Introduction to Philosophy & Logic (1999)
25. Logic of the Second Act: Distinctions, Division, and the Statement
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/1-philosophy-1999/025-logic-of-the-second-act-distinctions-division-and-the-statement/

[0:00] you have to be the following week, okay? So that'd be the first. Yeah, Yeah. Okay. Let me give you the text here and statement here, which is the easiest part of of logic here about statements,

[0:27] Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. So we'll start with this mistake when I come back then. Okay. Okay. God our enlightenment. guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas angelic doctor, Pray for us and help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

[1:20] So logic is the art that perfects three acts of reason: understanding what a thing is, understanding the true or the false, right, and then reasoning.

[1:38] But more precisely, you might say that it's about the tools, right, that perfect these three acts. So definition of what a thing is is the chief tool perfecting understanding what a thing is, and statement is the tool that's necessary to understand the true or the false, and the syllogism and the lesser kinds of arguments are the tools for reasoning. So we just finished the consideration of definition,

[2:15] but to consideration of definition, you have attached the consideration of division, right? Okay. And in a way, in a definition, there is a what? Division, right? But there can be a division without a what? Definition. So division, in some way, is more universal than definition. So the division of a composed whole into its parts, and the division of a universal whole into its parts, of the genus into species, those two divisions are not definitions, right?

[2:57] But when a man defines square and the way he breaks apart, you might say square into equilateral and right angle and quadrilateral, was kind of a division, there, right? But there are at least two kinds of division that are not at all a definition, and they're very important, right, for thinking and every reasoned-out knowledge, and that is dividing an integral whole, a composed one, to its parts, right, and then dividing the universal whole into its parts, and the main kind of division of that sort is that of a genus into its species, then.

[3:36] So we'll be dividing, for example, statement into noun and verb, which is a division of a composed whole into its parts, right? And we'll be dividing statement into affirmation, negation, which is a genus into its species. We're also going to be defining statement, which is in a sense breaking it apart, right?

[4:03] Now, I think the word distinction too we could bring in here, right? Because distinction is even more universal than division. Every division is a distinction, but not every distinction is a what? Division. Division, yeah. In the strict sense of the word, division. Division is a distinction of the parts of some whole, right? It may be a composed whole, it may be a universal whole, but something that has the aspect of a whole and parts. A distinction.

[4:39] There are distinctions that are not distinctions in the strict sense of parts of a whole. And I could perhaps just mention the three most important such distinctions.

[4:58] One that we've talked about is very important is the distinction of the senses of a word. Strictly speaking, the word is not a whole. It's not put together from its parts, right? Although it somewhat resembles the universal whole because it's said of its parts, right? Okay. But if it has many meanings, it's not said with one meaning of them, like the genus is said with one meaning of the species.

[5:27] So distinction of a word, or distinction of the senses, you could say, or the meanings of a word, is one kind of distinction that's extremely important in philosophy. In this art about statements, you'll see, for example, that we are distinguishing three meanings of the word "true," corresponding to three kinds of statements.

[5:56] When we talked about the categories, the word "being," the word "thing," was distinguished into a number of meanings. Now, there's two other kinds of distinction that are very common, and one is the distinction between the per se, the through itself, and the through another, right? Or the distinction between the through itself and the through happening, or by happening.

[6:29] That distinction comes up all the time. Very basic. You think about the good, for example, right? When we first define the good, we say the good is what all desire. And then

[7:02] people say, "Well, how can you say that? Sometimes people desire bad things, right? Okay, like someone wants to rob the bank, right? But does he desire the bad because it is bad? Because he desires to rob the bank because it's unjust to rob the bank? Because it's taking what is not your own? Is that why he robs the bank? No, he desires to rob the bank because it increases the money in his pocketbook, right?

[7:40] Does the kid who drives his car, you know, too fast? Does he want to what? Yeah, wreck his car or something, right? No. But this appears to be a way of having a good time, right? It's actually the way to have a bad time, right? When someone says to you at the party, "Do you want another drink?" and you say yes, and after you consume this last drink, you don't feel too good, and you have to excuse yourself.

[8:10] Did you want to drink something that's going to make you sick to your stomach? No, but that drink seemed to be what a way of continuing the good time or increasing the good time It was actually a way of ending the good time. So you didn't desire it insofar as it was what bad, but you desired the good as such, not the bad as such. So that distinction can be very important.

