Good = Truth?

[Cure of Ars]

Is the good always the same as the true? If so why?

I think this question is easier to answer if you believe in Christ. Are there arguments for the good being synonymous with truth from an natural law perspective? Did Thomas Aquinas shed any light on this question?

Is there anything to debate here...I don't know.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The theology of St. Thomas Aquinas provides an interesting account of the transcendentals consistent with an [i]analogia entis[/i] approach to theological metaphysics (not to suggest onto-theology; a charge I would repudiate).

Your opening question is complex because of the many possible senses and applications of the key terms involved. If we limit the question to 'the good' and 'the true' in the strictly transcendental sense then yes, the terms in question refer analogically (in the mature Thomistic sense) to an absolute and transcendent ontologically unity -- the Divine Substance.

In anticipation of possible interjections from Apotheoun I must note that predicating these terms of God does not actually imply that the Divine Essence as such is somehow the object of our knowledge. It is my opinion that a certain apophaticism is implied in Aquinas' method and directly intended in his metaphysical paradigm.

The names predicated of God follow a mode of analogy distinct from that which perhaps immediately comes to mind. In speaking of God Aquinas links the analogy of attribution with causal similitude. In this way terms predicated of God are not capable of being understood through referents other than God -- an apparent apophatic underpinning to my mind.
This is not empty and circular thinking because God is not a being but is the super-essential basis of being; the beginning and the end. The crux that gives meaning to this scenario, as far as I understand it (I'm no expert on Thomas), is the situation of causality in all of this. Although God [i]in se[/i] remains perfectly transcendent there is yet a grounds for meaningful analogical and exemplary relationality in the manifest power of God and the salience of God's creative actuality. To put it in different terms (although not directly pertinent to this specific treatment): creation is hetero-essential yet theophanic.

I am no doubt obfuscating the subject at hand because of an awareness of the range of related issues, my bad. While I do not claim to have suitably addressed your question I do hope to have fanned the flames a bit. This is certainly a sweet thread that may afford some intense debate.

To be a bit more on track I will mention that in the history of occidental philosophy it is Plato who first suggests that there are transcendental categories which imply one another and point toward a single, fontal reality that is perfectly transcendent and ultimate. It is my opinion that the historically Platonic (well, Neo-Platonic) [i]theoria[/i] proposes schemata capable of distorting or even destroying the authenticity of Christian theology. Yet I admit that it is possible to find impetus and insight among the heathen. Many in the Christian tradition have perceived a degree of isomorphism between this Platonic insight and the revelation of God in the Scriptures.

[beatty07]

I honestly wasn't sure if you were being tongue-in-cheek until the very last sentence. A perceived degree of isomorphism... priceless. Although I did initially misread "theophanic" as "theopanic" and thought "whoah, hoss, we got us a problem. If there's one thing I hate more than pantheism, it's theopanism."

I agree that belief in Christ helps us to see how the good and true are one. Even without that, though, I think the human mind is equipped to see the unity of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. I always think of the remark Einstein is reported to have made when he first derived the formulas for his theory of relativity - special or general, I can never remember which - "These equations are so beautiful they must be true." And good, we might add.

As far as Thomas goes, check out part one, question three, articles 6-7 here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#7"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#7[/url] Article 6 would argue that goodness and truth are not accidents, or qualities, that God has. They are rather part of his essence. Since God is not composite (art.7), that means that truth, beauty, and goodness flow together out of the simplicity of God.

And if you really want to get into this, I heartily recommend my man Hans Urs von Balthasar, who will argue that the best launching point for theology is not theo-logic (what is true) or theo-dramatic (what is good) but rather aesthetic (what is beautiful and full of glory). But you do have to invest quite a lot to get the first clue what he means. Or just get Ed Oakes' book about him "Pattern of Redemption." Which also includes a great exposition of the Analogy of Being, LaudateDominum will be pleased to know!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1374071' date='Aug 30 2007, 08:49 AM']I honestly wasn't sure if you were being tongue-in-cheek until the very last sentence. A perceived degree of isomorphism... priceless. Although I did initially misread "theophanic" as "theopanic" and thought "whoah, hoss, we got us a problem. If there's one thing I hate more than pantheism, it's theopanism."[/quote]
Haha, the fact is I'm always at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I post. I find it relaxing to just babble away on any old topic even if only 20% of what I write makes sense. I've long been convinced that most of my posts go unread or just skimmed anyway.

Sweet recommendations btw! That last text you mentioned sounds most interesting. I've had it on my amazon wish list for a good while.. Hmm...

P.S. Theopanism? Yikes!! If that was my bag I would commit seppuku.

[carrdero]

[quote]Cure Of Ars writes: Is the good always the same as the true? If so why?[/quote]
There are two types of Truth. Personal and Universal and there are many good things you can discover in both. Though due to our individualism, it is to be expected that two “truths”, two “goods” may not appeal or agree with the same personalities.

[quote]Cure Of Ars writes: I think this question is easier to answer if you believe in Christ.[/quote]
There is an abundance of goodness and Truth today even for someone who has never even heard of Christ.

[color="#FF0000"][b]To Laudate_Dominum:[/b] I do not know when or where I would able to say this to you but I really love your avatar. Parliament is not only good, they are THE BOMB and that is the Truth.[/color]

Edited August 30, 2007 by carrdero

[Cure of Ars]

I think your right laundate that a lot of the debate rests on the definition of the words. In a Thomist type way of thinking, something that is true and good presupposes purpose and meaning. So they have the same foundation. (With beauty being a part of this group)

From a post modern perspective you can say something is true in a strictly scientific sense but this is different than saying something is good in an existential sense. I don’t know if I have the vocab to make the necessary categorization.

I guess to say that the true = the good from a atheist perspective would be mixing science with an evolutionary produced illusionary construct.

I think this is the same thing that carrdero is saying with the category of personal and universal. But the question to carrdero is why is there this dualism? Why isn’t the personal an illusion/ untrue? The personal doesn’t seem to have a scientific foundation other than it being a product of evolution (i.e an illusion that is adaptive in passing on genes) If all this is true, then the question is why doesn't the good = evolutionary advantage in every situation?

I will see if I can get "Pattern of Redemption" thanks beatty07 for the recommendation. Also thanks for the work of finding the Summa reference.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Cure of Ars

[carrdero]

[quote]Cure Of Ars writes: But the question to carrdero is why is there this dualism?[/quote]
Good doesn’t necessarily have to be True and Evil doesn’t necessarily have to be false. It is just what people perceive these aspects as based on their individualism.
[quote]Cure Of Ars writes: Why isn’t the personal an illusion/ untrue?[/quote]
Some personal truths can change or evolve but they do not have to apply to everyone.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]Good doesn’t necessarily have to be True and Evil doesn’t necessarily have to be false. It is just what people perceive these aspects as based on their individualism.[/quote]

So in your view there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose for the universe?

[quote]Some personal truths can change or evolve but they do not have to apply to everyone.[/quote]

I would agree that there is an element to morality that depends on the individual and her/his situation. There are three parts to morality. There is the intent of an action, the subjective situation, and the universal natural law. An action has to be good in all three areas for an action to be good. For example, I can do an action that is good according to the subjective situation and the natural law but with a bad intention, the act would be immoral.

It seems to me that you are making all of morality fit into the subjective situation and the intention but your leaving out the universal natural law. Without this, what high ground do you have to tell someone that they are being immoral?

[carrdero]

[quote]CureOfArs writes:So in your view there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose for the universe?[/quote]
The Universe? Possibly, though it would be very difficult to discern from my position. For me and you? Definately! And here is the beauty of it all, it may not be standard, it may not be basic and it may not be the same but it can be shared.

[quote]CureOfArs writes:I would agree that there is an element to morality that depends on the individual and her/his situation. There are three parts to morality. There is the intent of an action, the subjective situation, and the universal natural law.
An action has to be good in all three areas for an action to be good. For example, I can do an action that is good according to the subjective situation and the natural law but with a bad intention, the act would be immoral.[/quote]

Natural universal Law is the one that trips everyone up. Though it is easy for one to recognize what a creator has created something for, many people tend to place an opinion on what is Natural as “good” or “right” and what is Unnatural as “wrong” or “bad”. The first thing I would suggest to someone, is to get out from under these judgments. Nature, by design, does not judge, it just has a responsibility to perform. Humans can hack some Natural Laws (we’re getting quite good at it). But instead of realizing that some Natural Laws inherently give room for such tampering and experimenting, some people feel that this is wrong and feelings are indeed subjective.

