Introduction to Philosophy & Logic (1999)
35. Conversion and the Second Figure Mixed Cases, Then Nature, Faith and Reason
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/1-philosophy-1999/035-conversion-and-the-second-figure-mixed-cases-then-nature/

[0:00] Aristotle has shown here for an infinity of possibly what, Universal negative statements. there's infinity of negative statements that are true, right? No three is a four. No three is a five. No three is a six. Whatever, right? There's An infinity of universal negative statements that are true, right? There are infinity of statements of the form no b is a that are true, right? And for every one of them, reversed, no a is b is true.

[0:32] You can't possibly go through them all one by one, right? Can't look at them all, right? But this reasoning here shows that if you don't say that, something impossible follows, right? That some b would be a, which the strict opposition is impossible with no b is a. Do you see that? That's kind of marvelous. You stop and think about that, right?

[1:00] You can see it kind of abstract, when you say, now, see, no dog is a cat. No cat is a dog. Okay, they're both true in that case, right? No stone is a yeah. No three is a stone. It's true in that case, you know. No man is a woman. No woman is a man.

[1:20] But is it always true? You can't, you know, begin to go through all of them. Begin to go through all of them. But here he's shown that no matter what you take for b and a, right, if the universal negative is true, the converse will be right. And this is the reason why we'll see later on in the second figure that you get a negative conclusion because of the fact you can convert the universal negative and stage universal, right?

[1:52] Okay. You see that? Do you want to go over again, or? do you want to go over again? Yeah. Are there examples that people have done? No, no. You can never find. as I already explained to the students. You can never show that something is a syllogism by examples, right? Examples never show that something is necessarily so. Not even show that it's always so. But one example is enough to show that something is not always so, right?

[2:23] If I say that man is necessarily white, you know, no matter how many white men I produce, I haven't shown that man is always white, although necessarily white. But you produce one black man or one yellow man, you know, goodbye to my claim that is necessarily true, right? Okay. If I say every number is necessarily odd, three, five, seven, nine, and one, you get infinity of examples.

[2:48] I haven't shown that it's always so, right? You produce one number that is not odd. Poof! that was my claim, right? So examples can be used to show that something is not a syllogism, but never to show that it is. Okay. That's always a question I ask the students. You know, are examples enough, right? Well, one example is enough to show that something is not always so.

[3:14] But one example, even a hundred or a million or infinity of them, is not enough to show that something is always and necessarily so.

[3:23] Well, the same way here, I'm saying this is not syllogism, but I'm saying that if no B is A is true, necessarily no A is B is true, right? I can't show that that is so by examples, right?

[3:39] But at the same time, if I show it in the way that I showed it, you cannot find one example. You know, I leave my money on the table, you know, I don't touch anything today, but you know, I've got my wad of dollars and so on, and some of my insurance policies that I have.

[3:58] So such a curious thing, I'll check to you. And so you cannot find one example of B and A, right, where no B is A is true, and no A is B is not true. I know you can't find one, right? Because I know that necessarily no A is B is true. How do I know that? Well, if that's not true, then some A is B could be so, right?

[4:25] And if that happened, then some A would be a B, and we'd give that A is a B, call it something X, right? And therefore X would be both an A and a B, and therefore there'd be some B namely X that is an A. That's impossible and no B is A, right? So something impossible follows if you don't admit necessarily that the converse universal statement is also true, right? Two cases that are syllogisms, and two that are not, right?

[5:04] But the two that are syllogisms are, of course, particular as you expect, right? But they're both particular, what, Negative, right? On those same four in the first figure. You had one particular affirmative, and one particular what, negative, right?

[5:33] Okay. I'll let you want to go now. Yeah. Do you, we can finish this figure. You had one, one more set of four. Yeah. Yeah, we could do that.

[5:50] Okay. Now, as we're doing this, you know, my thinking was, you know, I want to think about this in a quiet room, away from everybody. else. You know, I'll figure it out. You know, but I don't want anything else around. So you may feel that way right now. It's something to wait for. Company and talking. I'm

[6:15] extremely content to have you. That's it. Now the four cases were, um, mixed cases, but where the particular one is on top, right? The major premise and universal on the bottom, right? Which is the second figure now with this arrangement where the middle term is the predicate of both cases in the second slot, so to speak. So you have some A is B, or some A is not B, right?

[6:49] That is your major premise. But for each of those possibilities, you have two possibilities for the second premise. either universal affirmative, right? Or universal negative.

[7:35] Now you know right away if you have two negatives, you can't have a syllogism, right? So we expect right away that this is not a syllogism.

[7:50] And we have to find examples then for A, B, and C that satisfy the two conditions. So can you think of examples for A, B, and C that satisfy those conditions?

[8:21] No dog, yeah. Or just take, you know, we say animal and dog, right? So some animal is not a dog, right? That's true. Now I got to find two Cs. You find a C that is never a dog but always an animal. Cat. You find something that is never a dog and never an animal either. So.

[8:51] Now, that's what I preach, I say, well, let me pause now, right? Not the pause that refreshes, as they say, but the pause that helps you to avoid mistakes." Huh? If I satisfy condition number one, the premise is true with those examples. Some A is not B. Some animal is not a dog. That's true, right? No C is B. No cat is a dog. That's true. No stone is a dog.

[9:18] Ah, I satisfy condition number one. The premises are true with those examples, right? Now I have one example where every C is A. Every cat is an animal. Circle that. I have one example where no C is A. I'll underline that. No stone. So every cat is an animal being true once knocks out the negatives as being true always, right? And no stone is an animal being true once.

[9:48] If there's a negative it knocks out the two affirmatives, right? Everything's knocked out. Kale, right? There's no affirmative no negative statement it's always so. Therefore, there's not necessarily so. Therefore, there's not a syllogism, right?

[10:07] Now, let's go up here. Some A is B. Every C is B. Well, now you can't get the set of none there. You got no negative, right? Can you get the set of all? Well, you do have a universal affirmative statement, and nothing comes under the C. If you could turn that around and say every B is C, then you'd have some A is C, and turn around and say some C is A.

[10:40] But you can't convert universal affirmative, right? It isn't necessarily so. So conversion will not get you anything, right? So again, I figured this is not a syllogism.

[10:57] But I've got to prove that with my examples. So, can you find examples that satisfy two conditions? Dog and animal, and Cocker Spaniel. So, dog is A,

[11:22] right? Yeah. Since every dog is an animal, it's also true that some dog is an animal, right? Cocker Spaniel and cat. Yeah. Now I'm going to pause and say, have I satisfied both conditions? Condition number one is: Are the premises true when I substitute examples? Well, some A is B. Some dog is an animal. That's true. Every Carpist Spaniel is an animal. That's true. Every cat is an animal.

[11:56] That's true. I satisfy condition number one. The premises are two of those examples. So, I have one, where, every C is A. Yeah. Now, if every C is A is true once, every negative is false once, right? No negative is always the case. To have one universal negative, yep. No cat is a dog, and that's true once. There's no affirmative statement, either every C is A or some C is A.

[12:23] It's true always, right? So there's nothing affirmative or negative that is always so. But if something were necessarily so, it have to be always so. So if nothing is always so, nothing is necessarily so. Maybe the syllogism would have been necessarily so, but nothing is necessarily so. Therefore, it's not a syllogism, right?

[12:51] Now, how about this? Some A is not B. Every C is B. Well, you can't get the set of all because you've got one negative, and you can't get the set of none because you don't have any universal negative, right? So I guess that that's not a syllogism, myself, right?

[13:14] I used to, you know, ask students in class to one of my general questions. They say, "Why can you show that something is not a syllogism by examples, but you can't show that it is a syllogism by examples, right? " If you stop and think about it, it's the fact that you can show by examples that something is not always so. If you have one contrary example, right?

[13:35] But you know, it's possible sometimes, you know, to produce an infinite example, right? If I produce, you know, I can go on producing, you know, examples for numbers are odd forever, right? Three, five, seven, nine, one, forever, right? Still haven't shown that they're always odd, have I? So you have to go back to something universal that's obvious, like the set of all and the set of none, to see that the syllogism is valid, or go back to the square of opposition and so on, right?

[14:05] Okay. Can you find examples for A, B, and C they're going to satisfy the conditions? huh? Dog for A. Dog, White for B. B white. Animal for C. Why don't you do the reverse there? Every C is A. Some C is A, right?

[14:38] So you end up with the. You want to have a reverse, one, like this animal. Oh. Dogs, you have an example every C is A, right? Every. So some animals are not white, and some. Every dog is an animal. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, and some dogs are white, right? Yep. But now, see, not every dog is white.

[15:06] Right? Is Every dog white? No. So that's not going to satisfy condition. Oh yeah, no. So at first you don't succeed, try and try again. After a while, you notice it becomes kind of automatic. but first you kind of struggle with it, you know.

[15:31] And sometimes you try to satisfy with the example of one condition. You try to match with the other condition, right? If you took that example, say, say, dog and animal, right? Okay. And then what? Let's Say stone, right? Now those examples satisfy the every C and no C is a condition, right? But now I've got to see if I can come up with B such that some animals are not it, and yet every dog is it.

[16:04] Every stone is it too? Kind of hard, right? You know. Oh. Let's see. Dog and lamp or something like that. We keep dog as C. Dog as C? Maybe. Yeah, we looked at tree, animal, dog. Let's try it. Tree for A? Yeah. So some tree is not a not an animal. That's true. Every dog is an animal. That's true.

[17:28] No, no dog is a tree. Now. Where did I do that? You got to have one more example now. Okay. Something that is always an animal. And always say what?

[17:44] A tree. It's a hard do, isn't it? That's how everything continues. That's two hours. Anyway, we gotta move them out here. This is one of those things we can't find an example. Well, let's take habit. I'm gonna take good, right? Some habits are not good, right? Is that True. Mm-hmm. There are good habits and bad habits, right? Mm-hmm. Now, every virtue is good, right?

