Mystical Ethics

A Study in the moral philosophy of W. T. Stace

(1886-1967)

By Kareem Essayyad

Contents
1. introduction
2. The problem of ethics in the modern mind
3. Is a religion possible ? (Basis of religion)
4. Are ethics possible ? (Basis of ethics)
5. Conclusions
6. Bibliography

Introduction
W.T. Stace (1886-1967) is one of the most important philosophers in the
western history of thought, who was concerned with the deepest and most
universal problems in the modern world in general, and who reached some
extraordinary absolutions.
One of his big concerns was the ethical problem in its most general aspects.
He traced its linkages with religion, science, mysticism and the modern western
view of nature of the modern common philosophical systems, specially logical
positivism and analytic philosophy.
Although he can be included in some traditional conclusions, the special
quality which made him rather different from who ended to the same ends was
his consciousness of the scientific view to the world, and his critical view to both
scientific and religious ones.
His very far -or very high- step was to try to make some reconciliation
between empiricism and mysticism, not by interpretation, but by the empirical
methodic steps of induction, as it shall be seen soon.
This paper aims to pursue and describe stace's trial of solving the ethical
modern problem which he presented in separated books, especially "Religion and
Modern Mind" and "Mysticism and Philosophy". He did that through the main
stages we can enumerate as follows:
1.

Showing the manners determining the medieval view to the universe. This
step is important to explain the problem of the modern mind of religion and
ethics, briefly we can say that the modern problem of ethics emerged as an
accidental result of the scientific revolution, but not as a methodological one.
This step can be considered as an introduction to the next.

2.

Showing the manners of the modern view to the universe. This is made by a
special concentration on three elements: the existence of God, teleology of the
world and the ethical view of our universe, showing the differences between

the medieval and modern points of view in these three aspects. These three
points are strongly correlated to each other in a system begins by theism
which mostly leads to the belief in teleology of our world. This teleology can
establish a kind of objectivistic values to obtain an objectivistic or altruistic
if we are more accurate ethics.
3.

Confirming that the essence of morals should be, and can only be, the
mystical view, not the mechanical (in the modern age) nor the religious (in
the medieval age). To make this step he tried to describe scientifically the
mystical experience and to affirm its common existence even in animals. He
also had to explain his new idea; the mystical element is the real substance of
every religious experience. Hence, comes the final step:

4.

Finally he tried to present his ideas as a digestible matter of thought to the

modern mind. Then he tried to conciliate between mysticism and empiricism,
firstly by the refutation of the objection of empiricism against mysticism, and
secondly by inducing the objectivity of the theosophical experience all over
the world major mystical groups by a semi-scientific method.
Now, we can pursue these stages, to come finally to some critical

observations that form the final conclusions in the end of this paper.

-1-

The problem of ethics in the modern mind

1- Medieval view of the universe:
In the very beginning, we should understand the fact that, the view of the
medieval human being to his universe was controlled by religion, unlike modernman's one, which is shaped through science. To make use of this section we
should remember that distinction(1).
This control or shaping does not provide us with any kind of information
about our universe directly. The geological age for example is not present
directly in the holly book, but was calculated from it. And the existence of God,
on the other hand, is not demonstrated by science as a fact, nor the opposite.
Stace represented that control and shaping as a background in man's
consciousness,

very

general

background.

It

controlled

men's

views

psychologically, not logically(2). This is the second important point we should

take in our consideration.
By these previous two points, Stace could explain how the role of religion
was decreased while the mechanical view extended, although the mechanical
view itself did not refuse religions. These realities may by the essential addition
to the modern philosophy in this book.
The medieval view in points was as follows:
1.

World was created from nothingness by God, in 4004 p.c. commonly. Dante
thought it was created in 5200 p.c. This world may come to an end in 4004
A.C., and there were three great events which formed the universal and
historical drama: Adam's fall, incarnation of Jesus and the day of Judgment(3).

.23 ) 1998 1 ( : ( 1)
. ( 2)
.24 ( 3)

2.

this world is spherical or circular, and it is the centre of universe. Everything

goes around it. That gave human beings some divine essence, or was a result
of believing in such divinity in them(4).

3.

Being created by God, world behaves according to some divine plan, which
human beings should know and behave in their lives according to a
corresponding plan. This corresponding plan is ethics.
After this exposition we can reach three main realities about the medieval

view;
1.

God does exist.

2.

This universe is designed to reach a determinate aim, or controlled by it.

3.