[8:41] Say, in an example you can say, if the house builder plays the piano in his spare time, you can say a pianist built my house, right? But the pianist, who being a pianist built my house, no, that was accidental, right? It wasn't as such; it wasn't as pianist he built the house, but as house builder he did.

[9:13] Can sick become healthy? Can the sick be healthy? That would be a contradiction, right? So if the sick cannot be healthy, they can't come to be healthy, can they?

[9:31] So if you're sick, you're always going to be sick, right? It's not really the sick as sick that can be healthy, right? It's that to which sickness happens, namely the body, that can be what healthy. So it's the body as such that becomes what healthy, and when the body becomes healthy, there's still a body, right? But if the sick becomes

[10:01] Talked about the predicate accident, right? It belongs to two as such to be half a four, right? It doesn't belong to a triangle as such to be green.

[10:17] It's not per se being a triangle that it's green. See that? So that's a very important kind of distinction: distinction between the per se itself and the per accidens happening. Sometimes you see the Latin "per se" and "per se right? "Kath' hauto in Greek, right? "Kath' symbebekos But sometimes it's translated as "as such" to itself, right? This is a similar distinction; it's not exactly the same. What is per se itself, and what is per aliud?

[10:54] Right. And we're speaking about how some statements are known per se themselves, and other statements are known per aliud other things, right? We say some things are good per se themselves, like the end, and other things are good as a means to something else. The goodness of medicine, in a sense, is per the goodness of health, right? Medicine itself is good, as it tastes good. Now, the other distinction is the distinction between what is said simply and what is said in some qualified, diminished way.

[11:38] Again, give a couple examples of that distinction. Yeah, one example there in the Meno, very difficult example, right? Can you know what you don't know? And

[11:57] someone says, "I don't know the cause of cancer. Does he know what he doesn't know? " What do you say? But in some way, he must know it, right? If a man is being paid to find the cause of cancer, right, to look for the cause of cancer, right, does he know he's looking for it?

[12:21] Yeah, yeah, in some very imperfect way, right? He knows what he doesn't know, right? And that's the problem, you know. The Mino raises, right? How can you and I, Socrates, go looking for what we don't know? Know what we're looking for,

[12:39] but in some way you have to know that, right? It's kind of exchange between Kant and Hegel, right? Kant says we can't know things in themselves, and Hegel is saying, "Why are you talking about them then, for? " Okay.

[13:01] If your little nephew asked you, "Is it good to drink this delicious poison?" Well, just tell him. No, delicious poison is bad to drink, right? But in some very diminished sense, it is good, right? It's good tasting, right?

[13:22] Robbing the bank, in some way, is good, right? Though simply speaking, it's bad. They tell the students most every day we're doing something bad because, in some diminished sense, it is good. Or we're not doing what is good because, in some way, it's bad, right? No matter how good something is, if we've been doing something else that is good, right? So, in some sense, can be considered as bad, right?

[13:54] Now, usually, I've done both. Sometimes I've talked about those three main kinds of distinctions and not divisions in the logic of the first act. But sometimes I leave them for the logic of the third act because there's three most common kinds of mistakes that are made in reasoning. And one comes from mixing up the senses of a word. And another comes from mixing up the per se and the per accidens, the as such and accidental.

[14:25] And the third one is from mixing up what is so simply and what is so in some respect. Meno actually makes that mistake in the dialogue. And Socrates tries to answer him; he makes the same kind of mistake. So it's very striking that both of them make the same kind of mistake. One in trying to answer the other guy's mistake,

[14:52] because Meno's saying you can't know what you don't know. Anyway, right? And therefore, we can't be looking for it, not realizing that what you don't know you can know in some respect, right?

[15:07] Example always given in class there, but in a larger class than this, I'll say, "How many students are in class today? " I don't know, right? But I could direct myself to knowing the number of students in class with the greatest of ease. I know exactly how to get there.

[15:27] And the way I get there is by what? Counting, right? Okay, so then I count the students in class and say that Let's say I get 27. Now, I got to 27 with the greatest of ease, didn't I? I knew exactly how to get there. How did I know how to get to 27 when I didn't know I was looking for 27? Well, in some way, I knew 27, right?