[18:56] Every virtue is a what? Habit if you're doing that example. Firm disposition. Now, can I think of another C such that every C is good, but never, but no C is is a habit. Is something that is always good, but not a habit.

[19:27] Beauty, beauty, okay. God. Yeah. Or even just take a good act, right? You know, good act. Every good act is good, right? But no good act is a habit. Habit is not the act.

[19:49] So then you have to stop and come up with examples, right? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Now, so that's not syllogism. How about this one down here?

[20:07] Well, notice you could, you have a universal negative statement, no C is B, but nothing is said to be a C, right? You could convert this to no B is C, right? And you could bring down some A is B under there, right? Some A is B, and therefore some A is not C. But we're asking whether there is a conclusion that C is a subject A is a predicate, right?

[20:37] And I can't convert the particular negative, right? So I'm not going to get any conclusion with C as a subject and A as a predicate By conversion here, right? I did my darndest, as they say, but I couldn't come up with anything, right? Unlike that one in the first, uh in the two universal ones, we converted twice, right? Here I can't convert.

[21:04] That form, which was every what, A is B, no C is B, we converted no C is B to no B is C, and then syllogize it, no A is C, and we can turn that around, right? But here we got a particular negative, and we can't convert that. So I think there's no syllogism here. when C is a subject, and A is a predicate. I'm going to look for examples, right?

[21:30] So, who would you take as examples here? In the ethics guy how would I do it I could say some habit is. fine. Is a virtue. I take habit and virtue.

[22:01] And then what? So habit is a virtue. and no vice is a virtue. Okay, then you're universal primitive, right? Every vice is a habit, right? And no vice is a virtue. And then the other, what's the other term for C?

[22:22] Stone. Stone. No stone is a virtue, and no stone is a habit, right? So I satisfy both conditions. Some A is B. Some habit is a virtue. That's true. No vice is a virtue. That's true. No stone is a virtue. I satisfy condition number one. premises are true. And I have one example where every C is an A. Yeah. Circle that example, right? That knocks out the two negatives, as we always saw.

[22:56] And then maybe there's the negative, yeah. No stone is a habit, yeah? That knocks out the two affirmatives as being always so. So nothing is always so, right?

[23:10] Plus you wanted to put them either or form, right? If there's a, I mean necessarily so, it's either affirmative or negative. But this shows there's no what negative that is always so. This shows there's no what affirmative that is always so. Therefore, there's nothing always so. It doesn't become different, right? Same mistake, huh? So,

[23:33] how many valid forms were there in the second figure? There's none, in person in particular. Two in the mixed. Yeah, two in the mixed, and in the first group, right? And two. universal pieces, right? So let's put down the four pieces. Remember that.

[24:09] So we have no A is B, and every C is B, right? All you do is convert this, right? And you can syllogize that no C is A in the first figure, right? Then we had the one that was a little more difficult. The reverse. Every A is B, and no C is B. And then we converted to no B is C, no C is B to no B is C, and we syllogized in the first figure that every that no A is a what C, and we converted, right?

[24:55] Yeah. So. No C is A. Then we had No A is B and some right C is B, right? And here you convert No B is A, and by magic you're back in the first figure, right? And you can show that some C is not what

[25:31] B. Then you have the one that was more difficult. Every A is like B, and some C is not B. Was that it? Yeah.

[25:54] Okay. The kind of common sense would tell you that if every A is a B, there's no exception. If you're an A there must be a B, and some C is not a B, can that some C be an A. No, because every A is a B. But the way we show it rigorously is by saying that if you don't admit it's necessary that some C is like not A, that isn't necessary.

[26:21] Then, by the square of opposition, it's possible that every C might be an A, right? Right. And if every C were an A, then you add that to this, and you conclude what? That every C would be a B. That kind of fixes, right? So you can't think that every C is A with these two, because every C is A with this kind of fixes that. So if these two are laid down, you must reject.

[26:47] It's incompatible Cause of the law of incompatibility that every C is A is incompatible, right? And if you have to admit that C is not A, right? Is it?

[27:02] Because they can't both be false, right? So every C is A is false, and these are true, right? Then this must be true. You see that? Now notice in the second figure, all conclusions are negative, right? Okay.

[27:22] And if you compare it to the first figure, the first figure you could draw a universal negative or particular negative too. But in the second figure, there's two ways of drawing universal negative, two ways of syllogizing a particular negative, right? But we say this is less powerful because power consists in being able to get a special universal conclusion, right? And here you can get only universal negative.

[27:48] While in the first figure you can get universal affirmative as well as universal negative. But if you add the two together, right? There's only one way to universal affirmative, and that's in the first figure. But there's three ways of syllogizing a universal negative, one in the first figure and the two here. Those four are the most important ones to remember for all your reasoning. But there's in the first figure one way to syllogize particular affirmative, and one way to syllogize the particular negative.