This universe is ethical. (For it has a rational and moral end of God's own)
We can observe the association from 1 and 2 to result in 3, as the existence

of God forced psychologically the human mind to arrive to the belief in teleology
(no. 3) and that teleology being objective led it to an objectivistic system of
ethics.
That could have continued forever, but the scientific revolution changed
something important in the unconscious background we spoke about erstwhile.
2- The Scientific Revolution:
The birth of modern science was during the 17th. century, in which some
famous splendid scientists and thinkers deconstructed and reconstructed the
medieval view.
Firstly, came Copernicus (1473-1543), his most famous achievement was
the theory of heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. The ancient science supposed
the apposite giving the following facts:
1. Earth is fixed.

. ( 4)

2. All planets go around it.

3. Planets courses are circular(5).
But these suppositions made hard difficulties to classical scientists, and
made the whole course of any planet or star very complex. That was because
scientists observed the locations of the planets (Mars for example) all over the
year and drew the course like that:
East
West
Shape no. 1
And that made the whole course of Mars around earth to be like that:

Shape no. 2
This complex movement was supposed for every planet and star in the sky,
with that conversion in the shape no. 1. What was achieved by Copernicus is to
simplify that diagram. He observed that this conversion could be explained if we
suppose the earth goes around the sun, and all planets do so(6).
Then came Kepler (1571-1630) with his three laws of the movements of
planets, and Galileo (1564-1642) with his discoveries. Stace explained all of this
and came to an end which he thinks it can sum up all the conflict between
science and religion, for example the situation of Galileo against men of religion

.71 ( 5)

.72-71 ( 6)

when they refused all his discoveries not to miss with their beliefs(7). Stace
deduced that this conflict was not a scientific nor religious, but was a
philosophical one between the teleological view of the universe, and the causal
classical one.
In a previous location it was ensured that the teleological view to the
universe is not contradicted methodologically with the causal, because an end can
be converted to a cause if there is a desire to do so. One may think there is a
cause really for the falling of the apple, and that cause (general law of
gravitation) is God-made for certain purposes. God's will can be a theologicalnatural-supernatural cause.
That causal mechanical view of our universe achieved a historical victory,
and became the general theory of Newton (1642-1727) and Laplace (1719-1827),
and psychologically got rid of the divine providence and was the reason why
people became behaving as if God does not exist, although science did not
confirm that or refute the opposite at all.
What is important here is that the view of the world does not aim to any
thing. Either God exists or not, this view could eliminate every kind of
objectivistic criteria of ethics, leading to the subjective ethics or relativism.
For stace, the relativity of morals does not make any kind of morals,
because the essence of ethics is altruism, and the essence of all evils is egoism(8).
3- Breakdown of Morals:
We should understand an important fact of Stace here. He did not agree
with any kind of relative ethics and thought the basis of the objective ethics in the
medieval age was the Judeo-Christian tradition which was crystallized around the
dogmatic belief in God's existence(9).
.81 ( 7)
(8) W. T. Stace: Mysticism and philosophy (J.B. Lippincolt company, USA, 1 . Ed., 1960) p.
324.
(9) www.philosophy.lander.edu/intro/stace.html.
st

Existence of God is not activated if we do not believe in providence, and

that existence is the sole essence -or basis- of the objective criteria of ethics. In
the long chain of causes we are supplied with by mechanism, we can not easily
find a place for God. Even if he is -or was- in the beginning of it, he is now very
far from us. Psychologically, we begin to behave as if God does not exist in our
lives(10).
There were logical contradictions between mechanism (or science) and
religion. The contradiction is psycho-methodological in nature. We can find three
causes made this contradiction:
1.

Achievements of science: people were dazzled by the modern discoveries and

inventions, and they knew that the revolution of 17th century was because
scientists became concerned more in causality and mechanism. (Not the
opposite!)

2.

Complete causal explanations: Any teleological explanation became

accessory and useless, or even against the spirit of the natural science.

3.

Concentration on causes only: to attain scientific progress.

When the teleological view disappeared from modern mind, here came an

ethical problem. That was because Stace thought that teleological view is the
basis of the objectivistic criteria of morals, without it we can never reach any
morals but relative individual or utilitarian societal ones. We here observe him
going beneath ethics commands to discover its origins, walking the same way as
Nietzsche (1844-1900) and differing from him in the end. Nietzsche reduced
these commands into the conflict amongst powers and desires of human beings:
"Jews, people who come to existence for slavery, with all ancient ages

.108 :104 :

(10)

succeeded in converting values Converting the poor to be a saint or a

friend"(11).

)(11

: : ( . .)