Edited September 2, 2007 by carrdero

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]The Universe? Possibly, though it would be very difficult to discern from my position. For me and you? Definately! And here is the beauty of it all, it may not be standard, it may not be basic and it may not be the same but it can be shared.[/quote]


If life is a journey then we are all heading to the same place. If there is nothing after death then life has less meaning then we realize. But if there is something beyond death then life is a lot more meaningful than we both realize.

I have spent a lot of time playing the game World of Warcraft. One of the lessons this game has taught me is that human created meaning doesn’t amount to much if it is not grounded in a higher reality. I was all into the game, emotionally attached to the characters, struggles, and accomplishments. But the truth is that even though I assigned meaning to the game ultimately the game was meaningless. It was not grounded into a higher reality. Without God to ground the meaning of our human experience, life is just a large game of World of Warcraft but on a different scale.

Without God there is no hope for humanity and this is one reason why I choose to believe. This may not be the best, most altruistic reason to believe. But it is certainly a reason.

[quote]Natural universal Law is the one that trips everyone up. Though it is easy for one to recognize what a creator has created something for, many people tend to place an opinion on what is Natural as “good” or “right” and what is Unnatural as “wrong” or “bad”. The first thing I would suggest to someone, is to get out from under these judgments. Nature, by design, does not judge, it just has a responsibility to perform. Humans can hack some Natural Laws (we’re getting quite good at it). But instead of realizing that some Natural Laws inherently give room for such tampering and experimenting, some people feel that this is wrong and feelings are indeed subjective.[/quote]


I agree that nature does not judge but there sure are consequence if you break natural law. You really can’t break natural law, you just end up breaking yourself on it. But there is room for our behavior because life is not all black and white.

Let me give an example using the three areas of morality that I gave in my last post. Lets say that someone breaks into my home and tries to hurt my children and wife. The natural law says that it is wrong to murder someone. It is also wrong to have the intent to do someone harm. But there is the subjective situation. In this situation it would be good to defend my wife and children. My intent is really not to hurt the person but my intention is to protect my family. If I end up killing the man who is trying to hurt my family, due to the principle of double effect, I would not be breaking the natural law. I did not murder the man; he died as a result of my defense of my family. I agree that this gets complicate but it is necessary when trying to be moral. Sometimes we are really unable to see the ultimate right path and we just have to choose the best we can. Because of this there is room for experimentation at times.

Now if we say, “to hell with the natural law” you end up with a blob of a moral system.. It would be like a human body without bones. There is nothing solid to support justice and goodness. The options are not, an all rigid system, which your suggesting natural law is, verses an all subjective blob of a system with nothing solid to support anything. The human body has bones to support but there are also joints that allow the system flexibility. The same is true with morality.

An important question that show the problem with the relative moral system was in my last post. Without an objective natural law, what high ground do you have to tell someone that they are being immoral? What Martin Luther King Jr. did for the U.S. would not have been possible without him pointing to the natural law. Or does might make right. Meaning the powerful get to determine what is right and wrong.

[carrdero]

[quote]Cure Of Ars writes:If there is nothing after death then life has less meaning then we realize.[/quote]
I would never suggest this to anyone. At least not without encouraging someone to take up and study a musical instrument.
[quote]Cure Of Ars writes:I have spent a lot of time playing the game World of Warcraft. One of the lessons this game has taught me is that human created meaning doesn’t amount to much if it is not grounded in a higher reality. I was all into the game, emotionally attached to the characters, struggles, and accomplishments. But the truth is that even though I assigned meaning to the game ultimately the game was meaningless. It was not grounded into a higher reality. Without God to ground the meaning of our human experience, life is just a large game of World of Warcraft but on a different scale.[/quote]
I do enjoy your analogy to video games. I have to be honest, I have never played World Of Warcraft and I really haven’t had much opportunity to play video games on my computer and I have never participated or played in an online community but my consoles have received a lot of action. I enjoy the experience of many games, taking on different roles, finding the meaning to my own gaming existence and figuring out how that world works, even if this means getting into the programmers mind to find out what they intended.

