What Is Good?
In a previous episode, I asked, “Are you good?” Maybe I should have first asked, “What is good?” Today, we correct that mistake. Turns out, the question is anything but simple (big surprise, right?). There's a whole science dedicated to the question. And you know what? It's exciting! Because it is a model that we can use to build a path towards greater levels of communication, alignment, and the peace of personal power, all of which result in a better world for everyone. Check it out!
---
Listen to the podcast here
What Is Good?
In the previous episode, I asked, “Are you good?” Perhaps I should have first asked the question, “What is good?” Stated another way, what do we mean when we say something is good? You may think this is in the eye of the beholder and it's a relative concept. Good to one person may not be to somebody else. I think green vegetables are good, but try to convince my son of that. Good luck is all I'll say there. That's an ironic phrase. What do we mean when we say good luck? Perhaps that points us toward a deeper sense of the word good, one that is not subjective.
There's an entire science around this, the study of value. It's called formal axiology. Axiology is used very frequently in decision-making. I, as one of hundreds, if not thousands of others trained in the science, use it all the time to help employers improve their people strategy. The foundations for formal axiology were laid most prominently by British Philosopher, G.E. Moore along with Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gottlob Frege. Moore was one of the leading thinkers who ushered in the age of analytic philosophy around the beginning of the 20th century.
This was a golden age for modern philosophy and psychology. As much of the thinking about human nature was established during this time from such minds as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Eduard Spranger, the innovation that Moore gave us was the notion that we could consider value as an objective measure, understandable on its own outside of an application to some object or phenomenon as a description. In other words, he opened the doors for the scientific method to be applied in the field of value.
Not much was done with this insight for decades until in 1967, German-American philosopher logician, Robert S. Hartman, published The Structure of Value: Foundations of Scientific Axiology. Hartman's life story is fascinating. A biography was published twenty years after his death entitled, Freedom to Live. He was one of the many brilliant Germans who fled the rise of the Nazi regime. He witnessed the widespread evil acts committed not only by an aberrant personality like Hitler, but also thousands, if not millions, of regular everyday people. Many of them believed the acts of undeniable evil in which they participated were the right thing to do.
To lesser extents, this happens in nearly all times and places. A modern-day example is when people try to cancel and, in so, doing ruin a person's life, seeking to deny them employment and their right to free speech for the perceived crime of disagreeing with them or not conforming to what they believe to be the proper moral orientation. Anyway, the extremity of the Nazi example inspired Hartman to spend the rest of his life pursuing the question we’re considering, “What is good?”
Unfortunately, Robert S. Hartman died rather young, age 63, in 1973, but the science of axiology has fortunately been carried forward by others. Like other sciences, it's rather complex. I'm about to give you a bird's eye view of it, but there's so much more to it. If you have interest, I'll refer you to the HartmanInstitute.org. We'll also continue to explore this topic in upcoming episodes.
Hartman began his study of value with the observation that the field lacked tools available in other realms. He noticed that the big leaps forward in human understanding were demarked by the generation of axioms. Axiom is a concise expression of principle. It's foundational and that it represents basic truth. The people who have successfully produced valuable axioms are remembered as history's greatest contributors. People like Galileo, Newton, Descartes, and Einstein.
The big leaps forward in human understanding were marked by the generation of axioms.
We take their innovations as obvious and simple nowadays. They were anything but simple and obvious. When obvious axioms such as velocity equals space times time, or energy equals mass times the speed of light squared are first suggested, they're not met with universal approval and acceptance. Far from it, Galileo was nearly executed for his heresies, for example. Others were vehemently opposed by the best and brightest of their contemporaries in their fields.
The same was true for Hartman. In a way, his assertion is even more remarkable in that he attempted to describe how we describe what is good. To understand how he did this, we must continue to lay some foundational bricks. First, let's give skeptics their due. Hartman asked readers to follow along five precepts. If you follow, you're free to continue down the journey that leads to a science of value. If you don't, a better understanding of value for you lies in a different direction, if it's available at all.
Here are the five that Hartman offered. See what you think. 1) There is a such thing as value. 2) Value is knowable. 3) Value knowledge consists in systemization. 4) Systemization is based on axiomatic formulation and deductive expansion of the value experiences. 5) The value system proves itself by the scope of its applicability in the value world. That's a bit eggheaded. You know how it is with these ultra-smart people.
The first two precepts that value exists and is knowable are straightforward enough. If we reject these, end of discussion. Value remains utterly subjective and, therefore, a model to describe it is meaningless. I reject that perspective because it's contrary to my observations and experiences in life. Therefore, I'm open to hearing the rest of Hartman's model. How about you?