.220

-2-

Is a Religion Possible ?
- Basis of Religion Mentioned previously is the breakdown of religion and morals in the
perspective of Stace. Now we talk about the possibility of a religion in the
modern world and mind.
Some philosophers agreed with Stace's view to the religious basis of
morals, like Paul Tillich,. The latter believed that providence can supersede the
ountic anxiety, while forgiveness supersedes ethical anxiety, while the existence
of God supersedes the spiritual one"(12).
Another existentialist may agree also within limits. J.P. Sartre refused the
secularist ethics saying that "the existentialistic philosopher strongly rejects that
kind of secularist ethics, which tries to dismiss God paying the minimal
exertion"(13). But we may observe the different meanings. It is the difference
itself between mysticism and atheistic existentialism. Although there is some
field for the comparison between both.
Some other philosophers refused the religious basis, like Kai Nielsen who
thinks that the religious ethics infantilizes us by its their pressure on concern and
providence(14). Among Arabic thinkers we can find Adel Dahir who believes that
ethics are former to religion and may be the basis of it, otherwise how can we
have any knowledge about the good nature of God, if we do not have any
knowledge about goodness itself? If we have the latter knowledge, why do us
need religions to be ethical? (15).

.121-120) 2 2005 ( :

.23) 1954 . ( : :
(14)
J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, op. cit., p. 102.
.194 ) 2004 1 ( :

(12)
(13)
(15)

We make these comparisons because Stace himself made some of them

during his research in "the effect of mechanism on philosophy". He found some
philosophers strongly affected by mechanism positively and tried to develop a
view about the universe and mind based on it. Like Descartes, Hobbes, Hume,
Comte, Vahinger and the logical positivists like Moritz Schlick, A. J. Ayer and
R. Carnap. He also found who were negatively affected and reacted, like
Descartes (again), Berkeley, Kant, Hegel and idealists after Kant, romanticism
and the absolute idealism in England and U.S.A. (16).
On those comparisons Stace rested the ability of religion to make sense to
the modern mind by ethical view to nature and humanity.
Descartes adopted the famous dualism: Body and soul. He agreed with
mechanism completely in the field of body and extension, but he also agreed
with the religious view in the spiritual field. Therefore we find him on both of the
two fronts(17). He made a relation between God and the world when he thought
the existence of materials depends on the existence of God himself.
Consequently, the existence of God was substantial to maintain his system(18).
Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first naturalist philosopher in the modern ages,
his belief in God was accidental, while his theory of the world was completely
materialistic even concerning the soul. He believed also strongly in mechanism
and general causation, and made ethics relative and individual(19).
Hume (1711-1771) was more powerful and effective. He went further than
Hobbes in his criticism of causality, in brief we can say without any exaggeration
that his refusal to the necessity was an effective element in the developing of

.171 :

.179 178
.181

.183 182

(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)

non-teleological view of the universe. Necessity, according to him, is not a given

fact, and it is of daughters of our minds(20).
Reaching Vahinger, we can see a restrictive refusal to the absolute from the
point of view of the critical positivism, there is nothing called the "Absolute",
"the thing in itself", nor "the self". Nothing survives except sensations. They are
the existent and the given, from them world entirely came in its natural and
psychological partitions. Critical positivism asserts that every other claimed
different opinion is a mere subjective difference that cannot be real in terms of
positivism. There are only phenomena, they are existent and uniformed any
explanation different from that cannot explain anything otherwise by fictions"(21).
Comte (1798 1857) - according to stace- derived his ideas from Hume.
He presented the formal formula of the positivism. He divided the history of
human race into three stages: the theological, the metaphysical and the
positivistic stages. In the first stage man learned to explain the natural
phenomena by Gods and souls. In the second he began to explain them as some
kind of abstract powers and laws. But in the third he explained all phenomena by
observable events. It is the scientific stage(22).
Stace reaches- in his brief exposition to non-teleological doctrines -logical
positivists. They agree with Comte that all metaphysical sentences are
meaningless. Their enemies were fond of assuring that the positivism itself has
its own metaphysics unconsciously, but it all depends upon the meaning given to
metaphysics. The point here is: no fact but facts of science, no science but
mathematics and natural sciences. According to this, Ethical statements are
meaningless, and are considered instead as imperative formulae(23).