[quote]Cure Of Ars writes: Let me give an example using the three areas of morality that I gave in my last post. Lets say that someone breaks into my home and tries to hurt my children and wife. The natural law says that it is wrong to murder someone.[/quote]
Actually “human law” states that murder is wrong. Natural Law dictates that we have to die and we have to die in some way. So you could try to protect your family but you could also die trying. When death arrives, it is not there to judge or pronounce sentence for the killer.
[quote]Cure Of Ars writes: Without God there is no hope for humanity and this is one reason why I choose to believe. This may not be the best, most altruistic reason to believe. But it is certainly a reason.[/quote]
If you do not mind me asking Cure Of Ars but what exactly is it that you hope GOD will do for humanity. What does a hope in GOD mean for humanity?

Edited September 4, 2007 by carrdero

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]I would never suggest this to anyone. At least not without encouraging someone to take up and study a musical instrument.[/quote]

I guess this depends on if you believe that truth leads to good or not. If not, then best to keep this truth in the closet.

Death is the one absolute truth that is undeniable. It is something that should be natural but to humans it is something that goes totally against our nature. It comes unnatural to use. Check out this poem. I think it portrays the feeling of death without the hope of God.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9LJ9we02Ls"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9LJ9we02Ls[/url]

I think you're onto something in regards to the musical instrument. Music is something that breaks us through to the transcendent. Music is like a hand pointing to something beyond. In my own life as soon as I run at something as if it were an end and not something that points beyond itself I am always disappointed. I run at it, and take hold of it, then the question always comes up, “Is this all there is?”

I like a good glass of red wine. But if I try to take wine and make it my meaning it turns from something that is sweet to something that is like a mouth of ashes. It’s like God has made things to lead us to him but as soon as we try to make something our fulfillment instead letting it point to him it goes wrong.

Beliefs have consequences. If you believe that there is a transcendent meaning in reality then life has a mystical quality. The ordinary is no longer simply ordinary. Check out this clip that I think demonstrates this very well.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUv2j1-x7M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcureofars%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUv2j1-x7M...ogspot%2Ecom%2F[/url]

[quote]I enjoy the experience of many games, taking on different roles, finding the meaning to my own gaming existence and figuring out how that world works, even if this means getting into the programmers mind to find out what they intended.[/quote]


I can’t deny that I enjoyed playing World of Warcraft. The problem was that I was running at it like it was the end instead of pointing to something greater. It was not rooted into a higher meaning.

[quote]Actually “human law” states that murder is wrong. Natural Law dictates that we have to die and we have to die in some way. So you could try to protect your family but you could also die trying. When death arrives, it is not there to judge or pronounce sentence for the killer.[/quote]

That murder is wrong is not something that was agreed upon. It is a part of who we are as humans. If you do not feel guilty after hurting someone there is something that is wrong with you. I am a social worker and have worked with children that do not feel guilty after hurting animals and other people. This is something that make a psychopath and not something that is a normal part of being human. Natural law is what is embedded in us as humans. There has never been a culture that has held up cowardice as virtue. It is not possible because it is not in our makeup.

[quote]If you do not mind me asking Cure Of Ars but what exactly is it that you hope GOD will do for humanity. What does a hope in GOD mean for humanity?[/quote]

This is the greatest question that I have ever been asked. I hope that God will fulfill the greatest human desire. To quote Jewel, “I want a brave love, one that makes me weak in the knees, I want a crazy, crazy love, one that makes me come undone at the seams”

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwNyjiwzRs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcureofars%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFwNyjiwzRs...ogspot%2Ecom%2F[/url]

I want to be able to Love like Christ loved. I want to be a part of God’s love. This is what God made us for.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Cure of Ars

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1374285' date='Aug 30 2007, 02:49 PM'][color="#FF0000"][b]To Laudate_Dominum:[/b] I do not know when or where I would able to say this to you but I really love your avatar. Parliament is not only good, they are THE BOMB and that is the Truth.[/color][/quote]
Thanks dude!!

