Is there any actual reason why we use the conventions "positive"

>>8968024
just convention of doing mathematics with them

>>8968024
clockwise and anticlockwise

>>8968024
>Is there any actual reason why we use the conventions "positive" and "negative" to describe charges?

Yes -- because their behavior is perfectly described in terms of multiplication of positive and negative numbers.

For example, here's the electrostatic force equation:

F = (k * q1 * q2) / (r^2)

In that equation, two charged bodies are represented as q1 and q2. If they both have the same sign, then the resulting force F is positive. If they have different signs, then the resulting force F is negative.

That result agrees perfectly with the fact that opposite charges attract (represented by negative F), and like charges repel (represented by positive F).

There's a convention, but you're wrong.

In the 1800s, ele tricity wasn't well understood. It was treated like a fluid flowing from high to low like water running downhill. The high was called positive, the low was called negative. It wasn't until much later that the electron was discovered and given a negative charge.