The remaining three precepts are not as simple, but taken together, they simply assert a similar concept to the use of any model, something we talk about in the Eye of Power all the time since the Eye of Power is another example of a model that helps us more clearly observe our path through life. Hartman is simply suggesting that if a model is to be worth the trouble to develop and deploy, it must result in concrete and predictable impact that increases our power. The more it does this, the more benefit a system confers, and the more investment in it makes sense. I'm down with that. How about you?
The next step was how Hartman was able to uncover an entirely new science when all those brilliant minds before him couldn't. By presupposing a theory of value as something apart from the sphere of value, he opened the possibility for distinctions previously unconsidered. His five precepts we just looked at resulted in three assertions. There are value phenomena that these can be ordered and that this order can be reflected in a theoretical structure. Taken together, this begins to give a science of value shape. It has formal value, phenomenal value, and the combination of the two, axiological value.
In natural science, the description of observable phenomena, these distinctions weren't needed as value is obvious, but in the moral realm, it's anything but. That's where most of our confusion resides. At least that's where we bleed away our personal power. The fundamental problem we all face is how we identify. In his book, Karma: A Yogi's Guide to Crafting Your Destiny, Sadhguru explores this concept at length. He observes that it is identity that separates us, limits us, sets us at odds, and robs us of peace and joy. Hartman's science of value comports with ancient wisdom in this very same way. Our moral compass gets out of whack as we circumscribe ourselves within a limited frame of reference.
Karma: A Yogi's Guide to Crafting Your Destiny
We'll continue to explore that assertion in future episodes. For now, let's wrap up with a clearer picture of the science of formal axiology and how that answers our original question, “What is good?” This feature of three aspects of the science of value model is truly fundamental. Everything in the world can be understood with a framing of three elements. These are the most ancient aspects of our collective wisdom. There is positive, negative, and neutral. There's order, chaos, and that which can distinguish between the two. There's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There's yin, yang, and the curved line that represents balance between the two. In axiology, there is the extrinsic, the intrinsic, and the systemic.
The first answer to our question of “What is good?” comes as we apply axiology. We logically consider something good when it fulfills the three components of understanding, extrinsic, intrinsic, and systemic. Good is defined as the fulfillment of value. As fulfillment diminishes in any of all three of these components, so does value. We say, “That's not good.” I can hear you now, “What the hell are you talking about, Tom?”
Another way to say all of this is everything we observe, we do so conceptually. We don't know the world. We know our pictures of the world. Our pictures are comprised of concepts. Consider any object, a chair for instance. What is your concept of a chair? What's a good chair? What's a bad chair? A chair is an object that has a certain set of qualities. Among those, it offers a stable place for a person to sit, so it's a good chair if it offers this. If it doesn't, we'll say it's not a good chair. Our evaluation doesn't end there because there isn't only one good chair. There are chairs of many types and forms, some of which are good in some settings and uses, and not so good in others.
This complexity is where we use extrinsic, intrinsic, and systemic measures to objectively measure value. It doesn't replace economic value as in, “I like this chair more than this other one, so I'll pay more for it.” That's an intrinsic property. The chair is finally crafted from expensive mahogany and leather, so it's more valuable than other chairs of cheap stamp steel, those are extrinsic measures. Finally, this chair matches my other furniture and goes perfectly in this corner, which is a systemic valuation.
When using axiology, we're not saying one person is wrong or right about their evaluations in these dimensions. What we're doing is introducing the ability to consider in a way the factors in more ways than we would otherwise. When it comes to objects or the obvious, this isn't particularly significant, but when it comes to questions of morality, public policy, or how to best run an organization, it proves valuable as a means to bring people in alignment.
We consider the question, “Are you good?” in a previous episode. We explored what it meant to be a good person. Using the axiological model, a good person is a person who fulfills the concept of themselves as a person. In other words, the more we are authentically ourselves, meaning we know ourselves, we're not self-diluted, we have access to our full power, we develop our gifts and put them to the highest use and service to others as we can, the more good we are.
The more we are authentically ourselves—meaning we know ourselves, we're not self-diluted, we have access to our full power, we develop our gifts and put them to the highest use and service to others as we can—the more good we are.
If that sounds judgy, maybe it is. That's why in the Eye of Power model, we make a distinction between judgment and condemnation. We judge, but we're reluctant to condemn. As I said earlier, axiology is widely used now, but it remains very underutilized in some of the biggest and most important places, centers of power, which are dominated by the self-interested. Remember that problem with identity. For that reason, axiology holds much promise for improving our personal power and our shared experiences in the world, and that I say is good. Let’s go.