[15:52] Because 27 is the number of students in class today, and I knew I was looking for the number of students in class. So, in some way, I did know 27, didn't I? So there is a kind of mistake that's based on mixing up or not seeing the distinction between what is so simply and what is so in some respect.

[16:20] I usually pick out a girl student and I'll say to her, "Do you know my brother Mark?" And she'll say, "No." She'll say, Now, you all heard what she said. She's going to contract herself a little bit. And I say, "Now, do you know what a man is?" She says, "Yes." What's my brother Mark? Yes. Well, notice in some way you do know every man in the world.

[16:43] You know what a man is, don't you? You know every brother in the world in some way. If you know what a brother is, right? Yet if someone asked you, you know, who's never met this person, right? Haven't heard about them, maybe right? You know, so and so, they'd answer what? Simply, no.

[17:04] And yet, in some way, they do know that person. In some extremely qualified and perfect way, right? Knowing what a man is in some way, know every man in the world.

[17:20] So it's hard sometimes that distinction to understand even the kind of distinction is right. And sometimes I don't take up those three kinds of distinction until I take up the three kinds of mistakes that are based on those overlooking those three kinds of distinctions and not seeing those three kinds of distinctions. But sometimes I do it in the logic of the first act, right? So you could say the logic of the first act is about definition, most of all, but also about division, right?

[17:52] And those divisions that are not definitions, because definition is a way of division, and it's also about distinction, right? And those distinctions that are not divisions in the strict sense, where you don't have a whole in parts, right?

[18:09] Now, one place where you can see in Thomas Aquinas the strict use of the word division, right? A lot of times, Thomas, like we all do, we use the word division in a loose sense or any kind of distinction. But sometimes you'll use the word in the strict sense, where it's a distinction of a whole into its parts, right? Like he's talking about the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

[18:34] There's a real distinction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But Thomas will always deny that you should speak of a what? Division, right? Because that would imply that the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit are in some sense parts. You know, and part always has the idea of something what incomplete, imperfect, and so on, right? So we shouldn't we speak of the division of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

[19:04] I mean apart from the other, connotations, the division might have but there could be conflict or something. but I mean, simply the idea that there are parts, right? You know, that entirely false understanding of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, there is a distinction between them, right? Okay.

[19:23] So let's pass now to the logic of the second act here, which is the act about statement. Now, the genus in the definition of statement is the same as the genus in the definition of what? Definition, right?

[19:43] Definition with speech signifying what a thing is, but a statement is speech signifying the what? True or the false, right? Okay. Now, why do we use the word "or" there instead of the word "and"? What is the? Emphasis there upon that.

[20:05] Yeah, yeah. It's going to signify one or the other, right? As you mentioned, the text there, there are some statements that are always true, like two is half a four. Take a very obvious example, right? Man is an animal. It's always true. There are some statements that are always false, like two is a color. Two is four. It's always false, right? Okay. But then there are some statements that are what?

[20:39] Yeah, yeah. Like Berquist is sitting, right? Sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's what false, right? But notice the statement, as far as its parts are concerned, is exactly the same when it's true and when it's false, right? Berquist is sitting. That's true, and it's false. Still has the same parts. Okay. It's measured by what its agreement with things. Okay.

[21:13] Now, sometimes we speak of the simple statement, the compound statement. But if you wanted to, and perhaps more important, Aristotle does, you'll use the word statement, period, but simple statement, where you affirm or deny one thing of another, right? And then you'll speak of the compound statement, where you combine two, and sometimes more than two, of these what simple statements, huh? Okay. Now, the two that are mentioned here among the compound statements in this first paragraph, in the second section here, are the ones that are most important for reasoning, right?

[22:04] And they are called the hypothetical or conditional statement. I like to call the if-then statement because sometimes hypothetical has the sense of what hypothesis or something uncertain, and it doesn't have that meaning here at all. See? So sometimes I like to call it simply the if-then statement. hyphenate if-then, right? Okay. So

[22:38] that's going to combine two simple statements, right? Joining them by if and what then, okay? And then you have what they call the disjunctive statement, right? And I like to call it the either or statement. You may have just two members, right? Like every number is either odd or even, right? Okay. Or you may have three. Every triangle is equilateral, or isosceles or scalene, right? Or Thomas, you know, I was mentioning before, every name is said unitively of anything It's either a genus, or a species, or a difference, or a property, or an accident.

