In defining the “privation of good” definition of evil, I used Thomas Aquinas’ formulation that “all things, insofar as they exist, are good.” Then I was challenged to defend it. Never thought it needed defending before, so I’m at a loss.
From philosophy, and without divine revelation, how do we get to the point that existence is a good?
If one applies the ‘normal’ sense of existent, Aquinas statement makes no sense- some one might say “Here is some pornography. It exists, and therefore it is good. But consider perfect justice- it doesn’t exists, and therefore it is bad.”
Heidegger argues that existence is undefinable. We cannot say what existence “is” with out already understanding what “is” is.
If existence is understood as being a ‘thing’ in the world of time and matter- existence is not good, it is a limitation.
If existence is undersood as something else, then the distinction between existence and non-existence really do not make much sense- since whatever could be thought of as a quality of the existent, could also be thought of as a limitation.
Which exists ‘more’- a lump of matter, or the idea of beauty? In one sense (the ‘normal’ sense) the lump of matter exists. But in another, the idea of beauty is eternal, perfect, etc. so therefore it exists ‘more’.
In the ‘normal’ sense, there is nothing necessarily good about existence. In the Platonic sense, there is.
I think we need another philosophical term for the type of ‘existence’ Aquinas was referring to. One which is not definable or attached to any predicates- how about “God”?