[28:22] Here there's two ways to syllogize particular negative. So just looking at the first two figures, you can say that there are one way to syllogize universal affirmative in those two figures together, one way to syllogize particular affirmative. But three ways to syllogize universal negative, and three ways to syllogize the particular negative. As I say, the most important cases are the three ways of syllogizing a universal negative, and a way of syllogizing a universal affirmative.

[28:56] So if a man has universal negative conclusion, you can sometimes reason backwards, right? He must be using one of these two forms. But if he's got universal affirmative conclusion, then you've got to go back to what? That the first one.

[29:12] Now, incidentally, when you're syllogizing with something individual, like, like, for example, Socrates or God for that matter, right? A negative statement is what we'd say the way convertible, right? If no woman is Socrates, right? Socrates is not woman, right? Okay. If nothing composed, if God is simple, or if God is not composed, nothing composed is God, right? You can come around like that. But for me, the syllogism using only universal terms, right?

[29:49] It's not too hard to see, right? That if no woman is Socrates, then Socrates is not any woman, right? Or. Socrates. Socrates is not a woman. No woman is Socrates. If God is not composed, I mean composed. is God, right? They can turn around easily. Now

[30:09] I guess we'll leave the third figure to next time, right? And the third figure, you'll find out we have only particular conclusions therein, right? So they say that it's easier to syllogize the negative than the affirmative, right? And easier to syllogize the particular than the universal. That's what you might expect, right?

[30:39] We'll see that. Okay. Now, what do you see about the premises here? It's a little harder to generalize. The major is always universal, yeah.

[30:54] But the minor is all four. All four, right? Yeah. The major and second figure will be universal, but the minor can be any of the four.

[31:26] Someone have nightmares of the syllogism, right Yeah. especially I see with women students, you know, they say, "I understood everything in the course until you started talking about A, B, and C, and then I got completely confused.

[31:45] But you have to, you know, just go through these things slowly, you know. Some people want to, you know, get mnemonic devices, you know, with, you know, Latin words, A B A E, I O, with the four quarters of the square position, but I never bothered with that.

[32:04] Every time I got logic, I just think it out as I'm at the board, you know? You know. Put you on the spot a little bit, but we rather try to memorize something, you know. And sometimes people would take, you know, like you know, when we went through the sixteen in the first figure, and then we came to those universal rules, right? That the major premise has to be universal, and the minor premise affirmative, right?

[32:25] But they'll try to make that a rule that you follow in deciding. Well, this is something you come to after you decided? what's the thing, and then you make the induction. You say, "Yeah, we've got four valid forms, and in each of these ones, the major premise is universal in the first figure, and the minor premise is

[32:44] is particular, right? I mean, it's affirmative, right? The major premise is universal, and the minor is. affirmative. That's the kind of thing you induce after you've gone through the sixteen. you know, You don't make that the rule by which you decide. But later on you know bear that in mind if you want to, you know.

[33:04] We shall see you. Some books will use talk about distribution, and they'll say whether this is, you know. Hmm? Distribution. they'll give rules about whether the predicate is distributed. Yeah, but it's universal not the same thing.

[33:24] Spread out over all of them, or just some of them, right? See, Thomas is. uh, you saw that in theology, you used the second figure an awful lot, huh? Because you're associating God is not something, right? Yeah. We won't be able to meet next week we're having a community meetings Chapter. the 11th, 12th, 13th next week. Okay, so we'll meet two weeks from now. I mean, okay, okay, okay.

[34:04] Do we have time to forget about the syllogism I'll go over this again 2 more times? Yeah, I noticed that when I started, after we learned it, then when we did St. Thomas, then Father McGovern would always make us get the syllogism. Yeah. Yeah, You saw that the second figure. Yeah. Universal negative. Yeah. We say like when I teach the philosophy of nature, you know, and we show in the first book of natural hearing that what changes is composed, right?

[34:43] Everything that changes is composed, and you can see that clearly if you follow that. And then we say that in theology, when you actually show that God is simple, meaning not composed, right? Syllogize, right, What changes is composed. God is not composed. Therefore, God does not what change. Well, it's like that that second case we saw in the second figure, right? Then every A is B, and no C is what B, right?

[35:16] Except instead of the universal term, you have God, a singular, right? But you can always turn that around, right? If if no woman is, if Socrates is not a woman, right? You'd say no woman is Socrates. You see,

[35:34] the individual term, right? So it's like it's universal negative, but it's not universal negative in that sense, right? I mean, I mean, no woman is Socrates would be universal negative, but Socrates is not a woman, right? But you can turn that around, right? And say no woman is Socrates, right?

[35:54] So if you're saying in sense that everything that changes is composed, and God is not composed, right? Turn around and say nothing composed is God, right? Every nothing that changes is what God, God changing, right? Turn around, right? But not to get you know too pedantic about it, but you have to see that that that's valid, right? It's just a universal negative, and you turned around, right?

[36:24] So so you say no carpenter is Socrates is not a carpenter, no carpenter is Socrates, right? Anything you say, right? You see, Perchus is not a major league ballplayer, is on that. No major league ballplayer is Perchus, right? No, right? Perchus is not a dog. No dog is Perchus, right? So it has a convertibility universal negative, although it's not a universal negative in the way stating it, right?