[carrdero]

[quote]CureOfArs writes: Death is the one absolute truth that is undeniable. It is something that should be natural but to humans it is something that goes totally against our nature. It comes unnatural to use.[/quote]
Keep in mind that death may be something that humans may overcome someday. I am not hopeful or faithful but like I mentioned earlier, humans are the best hackers of Natural Law.

[quote]CureOfArs writes: Check out this poem. I think it portrays the feeling of death without the hope of God.[/quote]
Thanks for the poem.

[quote]CureOfArs writes: I think you're onto something in regards to the musical instrument. Music is something that breaks us through to the transcendent. Music is like a hand pointing to something beyond. In my own life as soon as I run at something as if it were an end and not something that points beyond itself I am always disappointed. I run at it, and take hold of it, then the question always comes up, “Is this all there is?”[/quote]

Music is one of those Universal and Personal Truths I was talking about. It is Universal in its understanding but very personal in its individual execution. I do not think I have ever met anyone who hasn’t heard or enjoyed music. If music didn’t exist I can honestly admit that this physical existence would be very difficult for me.
[quote]CureOfArs writes: I like a good glass of red wine. But if I try to take wine and make it my meaning it turns from something that is sweet to something that is like a mouth of ashes. It’s like God has made things to lead us to him but as soon as we try to make something our fulfillment instead letting it point to him it goes wrong.[/quote]

Sometimes meanings in our lives have to unfold. Sometimes purpose isn’t recognized until the final years of our life and other times we are so involved in our lives, it takes the memories of the people who survived us to sum up our existence. I believe that entities have multiple purposes going on at the same time, they may not be paramount and they may not be important to other people but as I discovered in this life, it is always imperative to keep oneself busy until purpose reveals itself, one never knows where these roads will lead to.

[quote]CureOfArs writes: I can’t deny that I enjoyed playing World of Warcraft. The problem was that I was running at it like it was the end instead of pointing to something greater. It was not rooted into a higher meaning.[/quote]

I have played some video games that were extraordinary experiences and the feeling of accomplishment that I received was uncomparable. There have been others that were less memorable but I would stick them out just to complete them but I would never repeat (replay) either exercise. Life is a little like that. Not every game is going to be the greatest experience we ever had and not everyone is going to be able to experience every game in their lifetime.

[quote]CureOfArs writes: That murder is wrong is not something that was agreed upon. It is a part of who we are as humans. If you do not feel guilty after hurting someone there is something that is wrong with you.[/quote]
If you are someone who doesn’t prefer to kill then the sense of guilt could be overwhelming. The fact is that everyone at one time has intentionally killed some entity that was once alive. The spider that one doesn’t want in their bathroom. The bee or misquito that has just pricked one’s arm. The hunter that goes deer hunting, the pet owner who puts his dog down to sleep. I don’t believe that people really enjoy killing but that they are more concerned of the consequences that would lead them towards a path to trouble or a loss of freedom. I do not believe that murder is right or wrong but I also know that it is something that I fully capable of but would personally prefer to avoid.

[quote]CureOfArs writes: I am a social worker and have worked with children that do not feel guilty after hurting animals and other people. This is something that make a psychopath and not something that is a normal part of being human. Natural law is what is embedded in us as humans. There has never been a culture that has held up cowardice as virtue. It is not possible because it is not in our makeup.[/quote]

I think Natural Law is more of a functional Law than a conscious Law. A functional Natural Law would be how the body functions. Going to the bathroom would be a good example of Natural Law. Everyone poops.

Conscious Law would be mandated by the standards of humans and when we compare this to other individuals there are bound to be differences and disagreements.

[quote]CureOfArs writes: This is the greatest question that I have ever been asked. I hope that God will fulfill the greatest human desire. To quote Jewel, “I want a brave love, one that makes me weak in the knees, I want a crazy, crazy love, one that makes me come undone at the seams”

I want to be able to Love like Christ loved. I want to be a part of God’s love. This is what God made us for.[/quote]

Good answer, thank you.

I don’t think I could ever imitate anyone else’s love. Even if I fully understood the capacity of GOD and Christ’s Love and fully comprehended how each of them expressed their Love it would still be a lofty, unobtainable goal for me. Not because I agree or do not agree with their concepts of Love but because no one (including myself) would recognize me if I did, not even GOD.