How to understand Thomas Aquinas' proof of that every being is good?

[John_Martin]

Thank all of you sincerely for your reply and help.

But, I am confused and still don’t understand the Aquinas’ proof of that every being is good.

I agree that if a being is desirable, the being is good, which is said in that proof. But I don’t see why it is true that if a being exists, the being is desirable, which that proof means. For example, can’t there be (in theory) a very horrible monster that is not desirable in any way?

In a way, I want to say that you will not understand it until your second run through the Summa.
When Thomas is talking about desire, he is understanding it with the meaning from the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa, where you would need to be at home with Questions 6 - 48 (and more) in that volume.
Then you need to have his understanding of being and actual versus apprehended objects, etc.

Studying Thomas is like memorizing a lot, not understanding a lot, then when you see it in a later reading it makes perfect sense because you now have his set of symbols behind you, knowing the second part as you read the first part.
When he wrote question 5 of the first part, he knew intimately all of the two parts second and the third part already. In a way, you rehearse and memorize all the parts, then think about each with that storehouse of questions answered in memory, and your memory will bring what you need to a specific second reading.

My first time through I had to read what I had no clue about. But Thomas was my teacher so I took his word for it. Now I say “Aaaahh” very often with delight. Big investment, though - 5 years so far, but worth it.
As you move on, you will find your memory triggered to things you saw early in Part I. and it continues becoming a landslide.

 

[Vonsalza]

The perfection is the state without changes. Therefore anything imperfect is subject to change unless it reaches perfection. Changes however cannot go to infinitum. Therefore everything eventually reaches to perfection. This means that there is a tendency for perfection.

A perfect rosebud cannot become a perfect bloom (thus through undeniable change)?

Your definition requires re-working as “perfection” is infinitely subjective - something our ancient Greek friends may not have realized.

 

[STT]

A perfect rosebud cannot become a perfect bloom (thus through undeniable change)?

Your definition requires re-working as “perfection” is infinitely subjective - something our ancient Greek friends may not have realized.

By perfect I mean something which is in the state of actual.

 

[OneSheep]

Thank all of you sincerely for your reply and help.

But, I am confused and still don’t understand the Aquinas’ proof of that every being is good.

I agree that if a being is desirable, the being is good, which is said in that proof. But I don’t see why it is true that if a being exists, the being is desirable, which that proof means. For example, can’t there be (in theory) a very horrible monster that is not desirable in any way?

Hello Zhoudu

I’m a dunce when it comes to Aquinas, but I can prove that every being is good. First, though, “good” is not only the desirable, but the beautiful, and the valuable. To me, what is important to the definition is that it is a phenomenological approach, which makes the “proof” subject to personal experience.

 

[Vico]

Hello Zhoudu

I’m a dunce when it comes to Aquinas, but I can prove that every being is good. First, though, “good” is not only the desirable, but the beautiful, and the valuable. To me, what is important to the definition is that it is a phenomenological approach, which makes the “proof” subject to personal experience.

The term dunce comes from a term of the reformers for a follower of John Duns Scotus, Catholic philosopher and theologian.