Complete actuality and malevolence

[ccmnxc]

On the Thomistic view, God, by way of Aquinas’s First Way, is pure actuality. He is everything and is the locus of everything. Now, we see goodness or benevolence, to be more accurate, as being one of the things that come from God and also what God is (God is goodness/benevolence). Also on the Thomistic view is that evil is not something in and of itself but either an absence or perversion of good. An absence of benevolence is not malevolence but merely apathy. If I lack benevolence, I don’t necessarily go around stabbing people. That takes active malevolence. It is, however, against our concept of God to see Him as the locus of malevolence. How would the Thomist reconcile these facts? Is malevolence a perversion of good, and if so how?
Thanks.

 

[ellzeena]

How can malevolence NOT be a perversion of “good”?

Merriam Webster:
*Definition of MALEVOLENT

1
: having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred
2
: productive of harm or evil
*

In creation, because it is a PLACE, with a TIME LINE and SPATIAL INTEGRITY (although we have no idea how vast and we don’t understand most of it despite our sophisticated science), there is THESIS:
thesis statement
noun
a short statement, usually one sentence, that summarizes the main point or claim of an essay, research paper, etc., and is developed, supported, and explained in the text by means of examples and evidence.

and, because in Creation there are always opposites: ANTITHESIS
*an·tith·e·sis (n-tth-ss)
n. pl. an·tith·e·ses (-sz)

1. Direct contrast; opposition.
2. The direct or exact opposite: Hope is the antithesis of despair.

a. A figure of speech in which sharply contrasting ideas are juxtaposed in a balanced or parallel phrase or grammatical structure, as in “Hee for God only, shee for God in him” (John Milton).
b. The second and contrasting part of such a juxtaposition.
4. The second stage of the Hegelian dialectic process, representing the opposite of the thesis.
*

This is one of the fundamental teachings found in the Sefir Yetzirah. And it is apparently universally the case.

Why would you philosophize and expect anyone in this present day to answer “the Thomist”? What’s the point here, is this an intellectual exercise? Do you not know that the Liar uses our intellects (the smarter we are, the more the danger, thus the old saying: ignorance is bliss) to argue against God?

God is good. How do we know: His creation speaks for itself. The vicissitudes of free will pertain to the entire creation but He manages to keep it all perfectly functioning FROM HIS WILL TO DO SO, despite those vicissitudes. Where there is black, there must be white (a function of light itself). Where there is health, there must be sickness (a function of the vicissitudes of life in the flesh due to the fallen nature of Humanity of which we really know VERY little except that it occurred). Life became death; Christ defeated death. He rose in his glorified body, was seen by thousands. The Blessed Mother is seen (has been seen) throughout the world (both in apparitions sanctioned by the Church and those which were, apparently, personal - such as what happened to me at age five) in her earthly body (which was assumed because the body of every human female that has carried a pregnancy - no matter the length of the pregnancy - contains the DNA of the unborn child). Will WE have such glorified bodies? We are told, yes. And so, we have no reason to disbelieve it.

I really don’t understand the purpose of proposing abstract concepts in a forum where there are most likely many who can’t answer, who might actually begin to doubt because of the premise, despite the other fact that there are people here who know so much more than you do (I am not one of them). WHAT’S THE POINT, exactly? This reminds me of a male Peacock (have you ever HEARD a male Peacock? It’s horrific noise), strutting and “boasting”. At least the Peacock has a valuable purpose: to propagate his species by being the most glamorous and vociferous. What’s your purpose?

 

[fhansen]

On the Thomistic view, God, by way of Aquinas’s First Way, is pure actuality. He is everything and is the locus of everything. Now, we see goodness or benevolence, to be more accurate, as being one of the things that come from God and also what God is (God is goodness/benevolence). Also on the Thomistic view is that evil is not something in and of itself but either an absence or perversion of good. An absence of benevolence is not malevolence but merely apathy. If I lack benevolence, I don’t necessarily go around stabbing people. That takes active malevolence. It is, however, against our concept of God to see Him as the locus of malevolence. How would the Thomist reconcile these facts? Is malevolence a perversion of good, and if so how?
Thanks.

I think an absence of benevolence is what can ultimately lead to-be the cause of-stabbing people, or at least tend towards that direction in any case. And this is why it’s said that the missing part of man, that which can ensure his moral integrity, is sanctifying grace, the life of God in man, aka love, the presence of benevolence.

 

[TomD123]

On the Thomistic view, God, by way of Aquinas’s First Way, is pure actuality. He is everything and is the locus of everything. Now, we see goodness or benevolence, to be more accurate, as being one of the things that come from God and also what God is (God is goodness/benevolence). Also on the Thomistic view is that evil is not something in and of itself but either an absence or perversion of good. An absence of benevolence is not malevolence but merely apathy. If I lack benevolence, I don’t necessarily go around stabbing people. That takes active malevolence. It is, however, against our concept of God to see Him as the locus of malevolence. How would the Thomist reconcile these facts? Is malevolence a perversion of good, and if so how?
Thanks.

I think its sort of related to the moral theory of Aquinas as well. I am not an expert, but I’d say its something like this:

1. Our inherent nature defines what is “good” for us
   —Note here: Good is not a subjective quality about what is “likeable,” causes happiness, has some sort of value, etc. Good here is an objective feature which basically means fulfilling our nature’s ends. (Think of a picture. One could say that the picture is good insofar as it is pleasing to the eye or good because it captures the real…for example a self portrait is good if it really looks like me. Good in this instance means conforming to something objective)
2. Acting against our nature in any way is evil by definition
   —In other words, anytime we do something contrary to our flourishing as human beings (as defined by our natures) we are failing to be a “perfect human.”
3. The more a thing fails to live up to its end, the more evil it is
   —Obviously this isn’t really “more evil” but less and less in conformity with its end
4. Malevolence, however it is expressed, is failing to live up to our end in a serious manner. Apathy, is failing to live up to our end to a lesser extent.
   —Let’s look at an example of each: Apathy, say failing to keep a healthy diet thus not preserve our life as our nature intends. Obviously this is a failure to do good and a failure to live up to our ends thus a lack of that good.

Malevolence might be mass murder. But mass murder is really just failing to live up to the objective good in our human nature to preserve our species. It is a corruption of this, in other words, the reason it is evil (see #2) is because our nature is such that preserving life is intended. This act is specifically more evil because (see #3) preserving life is very fundamental to our nature (if we did not live, we could not do anything else) and because mass murder is multiple instances of directly inhibiting this end rather than in the case of the apathy example one instance of simply failing to live our duty.