Goodness and Being: One and the Same

[steph_86]

I have been wrestling with the idea of Goodness and of Being for some time. As I understand it, Goodness is understood to be as that which all things tend. As I understand it, Being is understood to be as the act of existing. I want to know if I am on the right track.

In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the identity between Goodness and Being and I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. I want to know if someone can help me understand it.

Here is the passage:

Reply to Objection 1. Although goodness and being are the same really, nevertheless since they differ in thought, they are not predicated of a thing absolutely in the same way. Since being properly signifies that something actually is, and actuality properly correlates to potentiality; a thing is, in consequence, said simply to have being, accordingly as it is primarily distinguished from that which is only in potentiality; and this is precisely each thing’s substantial being. Hence by its substantial being, everything is said to have being simply; but by any further actuality it is said to have being relatively. Thus to be white implies relative being, for to be white does not take a thing out of simply potential being; because only a thing that actually has being can receive this mode of being. But goodness signifies perfection which is desirable; and consequently of ultimate perfection. Hence that which has ultimate perfection is said to be simply good; but that which has not the ultimate perfection it ought to have (although, in so far as it is at all actual, it has some perfection), is not said to be perfect simply nor good simply, but only relatively. In this way, therefore, viewed in its primal (i.e. substantial) being a thing is said to be simply, and to be good relatively (i.e. in so far as it has being) but viewed in its complete actuality, a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply. Hence the saying of Boethius (De Hebrom.), “I perceive that in nature the fact that things are good is one thing; that they are is another,” is to be referred to a thing’s goodness simply, and having being simply. Because, regarded in its primal actuality, a thing simply exists; and regarded in its complete actuality, it is good simply–in such sort that even in its primal actuality, it is in some sort good, and even in its complete actuality, it in some sort has being.

Finally, I want to understand the distinction between Existence and Being.

I am grateful for the help. I truly appreciate.

 

[Aloysium]

Not a philosopher by any means, but rather just another idiot on the Internet with an opinion:

God is perfect relationship,
the Triune Godhead:
the Father giving Himself to the Son who returns that Love, the Holy Spirit.

We are brought into existence as a manifestation of that eternal love,
and through Jesus Christ we are brought into that same relationship that He shares with the Father.

God is infinite, wondrous Mystery,
joy and glory stream
from His bringing all this into creation.

As the Source,
He is Beauty and Goodness Itself,
eternal Life and Truth.
All desires seek the One who is the Ground of our being.

Re: being and existence:
“Existence” sounds static whereas in my mind, “being” has a sense of ontological motion.
So if I am thinking about eternity, the word “existence” sounds good.
If I consider creation,
with its emergence where there should be nothing,
and its constant state of flux,
the word “being” seems to fit better.

Reading St Thomas unfortunately hurts my eyes. Sorry not much help.

 

[hicetnunc]

I have been wrestling with the idea of Goodness and of Being for some time. As I understand it, Goodness is understood to be as that which all things tend. As I understand it, Being is understood to be as the act of existing. I want to know if I am on the right track.

Hi Steph;

Not sure what exactly it is you’re struggling with, as you seem to have a good grasp of the notion of goodness/being: goodness is, for Aquinas simply being as apprehended as desirable. I see an apple, and I recognize it to be good to eat. Boethius (whom Aquinas often comments on) adds this: the more something loses its being, the more it loses its goodness,further illustrating the identity between goodness and being. A rotten apple is losing its being, as it becomes corrupted, and–at the same time therefore–begins to lose its desirability.

As for the distinction between existence and essence: existence is “that” a thing exists while essence refers to “what” a thing is. Perhaps, if you want to hammer this out further, you could go a little deeper? Happy to discuss…

 

[Wyrd]

I think what you’re wrestling with is that in order to be Good you have to actively be good and this means constant activity or being good in service of the common interests. This is what Saints teach us. I struggle with this myself because I try to help my fellows get what they desire even when it is not good for them (such as scientific knowledge) and I do not have the support of an institution like the Church or companions who are willing to walk this path with me. Perhaps I am the first transhumanist saint. I guess it will have to be seen as my character is revealed. Good luck.

