PROPOSITION XCIX.

There is this difference between the two Transcendental attributes of Truth and Goodness; that the former essentially includes in its concept conformability to the intellect, while the latter does not include in its essential concept conformability to Desire.

This Proposition is a simple Corollary from the preceding; and, therefore, stands in need of declaration rather than of proof. It has been inserted by way of answer to the argument, adduced at the commencement of the last Thesis, by which it was intended to demonstrate, in virtue of the assumed parallel between Truth and Goodness, that the Desirable and the Good are identical. The fact is, that the two are not identical, precisely for the reason that the parallel fails, just where it is most needed for the establishment of such identity; and in its place, there is found to be a notable divergence. This divergence arises out of the contrast between the two faculties which respectively embrace the True and the Good, no less than from the different way in which these objects perfect the corresponding faculty. The intellect gathers all things to itself, so as, in a way, by cognition to become all things. The Will or appetite for Good goes forth outside itself; and tends to conjunction with things, in so far forth as they are consonant with it, so as to gather to itself those things that are Good. This is beautifully explained by the Angelic Doctor as follows: 'There is a twofold perfection in all entities; the one belonging to the absolute subsistence of an entity in itself; the other arising out of its order of relation to other entities. . . . It is manifest, then, that cognition appertains to that perfection of the intelligent Being, by which he is perfected in himself; but the will appertains to the perfection of an entity, arising out of its order of relation to other entities.'^{1} This doctrine will be made easier of comprehension, by considering the different way in which the True and the Good perfect the faculties of which they are respectively the object. An entity, as object of the intellect, does not communicate itself or its nature really and entitatively to that faculty, but arouses the faculty to a conformable representation of itself; which representation is the act of the intellect. But this representation is precisely that by which the intellect is perfected; so that the intellect in the truth of its cognition is perfected by itself, something after the same manner as living things grow and perfect themselves on what comes from without by a process of assimilation. But the same entity, (let us say), as object of the will or Desire, does communicate itself or its nature really and entitatively to that faculty, so that the will or Desire is perfected by real conjunction with an object external to it; something after the same manner as a snowball increases by accretion from without. If it were not that the similitude might seem too fanciful, this difference would be said to bear some sort of resemblance to that between endogenous and exogenous plants. St. Thomas calls attention to this contrast in a passage where, -- after showing that Being can be perfective of the intellect, in that it is capable of imparting, as it were, to that faculty an ideal representation of itself, and in that Truth is properly in the intellect, -- he goes on to say, 'Being is perfective of Being other than itself, in another way, viz, by the entity which it has in nature. And this is how the Good is perfective. For Goodness is in entities, as says the Philosopher.'^{2} By way of ending to the declaration of the present Thesis, the reader shall be presented with a passage from the same Doctor, in which the doctrine, here contended for, is most lucidly and completely given. 'As the Good,' he writes, 'stands for that towards which Appetite tends; so the True stands for that towards which the Intellect tends. But there is this difference between Appetite and Intellect, (or concept of whatsoever kind); that a concept exists, accordingly as the object conceived is in the mind of him that conceives; whereas appetition exists, accordingly as the appetent is inclined towards the object of appetition. Hence, the term of appetition, which is the Good, is in the appetible object; while the term of cognition, which is the True, is in the intellect itself. Now, as Goodness is in the object, for that it connotes a relation to the appetite, and as, on this account, the idea of Goodness is translated from the appetible object to the appetite, so that the appetite is pronounced good because of the goodness of its object; in like manner, since Truth is in the intellect, for that this latter is conformed to the object of cognition, the idea of Truth is transferred from the intellect to the object of cognition, so that the object of cognition, even as cognized, is pronounced true, because of the relation which it bears to the intellect.'^{3}

{1} 'In rebus omnibus duplex perfectio invenitur; una qua in se subsistit; alia qua ad res alias ordinatur Patet ergo quod cognitio pertinet ad perfectionem cognoscentis, qua in seipso perfectum est; voluntas autem pertinet ad perfectionem rei, secundum ordinem ad alias res.' In 3, d. xxvii, Q. I, a. 4, c.

{2} 'Alio modo ens est perfectivum alterius, non solum secundum rationem speciei, sed etiam secundum esse quod habet in rerum natura. Et per hunc modum est perfectivum bonum; bonum enim in rebus est, ut Philosophus dicit in 60. Metaphys.' De Verit. Q. xxi, a. e, c. ad fi.

{3} Sicut bonum nominat id in quod tendit appetitus, ita verum nominat id in quod tendit intellectus. Hoc autem distat inter appetitum et intellectum, sive quamcumque cognitionem, quia cognitio est secundum quod cognitum est in cognoscente; appetitus autem est secundum quod appetans inclinatur in ipsam rem appetitam. Et sic terminus appatitus, quod est bonum, est in re appetibili; sed terminus cognitionis, quod est verum, est in ipso intellectu. Sicut autem bonum est in re, in quantum habet ordinem ad appetitum, et propter hoc ratio bonitatis derivatur a re appetibili in appetitum, secundum quod appetitus dicitur bonus, prout est boni; ita, cum verum sit in intellectu, secundum quod conformatur rei intellectae, necesse est quod ratio veri ab intellectu ad rem intellectam derivetur, ut res etiam intellecta vera dicatur, secundum quod habet aliquam ordinem ad intellectum.' 1ae xvi, e, c.