedes essence“.

Sartre’s existentialism designed first as a philosophy of freedom and responsibility: we are what we do, not beings whose fate is predetermined. The key word of the day is ‘commitment‘.

Camus certainly do not refuse to engage, but refuses the label ‘existentialist’ and even that of a philosopher. From 1947, political disagreements between Sartre and Camus deepen Camus denounced Stalin’s camps, the Communists Sartre household.

In 1952, Jeanson (Sartre’s friend) was published in the journal of Sartre, ‘Modern Times‘, a report highly critical of The Rebel. Camus’s last book is considered as reactionary, and full of misjudgments. Camus, ignoring Jeanson, responds directly to Sartre. The next issue of modern times published next to the letter from Camus’s strong response to Sartre:

“A dark mixture of complacency and vulnerability has always discouraged to say the whole truth … It may be that you were poor, but you are no more. You are a citizen and as Jeanson like me … your moral s’ is first changed into moralism, today it is more than literature, tomorrow it may be immoral. ”

Camus and Sartre will never meet. Yet four years later, when the Red Army crushed the uprising in Budapest, Sartre in turn (followed by a large number of intellectuals) broke with the Communist Party. But the war in Algeria between Sartre again, a supporter of independence, Camus, who still wants to believe a compromise.

Camus and Existentialism

Albert Camus (1913-1960), Nobel Prize in 1957, was first mate then an opponent of Jean-Paul Sartre. Unlike Sartre, man of bourgeois society, Camus was a man of the poor suburbs. Camus feels the representative of the Mediterranean thought, in other words, the clarity (Greek, Latin, classical). Clarity between instrumental in the design of the absurd and the absurd man is above all one who is lucid about life. This attitude of “Hellenic” or “Hellenistic” is even more pronounced than in spite of its contact with Arab culture or Spanish, Camus has never been influenced by Islam remains closed.

Camus’ Existentialism is a despair existentialist, but without the Sartrean nausea and disgust. It is a desperate clairvoyant, founder of the greatness of man and humanism Camusian.

The absurd man is central to the thinking of Camus. As in other existentialist philosophers, the feeling of absurdity is a consequence of the unfounded nature of human existence – not limited to the face of absolute abroad thrown into an uncaring world. But, as shown by Camus, the absurd lies neither in humans nor in the universe: it is the result of their report and the paradoxical realization that the man in a. Several attitudes are possible. Camus denied those attitudes of escape: suicide, which is retracted by removing it, one of the terms of the contradiction (the suppression of consciousness). He also rejects the doctrines of this world lies outside the grounds and hopes that would give meaning to life, religious beliefs, philosophical suicide of thought (Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Shestov).

The absurd man is one who accepts the challenge lucidly, this is the basis of his revolt that leads him to take both his freedom, but also its own contradictions by deciding to live with passion and with only what he knows .

Camus’Works:

The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)

The Rebel (1951)

The Stranger (1944)

The Plague (1947)

The Fall (1956),

Sartre: Existentialism is a Humanism: 1946

When considering a manufactured object such as a book or a paper cutter, this object was manufactured by a craftsman who was inspired by a concept he referred to the concept of cut-paper, and also a technique of pre-production part of the concept, which is basically a recipe. Thus, the opener is both an object that occurs in a certain way and, on the other hand, has a defined benefit, and we can not assume a man who would produce a paper knife without knowing What will serve the purpose. Let us say that for the cutter, gasoline – that is to say all the recipes and qualities that can produce it and define it – precedes existence, and so the presence in front of me, like letter openers or such a book is determined. Here we have a technical vision of the world in which we can say that production precedes existence.

The atheistic existentialism, which I represent, […] said that if God does not exist, there are at least being in whom existence precedes essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any concept and that this being is man or, as Heidegger says, the reality-humaine1. What is meant here that existence precedes essence? This means that man first exists, occurs, arises in the world, and that is defined later. Man, as conceived by existentialism, it is not definable, is that it is not first. It will then, and it will be as it is done. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Man is not only as it develops, but as it wants, and as it develops from there, as he wants after this momentum to the existence, man is nothing other than what it is. This is the first principle of existentialism. […]

We mean that man first exists, that is to say that man is primarily what is thrown into a future, and what is conscious look to the future. Man is primarily a project that is lived subjectively, rather than a foam, a decay or a cauliflower nothing exists prior to this project, nothing is in heaven intelligible2, and the man what he will first have to be projected.

