The Sonum Bonum

[Image_of_God]

I, personally, believe The Sonum Bonum (the Supreme Good) to be God. However, I would ask if some of you believe anything else could be the Sonum Bonum or whether such a thing exists at all. If you believe in good, but not the Sonum Bonum, how is that goodness established?

For me and many others, a thing is good in so far as it partakes in The Sonum Bonum. That is how we can say that one thing is better than another. The better thing partakes more in The Sonum Bonum than a good thing. Am I correct?

Does anyone dispute that God is The Sonum Bonum?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think to philosophically answer that, one would need to carefully and clearly define “good” and “beneficial” in some unambiguous way.

 

[JP2Admirer]

I think you might mean, “summum bonum”?

As far as definitions, Aristotle gives a pretty good one in “the perfection at which things aim.” (Book I Nicomachean Ethics.) Does that work? We could say perfection, limit of being, or fullness of being.

 

[Betterave]

sonum bonum - that’s got a good sound to it!

 

[JP2Admirer]

sonum bonum - that’s got a good sound to it!

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think you might mean, “summum bonum”?

As far as definitions, Aristotle gives a pretty good one in “the perfection at which things aim.” (Book I Nicomachean Ethics.) Does that work? We could say perfection, limit of being, or fullness of being.

Word substitution doesn’t work philosophically (good = perfection).

And to answer the question for myself, I think such a declaration separates the persons of the Trinity a bit.

Son => yes in the way of follow and understand (Lord and Teacher)
Holy Spirit => yes in the way of aspire to (Goal)
Father => N/A

 

[JP2Admirer]

Word substitution doesn’t work philosophically (good = perfection).

And to answer the question for myself, I think such a declaration separates the persons of the Trinity a bit.

Son => yes in the way of follow and understand (Lord and Teacher)
Holy Spirit => yes in the way of aspire to (Goal)
Father => N/A

I’m having a little trouble following you here. Could you elaborate? Perfection is “word substitution”? I guess I don’t see these words as univocal. Good has been described by Thomas and others as “that which is desirable.” Ultimately our perfection (happiness) is what we desire. So I guess I don’t see the meanings as exactly the same.

I don’t understand the Trinitarian analogy.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I have something in this box. I believe the something is very, extremely good, but I don’t want to embarrass myself by showing it to anyone until I am very certain that it is extremely good (and I certainly don’t want to let it out if it isn’t extremely good). So for what should I examine it to assure myself that it really is extremely good having no bad about it at all?

 

[JP2Admirer]

I have something in this box. I believe the something is very, extremely good, but I don’t want to embarrass myself by showing it to anyone until I am very certain that it is extremely good (and I certainly don’t want to let it out if it isn’t extremely good). So for what should I examine it to assure myself that it really is extremely good having no bad about it at all?

What is the nature of the thing you have in the box? What is the purpose for which it exists?

If I want the perfect hot thing, I need the hottest thing there is. If the telos of heat is hotness, then perfect hotness would be absolute heat. That would be the “good” of something with the nature of heat.

For human beings, what is good is “happiness.” To put to rest the Kantian critique of happiness being merely hypothetical we need merely formally define happiness as the “satisfaction of every desire.” Man’s perfection is found in that object which puts his will to rest perfectly. God is that object. Man’s perfection, then, is beatitude.

Furthermore, goodness is not some subjective personal preference as our Nietzschean society would have us believe. Good is the perfection of something in its given purpose. If you are a good sailor, then you are the perfect sailor; you make no mistakes that would corrupt your identity as a sailor. A good sailor “ought” to do what sailors do, and he ought to do it well. A sailors perfection is discoverd in his performing the purpose of his narrative or title well.

So the question becomes, once again, what is the nature of the thing in the box?

 

[James_S_Saint]

So according to your description of the “perfect hot thing”, a young sexy brunette who immutably loves me to the deepest depths of her soul is God? I can’t say that I haven’t taken that perspective at times.

So then for God, those who love Him in similar manner, are *His *God. Teleology can get very interesting.