[37:04] See, Perchus is not a dog, not universal negative, it states about a singular, right? But you can turn around and say no dog is Perchus, then. So you can keep that validity, right? Yeah. Back to what the body is saying, you know. You know, when Socrates is saying he's syllogizing that that the harmony of the body, the soul is not the harmony of the body, right? He takes three things that are said of one and denied of the other, right?

[37:34] And one is that um, resists the body, right? And it seems like the harmony of the body does not resist the body, but the soul does resist the body, like in the man fasting or something like that, right? Or fighting his passions. So the soul resists the body. The harmony of the body does not resist the body. therefore the soul is not the harmony of the body.

[37:54] And then he syllogizes that the soul. Is um you know he's argued before that the soul exists before the body, but even Simmias admits that the harmony, of the body does not exist before the body. So, what is affirmed of one is denied of the other, right? And then he argues that like we saw earlier in the dialogue that there is a harmony of the soul, right, which is philosophy's aiming at—the harmony of the soul.

[38:20] But there's not a harmony of harmony, right? Um so the soul differs not the harmony. So the soul has a harmony. harmony doesn't have a harmony. therefore, But it's simple. it's the affirming of one, but you deny the other, right?

[38:43] So if you can find something that is said of one and denied of the other, you can syllogize that one is not the other, right? That's basically what you are doing. You tend to use the second figure a lot, right? And makes no difference, you know, whether which one you affirm or which one you deny it of, right? As long as you affirming of one and deny of the other.

[39:02] So those two forms are two. No A is B, every C is B, and the reverse. And in a lot of cases, it doesn't make any difference which thing you can do either way, but try to find something.

[39:29] Okay. That's why you think about those forms all the time, right? And you don't go back you know to the details. of these things, you know,

[39:43] get two negatives you can't syllogize you get two particulars you can't, syllogize and the ones in between are not too important because in the mixed forms there you always end up with a. Particular conclusion, right? And it's just just the the four universal ones. The two in the first figure, one affirmative, one negative, and two negatives. That's it. Use again and again, right? You use the third figure much.

[40:31] I had to, I was thinking of kind of difficulty in spiritual books. Sometimes they'll say they'll give the advice you should trust completely in God, but distrust completely in yourself.

[40:52] And it seems like you have to make some kind of distinctions because you would say if I trust completely in God and don't trust at all in myself. Then God wants everyone to be saved,

[41:13] but some people aren't saved. So the reason they weren't saved was from themselves. So if they it wasn't can't say it all on God, so we can trust completely in God. The rest we have to say, but we also have to. If I said I distrust completely in myself, that is,

[41:40] I'm trusting that I would reject grace, then I won't have any hope. So it seems like that advice isn't really something you can do. It's a bit difficult. Yeah, you got to be careful the way you state that.

[42:03] I was thinking again of um, you know uh I mentioned to you as you're reading uh Shakespeare's play. uh As you like it? Do you know that play? I tell you about that. I think I read it, but it was a long time ago. I don't remember now. Well, you know Shakespeare.

[42:25] In the beginning, there he has the phrase "the natural bond of sisters," right? And of course, if there's a natural bond of sisters, the same reason there's a natural bond of what brothers, right? But he uses the phrase "natural bond of sisters," but we're just going to, you know think for that, right? Now, the two girls there. Rosalind and Celia are not actually sisters; they're cousins, right?

[42:58] But they have a close bond, right? Which is like the bond of sisters, right? But then the brothers, the Duke and his what? younger brother who's usurped the throne, right? They're actually brothers, but they're in conflict, right? And when the original Duke, the true Duke, has fled to the Forest of Arden, right? A little bit like Robin Hood out there with his followers, right? And his younger brother has usurped the throne, and

[43:33] you know, it's eventually gonna, you know, plot to leave his brother in the forest there, right? But he's obviously been unjust, right? Then you have another pair of brothers, Oliver and Orlando, right? Where you have the reverse, where the older brother Oliver has inherited most of it from his father, right? He's not providing at all for his younger brother, right? His education, and that sort, right? So you have, you know, in that case, the older brother being in a way unjust, unkind to his younger brother, right?

[44:06] But in the other case, the younger brother usurping the throne of the older brother, right? So you're bound to think of, hey, there's something unnatural here, because if there's a natural bond, of sisters there's also a natural bond, of brothers, right? And so they're both in conflict with the natural bond there, right? But in a sense, the two cousins being so close to each other, right? That's why the duke allowed his niece to stay because they're so close, right?

[44:34] The one that's in company but eventually he's going to banish the niece because he gets jealous of her, right? And banish her to she's in the forest again, right? But in a sense, the fact that they are as close as sisters is kind of a a showing up, you know, even more so the conflict of the brothers, right? Because the bond of two cousins is not by nature as strong, as that of two brothers.