.193-184
.199-198
.199
.201

(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)

Stace turns to the opposite side, i.e. the side of the religious philosophies.
He begins by the theory of extreme idealism of Berkeley, this theory denied the
objective existence of things and considered them as being products of our
perception. Nothing can be or maintain its being unless there is a mind one at
least to perceive it. This idea led him to the hypothesis of the existence of God.
Things would stop existing without a mind experiencing them, then we should
assume God is existent(24).
Kant also reached the same view in a different way. Kant's proper success
was the discrimination between the two worlds: world controlled by teleology,
freedom and stability, and another world controlled by causality, determinism
and becoming. That differentiation enabled him to adopt the two views
scientific and religious completely without exceptions, because each view can
be applied to the world that it belongs to. That was the main idea in his Critique
of Pure Reason(25).
Stace turns afterwards to romanticism referring to its trial to work against
the positivistic view by discovering ambiguous elements in nature around atoms
and rays. That was shown through some examples from the English romanticistic
poetry(26).
He ends to the beginning of the 20th century when idealism and
romanticism failed in their own aims and the scientific stream came back
extremely although the discoveries of the contemporary physics, e.g. General
Theory Relativity and Quantum. On the literary front, realism in literature
became the dominant tendency(27).

.216-212
.222-221
.235-230
.240-237 :

(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)

Till now, Stace has shown the conflict and its fate. He will present his own
theory about the possibility of religions in the scientific civilization. To be clear,
we should ask these questions:
-

Does religion contradict with science itself methodologically and/or

theoretically?

If it does not, can we believe in God?

If we can, what is the nature of God exactly?

If we know it, what is the essence of religions?

Firstly, Stace, as we mentioned, does not think there is a real contradiction

between religion and science. He believed the problem of that claim was arisen
and developed by philosophers not by scientists. Science does not say a word
about the religious reality, positively nor negatively. We can see here a Kantian
division. We can attack the religious realities by our scientific and logical tools,
but in vain. Vainly also we try to demonstrate God, angels and revelation
scientifically. The previous sections ensured this enough by turning the
methodological and logical contradiction between religion and science to a
psychological one successfully, if we can say so(28).
Can we believe in God according to the arguments of His existence? Stace
naturally, and according to his previous point of view, cannot accept any
scientific or pseudoscientific arguments. He cannot accept scientific ones
because this will be interference between science and religion which he separates
one from another. And he cannot also accept the pseudoscientific arguments
because it will be a false inference scientifically. He can only, and wants really
to, accept a non-scientific argument.
Accordingly, he began to refute all classical arguments on being of God by
a self-discussion and self-criticism. He confuted them one by one. He discussed
the argument of "the chain of causes" which tries to prove God's existence by
.251-250

(28)

supposing there is surely a first cause to all causes of being and change in the
world, namely God. Stace asks himself why there should be a first cause, why we
consider the infinite regress is a fallacy(29). Moreover, if there is a first cause,
why we imagine it as a mind or a soul, why it is not a mere material cause. He
reaches at the end to a conclusion that this conception was, in fact, a teleological
one, to serve moral points of view(30). He discussed also the argument of
miracles, he thought they are too old to persuade anyone of anything.(31).
Then he came to approach God's nature, he analyzed it and discussed every
quality. Firstly, it is said God is a mind or awareness, eternal, omnipotent,
omniscient, universal, perfect and pure goodness. He focused here on the
paradox, classical indeed, of stability and change. God is supposed to be constant
in his nature because he is eternal, and that contradicts with His being as a
universal mind because we here should understand the word "mind" in its human
meaning i.e. like the human mind which consists of a chains of changeable ideas.
That is not consistent with the stability supposed(32).
Another paradox is related to the creativeness of God, because of the
contradiction between the creating activity and eternity. One comes from change
and the other comes from stability(33).
The third paradox shown here is of the omnipotence of God. It contradicts
with the rules of logic and the existence of evil in the world, that paradox was
discussed in details by Hume(34).
Some thinkers after complete despair ended to the idea of secrets, according
to it we can believe in some irrational believes considering them as secrets i.e.
.252

(29)

.253

(30)

(31)

.254

(32)

.255

(33)

.256

(34)

accepted ideas even they are contradicted with the natural logical mind(35). Stace
cannot be supposed, being an empiricist, to accept such a situation which jump
from complete ignorance and scruple directly to a completely devoted faith.
Stace then tried to solve the problem by understanding the essence of
religion in general "the essential reality of religion, of every religion, is that there
is some way to go outside the darkness of this life, a way to light. No aim for our
way now, but the aim of the another way is delight and cheerfulness.. then what
is that way?" (36).
For stace there are two ways: ethical, which he severely refuses to be the
essence of religion, because it lacks itself an empirical proof, and mystical, which
he affirms that it is the real essence of every religion, and which he thinks it does
not lack such a proof. According to him Mysticism is immanent in every
religious experience, for it is not confined only to they who are the so-called
mysticists(37).
He began then to analyze the mystical experience and found four special
properties(38):
1.