But according only to your specific description, the exact nature of what is in my box is that of God. So I can now know that it is extremely good? “God-in-a-Box.” :extrahappy:

 

[Image_of_God]

I think to philosophically answer that, one would need to carefully and clearly define “good” and “beneficial” in some unambiguous way.

Like JP2Admirer, I think that “good” is deeply related with purpose and being. A thing is good if it fulfills its purpose and the reason for its being. A good car is one that does what a car is supposed to do. Now, some may make the purpose of a car into a subjective matter, but if we are serious then it will not be.

A thing is beneficial if it contributes to the goodness of something. In other words, something is beneficial if helps something achieve its purpose.

 

[Image_of_God]

I think you might mean, “summum bonum”?

Yes, you are correct. That is the correct spelling. But I don’t know if the one I gave is incorrect. Though less commonly, I have seen it spelled as I have spelled it. Plus, as Betterave says, it sounds good.

sonum bonum - that’s got a good sound to it!

I don’t know how to interpret this. I know that “sonum” is a variation of “sona” which is sound. So I might take your compliment as a play on words.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Like JP2Admirer, I think that “good” is deeply related with purpose and being. A thing is good if it fulfills its purpose and the reason for its being. A good car is one that does what a car is supposed to do. Now, some may make the purpose of a car into a subjective matter, but if we are serious then it will not be.

A thing is beneficial if it contributes to the goodness of something. In other words, something is beneficial if helps something achieve its purpose.

Of course, as the atheists would point out, by that teleology definition, God *determines *purpose and God is also determined BY purpose. Tautological, “circular” definition.

 

[Image_of_God]

So according to your description of the “perfect hot thing”, a young sexy brunette who immutably loves me to the deepest depths of her soul is God? I can’t say that I haven’t taken that perspective at times.

So then for God, those who love Him in similar manner, are *His *God. Teleology can get very interesting.

But according only to your specific description, the exact nature of what is in my box is that of God. So I can now know that it is extremely good? “God-in-a-Box.” :extrahappy:

I might misunderstand, but I think here you are mistaking perfection with God. Because a particular thing is perfect, that does not mean that it is God. Jesus tells this: “Be perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). He is not telling us to be God. He is telling us to be like God. A thing is perfect in so far as it partakes in the Perfection of God. How does a thing partake in God’s perfection? By fulfilling the purpose He has given it.

 

[Image_of_God]

Of course, as the atheists would point out, by that teleology definition, God *determines *purpose and God is also determined BY purpose. Tautological, “circular” definition.

Please clarify. I understand the first part, but I don’t understand what you mean by God is determined by purpose.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Please clarify. I understand the first part, but I don’t understand what you mean by God is determined by purpose.

Hmm…

God gives purpose to creation. God defines and determines what “good” actually means. And how do we know when something is good? When it is what God wants, when it serves God’s purpose.

But then who is God? God is the perfect good. That which determines what “perfect good” means, is the perfect good.

God == the Perfect Good, and
The Perfect Good == God

How is that different than saying;

Reality == All that exists
All that exists == Reality

If you ask someone what it means to exist, they are likely to say, “Something exists if it is real.” And if you ask them, “How do you know if something is real”, they are likely to say, “If something exists, it is real.” So what have they actually told you? Nothing other than the words “real” and “existing” mean the same thing, *whatever *that is.

What they are missing in their answers is any concept that relates their defined words to what doesn’t exist or isn’t real. I offered to resolve that problem by the simple rational declaration that “what is real or exists is what has affect.” This is an issue of rationality and thus purpose and good. The word “affect” has a significant meaning different than merely the words “real” and “exists”. The word “affect” means that something changes. So what I have said is that what exists is what changes something in some way, else it does not exist. You can know what exists by knowing whether it changes anything. You can know if something does not exist, if it does not change anything. How you might know if it changes anything is a separate issue.

So applying that concern to the proposed definition of God, “The Perfect Good”, we have to understand what it means to not be God or not be good with a concept *different *than merely “God” or “good”.