[45:05] Well, eventually one of the brothers ends up at each in the forest, and eventually both brothers, right? Eventually there's reconciliation in the forest, right? But the forest is kind of symbolic of what nature, is. and it's very clear because the duke, you know, we first meet the duke in the forest there, and they're getting used to it, you know, hath not old custom made this, you know, or you know, pleasing them a painted pomp, you know, and he kind of likens our own existence, you know, in the woods in a very kind of beautiful way he says see, in one line he captures perfectly, you know, that feeling of being out there, probably you know, being kind of out of the painted pomp you know

[45:46] and he kind of likens our problem in existence you know in the woods in a very kind of beautiful way. He said see in one line he captures perfectly you know that feeling of being out there, that problem you know in kind of our own existence. But he says, "In this, our life exempt from public haunt, he says, finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, sermons in stone, and good in everything."

[46:03] The idea that nature there is the measure of what's good and bad, right? There's something bad with this, you know, unkindness and even more than unkindness, right? You know, of brother for brother, right? Okay. So they eventually reconcile in the forest, right? The two pairs of brothers, right? And

[46:29] eventually, Orlando is going to marry Rosna at the end of the play, and Oliver his older brother is going to marry Cecilia, the other cousin, right? And the the usurping duke, you know, he meets a monk in the forest, right? He gives up the world and goes off to repent in the monastery, right? So everybody's reconciled, you know. The duke is going back to assume his throne again, and there's about four weddings there, right?

[46:55] And of course, there's something very natural about wedding, too, right? then, But yet thinking about that, and going back to the fact that our Lord, when he chose the first apostles, they're the ones that are closest to him, Peter and James and John, right? Peter and Andrew are brothers, right? And James and John are brothers, right? Now, why did he choose brothers, right, as the first apostles?

[47:28] All the apostles were brothers, but those four were brothers, right? And kind of, you know, the three that are associated are from that, right? Why did he choose? It is something to be learned, right? There's something to be thought about there in that he chose those who already had the natural bond of brotherhood, right, to make them apostles in the way of our supernatural bond, right? But why did he choose those who already have a natural bond before he?

[47:58] Because of the supernatural bond, they might say, why is that? Well, the minimum is is to show that there's an harmony, right, between the natural bond of brothers and supernatural bond, right. Maybe more than that, that it's not only not only compatible, but that the natural bond of brothers in some way

[48:22] disposes, right, the supernatural bond. It is kind of clearly, you know, this remarkable family there. The the Therese Lisieux come from, right, huh? Or you know, I guess it's about all the sisters. it's all of them, really, end up in the convent, right? You know, and and there's some reason I think you know even the sisters are maybe can they some of them you know it's probably with the parents probably you know.

[48:52] I mean, there's something there about the bond with sisters, right? that uh, is compatible, right? Although, although you know, Saint Therese says in her life, you know, sometimes she had this tremendous urge to want to go speak to one of his sisters, and and because of the life, her, you know, she didn't go. You know, she's. I just cried one time. She never. She's. I don't know.

[49:18] You know, you know, yeah, because she wants to see her, but but it's not the thing to do or something, you know. So I mean, you have to rise above it, but nevertheless,

[49:29] I don't know. was Moses and Aaron brothers or what? And Miriam was their sister, right? You know. So I don't think it means that the supernatural bond of brothers will necessarily be stronger, right, than the supernatural bond of those who are not brothers, right, huh? We say, and there's an article there, a great question article about, you know, faith and what faith is necessary and so on. And Thomas,

[50:10] when he reasons that, he will point out that it's natural for man, right, when he's learning a science, to believe his what teacher, right, and you don't just believe any Tom, Dick, and Harry, right, but when you see the,

[50:35] you know, respect, let's say that we have the tradition for Euclid or whoever it might be, right, it's reasonable to give a certain faith in this man, right. And the thing I've noticed in philosophy, without that faith, you're not going to really come to what understand, right, these things. And the end is not to simply believe, but to know, right. But you don't come to know very much unless you really believe, right.

[51:06] The master, right. I was kind of struck by that because an example I saw kind of recently. I was studying the fifth book of wisdom again, and you know Aristotle gives the meanings of beginning, right. And the first meaning of beginning is the beginning of the table, right. And the second meaning is where it's most convenient to begin. See, when I get up to leave the table, I'm not going to start from here because I'm here now in the middle, so I'm going to begin here, right.

[51:39] Okay. At that point, Aristotle says, like in what, knowing, you don't always begin with the beginning of things, but what is more known to us, right. Well,

[51:54] Thomas is very clear in his commentary, right. The way Aristotle is doing it, making comparison. He's not talking about the beginning of our knowledge there. That's a comparison, right. Okay.

[52:06] So that just as in knowing, we don't always begin with the beginning of the thing. As the great Heisenberg says, when we study reality, we never start at the beginning. I mean, beginning of reality, right. So likewise, when we start a journey, we don't always start at the beginning of the road, but the place which is most convenient. You know, if I live halfway down the road to Boston, I'm not going to begin the road to go to Boston.