 

[Richca]

I have been wrestling with the idea of Goodness and of Being for some time. As I understand it, Goodness is understood to be as that which all things tend. As I understand it, Being is understood to be as the act of existing. I want to know if I am on the right track.

In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the identity between Goodness and Being and I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. I want to know if someone can help me understand it.

Here is the passage:

Finally, I want to understand the distinction between Existence and Being.

I am grateful for the help. I truly appreciate.

I think hicetnunc does a pretty good job in his explanation of being and goodness. The distinction between existence and being is a good question and understanding Aquinas’ thought on “being” is actually extremely important in understanding his whole metaphysics. Loosely, existence and being mean the same thing in the english language. Whatever has being or is a being, exists. Whatever has being or exists also has actuality. Aquinas, though, doesn’t distinguish between existence and being in his writings. In fact, Aquinas hardly ever uses the latin word for the english word ‘existence’ in his writings. He wrote in latin and in his time the latin word for existence did not have the meaning we today associate with the word “existence.” Aquinas almost always uses the latin words for our english “being” or the verb “be.” Ens is the latin noun for being while esse (to be) is the latin word for the verb “be.” The english translation of the Summa Theologica by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (1911) loosely translate in general Aquinas’ use of ens or esse as existence or being. This in general is probably okay but it may not give us Aquinas’ complete thought on the matter. We do not in the english language have an exact parallel word for the latin verb esse which means “to be.” The english verb is simply “be”

A lot could be said here but I will try to keep it simple and short as to my understanding of Aquinas. For Aquinas, to exist or existence is God’s very nature, His very substance. God is existence. Aquinas was enlightened here by what God told Moses to tell the Israelites when Moses asked God “Who shall I tell them sent me?” God said " I am who am…go tell the Israelites…He who is has sent me to you." As you can see, am and is are part of the verb ‘be’. In describing God’s existence or nature then, Aquinas uses the the latin verb esse which means “to be.” A verb is an action word so God’s existence is an act, indeed, God is pure act. God is purely dynamic I think one can say. God is Being itself or rather God is “to be” itself. In latin for Aquinas, this is Ipsum Esse Subsistens and it is translated as Subsistent Act-of-Being Itself. Esse is translated as act-of-being because this is what St Thomas meant by esse; esse is a verb and its an act. We could also probably say Subsistent Act-of-Existing Itself or probably Subsistent Being Itself or even Subsistent Existence Itself as long as we understand what Aquinas meant. I think the main point here is that for Aquinas, “existence” or “being” is an act. And so in Aquinas’ metaphysical structure of created things, the ultimate or primordial structure of created things is the act-of-being (esse) and the essence or substance. The essence stands in relation to esse or the act-of-being as potency to actuality. The act-of-being (existence) is what gives being or existence to the essence. For Aquinas, esse ( the act-of-being or existence) “is the most perfect of all things, for it is compared to all things as that by which they are made actual” (ST, Part I, q. 4, reply to obj. 3). For Aquinas, God’s nature and essence is simply “to be,” Ipsum Esse Subsistens.

 

[Richca]

I think hicetnunc does a pretty good job in his explanation of being and goodness. The distinction between existence and being is a good question and understanding Aquinas’ thought on “being” is actually extremely important in understanding his whole metaphysics. Loosely, existence and being mean the same thing in the english language. Whatever has being or is a being, exists. Whatever has being or exists also has actuality. Aquinas, though, doesn’t distinguish between existence and being in his writings. In fact, Aquinas hardly ever uses the latin word for the english word ‘existence’ in his writings. He wrote in latin and in his time the latin word for existence did not have the meaning we today associate with the word “existence.” Aquinas almost always uses the latin words for our english “being” or the verb “be.” Ens is the latin noun for being while esse (to be) is the latin word for the verb “be.” The english translation of the Summa Theologica by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (1911) loosely translate in general Aquinas’ use of ens or esse as existence or being. This in general is probably okay but it may not give us Aquinas’ complete thought on the matter. We do not in the english language have an exact parallel word for the latin verb esse which means “to be.” The english verb is simply “be”