1 – human reality: translated German Dasein (literally “being there”), which means the mode of existence of man, as he is still planned.

2 – In heaven intelligible: in the sky ideas, home, according to Plato, the essences of all things.

Jean-Paul Sartre VS. Albert Camus

Sartre and Camus have written without knowing the works that made them famous. Sartre appreciated The Stranger while Camus was interested in Nausea and The Wall. But we can not imagine more opposite views of the world than Sartre, overshadowed by a profound horror of nature, and that of Camus, by the love of sunny Mediterranean. Friendship difficult joined the two writers after the Liberation Camus never stopped to distance vis-à-vis the existentialism of Sartre. Their rupture, which caused a great stir in 1952 probably marked the divergence of policy choices, Sartre experiencing more and more sympathy and Camus growing horror of Soviet communism. But she spent most divorce between two conceptions of life and literature: humanism, rebellion, love of happiness, love of “good form” Camus, political commitment, revolution, obsession with guilt, disgust with the ” literature “in Sartre. If it is beyond all these differences a certain unity between their respective works, it is in the horizon of the same year, which was common to them and they helped shape. It can be explained that existentialism has little beyond the scope of a generation, and he did not have fertility literature which had shown twenty years earlier, surrealism. Mentor these students have, but no posterity.

Introduction to Phenomenology

Phenomenology : a science of phenomenon

Phenomenology is, in general, descriptive study of a set of phenomena. It often refers to Husserl’s philosophical system and a whole school of thought that claims Husserl’s concepts, or at least the method of Husserl.

Phenomenology derives from a critique of classical metaphysics, and its underlying trend is that of a return to the concrete (“the things themselves” is the major injunction according to Husserl). Indeed Husserl conceives it back as a return to “original intuition” of things and ideas. Husserl considered phenomenology as a rigorous science. He explains this with an mathematical example. He notes, for example, if one can imagine three or four objects intuitively, one can not intuitively represent mile.

Husserl distinguishes two opposite types of relationship to the datum or “intentionality”: the real perception, which originates, and thought, which is only “shoot” the object in an “empty intention”. Developing the distinction between original intuition and thought, full and empty intentionality, phenomenologists hold:

– Or the content of the doctrine of Husserl: they then seek the point of contact between mind and reality, the excess of realism and idealism (Merleau-Ponty is an example: 

“Phenomenology is the study of species, and all the problems, he says, come to define the essence: the essence of perception, the essence of consciousness. But phenomenology is also a philosophy that puts essences into existence “)

– Or his method, and then they apply the principle of an analysis of intuition to the fields of knowledge of others, rather neglected by Husserl in his texts (Sartre and Levinas)

– Or they seek to justify the metaphysical principle of an analysis of phenomena (Eugen Fink).

A theory of the phenomena can not be defined only in relation to a theory of the Absolute Being, or ontology. On this point, speculative phenomenology of Fichte, in Theory of Science, remains a strength and depth unmatched.

Introduction on the Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of language covers a variety of activities:

Philosophers interested in in problems, for example, about mind and knowledge, may frame their questions in various ways. They may ask directly about mind or knowledge; they may talk about the concept of mind or knowldge; or they may begin by asking ho the words ‘mind’ and ‘knowledge’ are used. The belief that philosophical questions may be approached by asking questions about the use of words underlies what is sometimes called linguistic philosophy. Those who practice linguistic philosophy are sometimes said to be be practising the philosophy of language.

The procedure of investigating philosophical questions by reflecting on the uses of words generates another meaning of ‘philosophy of language’. Here there are two questions. First is a general question about the justifiability of approaching philosophical questions via a study of how words are used (see Austin and Wittgenstein). Second, philosophers who study the used of words use such key terms as ‘meaning’, ‘reference’, ‘thruth’ and ‘use’. It is possible to make these terms, used by philosophers and others in talking about language, on this interpretationn then becomes a higher level study of ‘linguistic philosophy’ and of its terms of art.

Although an interest in such terms as ‘meaning’ or ‘truth’ and the like can arise as philosophers deliberate on their methods, it can also arise because philosophers become interested in a study of the nature ans workings of language as a subject in its own right, rather than as a means to the solution of futher philosophical problems.

