TO THE SAME
HOW SUBSTANCES CAN BE GOOD IN
VIRTUE OF THEIR EXISTENCE
You ask me to
state and explain somewhat more clearly that obscure question in my Hebdomads1concerning the manner in which substances can be good in virtue of
existence without being absolute goods.2
You urge that this demonstration is necessary because the method of this kind
of treatise is not clear to all. I can bear witness with what eagerness you
have already attacked the subject. But I confess I like to expound my Hebdomads
to myself, and would rather bury my speculations in my own memory than
share them with any of those pert and frivolous persons who will not tolerate
an argument unless it is made amusing. Wherefore do not you take objection to
the obscurity that waits on brevity; for obscurity is the sure treasure-house
of secret doctrine and has the further advantage that it speaks
I. A common conception is a statement generally accepted as soon as it is made. Of these there are two kinds. One is universally intelligible; as, for instance, "if equals be taken from equals the remainders are equal." Nobody who grasps that proposition will deny it. The other kind is intelligible only to the learned, but it is derived from the same class of common conceptions; as " Incorporeals cannot occupy space," and the like. This is obvious to the learned but not to the common herd.
II. Being and the thing that is4are different. Simple Being awaits manifestation, but a thing is and exists5 as soon as it has received the form which gives it Being.
III. A thing that exists can participate in something else; but absolute Being can in no wise participate in anything. For participation is effected when a thing already is; but it is something after it has acquired Being.
IV. That which exists can possess, something besides itself. But absolute Being has no admixture of aught besides Itself
V. Merely to be something and to be something absolutely are different; the former implies accidents, the latter connotes a substance.
VI. Everything that is participates in absolute Being6 through the fact that it exists. In order to be something it participates in something else. Hence that which exists participates in absolute Being through the fact that it exists, but it exists in order to participate in something else.
VII. Every simple thing possesses as a unity its absolute and its particular Being.
VIII. In every composite thing absolute and individual Being are not one and the same.
IX. Diversity repels; likeness attracts. That which seeks something outside itself is demonstrably of the same nature as that which it seeks.
These preliminaries are enough then for our purpose. The intelligent interpreter of the discussion will supply the arguments appropriate to each point.
Now the problem is this. Things which are, are good.
For all the learned are agreed that every existing thing tends to good and
everything tends to its like. Therefore things which tend to good are good. We
must, however, inquire how they are good - by participation or by substance. If
by participation, they are in no wise good in themselves; for a thing which is
white by participation in whiteness is not white in itself by virtue of
absolute Being. So with all other qualities. If then they are good by
participation, they are not good in themselves; therefore they do not tend to
good. But we have agreed that they do. Therefore they are good not by
participation but by substance.
This problem admits of the
following solution.8
There are many things which can be separated by a mental process, though they
cannot be separated in fact. No one, for instance, can actually separate a
triangle or other mathematical figure from the underlying matter; but mentally
one can consider a triangle and its properties apart from matter. Let us,
therefore, abstract mentally for a moment the presence of the Prime Good, whose
Being is admitted by the universal consensus of learned and unlearned opinion
and can be deduced from the religious beliefs of savage races. The Prime Good
having been thus for a moment abstracted, let us postulate as good all things
that are, and let us consider how they could possibly be good if they did not
derive
Thereby the problem is solved. For though things be good
through the fact that they exist they are not like the Prime Good, for the
simple reason that their absolute Being is not good under all circumstances,
but that things can have no absolute Being unless it derive from the Prime
Being, that is, the Prime Good; their substance, therefore, is good, and yet it
is not like that from which it comes. For the Prime Good is good through the
fact that it exists, irrespective of all conditions, for it is nothing else
than good; but the second good if it derived from any other source might be
good, but could not be good through the fact that it exists. For in that case
it might possibly participate in good, but their substantial Being, not
deriving from the Prime Good, could not have the element of good. Therefore when
we have mentally abstracted the Prime Good, these things, though they might be
good, would not be good through the fact that they exist, and since they could
not actually exist unless the true good had produced them, therefore their
Being is good, and yet that which springs from the substantial Good is not like
its source which produces it. And unless they had derived from it, though they were good yet they could not be good
through the fact that they exist because they were apart from good and not derived
from good, since that very good is the Prime Good and is substantial Being and
substantial Good and essential Goodness. But we need not say that white things
are white through the fact that they exist; for they drew their existence from
the will of God but not their whiteness. For to be is one thing; to be white is
another; and that because He who gave them Being is good, but not white. It is
therefore in accord
1 Similarly Porphyry divided the works of Plotinus into six Enneades or groups of nine.
2 Cf. discussion of the nature of good in Cons. iii. m. 10 and pr. 11 (infra pp. 274 ff.).
3 On this mathematical method of exposition cf. Cons. iii. pr. 10 (infra p. 270).
4 Esse
= Aristotle's
5 Consistere
=
6 Id quod
est esse =
7 Cf. the similar reductio ad absurdum in Tr. 5 (infra, p. 98) and in Cons. v. pr. 3 (infra, p. 374).
8 Vide supra, p. 6, n. b.