[23:25] There you have, what? Five members, right? Okay. Incidentally, if you read Shakespeare, you'll find that instead of saying either or, they say or or. They'll use either, huh? Instead of saying neither nor, they'll say nor nor. Huh? Pronounce that. huh? So when I call this an either or statement. I don't mean to exclude Shakespeare's or or?

[23:59] Okay. But the word disjunction is a more technical term for it. Disjunction, right? This means what? Part. huh? Okay. It means apart. huh? Now, as I noticed in the second paragraph in that section, going to find out that if you want to use the definition that we gave in the beginning of statement as speech signifying the true or the false, you'll find out that the word true doesn't mean the same when said of the simple statement or the statement period.

[24:35] I caught that. And when said of the what? If then statement. It doesn't mean the same when it's said of the either or statement. It's either one of those two, huh? Okay. But the fundamental meaning we'll see of true is the one found in the what? Simple statement. Okay. We'll see that when you find out what truth and falsity means, huh? So in a way, you have what?

[25:00] Three definitions here. If true has three meanings, right? And false will have three meanings correspondingly to the meanings of true, huh? So when you get later on, we'll see what those differences are, right? Okay. It's not until the bottom of page two I get into those subtle things, huh? Okay. Aristotle's book that he wrote in the logic of the second act is about the simple statement or about the statement period.

[25:28] huh? Called the peri hermeneus, right? Okay. And there he divides a simple statement into its two main composing parts, which are the what? Noun and the verb, right? Okay. Now I think I mentioned before how in Greek and in Latin they don't have a separate word. For name and what we might call now, right? Okay. So in English, though, we can use the word "name" for something more general than noun or verb.

[26:08] But in Greek, they'd have onoma for name, and for noun, they'd have onoma. In Latin, they would have nomen for name and nomen for noun, right? So if you look at at the commentary of Thomas or the famous commentary of Ammonius Hermiae who was the great teacher of the Peri Hermeneias, he's always pointing out when Aristotle is using the word onoma in the broad sense and using it as opposed to verb, right?

[26:49] In Latin, you could have verbum and then rhema in Greek. As an example, then in Greek and in Latin, but not in English, right, of a name equivocal by reason, right? There's a reason why the noun keeps the time and the verb gets the name. Of course, you can see in English a little tendency that we tend to think of a noun when we use the word "name," though.

[27:22] Okay. But in logic, there we're using the word "name" here in a broader meaning than noun. The verb and even the adjective could be considered a what? A name, okay? We defined name before, right? It's a what? Sound produced by the vocal cords, right? It's vocal sound, and it's one of those vocal sounds that signifies something, right? And signifies not by nature, like a cry or a groan, but by what?

[27:59] Custom or by human agreement. And no part of which what? Signifies by itself. Well, if you say "man walks," man is a vocal sound, right? Signifying by human agreement, no part of which signifies by itself, and "walks" is also a vocal sound, signifying by custom, right? No part which signifies anything by itself. Okay. But what is the difference between the noun and in the verb? Well, the verb signifies with time, and the noun signifies without time, right?

[28:48] Now, sometimes you know people when they talk about noun and verb, they'll say, you know, a noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. You heard that? That's not really correct, because take the word action. You say, is that a verb or a noun? Noun. Noun. Okay. So it's not the name of a person, place, or thing if you're thinking of an action or something different, right?

[29:17] So although we do tend to think of the verb more with motion and action because it signifies with time, and every motion and action takes some time, right? Something directed to the noun, right? Or when I say action, as opposed to acts or acted or will act or something like that, acts or acted or will act signifies with time, right? Either the present, or the past, or future.

[29:48] But action, past, present, future, doesn't signify with time, right? A time itself would be a what? A noun, right? Doesn't signify with time, right? Okay. So you see the difference here between the noun and the verb. But the verb is also a sign of something said of a what? Of another, right? And that's why we can sometimes want to divide the verb into what is and what is said of another, right?