Philosophy of language become the search for an understanding of the nature and functioning of language. This may lead, as in the later Wittgenstein, to the consideration of the sorts of conditions that have to be met for language to be possible at all. In this kind of philosophy of language we can detect a difference: between those, such as Austin and Wittgenstein, who are happy to study the actual workings of natural languages, and those who believe natural languages to be overly vuage, confused, or imprecise and in need of tidying up. Some of the latter believe the workings of language are best explored through the construction of more precise artificial languages.

Edmund Burke a statesman and british philosopher

 (1729-1797) 

Synthesis of Burke Philosophy

Burke’s major contribution to philosophy was on aesthetics philosophy : “Philosophical Inquiry into the origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful” in which his central argument is that our enjoyment of beauty consists in the way in which imagination is engaged by obscurity  and suggestiveness rather than by intellectual clarity, and, in respect of the sublime, by a pleasurable form of terror and ignorance.

In his later political career, Burke lent his support to both the Irish cause and American independance. However, his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” is a supreme masterpiece of conservative political thought.

Although Burke was very much a Whig rather than a Tory, who had indicted Warren Hastings and supported the American colonists, he at once recognized the “new dealers” of 1789 as makers of a revolution unacceptably, intentionnaly anti-historical, and even perhaps totalitarian.

Adam Smith, as a moral philosopher

Adam Smith, well-known as a scottish economist, is also a philosopher through his essay : Theory of Moral Sentiments. An interesting essay in many ways, and whose intellectual level exceeds – by far – that of our postmodern liberals. But in 1759, this thought, because it was not hegemonic, had yet to be rigorous to be intellectually legitimate. And Adam Smith, therefore, was never a counterfeiter intellectual.

Summary of the theory of moral sentiments

In addition to his nature as God made him (Smith is a believer), the man is a moral being. At least, he must be, by regulating his passions. By a process that is both emotional and intellectual, he has to learn to rationalize his behavior, thinking his moral assessments. Which, for Smith, are therefore within the simple reason, and not in a collective sense of externality producer (revealed religion, state ideology …).

In support of this view, Adam Smith offers two concepts as a guideline in its thinking.

Smith and Hume

The first is taken to David Hume. This is the “sympathy” that Smith sees as the regulator of emotional intensity. This is a communication mechanism of the passions of an individual to another. Compassion, somehow contaminate us. But contamination which, in the rational individual, goes beyond the simple psycho-emotional dimension. We are far, for example, the mechanism of infection attributed to the psychological crowd by Gustave Le Bon. Here, sympathy, reciprocity, must be consistent with its purpose, namely because of the feeling experienced by our interlocutor.

Here comes in the second key concept of Smith. The “impartial spectator” is a neutral observer but altruistic. It has to objectify the situation, with rationality, whether sympathetic or not justified.

The combination of the impartial spectator and of the sympathy makes possible the production of morality.

Note at the outset the contradiction: the impartial spectator is supposed neutral, and yet, to judge, he must have a normative implication. The whole problem of the theory of a corporation registered in the simple reason lies in the finding of this contradiction.

Smith intends to overcome the objection by emphasizing the principle of spontaneous sympathy of men. We consider an attitude again according to some grid references, but required the company to give us our opinion forces us to constantly redefine our reference grid, to fit a normative framework “common sense” meets the requirements of office in a utilitarian perspective. Approach typical of British high society: what is right is what is the maintenance of harmony within the group. The truth is what is useful, and the criterion of utility, the practicality against the requirements of good society.

However, it would not do justice to Smith than to limit its comments to the simple utilitarian creed. There are indeed, in the seminal thinker of the Anglo-Saxon liberalism, a counterweight to utilitarianism, or at least the explicit desire to build one.

Smith asks how to become a good “impartial spectator”? He answers, contributing to the spontaneous sympathy. So, being altruistic in moderation, at the same time as a fair trial, and indifferent to the passions. There is therefore, in Smith, what is sought in vain in many of his contemporary disciples distant: a morality of the honest man. Utilitarianism of Smith is not short-sighted, it is not here to say a all-out relativism. The inclusion of “feedback” between spontaneous sympathy and social utilitarianism provide, at the thought of Adam Smith, a dynamic that allows a certain depth.

