Agree, nicely put. What might be an example of such an absolute good and how might we demonstrate this?

↪Arcane Sandwich
Agree, nicely put. — Tom Storm

Thank you very much Tom Storm, I do indeed know how "to muse", in the verb-sense of the term. As in, I am familiar with the human art of music, which is itself related to the Muses of ancient Greek mythology, as well as the word "museum", literally meaning "the place of the muses". In other words, yes, I'm somewhat familiar with poetry. Not exactly my field, but I did read Tolkien, so that must surely count for something (one would hope).

↪Arcane Sandwich
What might be an example of such an absolute good and how might we demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

Hmmm... Well, Platonic Ideas, if they exist, would be example of such absolute goods. Why is a mere thing, a mere ordinary object, good? Because in that context, relativism is somehow true (though it doesn't have much being, and consequently, it does not have much existence). However, in that very same context, there is a wider context. The real world, for Plato, is something like a subset of a larger world, and it runs parallel to "another subset" in that real world, which is the subset of the "Realm of Ideas". In that realm, "things" (i.e., Platonic Ideas) are good by themselves, that is, they are good in a non-relational way. So why are they good? It's not as if "something makes them good", since they're immaterial (i.e. they're not "made" of something, so nothing "makes" them good). So, why are they good to begin with?

Well... you just said so yourself, in your own mind: because they simply are that way. They just are good, simpliciter.

If anything is said to be good, we can always ask on what grounds is it deemed to be good. If someone claims there is an unconditional good, then you might ask "can that be more than a mere opinion?" or "what grounds do you have for claiming that there is an unconditional good?"

↪Arcane Sandwich
If anything is said to be good, we can always ask on what grounds is it deemed to be good. — Janus

Ah, but you see, that is the "magical" part of Cosmological Platonism: you don't even need ground to begin with, because the Idea of Good (in that system) is identical to the Ground itself. It is "That Which Grounds", in the sense of metaphysical grounding as an Academic discipline.

we can always ask on what grounds is it deemed to be good. — Janus

And the usual retort to that, is that language itself is a game, and since there is no arbiter (i.e., no "referee", if you will), it is an incomplete game.

If someone claims there is an unconditional good, then you might ask "can that be more than a mere opinion?" — Janus

I sincerely do not know, my friend. What would be your honest opinion on such a thesis, if it is indeed a thesis to being with?

"what grounds do you have for claiming that there is an unconditional good?" — Janus

None. That is the whole point of Ground. That is its function: it grounds other things, in a metaphysical sense, and it is not grounded by anything else. Think of it like Aristotle's Primer Mover: it moves other things, and nothing moves it.

Yet Aristotle wrongly assumed that the Prime Mover was diametrically opposed to Pure Matter. He had it, "backwards", if you will.