Is it ok to define God as Summum Bonum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cho_pilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cho_pilo

Guest
From Wikpedia:

Summum bonum (Latin for the highest good) is an expression used in philosophy, particularly in medieval philosophy and in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, to describe the ultimate importance, the singular and most ultimate end which human beings ought to pursue. The summum bonum is generally thought of as being an end in itself, and at the same time containing all other goods. In Christian philosophy, the highest good is usually defined as the life of the righteous, the life led in Communion with God and according to God’s precepts.

The concept, as well as the philosophical and theological consequences drawn from the purported existence of a more or less clearly defined summum bonum, could be traced back to the earliest forms of monotheism: for instance, Zoroastrianism and Judaism[citation needed]. In the Western world, the concept was introduced by the neoplatonic philosophers[citation needed], and described as a feature of the Christian God by Saint Augustine in De natura boni (On the Nature of Good, written circa 399). Augustine denies the positive existence of absolute evil, describing a world with God as the supreme good at the center, and defining different grades of evil as different stages of remoteness from that center[citation needed].

Experience soon teaches that all desires cannot be satisfied, that they are conflicting, and that some goods must be foregone in order to secure others. Hence the necessity of weighing the relative value of goods, of classifying them, and of ascertaining which of them must be procured at the loss of others. The result is the division of goods into two great classes, the physical and the moral, happiness and virtue[citation needed]. Within either class it is comparatively easy to determine the relation of particular good things to one another, but it has proved far more difficult to fix the relative excellence of the two classes of virtue and happiness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
 
Ultimately truth, freedom, virtue and happiness converge because they are all interdependent and aspects of Love. God is the Summum Bonum if goodness is understood as dynamic and creative.
 
cho_pilo said:
From Wikpedia:

Summum bonum (Latin for the highest good) is an expression used in philosophy, particularly in medieval philosophy and in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, to describe the ultimate importance, the singular and most ultimate end which human beings ought to pursue. The summum bonum is generally thought of as being an end in itself, and at the same time containing all other goods. In Christian philosophy, the highest good is usually defined as the life of the righteous, the life led in Communion with God and according to God’s precepts.

The concept, as well as the philosophical and theological consequences drawn from the purported existence of a more or less clearly defined summum bonum, could be traced back to the earliest forms of monotheism: for instance, Zoroastrianism and Judaism[citation needed]. In the Western world, the concept was introduced by the neoplatonic philosophers[citation needed], and described as a feature of the Christian God by Saint Augustine in De natura boni (On the Nature of Good, written circa 399). Augustine denies the positive existence of absolute evil, describing a world with God as the supreme good at the center, and defining different grades of evil as different stages of remoteness from that center[citation needed].

Experience soon teaches that all desires cannot be satisfied, that they are conflicting, and that some goods must be foregone in order to secure others. Hence the necessity of weighing the relative value of goods, of classifying them, and of ascertaining which of them must be procured at the loss of others. The result is the division of goods into two great classes, the physical and the moral, happiness and virtue[citation needed]. Within either class it is comparatively easy to determine the relation of particular good things to one another, but it has proved far more difficult to fix the relative excellence of the two classes of virtue and happiness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
Click to expand...
God as highest God, very good premise.
God as the highest level of the good,and he is ideal, he is aim for us , which we try to be.
 
cho_pilo said:
Experience soon teaches that all desires cannot be satisfied, that they are conflicting, and that some goods must be foregone in order to secure others. Hence the necessity of weighing the relative value of goods, of classifying them, and of ascertaining which of them must be procured at the loss of others. The result is the division of goods into two great classes, the physical and the moral, happiness and virtue[citation needed]. Within either class it is comparatively easy to determine the relation of particular good things to one another, but it has proved far more difficult to fix the relative excellence of the two classes of virtue and happiness
Click to expand...
This is pure Kant. And if you ask me, it is inimical to the Faith and to morals (even considered from an atheistic perspective).

The Summum Bonum, from a Christian perspective, is God, not “the good human beings can achieve in this life”. We believe, however, that with the grace of God, that transforms us from within, we are able to partake of the Divine Nature, and thus in a sense to possess the Summum Bonum, to possess God (in a finite way).

The happiness possible in this life, also called natural good, though a good thing and a means to achieve the supernatural good that is our true end, is not, for us, the Summum Bonum.

Now, an atheist would disagree with this. For him the Summum Bonum is the happiness possible in this life (and I would agree with him that it is a very substantial happiness; though I think the life of Faith enhances even that!), which is acquired through the virtues. Who is the virtuous man? He who achieves the goods possible to mankind in the best possible way. In other words, the truly happy man (and not one who, even though might delude himself and call himself happy, leads a life of lesser goods, for instance, of physical pleasure unrelated to reason).

What Kant does is to separate goodness from happiness. This has been the single most destructive notion in the whole history of ethics. It is because of Kant that virtue is seen as torture or as boring; and happiness is seen as immoral. To picture the good man as the miserable man is an utter degradation of human nature. It is not, by the way, what Christianity traditionally taught (though even Christianity has been, sadly, somewhat influenced by Kant).
 
Joel_PF said:
This is pure Kant. And if you ask me, it is inimical to the Faith and to morals (even considered from an atheistic perspective).

The Summum Bonum, from a Christian perspective, is God, not “the good human beings can achieve in this life”. We believe, however, that with the grace of God, that transforms us from within, we are able to partake of the Divine Nature, and thus in a sense to possess the Summum Bonum, to possess God (in a finite way).

The happiness possible in this life, also called natural good, though a good thing and a means to achieve the supernatural good that is our true end, is not, for us, the Summum Bonum.

Now, an atheist would disagree with this. For him the Summum Bonum is the happiness possible in this life (and I would agree with him that it is a very substantial happiness; though I think the life of Faith enhances even that!), which is acquired through the virtues. Who is the virtuous man? He who achieves the goods possible to mankind in the best possible way. In other words, the truly happy man (and not one who, even though might delude himself and call himself happy, leads a life of lesser goods, for instance, of physical pleasure unrelated to reason).

What Kant does is to separate goodness from happiness. This has been the single most destructive notion in the whole history of ethics. It is because of Kant that virtue is seen as torture or as boring; and happiness is seen as immoral. To picture the good man as the miserable man is an utter degradation of human nature. It is not, by the way, what Christianity traditionally taught (though even Christianity has been, sadly, somewhat influenced by Kant).
Click to expand...
👍 GOOD JOB!

@ cho pilo: This link may actually help on the possible criticisms you will find highlighting “Summum Bonum.” You will face many weak challenges along the way, a lot of people don’t get ontology, nor phenomenology, and they tend to place them as contrasting views of reality. I am not talking about some post modernistic garbage, but rather from a view of a mystic, "Reality is a mystery. We all are individual unique mysteries. It isn’t about figuring things out, but rather communicating from our “summum bonum.”

Flaws in Kant’s Supposed Refutation of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God:
hurtingchristian.org/PastorsSite/otherareas/kantdiscussion.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top