Adam Smith and Christian Roots

The values of Smith is a disjunctive synthesis between Christianity and ‘nature’ pagan Stoic. They organize underground production of human type adapted to the utilitarian morality, which is part of the anthropological and producer who produces in return. This man, the “good liberal” if you will, or, frankly, the “good citizen” is characterized by the moderation of his passions, by the distrust of any heading trench- control beyond what the simple reason. Hunger, thirst, leaning to the exchange and sexual passion are strong passions, controlled by nature, and have therefore not be subject to a special sympathy. Unsocial passions such as hatred and resentment, are the only ones not to attract the sympathy without prior knowledge of the causes. In the social passions (generosity, humanity, kindness, compassion, friendship and mutual esteem, all social affections and caring), on the contrary, the excess does not cause aversion or hatred. Sympathy is doubled for the same benevolent affections. Passion, in Smith, is good if and only if it serves the project utilitarian, and is therefore to educate men to cultivate in them the passion “good” (that way), and restrain the passions “bad”.

This educational requirement leads to a “theory of moral sentiments” (here we go), theory in some detail to define a standard, rational basis for conformity. Adam Smith lived at a time when liberalism was born not set solely in terms of material prosperity, not submitted in full to the rule of money – a time, in short, where was a bourgeois ideology on merit. Very critical of the merchant industrious and adventurous speculator, Smith is full of suspicion against too rapid changes of fortune. For him, is seldom reached virtuous, and virtue is indeed indispensable to the maintenance of “good society”. Defender of a social order preserved any sudden break, the liberal theorist first preferred a man to greatness avançât gradually to minimize the resentment of his peers and ensure the legitimacy of its progress. One would think by almost nationalist Paul Bourget, and its “traditionalism by positivism.” In any case, it is light years ahead of liberalism bling today.

Then specify the size and relativize traditional at Smith. It is anti-traditionalist in that with him, the era of “noblesse oblige” is over: wisdom and virtue are permanently separated from wealth and greatness. But the seminal thinker in the Anglo-Saxon liberalism is written in a form of revival of traditional virtues, in that it expects, the middle and lower classes, they implement their abilities and honesty to achieve success deserved. The ambiguity of the speech, all its fragility, is obviously the fact that we do not really see why, once acquired wealth and grandeur, the winners of the competition should continue to subscribe to an ideology of merit which has benefited but will henceforth play against their best interests.

At this stage of development of the thought of Smith, it appears that in his view, only a mutual benevolence, encouraged by the sympathy itself tempered by the impartiality of the spectator, is a vehicle for a sustainable society – and However, it is not seriously that would ensure that mutual goodwill.

This is where liberalism comes to the rescue of utilitarianism. A company, Smith said, does not necessarily need to remain benevolent affections. It has somewhat of a limp. In the absence of friendship, esteem, gratitude, etc.., The utility that each is in the other ensures the balance. The exchange of values may be sufficient, failing link and reciprocity (gift / gift-cons), so that there is no resentment or animosity.

Smith and Liberal Theories

Here we touch the heart of liberal theory: the shift of the Good, as part prescriptive standards, exactly, available equity and a balanced distribution of values. And through the work of Smith, we realize that this shift is not the cause of liberalism, the origin lies fundamentally in utilitarianism, the shift towards the Good is just a functional instrument, to make utilitarianism credible.

The challenge of the theory of moral sentiments was built by Smith, obviously, to establish a framework that would combine anthropological axiological neutrality of the state, excluding most of the class of power, the negation of all exteriority normative, with the notions of virtue, of transcendent Good, and even patriotism, registration of men in the consciousness of belonging to a common destiny. It was to reconcile the “sweet trade” and the traditional view, stating that in a certain part anthropological, the “sweet trade” can reproduce a consistent habit, or at least close to that previously defined by tradition. Dixit Adam Smith: “Common sense is enough to lead us, if not to the liking of the most exquisite line, at least to something that approaches it, and, provided we are strongly eager to do well, our behavior always will be, on the whole, commendable. ”

The problem is that two centuries later, it is obvious to any honest observer that the experience has refuted the theory. The framework defined by anthropological Smith exploded, and the ideology that produced, released this framework, has returned to its own negation: the excesses of amoral sentiments has become the rule.

Introduction to Phenomenology

 Phenomenology : a science of phenomenon

Phenomenology is, in general, descriptive study of a set of phenomena. It often refers to Husserl’s philosophical system and a whole school of thought that claims Husserl’s concepts, or at least the method of Husserl.