All in one, and one in all, i.e. the unity with the Absolute.

2.

The surreal vision, a vision which is outside time-place and mind.

3.

That vision cannot be described by words, because words depend in its

function of distinction, and there are no distinctions in that kind of visions.

4.

That experience is of cheerfulness, happiness, peace and freedom.

Here, Stace arrived to the middle of his way to morals, in the next chapter,

he would complete it.

.257

.261

.263

.267

(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)

-3-

Are Ethics Possible ?

- Basis of Ethics Stace thought the mystical experience could be a successful source of moral
commands, but he had to show two points:
1.

How can the mystical experience be a basis for ethics?

2.

Is it an objective experience? Is its matter objective?

The last point is divided into two partitions: the first is related to the

experience itself being objective or not, i.e. being available for every human
being. The second is related to the object of that experience, its knowledge being
objective or subjective.
Stace answers the second question by asserting that "the basis of the
mystical theory of ethics is that the separateness of individual selves produces
that egoism which is the source of conflict, grasping, aggressiveness, selfishness,
hatred, cruelty, malice and other forms of evil; and that this separateness is
abolished in the mystical consciousness in which all distinctions are annulled
no separateness of I from you, or of you from he, and that we are all one in the
Universal self- the emotional counter part of this is love. And love, according to
the theory, is the sole basis, and also the sole command, of morality"(39).
Hence, he called that experience "trans-subjective", in which we cannot find
any duality between the object and the subject; all is in one, in the universal self.
But there is still the first point with regard to objectivity, some people have
not any moment of theosophical feelings, what is the proof they all have some
kind of moral ability? Stace believed every one of human beings had some
moments of mystical experience, even if he was not aware of it(40).
(39) W.T. Stace, mysticism and philosophy, J.B. Lippincott company, USA, 1st Ed., 1960, p.
324.
(40)
Idem.

There is a reason for the epistemological and linguistic isolation of

mysticists from others. Stace thought there are two theories explaining this, the
first is the emotions theory, according to it, the deeper our feelings are, the harder
to be expressed. That is a problem of ineffability; it is not only a problem of
language, but of logic also, because emotions are so complicated and ambiguous.
The second theory to explain this is the spiritual blindness; people cannot easily
understand the mystical experience exactly as a blind man cannot understand the
word "red", but stace made certain of this, the problem here is a mere linguistic
one, and the mystical experience is universal(41).
Stace believed that, the data of such experience are objective because of
what is called catholicity Evidence. That evidence depends upon the similarity
amidst mystical experiments all over the world, and that is a proof of the honesty
of mysticists and of the objective truth of the mystical experience(42).

(41)

www.homepages,ihug.co.nz/drandmkw/spirit/wtsy%20%20mb6.

.159 . . ( :

(42)

CONCLUSIONS
Previously, we talked about the mystical ethics of W.T. Stace in three main
topics:
1.

The problem of ethics in the modern mind: and showed that the modern mind
was so different from the medieval one. The point of difference was the
scientific revolution in the 17th century. It changed a lot of concepts of human
kind about world by determinism and causation, and the contradiction
between science and religion was neither a scientific contradiction nor even a
logical one, but it was psychological in nature. There is not a real
contradiction between them.

2.

Is a religion possible?: and said that there were some philosophical trials to
get the religious mind back and vice versa. We talked about some of these
trials and showed that, the ethics cannot be based on the religious basis of
medieval age.

3.

Are ethics possible?: and talked about the trial of stace to set up some kind of
ethics theoretically upon mysticism, considering it the essence of every
religion. Mysticism can be the basis of ethics for the contemporary mind
because it is the source of love, and it can eliminate the distinctions between
the ego and the others, and it covers all the distance between the object and
the subject.

Bibliography
I. Primary literature:
Stace, W. T., Mysticism and philosophy, J.B. Lippincott company, USA, 1st.

1.

Ed., 1960.
.2 : : 1
1998.
II. Secondary literature:
Moreland, J.P. and Nielsen, Kai, Does God Exist ?, Prometheus Books,

1.

Buffalo, New York, N.E., 1990.

.2 : .1954 .
.3 :
. ..
III. References:
.1 2004 1.
.2 2005 .2
.3 . ..
VI- Web Sites:
www.homepages.ihug.co.nz/drandmkw/spirit/wts%20%20mb6.

www.philosophy.lander.edu/intro/stace.html.