One has proposed that **happiness **is the issue, but that concept is subjective and God isn’t something we think of as subjective. Another proposal was that **purpose **is the concept. If something meets its innate purpose, then it is good and if not then it is not good. But again, we have an issue of subjectivity, “Who’s purpose?” If we say “God’s purpose”, then we have merely become circular again, “God is the good that gives purpose which is defined by whatever good God gives.” Again, it becomes meaningless.

The concept of an absolute, non-subjective, good or purpose helps, but how do we support the idea that there actually is an innate absolute good or purpose? My people can answer that, but I don’t think that yours can.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Hmm…

God gives purpose to creation. God defines and determines what “good” actually means. And how do we know when something is good? When it is what God wants, when it serves God’s purpose.

It is true that God gives purpose to creation, but God does “determine” goodness, God is goodness. Insofar as something is good, it is good because it participates in goodness itself, which is God.

We know something is good if it is desirable. For a wolf, eating the sheep is “good”. For man, virtue as lived through a complete life is his good (i.e. definition of happiness.) This leads to what Aquinas calls “imperfect happiness” that which cannot exclude all misfortune because it is ‘natural happiness.’

But then who is God? God is the perfect good. That which determines what “perfect good” means, is the perfect good.

God gives things their nature, so He in a sense determines what the good is. Nonetheless, He is goodness itself. God is pure act and so nothing is lacking to Him. It has nothing to do with “determining” at least as it regards God’s essence.

What they are missing in their answers is any concept that relates their defined words to what doesn’t exist or isn’t real. I offered to resolve that problem by the simple rational declaration that “what is real or exists is what has affect.” This is an issue of rationality and thus purpose and good. The word “affect” has a significant meaning different than merely the words “real” and “exists”. The word “affect” means that something changes. So what I have said is that what exists is what changes something in some way, else it does not exist. You can know what exists by knowing whether it changes anything. You can know if something does not exist, if it does not change anything. How you might know if it changes anything is a separate issue.

This sounds pretty close to Nietzsche’s ‘metaphysic’ in that it sounds as though you are proposing a haphazard burgeoning; where change is the foundation of reality. My problem with that is that as human beings we can formulate intelligible concepts that are unchanging. In Plato’s lingo, the Forms. I can form the concept “Man” to which you immediately grasp my meaning. If the foundation of reality were change, then intelligibility would be impossible – we’re on the brink of nominalism. It seems far fetched to think that if change were the 1st principle of existence, there would be any even semblence of essences in reality. It seems that there wouldn’t even be the perception of nature’s as we understand them.

Of course, it is quite possible that the human mind is composed in such a way that it seeks to create order where there is only chaos. In my opinion, that suggests there is rational order to reality, and thus change cannot be the fundamental aspect of reality. Furthermore, if change were the foundation of reality, I don’t think nature would conform to our rational standards. That is, physics would be an impossible science because our minds would be seeking order where there is none; planes wouldn’t fly and boats wouldn’t float if that order were merely in our minds.

Being is the foundation of all reality – being is the act of each thing. In a sense, being is activity rather than change. Something exists because it has act; it is determined in some way. Things exists as habens esse, God exists as esse subsistens. Aristotle had the metaphysical principles of act and potency; Aquinas deepened that with being and essence. There is a sense in which “all is change” and that is in virtue existing in matter. Matter is pure potency, and so it changes, but its determination is its act or essence.

So I guess I’d ask, how would you explain that things actually are intelligible? How would you explain that nature has what seem to be law like generalizations or rational order? (I ask not merely as critic, but as someone who has been intrigued by the Nietzschean schema – my problem is nature seems to be intelligible.)

 

[JP2Admirer]

One has proposed that **happiness **is the issue, but that concept is subjective and God isn’t something we think of as subjective. Another proposal was that **purpose **is the concept. If something meets its innate purpose, then it is good and if not then it is not good. But again, we have an issue of subjectivity, “Who’s purpose?” If we say “God’s purpose”, then we have merely become circular again, “God is the good that gives purpose which is defined by whatever good God gives.” Again, it becomes meaningless.