Phenomenology derives from a critique of classical metaphysics, and its underlying trend is that of a return to the concrete (“the things themselves” is the major injunction according to Husserl). Indeed Husserl conceives it back as a return to “original intuition” of things and ideas. Husserl considered phenomenology as a rigorous science. He explains this with an mathematical example. He notes, for example, if one can imagine three or four objects intuitively, one can not intuitively represent mile.

Husserl distinguishes two opposite types of relationship to the datum or “intentionality”: the real perception, which originates, and thought, which is only “shoot” the object in an “empty intention”. Developing the distinction between original intuition and thought, full and empty intentionality, phenomenologists hold:

– Or the content of the doctrine of Husserl: they then seek the point of contact between mind and reality, the excess of realism and idealism (Merleau-Ponty is an example: “Phenomenology is the study of species, and all the problems, he says, come to define the essence: the essence of perception, the essence of consciousness. But phenomenology is also a philosophy that puts essences into existence “)

– Or his method, and then they apply the principle of an analysis of intuition to the fields of knowledge of others, rather neglected by Husserl in his texts (Sartre and Levinas)

– Or they seek to justify the metaphysical principle of an analysis of phenomena (Eugen Fink).

A theory of the phenomena can not be defined only in relation to a theory of the Absolute Being, or ontology. On this point, speculative phenomenology of Fichte, in Theory of Science, remains a strength and depth unmatched.

Sartre: Existentialism is a humanism (Summary)

Critics of Sartrean existentialism:

Marxist criticism:

For Marxists, existentialism is a philosophy of failure, inactive. A bourgeois and contemplative philosophy. But also a individualistic philosophy. But according to Sartre, his philosophy is based on action.

On the individualistic criticism, Sartre has difficulty to argue. He will do that later in the Critique of the Dialectical Reason, where he attempts to reconcile the collective logic and the individual approach (concept of praxis).

Catholic critics on the existentialism

If Sartre  undertakes the atheism of his thought, he does not concede that his philosophy is nihilistic (no values). According to him, man is the creator of his own values ​​(as opposed to the spirit of seriousness).

For Sartre, the idea of ​​a Christian existentialism (Jaspers, Kierkegaard, Pascal) is inconsistent: if God exists, then the existence of man is no longer contingent : the essence precedes existence, which is incompatible with human freedom.

Sartre and the existence:

Ek-sistere, for Sartre, means to project oneself outside. Man exists in that he is nothing definite, he becomes what he has decided to be. The notion of human nature is absurd, since it gives the man an essence which man can not tear himself away (only the objects have a nature, a specific function)

Sartre and Freedom:

“Man is condemned to be free”

This sentence is ethical and metaphysical at the same time : If human freedom is absolute, the subject is still involved in a situation (= facticity of being so). But it is man who gives meaning to the situation. Thus a situation is intolerable in itself, because it becomes a project of revolt gave him that. “We have never been more free than under the Occupation.” A tragic situation makes it more urgent action. The world is never the mirror of my freedom.

Freedom is seen as a power of annihilation, as exceeding the given (man is a “for-itself”).

“Being free to be condemned, it means you can not find my limits freedom of others than herself.” Not choosing is a choice (choosing not to choose). The only limit to my freedom is my death, which transformed my life in essence, be in destiny.

Man lives yet poorly this situation of total freedom. He invents subterfuges, including bad faith to escape his freedom. Bad faith is to pretend that one is not free, it is something to dream. Consciousness, Sartre tells us, always trying to coincide with itself, to be completed, to be “in-itself”

Man makes his facticity excuse to get in-itself. Sartre distinguishes 6 types of facticity:

– Being born in a society and a given time

– Having a body

– Having a past

– The fact of existing in a world that existed before

– Does exist among other men (question of intersubjectivity)

– The fact of death (finitude)

For Sartre, we must assume our contingency.

Sartre and intersubjectivity:

The ratio of consciousness in Sartre is in the mode of conflict, as a relation of recognition: each requires the other consciousness to be recognized as conscientious, as free. Now, if I recognize free as free, I’m doing it my master. Others becomes another person when his will, his liberty is opposed to mine (others, “it me who is not me”)

Analysis of the light is illuminating: the gaze of others I found its existence. “People see me so I can see.” The For-itself is also a For-hire.