A lot could be said here but I will try to keep it simple and short as to my understanding of Aquinas. For Aquinas, to exist or existence is God’s very nature, His very substance. God is existence. Aquinas was enlightened here by what God told Moses to tell the Israelites when Moses asked God “Who shall I tell them sent me?” God said " I am who am…go tell the Israelites…He who is has sent me to you." As you can see, am and is are part of the verb ‘be’. In describing God’s existence or nature then, Aquinas uses the the latin verb esse which means “to be.” A verb is an action word so God’s existence is an act, indeed, God is pure act. God is purely dynamic I think one can say. God is Being itself or rather God is “to be” itself. In latin for Aquinas, this is Ipsum Esse Subsistens and it is translated as Subsistent Act-of-Being Itself. Esse is translated as act-of-being because this is what St Thomas meant by esse; esse is a verb and its an act. We could also probably say Subsistent Act-of-Existing Itself or probably Subsistent Being Itself or even Subsistent Existence Itself as long as we understand what Aquinas meant. I think the main point here is that for Aquinas, “existence” or “being” is an act. And so in Aquinas’ metaphysical structure of created things, the ultimate or primordial structure of created things is the act-of-being (esse) and the essence or substance. The essence stands in relation to esse or the act-of-being as potency to actuality. The act-of-being (existence) is what gives being or existence to the essence. For Aquinas, esse ( the act-of-being or existence) “is the most perfect of all things, for it is compared to all things as that by which they are made actual” (ST, Part I, q. 4, reply to obj. 3). For Aquinas, God’s nature and essence is simply “to be,” Ipsum Esse Subsistens.

(continued)

a few short words on the difference between the words existence and being and probably why Aquinas did not use existere (to exist). I’m quoting this from a book titled “Christian Philosophy” by Joseph M. de Torre. This is an excellent book on the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas which Fr. de Torre follows.

"As for existence, it is a rather slippery notion. “To exist” is not quite the same as “to be.” It comes from the Latin (exsistere), which literally means “to stand out of.” [My note, “to stand out of” is already going to be problematic because being or esse, act-of-being, is that by which everything is made actual. If anything, the act of being is that which “stands or lies under” everything as substance stands under the accidents.] From there comes exsistentia in Latin, and “existence” in English, and it means the fact of being, not the act of being. “Fact” comes from the Latin factum, which means “made” or finished. Existence signifies the fact of being: when something is already there, has come to the act of being, then it exists, it “stands out of”, it is no longer a possibility…

That is why being is not identical with existence. Existence is the fact of being, “fact” meaning “what is made.” In other words, while esse is a metaphysical principle, “to exist” is the result of having esse. One is the principle, and the other is the result. Esse is a principle because nothing can be without the act of being. Existere or to exist is the result of having esse."

 

[Richca]

(continued)

a few short words on the difference between the words existence and being and probably why Aquinas did not use existere (to exist). I’m quoting this from a book titled “Christian Philosophy” by Joseph M. de Torre. This is an excellent book on the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas which Fr. de Torre follows.

"As for existence, it is a rather slippery notion. “To exist” is not quite the same as “to be.” It comes from the Latin (exsistere), which literally means “to stand out of.” [My note, “to stand out of” is already going to be problematic because being or esse, act-of-being, is that by which everything is made actual. If anything, the act of being is that which “stands or lies under” everything as substance stands under the accidents.] From there comes exsistentia in Latin, and “existence” in English, and it means the fact of being, not the act of being. “Fact” comes from the Latin factum, which means “made” or finished. Existence signifies the fact of being: when something is already there, has come to the act of being, then it exists, it “stands out of”, it is no longer a possibility…

That is why being is not identical with existence. Existence is the fact of being, “fact” meaning “what is made.” In other words, while esse is a metaphysical principle, “to exist” is the result of having esse. One is the principle, and the other is the result. Esse is a principle because nothing can be without the act of being. Existere or to exist is the result of having esse."

(continued)

A few words on “being” quoted from the same book above.

“The metaphysical road begins with the first glance at being…In English, “being” is an ambiguous term. Grammatically speaking, it can be a noun, a participle, or a gerund ( “a human being”; “a being from another planet”; the importance of being earnest”).
Latin is more precise in this respect: ens is the noun, and esse is the verb, but both are declined. Let us see the difference between nouns and verbs, the logic of grammar. (The rest of the page is in the image)