The concept of an absolute, non-subjective, good or purpose helps, but how do we support the idea that there actually is an innate absolute good or purpose? My people can answer that, but I don’t think that yours can.

I have to take issue with the concept of good as subjective. Again, this sound’s very Nietzsche like.

If things do in fact have a nature, then that nature or essence determines their purpose. Are you a dog? Then your nature is such that you should eat dog food, mate with other dogs, rest as needed, etc. To be a “perfect” dog you need good health and do all the things that pertain to something with an imperfect will.

Again, good is not subjective based on the nature of a thing. If I am going to call someone a good truck driver, then he ought to be a truck driver and do what truck drivers do. He ought to do it well. There are most definitely criteria that someone would have to meet in order to be called “good” at truck driving. Are we going to reach absolute certainty – like a mathematical equation – about what precisely good truck drivers are? Well, no, because we are in the realm of contingent actions. Nonetheless there will be a general outline about what a good truck driver does.

Let me support the idea that there is an absolute good. Do you desire a myriad of things? Does your desire for things seem to be limitless? Once you’ve got the pretty brunette, (that is your nature that drives you to that, btw), then you want the house, children, cars, tv’s, etc. This infinite desire at the very least suggests that there is something out there that will completely satisfy your will. Why would we have this desire if it were vain? If there were not some “Summum bonum?”

As far as non subjective good, it comes down to understanding God as an object before understanding Him as “the good for this individual.” As an object, He is esse subsistens, i.e. containing all things in Himself, beyond all genera because that would limit His being. He is Who is. The sameness in difference to which all analogy is insufficient. Because He is the act of all things, He contains them all imminently. As such, our subjective wills are lulled by vision of His essence because He is the source and summit of all existence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Let me support the idea that there is an absolute good. Do you desire a myriad of things? Does your desire for things seem to be limitless? Once you’ve got the pretty brunette, (that is your nature that drives you to that, btw), then you want the house, children, cars, tv’s, etc. This infinite desire at the very least suggests that there is something out there that will completely satisfy your will. Why would we have this desire if it were vain? If there were not some “Summum bonum?”

As far as non subjective good, it comes down to understanding God as an object before understanding Him as “the good for this individual.” As an object, He is esse subsistens, i.e. containing all things in Himself, beyond all genera because that would limit His being. He is Who is. The sameness in difference to which all analogy is insufficient. Because He is the act of all things, He contains them all imminently. As such, our subjective wills are lulled by vision of His essence because He is the source and summit of all existence.

As properly defining words with their concepts has been my ONLY issue, I find that part of your post as the only relevant part. But I don’t see much support for an “objective good”.

You say that because it is my nature to desire things and that list of things is infinite (which it isn’t), I should somehow accept that to mean that there must be an objective good. Frankly, I don’t see any relation.

In addition, “the source of all existence” doesn’t seem particularly lulling or appealing to me as a goal or “object” of desire. What is attractive about “the source of all existence”? Do you find women pining and longing for such? And what would that really have to do with an “objective good”? It seems to me that it would be merely a given and not particularly interesting other than in an intellectual way.

??

 

[JP2Admirer]

Yes, you are correct. That is the correct spelling. But I don’t know if the one I gave is incorrect. Though less commonly, I have seen it spelled as I have spelled it. Plus, as Betterave says, it sounds good.

I don’t know how to interpret this. I know that “sonum” is a variation of “sona” which is sound. So I might take your compliment as a play on words.

Image of God,

I didn’t mean to insult you by correcting you, so I hope you didn’t take it that way. Heaven knows my Latin isn’t that great.

“Sonum” is the accusative singular of “sonus” which means, “sound.” So the play on words was that “sonum bonum” literally means, “good sound.”

I’d be interested to see where you encountered “sonum bonum” as you’ve now got me wondering?