Thank you for the clarification. Yes, God does define and determine what good is, but it’s not that simple because, just like JP2Admirer said, God is the good. God does define the good, but not in the same way that a teacher defines an algebraic term. God and the good are not two separate entities. They are one.
You are right here.
I understand now.
But is happiness really subjective? I can understand if you interpret it as a feeling. But what if happiness is not only a feeling? What if it’s something like “beatitude”?
How would you answer it?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.
No, I did not think you insulted me. I was just confused on whether it actually sounded good or you were playing on the words (I thought it did anyway
).Yet, nonetheless, you always want something that is good (or at least appears that way). It is impossible for people to desire evil for its own sake. If you desire a brunette, you want her because you think she is good or will provide some good to you. That is what I think JP2Admirer means when he says that good is desirable. What is evil to you will never be desirable. I think this is an objective fact. If you can dispute it, give me an example of someone who wants something that they do not think to be desirable (good). As St. Thomas Aquinas says “Everything is good so far as it is desirable”. But do we really desire anything? Or are there certain things it was we desire that we are really desiring?
I made a few mistakes in this post. The first bolded should be “But do we really desire just anything? Or are there certain principles in what we desire that we are really desiring?” The second bolded “cannot” should be “can”.
The medievals used to say that “nature does nothing in vain.” There indeed may be no relation between seeking an objective good and one actually existing. Nonetheless, I choose to accept that there is an objective good based on other deliberations (i.e. Aquinas’ five ways). (Also, when I say ‘objective good’ I do not mean there is one law or way to act in all ethical situations, I simply mean there is an object that is the satisfaction of every desire; there is perfection.)
Aquinas describes things with essences as “quasi habens esse” as if a possesor of being, and God as “esse subsistens”). God, then is the act of every creature, who by the way have their own natures which distinguishes them from God. Now God as being the act and existence of all things and the perfection of all things, is then the fullness of being of all things.Even with the existence of a objective good, happiness must always be subjective. The “good” is what brings the happiness, it is not the happiness itself.
Again, a purpose must always be subjective even if with objective supreme good. To have a goal, there must be a pursuer. The purpose of something is to assist the pursuer in reaching his goal. Even if everyone’s goal is the same, the “purpose” of anything is still determined by the fact that it serves a pursuer, the subject, and thus is actually subjective regardless of the existence of an objective good.
There is still far too much distance between the understanding and the faith to attempt that one.
That is merely due to the way the words are defined. “Good” MEANS “something desired” in this context. The question is whether a “thing” can be desirable regardless of any subject. The implication of an objective good is that all people would desire it regardless of their opinions or feelings on the matter. That would seem, certainly to the atheist as an irrational proposition.
I only want for one thing and in obtaining that one thing, I would be completely satisfied, yet still living.
Nonetheless, happiness is good. What exactly brings happiness* might* be subjective, but happiness itself is not a subjective matter, otherwise how could I know what you’re talking about when you refer to it. It must be objective.
Is the purpose (or the purposes) subject to the wants of the pursuer? A purpose is integral to a thing. I would argue that purpose is intimately tied to a thing’s essence and being. Unless the pursuer can essentially change the thing, I think the purpose(s) that a thing exists for does not change. If purpose is merely subjective then the misuse and abuse of things becomes impossible because misuse and abuse are merely subjective concepts. Everything becomes relative and no ethical system can exist solidly. It could then be said that authority cannot be abused because its purpose is whatever the person wielding it wants it to be. Of course, there is one thing we know: If all things are relative, then at least one thing isn’t.
Of what kind?There is still far too much distance between the understanding and the faith to attempt that one.
Is it? We desire a lot of things, we get them, and we still desire more. We desire because we want to possess something. Yet we never possess what we want because if we did we would stop desiring. Therefore, it seems completely rational to propose an objective good that would fulfill all our desires. After all, every human has something in common: there desires are never fulfilled.
I don’t understand this statement. You don’t have to be dead to be completely satisfied. Action is the desire for the Summum Bonum; contemplation is the possession of it. When you obtain that one thing your contemplation and action will be one.I only want for one thing and in obtaining that one thing, I would be completely satisfied, yet still living.
