Proof existence is good

[Neoplatonist]

Man, this thread is more fun than sprinkles on donuts. Just sayin.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Well, I’d approach the question: Is existence good? from this way -

(I) Goodness is a property of some action, thing or state of being;
(II) Since goodness is a property, it cannot inhere to non-existence, since non-existence is the absence of all properties;
(III) Consequently, non-existence cannot be good.

Now, this obviously doesn’t prove that existence is good, but seems to show that its contrary cannot be good.

The reason I bring this up is because oftentimes people say something like, “It would be better not to exist”, which is nonsensical.

To actually ask if existence is good, I think you need to define “good” more specifically or else it could be used ambiguously, which is not very helpful.

Is “good” used in the sense of an action (that is, living well or creation of things), a thing (good in itself), or state of being (living or being as good).

I don’t think this works, because you could say that evil is the property of some action, thing, or state of being, and reach the opposite conclusion that non-existence can’t be evil. And since evil is the opposite of good, non-existence would be good.

Not that I actually think evil is an entity, but from this reasoning you can’t deny that it is.

 

[oldcelt]

I have always felt that existence (being)is, of itself, neutral, neither bed or good. The degree of worth is related to how each human uses their personal existence. If you just lay around day after day, I can’t see that as very good. I take that from personal experience resulting from psoriatic arthritis. At the peak when I was barely able to care for my most basic needs, that was definitely not good.

Before that I spent much of my time researching and hiking historic sites and performing archaeological work in our nearby National Forest. That was very good for me. I was also very active in community affairs.

I will never be able to do those things to the level I once did…and while that would seem to be bad, each improvement in my condition is a very good thing. Regaining something you’ve lost is one of the great goods to me.

So, existence in and of itself is neutral. The rest is pretty much up to us. For now, I choose to be happy with what I have and hopeful for the future.

John

 

[tonyrey]

I have always felt that existence (being)is, of itself, neutral, neither bed or good. The degree of worth is related to how each human uses their personal existence. If you just lay around day after day, I can’t see that as very good. I take that from personal experience resulting from psoriatic arthritis. At the peak when I was barely able to care for my most basic needs, that was definitely not good.

Before that I spent much of my time researching and hiking historic sites and performing archaeological work in our nearby National Forest. That was very good for me. I was also very active in community affairs.

I will never be able to do those things to the level I once did…and while that would seem to be bad, each improvement in my condition is a very good thing. Regaining something you’ve lost is one of the great goods to me.

So, existence in and of itself is neutral. The rest is pretty much up to us. For now, I choose to be happy with what I have and hopeful for the future.

John

Thomas Nagel, an atheist, pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. At least we can choose to opt out of this life whereas non-existence offers nothing!

Even if we become less physically active there is still plenty of scope to be creative, appreciative and interactive - as on this forum. You are right in your view that we need to be positive because life is largely what we make it. Even our limitations can turn out to be a blessing in disguise:

“Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.” - William Wordsworth

It is worth reading his poem with the forbidding title *Ode on Intimations of Immortality *in which he concludes:

Then sing, ye birds, sing, sing a joyous song!
And let the young lambs bound
As to the tabor’s sound! 175
We in thought will join your throng,
Ye that pipe and ye that play,
Ye that through your hearts to-day
Feel the gladness of the May!
What though the radiance which was once so bright 180
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind; 185
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death, 190
In years that bring the philosophic mind.

And O ye Fountains, Meadows, Hills, and Groves,
Forebode not any severing of our loves!
Yet in my heart of hearts I feel your might;
I only have relinquish’d one delight 195
To live beneath your more habitual sway.
I love the brooks which down their channels fret,
Even more than when I tripp’d lightly as they;
The innocent brightness of a new-born Day
Is lovely yet; 200
The clouds that gather round the setting sun
Do take a sober colouring from an eye
That hath kept watch o’er man’s mortality;
Another race hath been, and other palms are won.
Thanks to the human heart by which we live, 205
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

I read that poem years before I knew what “philosophy” meant!

 

[polytropos]

Aquinas means that perfection consists in something achieving the purpose its designed for. Using the tree example, a tree in its very nature is designed to have branches. It reaches “perfection” or is completely actualized when its branches have leaves on a warm summer day.

Right.

If this gets extended to existence, we can see that only things in existence can be perfected upon by attaining their ultimate goals. Nonexistent things can’t attain any perfections because they can’t have any goals or any purpose. And something without *any *perfections at all lacks any good that there is, because good is what makes up perfections; without perfections there isn’t any good to be achieved. On the flip side, existence is good because anything that exists can attain some sort of perfection to which it is directed.

I don’t know if I would extend it to existence in this way. I am suggesting that, generally, when a Thomist says existence is a perfection, he does not mean that the fact that x is a real thing in the world is of itself constitutive of the good. Rather, he is using “existence” as an analog of “being” or “actuality.”

I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to say, for instance, “The raccoon that is not outside is not very good.” There isn’t a raccoon outside. Say, though, that you have two raccoons, identical in all respects except that one is ill and the other is not. The “illness” of the one raccoon is a consequence of its being infected, and as such is a “positive” addition to the raccoon, ie. its illness is a consequence of some virus, say, existing in that raccoon that does not exist in the other. (Its immune system is, let’s say, also more active, since it is trying to overcome its sickness.)

But the healthy raccoon is still the one that “exists” more. We have posited that the sick raccoon has additional viruses floating around its body and that its body is more active as a consequence of its immune response, but it “exists” less in the respect that it less perfectly instantiates its form.

For that reason, I would personally avoid using the term existence in this context. I would use being or actuality. Further, this is why something like Descartes’ ontological argument, which premises that existence is a perfection, doesn’t work. I think that is an equivocal use of existence. To exist rather than not to exist is not a perfection. To exist as a better instantiation of one’s form is a perfection. (Here is an interesting, though dense, article on some related issues.) Most would probably attribute the same failure to Anselm’s ontological argument, although I don’t think that Anselm’s ontological argument actually posits that existence is a perfection in the sense that Descartes’ does. (Though I think that Anselm’s argument fails for other reasons.)

 

[oldcelt]

Thomas Nagel, an atheist, pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities. At least we can choose to opt out of this life whereas non-existence offers nothing!

Even if we become less physically active there is still plenty of scope to be creative, appreciative and interactive - as on this forum. You are right in your view that we need to be positive because life is largely what we make it. Even our limitations can turn out to be a blessing in disguise:

“Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.” - William Wordsworth

It is worth reading his poem with the forbidding title *Ode on Intimations of Immortality *in which he concludes:

I read that poem years before I knew what “philosophy” meant!

Yes, I continue to write as much as my condition will allow. Hopefully I’ll have a new book shortly after I complete the conversion to digital of an older published work. Needless to say, I count myself as very fortunate to have a computer and other modern tools.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I don’t think this works, because you could say that evil is the property of some action, thing, or state of being, and reach the opposite conclusion that non-existence can’t be evil. And since evil is the opposite of good, non-existence would be good.

Not that I actually think evil is an entity, but from this reasoning you can’t deny that it is.

I agree, Cross of Christ, and that’s why I’ve said that the argument doesn’t demonstrate that goodness is a property of existence, only that goodness cannot be a property of non-existence, since the latter has no properties.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I continue to write as much as my condition will allow. Hopefully I’ll have a new book shortly after I complete the conversion to digital of an older published work. Needless to say, I count myself as very fortunate to have a computer and other modern tools.

Not so long ago I had to retype entire pages when I changed my mind or discovered several mistakes. :sad_yes: