Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Calling the One 'Good' imports teleological relativity—goodness is relational (good *for* something), while the One is absolute.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
'Good' need not be relational; absolute goodness could mean the One is the source/standard of all value, not dependent on external reference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Calling the One 'good' may be metaphysically innocent—a regulative ideal pointing beyond language rather than a literal predicate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Rejecting 'good' altogether creates the problem: if the One is not good, why posit it as the ultimate principle worth contemplating?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Relational predicates (good-for, hot-for) require a reference frame; absolute transcendence excludes such frames by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the One is truly beyond being, attributing functional properties (even 'good') reintroduces dependence on external benefit or purpose.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Neoplatonic henology consistently denies predicative language of the One; 'good' as a predicate violates apophatic principle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.