The word and concept of happiness is certainly objective. that is not in dispute by anyone (save perhaps the solipsist who argues with anything). but the concept of a unicorn is also objective, but that has nothing to do with the objectivity of the unicorn itself.
But that is what you are trying to establish. Merely stating it doesn’t mean anything. How do you support that notion?
I recently allowed a homeless woman to live out of my car. Is that the purpose of cars? It was my purpose for that period. What the auto manufacturer built the car for, is another issue. He built to make money by trading it. Is that the purpose for cars? The person who actually put the pieces together had another purpose. The car served his need for a job. Is that the purpose for cars? The list could on endlessly. The idea is that an automobile was intended to serve a particular purpose in general for its owner. But to declare that such a purpose is THE purpose is like declaring that all REAL men are exactly 6 feet tall with brown hair and white skin. The general truth has little to do with the real truth and is certainly not a “superior” concept merely due to being more general.
Then it is important to get the understanding and proof of objective good down and published, huh. Stating that it is real does nothing.
“Who’s ‘we’, Paleface?”
That would be the one.
The unicorn is only a concept. There’s nothing else to it. It does not exist and is therefore is not objective, but the concept does.
A car from the beginning of its existence has set purposes. If the purpose changes, then the car itself must change. The purpose is not subject to the owner, but is integral to the car. If it were not then the owner would always use the car the right way. We know that’s not the case however.
I didn’t say that a car had only one purpose. It could have more than one. But those purposes are not infinite. Otherwise, misuse becomes impossible. How do I know that I’m not supposed to eat a computer keyboard for lunch? Would you agree that to eat a computer keyboard is an abuse? A violation of its purpose? If that homeless woman had decided to jump on your car like a trampoline; you would see nothing wrong with that? There’s nothing wrong with taking Tylenol because it’s fun to eat?
I stated that something is good when it fulfills its purpose. I stated also that purpose is essential to a thing. It does not change from person to person. But I’m asking you about misuse. If purpose is simply subjective then nothing could every misused. Do you agree that nothing can be misused? I think this is a difficult question you have to answer if you wish to propose your argument.
We is merely inclusive first person.“Who’s ‘we’, Paleface?”
Contemplation is like holding something in the hands of your soul. It’s more than holding it with your bodily hands.But I don’t understand your statement that contemplation is the possession of it…?
I think you will have a really hard time selling that one. Obviously You think in terms of “proper use”. But I think you are not seeing that such is not an innate quality, but rather an assigned and accepted pseudo-property, not that it shouldn’t be.
I think you are conflating “misuse”, “abuse”, “harmful”, and “damage”. If a person truly owns a pencil, he can use that pencil to adjust the leg of his desk temporarily without “abusing the pencil” or even “misusing the pencil”. That is why we call it “owning” so as to make it clear that he can do with it as he sees fit within the boundaries of other laws.
But I hardly consider that being in “possession” of it. My first visit to Heaven was something I could never forget or leave undesired, but that doesn’t mean that I am in possession of what got me there nor any longer in possession of being there, yet contemplation of it has never left me since.
No, it is probably the idea above that will have trouble being sold. There will be difficulty getting rational people to believe that a car can be used for anything.
So you admit that there is a such thing as misuse?
This isn’t correct, because if it were subjective then he wouldn’t be really misusing it.
I knew it would be difficult speaking of supernatural concepts to a logician.
Have you ever heard the expression, “Think out of the box”? You are expressing the exact impetus for that expression. I don’t need to sell the idea. It is already being sold throughout the world.
If there is only one logician on the planet to talk to about the supernatural, you would be talking to him.I knew it would be difficult speaking of supernatural concepts to a logician.
I think our thoughts are more similar than we think. But I don’t entirely agree that intended purposes are made for control.
True, some of the supernatural is logical. But a great much of it is intuitive. An even great scope is beyond the reach of the human intellect.If there is only one logician on the planet to talk to about the supernatural, you would be talking to him.