[30:31] Okay. So instead of saying man walks, we might say man is a walker, or something at the start, right? Man is something that walks, right? And then we separate out what is being said of another, right? Okay. So sometimes they divide the statement into the subject and the predicate, which is merely the Latin word for said of, right? And then the sign joining them, right? Or sometimes separating them, right?

[31:08] So you say man is not, let's say, stone. And you call this part here the copula, although that fits more primitive than the negator, right? The word itself, because you're joining them in one case, other case you're was separating them, right? And rather than so still the forest have used the word copula, but they use that for the is or the is not, and maybe in the past or future as well.

[31:40] And so sometimes they divide the statement into three parts: the subject and the predicate and the copula. The is or some form of it to be, and without the negation, right? But first we divided into the noun and the verb. Actually, actually we're going to say, you know, that the separation here, the verb to be, is one of the last things that comes in language. Distract the opening in the mind.

[32:11] First off went sound, first spoken actually hearing there. You say this is that. These antithetical things leads you into a problem of something being something other than itself. A

[32:30] man walks, but when you say a man something other than himself, right? Safer way of speaking. I can see the reason why the Greek or Latin verb gets the new name, right? Is it adds something? It signifies with time, right? Something added there, right? And we mentioned before how just like the thumb gets a new name, right? The fingers, right? Because it adds something that. To the common meaning, right?

[33:06] Let me say both of these are vocal sounds signifying by custom, no part which signifies by itself, but the verb has, in addition to that, that signifies by with time, past, present, or future.

[33:24] I notice here you have the same thing divided sometimes into two and sometimes into three parts, right? And Aristotle takes a plot; he divides it into beginning, middle, and end. Then later on, in the poetics, he divides it into time timed unit and untimed unit So. He divides it into three, and divides it into what two, right?

[33:55] Sometimes, when I divide the Our Father I divide the seven petitions into two: the four petitions for the what good things, three petitions against the bad. But then, like in the Summa Theologiae, Thomas divides it into two petitions about the end, the two petitions about the means to the end, and three petitions about impediments to the end.

[34:23] But notice now the end and the means could also be put together because they're all concerned with being what good, right? Okay. And this here is something like that in the sense that you divide noun and verb, right? But then the verb is a sign of something said of another, right? And then you kind of break that apart to make it more explicit when you say what it is that it's saying is something else, right?

[34:48] What it is that it's denying relates to something else, right? Now, notice that this is a division of a composed whole. You use sometimes the language integral whole, but composed whole is better than that. But composed whole, right, is put together from its parts, but it's not said of them.

[35:14] So a noun is not a what statement. A verb is not a statement, right? Man true or false? Well, I put down the true or false example. You know the answer, right? Walks true or false, right? But you say man walks. That's either true or false, right? Man true or false? Stone true or false? Man is a stone. Or man is not a stone. One is true, the other is false.

[35:57] That's what a composed whole is. It's put together from its parts. but not said together Let's go back to that first thing. I kind of overlooked something there that I should have gone back to the definition of statement. Sometimes I find the students will identify the word statement with the word sentence.

[36:33] Now, the statement and sentence mean the same thing. No, but is there some connection between statement and sentence? No, and that is that every statement is a what sentence, but not every sentence is a what statement. Statement. Yeah. So you could define, if you wanted to, a statement also as a sentence, right? Signifying the true or false. Now,

[37:05] grammar. The subject of grammar is the construction of the sentence. Okay, so grammar is. So English grammar is the art of constructing sentences in English, right? Greek grammar is the art of constructing sentences in Greek, right? Of course, as you know, sometimes one language a noun might come before the verb, before the adjective, right? In other cases, you put the adjective before the noun, right? This is part of the grammar of how to make a sentence: nouns and verbs and adjectives, and so on.

[37:49] Okay. So sentence is more universal than statement. What are the other species of sentence besides statement? The question would be one, and then you have the command.

[38:28] You have the prayer, and then what they sometimes call the exhortation. But signifies the true or the false is going to separate the statement from all the other what sentences. So I say, what time is it? That true or false?

[38:57] What's your name? Okay. Now, if I say Thomas is your name, that's either true or false, right? When I say what's your name, that's true or false. So, question is neither true nor false, right? Of course, the question is asking for some kind of information. A logician is mainly considered the statement because that signifies the true or false. The question doesn't, right? We talked about questions a bit because on the way, right?

