The Value Firmament, Part I, a Lecture by S. Drob

In this lecture to his doctoral students in clinical psychology, Sanford Drob draws upon the work of J.N. Findlay and others to  make the case for conceiving “ethics,” including professional ethics,  in axiological terms. He briefly discusses some of the many questions that are raised by axiology, and outlines a  theoretical system that promises to provide a coherent picture of what might be called the dimensions of value and what Findlay spoke of as the “value firmament.” 

For a variety of reasons, both professional philosophers and the public at large have often come to understand "ethics" in what might be called “superego” or obligatory terms, as a restraint upon desire and satisfaction. By way of contrast, axiological ethics understands values, in both obligatory and superogatory terms, as things that we may not always be obliged to do, but which provide life with meaning and satisfaction, and which serve as the implicit background of all human activity, relationships and commerce. Axiological ethics, rather than focusing exclusively upon right and wrong, ought and ought not, focuses upon the rich tapestry of values that include creativity, compassion, beauty, spirit, etc. Further, it endeavors to ascertain, systematize and, if possible, derive from simpler principles, the values that are thought to constitute the meaning and purpose of human life, and, at least on some views, to exist objectively in the world. The relevance of the value firmament to everyday life and commerce as well as to the field of clinical psychology is considered.  

Posted, December 22, 2008.

 

Download Value Firmament S Drob, Lecture I

Findlay's Rational Mysticism: An Introduction by S. Drob

Download Findlay's Rational Mysticism by S Drob Posted in full elsewhere on this site (click "About") this article is posted here as a pdf attachment.

On Idolatry

“One cannot rationally worship this or that excellent thing or person, however eminent or august: only Goodness Itself, Beauty Itself, Truth Itself, and so on are rationally venerable, and to bow one’s knee to an instance is to commit idolatry” (Towards a Neoneoplatonism," Ascent to the Absolute, p. 267).

The Requirement of a Unitive Absolute

“…mystical unity at the limit or centre of things alone guarantees that coherence and continuity at the periphery which is involved in all our basic rational enterprises.”  Here Findlay cites questions about the “valid conception of the structure of all space and time from the small specimens given to us…the character and behavior of an individual from the small segment known to us [and our belief in] “that affinity with our minds and concepts that will enable us to plumb their secrets.”

“It is well-known that, on a metaphysic of radical independence and atomism, all these questions admit of no satisfactory answer.  Whereas, on a mystical basis, the profound fit and mutual accommodation of alienated, peripheral things is precisely what is to be expected…” (The Logic of Mysticism, Ascent to the Absolute, p. 180).

“…on a mystical basis, our understanding of others rests on the fact that they are not absolutely others, but only variously alienated forms of the same ultimate, pervasive unity…((The Logic of Mysticism, Ascent to the Absolute, p. 181).

“All our higher valuations of impersonal benevolence, of justice, of knowledge, of beauty, of virtue are…attitudes having their roots in a transcendence of the separate individual and his contingent interests, and in a rise to higher-order interests which make an appeal to everyone and consider the state of everyone. The supreme dignity and authority of these valuations is much more understandable on a mystical than on an unmystical basis: a moralist like Schopenhauer, for example, bases all morality on a profound suprapersonal identity” ((The Logic of Mysticism, Ascent to the Absolute, p. 181).