MS 1334 (1905) - Adirondack Summer School Lectures

38

is not a practical science but is a study in the pure interest of theory. The conception of a family of sciences called normative of this description is, I believe, due to Herbart, together with the word normative. [insert from next page] But Herbart and others only admit two such sciences, since they push join esthetics and ethics together in one. I certainly could not admit that esthetics, in the sense of the science of sensuous beauty is one of the three normative sciences. If I have to make a word to express the science of the adorably admirable, which I think is the true normative science, I should shall call it agastics axiagastics. But on the whole I do not think do not that Baumgar the word esthetics is too much shamed from Baumgarten

If we are to admit only two normative sciences, the first of these which for convenience we call ethics relating to actualization, has control of the existent, or say to acutalization, and the second to thought, then that first ethics must have two section, the first one on the ultimate aim, or summum bonum, which will be the same as esthetics, if esthetics is not to be confined to sensuous beauty, but is to relate to the admirable and adorable generally while the other, which may be called critical ethics treats of the conditions of conformity to the ideal.

If I decide that a new word must be made to express my idea of what the first designate that science first section, I normative science must be that word should be will suggest that axiagastics be the name of the science of the worthy of adoration. For I hold that the science must be the science consist in the analysis of that which is admirable without any

39

ulterior reason for being admirable, The or in other meaning in being extended so as I mean the include no science of the worthy words the analysis of what it is that excites that feelings akin to worship that fills one's whole life in the contemplation of an idea that excites this feeling. We must suppose that primitive or barbarous people do not hardly have this idea, since no hardly any word in any language (as far as I know) expresses it. The French beau comes as near as approaches it, but is poor, and cold. any, but is poor. The primitive man apparently did not found too much think reason to think of the divine not as something to be passionately loved but as something to be feared. Only the Greek ἀγαμαι comes is an exception a glorious verb expressing how the common people in primitive times looked up to their leaders with passionate admiration and devotion, as near expressing the emotion as any word does. It is comes the nearest to expressing the idea. Repeating the from that verb that I will form axiagastics if necessary root, although the linguists do not say they are the same, it makes axiagastics for the science of that which is worthy to be admired and adored. But I am not thoroughly persuaded that Baumgarten's word esthetics will be too unwarrantably wrenched in being given this meaning.

Only the Greek αγαμαι is an exception, a glorious verb expressing how the common people in primitive times looked up to their leaders with passionate admiration and devotion; It comes & comes nearest to expressing the idea. Repeating the root, although the linguists do not say they are the same, we have the word axiogastics, or the science of that which is worthy to be admired

Ethics is the Science of self control. It has only two parts, according to me; for I turn the whole question of the summum bonum over to axiagastics, or called Esthetics. Thus making ethics to depend upon esthetics as many others have done. That leaves two things for ethics itself to do. First, The first is to describe the operation of self control, not psychologically, that is, not as a student of the law of mind thought ought thinking ought to describe it, but as it presents itself as a problem to the psychologist to explain it. The other part of ethics, I call critical ethics. It is not far from what is called casuistry, except that unlike that it does not consist in dealing with cases. It tells to what conditions [??} conduct must conform [??] in order to be right.

Logic is an application of ethics, just as ethics is an application of axiagastics