[39:30] Now, command and prayer education are not of much concern at all to logician. because they're aiming at what? Not knowledge, but at action and doing something, right? Command is aimed to a what? Inferior.

[39:52] Prayer to a what? Superior. Okay. I don't mean just prayer to God, you know, but you have to help me, Help me. Where you're kind of dependent upon this other person, right? And education is more to a what? Equal. So one student said, "another, student, let's go eat, huh? Let's go to movies, right? That's not a command.

[40:19] That's not a prayer, right? But it's kind of between equals, right? Once you go to movies with me, you know, the blessing is kind of equal, right? But prayer, is to say, help me, or give us this day our daily bread, right? Is that true or false? Give us this day our daily bread.

[40:44] If I was to say, I need my daily bread, then that's a statement that's either true or false, right? Okay. When I say, what? Give us this day our daily bread. I'm asking someone to do something for me. I'm asking a superior, right? I'm on the street corner, help me, help me. You're in a kind of superior position to me, right? A handout or something, right?

[41:17] Command. If I say, shut the door. That's kind of just an inferior claim, right? Right, face. Okay. Once you do something, right? But notice, even if the door, like the door over there, is closed, right? If I said, shut the door, and you say, it's already closed, right? But is my word, shut the door, are they false?

[41:47] The fact that I commanded you to shut the door might be a sign that I think the door is open, right? And it's a cause of the draft that is bothering me, right?

[42:01] But shut the door is not strictly speaking true or false, is it? I say the door is shut. The door is not shut. The door is open. Then those are statements that are either true or false. But shut the door is

[42:22] either what? True or false? Go to hell, command or what? If you go to hell, is that true or false? If I say you should go to hell. That's true or false, right? But go to hell—that's a kind of command, going, right? Get lost. That's neither true or false. Get lost, right? And she get lost. That's neither true or false, right? Okay. I forgot this. It's a little bit of sentence, but sometimes I know students will confuse sentence and what statement.

[42:57] tend to kind of identify them, right? So the first division of sentences was into what? Aiming at knowledge and aiming at action. Yeah, that's right. Oh, divided, yeah. And then these are subdivided. The ones aiming at action by inferior, superior, or equal, right? And then giving statement, question, right? The question is, doesn't signify the true or false. No, no, no, no. What is a man? thinks? What is a man?

[43:33] That's neither true nor false, right? But? If I say man is a four-legged animal, that's either true or false, right? Or man is an animal with reason. That's either true or false, right? But what is a man? You know.

[43:52] What are the parts of God? True or false? It's neither true nor false, but like if I say, you know, shut that door over there, you might gather that I'm mistaken about the door's situation, right? In fact, it is closed, right? So if I ask, what are the parts of God? You might say, well, God doesn't have any parts, right? You know, see, he's thinking that God has parts, and now he's asking, what are the parts of God, right?

[44:26] The Soviets, you know, the communist still in power, and they sent one of these cosmonauts up in the air, right? He spoke back to the earth, right? There's no God up here, he said.

[44:37] Well, you're thinking, you know, where is God? In what place is he, right? Well, God is not in any place, the body is not in place, right? Okay. So if I ask, what place is God? You can say, well, that question proceeds from a false understanding, right? That God is in some place, right? That's false. But what place is God? That's neither true nor false, right? You see that?

[45:10] Okay. Okay, so let's go back now to the second page here, right? Now we divided the simple statement period into its composing parts, noun and verb, or subject and predicate and copula. Now he's going

[45:34] to divide it in the other way, which is a genus into its species, okay? And that is the division of statement into affirmation and negation.

[45:58] Either affirm something of another. Or you deny another, right? Okay. My heart's supposed to look like this. Not as bad as. Look at that right on the board. I can't. The students can't do it. You know. So no, to me I haven't recognized that.

[46:25] Okay. So this is a division now of a genus into its species, and this is a division of a universal whole, therefore into its parts. And universal whole instead of its parts, but not what. Put together from them, right? So an affirmative statement, an affirmation, is an affirmative statement. It's a statement. Man is a stone, right? Man is not a stone, right? Man is an animal. Man is not an animal, right?