But when I look at the others in its being fixed, I do my thing looked, so I will be exalted. Conversely, if others look at me, I’m choséifié. I am what others see me.

If the text of Existentialism is a humanism is far from being as specific as the thought of Sartre, it at least has the merit of making his ideas more accessible. It gives an overview of its main concepts (awareness, others, freedom, responsibility, …) and thus remain to be read, again and again.

EMOTION: PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS

What is an emotion?

Basically, Emotion can be defined as a manifestation of the emotional life, usually accompanied by a pleasurable or painful state of consciousness. Emotion is a disorder of variable duration, an imbalance. The disorder is sometimes violent, and increases movements (anger, excitement), or, alternatively, a motion to stop (or fear “thunderbolt” in love). The emotion is sometimes an exciting, sometimes a narcotic. The impact on the body can go to the syncope, but most often limited to minimal physical manifestations (flushing, pallor, …).

The emotion, unlike the passion that comes as a result of the sustained imbalance, an imbalance is ephemeral, which marks the effort of the individual to bend to circumstances. Emotion is a reaction to a new and unexpected situation.

Depending on the nature of the disorder created, there are often emotional shock and emotional feeling. The second is more durable than the first but also more diffuse.

The nature of this feeling

Before Sartre, emotion was thought as a pure reaction: I see a bear, so I’m afraid. However, in his Theory of Emotions, Sartre has shown that emotion is not a reaction, but a man’s behavior. It is indeed the man who produces and maintains, for example, who is forced to admit his mistakes or take an initiative whose responsibility it weighs may get angry to deny the situation. Emotion is a “magic pipe”, an effort to change the world by his own psychic forces. Emotion seeks to restore the world as the individual who feels like. Every emotion has a meaning, reveals an intention can be conscious.

In short, we are responsible for our emotions. They express the choices we make in our being-in-the-world.

Quotes on emotion by philosophers:

Kant: “The emotion is the feeling of pleasure or displeasure of a current that does not leave the subject to achieve reflection. In emotion, spirit surprised printing loses power over himself “(Anthropology)

Sartre: “An emotion is a transformation of the world”

Alain Badiou: “Emotion is a system of movement that stood in the heart without the permission of the will, and that suddenly changes the color of the thoughts. “

The positivism of Auguste Comte

Born as Isdore Auguste Marie Francois Xavier Comte on January 19, 1798 in Montpellier, France, Auguste Comte was a French philosopher, acclaimed for being the founder of positivism and sociology. He is accredited for naming the science of sociology and giving a system to the subject. Comte was significantly influenced by philosophers that were starting to distinguish and map out an order in human society’s history. Many of these influential philosophers were his contemporaries including Montesquieu, Joseph de Maistre and Marquis de Condorcet, all of whom contributed to Comte’s system of thought.

The start of Comte’s career came after acquaintance with the French social reformer Henri de Saint-Simon. Many of Comte’s early written articles were published in Saint-Simon’s circulations though he broke off from Saint-Simon’s ideology in 1826 due to differing point of views. It was also during this time that Comte commenced a series of lectures dedicated to his system of positive philosophy for private audiences. Between 1829 and 1830 the success of his lectures were delivered to the Royal Athenaeum. The years from 1830 to 1840 were devoted to the writing and publication of Comte’s philosophical work entitled, Cours de Philosophie Positive, translated into English as The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, a six volume publication.

One of Auguste Comte’s major work, Systeme de Politique Positive, translated in English as System of Positive Policy was written after the death of his romantic interest Clotilde de Vaux published between 1851 and 1854. In this work Comte, completed his formulation of the subject of sociology. This major work of Comte laid heavy emphasis on the progress of morality as being the main fixation for human knowledge.

The emergence of Comte’s ideas can been seen as a further indulgence into the ideas of writers from the 18th and early 19th century such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. The philosophy of positivism contributed by Comte laid under five distinct parts. These parts included is adoption of the scientific method, the law of three stages, classification of science, contribution to philosophies of sciences from anterior to sociology, the creation of positivist social philosophy.

Even though Comte is not credited for the originating the ideas of sociology, he has to his credit the extension of this field of study and systematization its content. Comte successfully divided sociology into two main fields of social statics and social dynamics. According to Comte’s view the foundation of society is based on a person’s individual egoism. According to his thought this is done by division of labor with the combination of a person’s efforts as well as maintaining the social unity that is the responsibility of the government and the state.