[52:29] That's ridiculous, right. But but it's a likeness, right. But the beginning in our knowing doesn't come up really until the fifth sense, right. Thomas is very clear about that, right. Well, someone was describing to me, you know, hearing a conversation between Monsignor Dionne right and John Gallup and Gallup is looking at the text of Aristotle there and kind of misunderstanding the second sense of beginning, right, as if someone involved is.

[52:56] You know, and so we included, you know, beginning with what's more known to us, right? And Dianne's saying, Oh no, look at Thomas. Thomas is saying, right?" And so Gallup had misunderstood the text, right? As Monsignor Dianne said, "from the time you know, Kajetan's mistake was trying to comment directly on Aristotle, right? You know, if Thomas is commenting on Aristotle, you know, you read Aristotle first, then you read what Thomas says about Aristotle, then you think about the text, right?

[53:26] And you could see how, you know, Gallup was not doing that. which is what Thomas says, right? And so I was looking in my imperfect Greek there at the Greek commentators there, and commentaries on the Metaphysics that we have a couple of them, and they seem to be making the same mistake Gallup was making, right? there, You know, so I can see how easily a man goes astray if he didn't believe, right?

[53:53] You know, and so I think I got further in philosophy because I believed, men like you know, Monsignor Dionne you know you believe in. Thomas, and so on. I can see very, I can see very much the necessity of what believing, right? Huh? I think I learned a lot from Shakespeare, but I didn't believe that you know Shakespeare was a poet. You know, I wouldn't have read him as carefully as I did, or kept on reading him as carefully as I did.

[54:19] And so I can see the truth of that, right? Well, Thomas says, you know, with God in a way is doing something similar, right? When he requires faith, right, For the vision, right, But this is something in harmony with the nature of man to believe before he knows, right? And if that's true, even the things that we're capable of knowing are in actual powers, right, we can't get very far in knowing. Those things we're capable of knowing, right?

[54:56] Naturally, without belief, right? How about Aquinas's theory? How can he come to the most primitive knowledge without belief, right? That's kind of interesting the way he's proceeding there, right? Because he's saying this is he's using a sense of what's natural to man to what is

[55:15] supernatural, right? Just like when he talks about the sacraments and and how God uses something sensible, right, to lead us to something understandable and something spiritual, right? But this is in harmony to the nature, of, man, right? You see this, you know, in philosophy and everywhere else. You have to start with the sensible and lead somebody from the sensible to things that are not able to be sensed, right?

[55:39] And God's doing the same thing there in the sacraments when He has a sensible sign of an invisible reality. huh? In grace, huh? So in a way, I mean, you know, like in a monastery or something like that, we call each other brother or sister or something of this sort, you know.

[56:00] I mean, those words come from nature, right? Just like you know, they say you know, if you had a bad father, human father, right? You know, and people have had a bad human father. It's hard for them to see the Our Father, right? You know, but if you see what a father, human father, should be, you know, and see it very much in Teresa's suit, I think, you know, because she's a very good father, right, and a very good respect for father, even the father, you know, is sick later on, You have human concerns as well as spiritual concerns.

[56:43] But then you see her, you know, meditating on the Our Father, like they would say, you know, and just meditating on the words Our Father, She hadn't gotten beyond that. I mean, she stopped at that. You know how sweet it is to call him father. You know, I mean, I mean, it's very compatible with their attitude towards your own human father, right? By vice versa, if you had a human father that was a scoundrel or a wastrel or whatever it might be, or in no way concerned for you, uh, uh, it would not be as easy for you to, to be devoted to God as your father in a somewhat different sense, obviously, right?

[57:36] So I think that there's some, you know, meaning that people don't bring out much. Maybe somebody has, they just haven't seen it, you know. I don't know exactly who's struck by that, emphasized it, but maybe you've run across something of that sort. You know, why did he choose brothers, right? For the first apostles and for the apostles closest to him, right?

[58:08] Maybe there's significance even, you know in the fact that that he does associate James and John with them, but then just Peter rather than Andrew, right? You know, so that isn't always that the brothers, right? You know, are together, right? But still, it seems to me there is some there is something to be learned from this, right? Um...

[58:34] You might make I don't know, making kind of an induction here, right? Taking the way Thomas talks about the sacraments being sensible, the way he talks about necessity of belief, right? But he argues in a sense from the human, right? You know, that this had to be done in a way on the supernatural level, right? Okay,

[58:58] It's natural for man to be led from the sensible, right, to the immaterial even in philosophy, right? We have to reason from motion to the unmoved mover, right? And so God is doing the same thing with the sacraments, right?

[59:20] So brothers, huh? Into that discussion of the natural here. I don't know if I did, but Because that was I think, somehow you were going to answer the difficulty about how you should take those virtues when you should be totally confident in God and totally distrust yourself. Yeah, It seems to go against the hope you're either going to be presumptuous and depends on God, or you're going to despair because you're distrusting yourself.