[46:57] They're both statements. But statement is not composed or put together from these two. Statement is put together from a noun and a verb, or from a subject and a predicate, and the copula is or is not.

[47:15] You see the difference? You look in puzzle there. Well, I'm just having some thinking about that one. Did you also, you call the subjective parts? Because of the use of the word subjective. Yeah, yeah, I usually call them sometimes subject parts, yeah. Because subject is something in which something is said, right? Subjective all these crazy complications in contemporary modern thought, right? Subjective and objective, right? I don't know how they're thinking.

[47:46] So I call it subject parts. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. Just just like the kind of scripture there, Homer. And how do you translate sensus literalis? Well, they translate that in English. Literal sense, right? Now it seems to exclude the metaphorical one. But you read what Thomas says: the metaphorical sense is the sensus literalis. You say the Lord is my rock. Sense of the letter is that is my foundation, so on, right?

[48:20] So literal sense in English has a different meaning than sensus literalis. It's more more narrow, right? Opposed to the figurative sense, right? The sense of the letter, you say, the Lord is my rock, it's not that God is a rock. It's said metaphorically, and therefore the meaning is not the meaning of the word, but the meaning intended by the speaker.

[48:47] He calls God a rock, not because God is a rock, but because like a rock, he is like firm. Yeah. Now, which of these two divisions should one give first—the division of a composed whole into its parts, or if it's also universal into its subject parts? I mean, the text here we've, of course, divided statement into noun and verb before we divided the affirmation, negation. But is there reason to divide it in this way before that way?

[49:47] Okay. Does this, in some way, contribute to understanding that? Yeah, because the affirmation is. Joining the subject. and the predicate Yeah yeah, Especially so the division we made into subject and predicate and then the copula, right? The copula can be saying is or is not, right? You see, kind of basis of this division, right?

[50:18] So, is that always true or usually true that you should divide a whole into its composing parts before its subject parts? Because you see, the reason of knowledge is considering something universal, right? So it's both a composed whole and a universal whole, right? You take the example. You talk about the atom, right? You can divide the atom into the periodic table, right? You have ninety-two or again, I guess 100, right?

[51:01] You got things like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and so on. Okay. You divide the atom into, let's say, nucleus and the atomic shell. Let's say I divided into the proton, neutron, electron, something like this, right? But would you divide it in these ways first, or into hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and so on? What did you do first? Those whole and variable parts. Yeah. You need to know that to do the table.

[51:35] Yeah, in order to understand so the division, right? The first one seemed to help you understand. Take another example. of time Take sonnet, right?

[51:57] The? Sonnet. What are the two species of sonnet? Well, they call them the English sonnet and the Italian sonnet, right? Or they call this the Shakespearean sonnet and the Petrarchan. The different thing. Now, sonnet is a whole in what? Fourteen

[52:22] lines. This is the division of the sonnet into what? Its composing parts. Now, notice the difference between the two. The universal whole is said of its parts, but not put together from. The composed whole is put together from its parts. The sonnet is put together from fourteen lines, but sonnet is not said of those parts. Otherwise, you have fourteen sonnets, right? Okay. So, which of these divisions should you make first?

[52:55] Maybe the composing one, I'm not sure what makes the division of the second one. Because of the English sonnet, right? It's you've got three what quatrains with alternate rhyming completed by a what a rhyming couplet, right? In the Italian sonnet, you have what they call an octet, right? That is answered by a sestet or sextet, right? The 8 lines are answered by 6 lines, right? Well, this, you have three, you know, quatrains answered by rhyming couplet.

[53:40] So the way to understand what's going on down here, right? You have to kind of have in mind you have 14 lines, but then the way those 14 lines are ordered or structured, right? You see that?

[53:54] So that's something to think about. But it seems, at least in these examples here, right, which I took them from quite different areas, that it makes some sense, right, to divide something that is both a composed whole and a universal whole, right, into what its composing parts before it's like subject parts, huh? You can divide

[54:28] both ways, right? You divide government. You divide government first into monarchy and oligarchy and democracy and so on, Or to divide it into legislative and executive and judicial. What do you divide it into first?

[54:58] and then you start to see, right, what these different ones are, right? Parliament of Henry VIII, right? is quite different from Parliament today, right?

[55:18] King was the dominant thing, there, right? at the time of Henry VIII.