[59:53] Yeah. I was kind of kind of raising a more general thing there about about well if you think of Fides et Ratio this work by the holy father

[1:00:09] if you have if you don't trust reason at all right you know that seems to be a impediment right to the faith what does Saint Saint Paul has that phrase the in the Latin words you know obsequium rationabile right reasonable service of faith right

[1:00:41] if you reject the reason you're really what based on faith right Father Boulay there had a letter from Augustine one time where someone had asked Augustine whether faith and reason were compatible right Augustine said well we're capable of faith because we have reason so you know so I mean you can't

[1:01:14] I was reading Saint Paul there the first epistle to the Corinthians right get the impression that the Corinthians are not the best of all you know condition not the best of all right and

[1:01:32] you know Thomas presents the Corinthians as being mainly about the sacraments right that's about the baptism and about the marriage and the sacrament of the Eucharist. anyway he gets into the section there on marriage before Paul is going to explain what it should be he's criticizing some of the goings on there and in particular apparently some man has uh, shacked up with his father's wife and this is terrible right and I guess I mean Saint Paul saying even the pagans this is you know terrible and you should not be tolerating this right they have to exile this man or you know ostracize them or you know and he goes into a lot of the types of the attitudes right partly their pride because they're better

[1:02:25] than this man obviously but big deal you're better than this man right Even the pagans know this is awful because I couldn't help but think I mean neither Saint Paul nor nor Thomas for that matter mentioned Oedipus the king right you know I mean you know this is horrible to the Greeks right that a man should even unknowingly right you know sleep with his his mother right and so I mean uh, uh, Saint Paul accuses them for something that natural reason would tell you was was terrible right You know, so um.

[1:03:24] So, be myself now but I mean, it starts off by seeing about the harmony of nature right with the grace son we never be in conflict right but then how one can what dispose for the other right

[1:03:45] and when they talk about the the virtues son the human virtues are in one way more stable than the supernatural virtues that supernatural virtues or the infused virtues as they call it can be lost by one mortal sin right but the human virtues are acquired by repeated acts so one act contrary to them doesn't entirely destroy that virtue at all right but if you don't have those human virtues in addition to the the infused virtues there's an instability in your life right

[1:04:27] where's the one epistles where St. Paul says something about that that you know man doesn't take care of his family is worse than the than the pagans right you know

[1:04:58] You can't, you know, neglect the natural, but assume the supernatural. You can't mix up the two, right? And but you have to see that there's a certain harmony between one can

[1:05:21] help the other in a way, right? It's helped him out because you were saying something about trusting yourself, right? Trusting in a sense of your nature, right?

[1:05:46] the old definition of theology is belief seeking understanding, right? That's very much in harmony with the idea of wonder being natural to us, right?

[1:06:04] I I love this one psalm in the correct numbering, 99 right? You know, it begins. I usually teach it to the kids when they're little because that was a nice one for them. Sing joyfully to the Lord all your lands, serve the Lord with gladness. Come before him with joyful song. know that the Lord is God. He made us his we are. His people the flock he tends.

[1:06:27] Well, no, it's the first part there. It's always saying you'd be a joyful sing, right? You know, serve the Lord with gladness. like how to obey his commandments. But then it says, "know that the Lord is God. He made us his we are." That's exactly like Thomas divides theology in the Summa Contra Gentiles. God is Himself. God is a Maker. God is the end and His divine providence, right?

[1:06:48] So, since he's saying, you know, Dwayne, saying to me in particular, right? read the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologia, but Summa Contra Gentiles, it's even more precisely that distinction, you know. And know that the Lord is God, right? That's book one of the Summa Contra Gentiles He made us his we are, right? That's the second book. The Flocky Guide, right? That's the third book, right?

[1:07:13] Read, you know, take and read. And it goes on. in the translation that I learned the psalm in, Enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise, right? Well, you're not looking for commendation for having done his will, or for knowing him as God and the beginning and end of all things. You're giving thanks for God that you would have what been able to do that, right?

[1:07:43] His help, right? But the way the Psalm translation I have, "Enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise." Thanksgiving is kind of transition from what the the more selfish, shall we say, prayer of asking, right? We have to ask for things. We're not to ask for things in our Father, right? But Thanksgiving is a little more—I wouldn't say altruistic, but it's a little more—you're not seeking something new, but you, well, it's a condition you're seeking something new that you think about what you've received, right?

[1:08:19] But when you thank somebody, you're not—you're not asking for something more, right? Then you go to praising God, then you seem to be wholly, but outside of yourself, right? Just praising His excellence, right? So Thanksgiving is kind of the term, right? So the way the Psalm says it, enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. Go through the gate to get to the court, right? So at Thanksgiving you come, and I mean that's the way heaven will be, right?

[1:08:49] You'll be doing the will of God. I mean, there won't be a problem in doing the will of God, but you'll be knowing Him, right? As Himself and as the beginning and end of all things. But then you just naturally go to the next thing, which is to thank Him for all this, right? And then finally, you forget about, you know, God, you know, what He's done for you, but just God in Himself, right?

[1:09:13] You just be praising Him, and you forget yourself Hopefully, that'll be it, You know. But notice how close it is to nature, right? Belief seeking understanding, right? And you actually wonder about what we believe is so, right.