Prima Pars
115. Summa I, Q.31, Article 3: Can 'Alone' Be Said of God? Solus, Only, and Exclusive Words
Class of 2008-01-31
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/115-summa-i-q-31-article-3-can-alone-be-said-of-god-solus-only/

[0:00] Great progress here. Three articles. Whether the dixio exclusiva solus, how should you translate solus? Alone, yeah. Should be added to an essential term in divine things. And then the next article will be on personal term, but we don't get that far today.

[0:30] The third, therefore, it should be said. One proceeds thus. It seems that the exclusive way of speaking, solus, should not be added to an essential term in divine things, because according to the philosopher in the second book of the Sophistical Refutations,

[0:53] incidentally, that always puzzled me, you know, because I used to read elenchus there in Aristotle, where the name of the book is Sophistical Refutations. Well, then you get to the definition of faith, right? In Saint Paul there in the Hebrews, it says the

[1:11] hypostasis, you know, the hypostasis of things hoped for, and then the elenchus of things not seen. If you translate it the way it is in Aristotle's book, refutation of things not seen. I think I got more the sense of the elenchus refutation is, you know, is when I refute, I overcome you. And so here, your mind is being overcome by the unseen, right? Okay. You don't, you don't see it, but it's unseen, right?

[1:38] But it still overcomes your mind, right? Because you assent to it. Yeah. That translation. Conviction is not a bad way of translating. I think you know. Yeah, compared to to other translations they have, you know, the assurance of things, you know, or the evidence of things. Yeah, they said the assurance of things hoped for. That's not correct. And then the evidence of things not seen, you know.

[2:01] You know, that's really mixing up the English with the Latin for evidence not seen. Yeah. So I think conviction is much better translation than that. Because according to the philosopher in the second book of Sophistical Refutations, that is alone which is not with a what? Another. Therefore, but God is with the angels and the what? Souls. Therefore, we cannot say that God is what? Alone, right? So what do you think?

[2:34] Is God alone? Moreover, whatever is joined to an essential term in divine things can be said of each person per se, as such, and about all together. Because we can say suitably, the wise God, right? We can say the Father is the wise God, right? And the Trinity is the wise God.

[3:09] But Augustine says in the sixth book about the Trinity, we are not to consider that sentence, of which it is said, what? The Father is not the only true God.

[3:25] Therefore, one cannot say God alone, right? So, anything about that? So you can say God alone, and then you can say the Father is God alone. I'm in trouble, right? Aren't you?

[3:48] Now he's getting mixed up between alone and only, you know, and could they say the same thing? I'm only human. What are people saying?

[4:02] You're only a man, but you're not alone. Yeah. When you say I'm only human, do you mean I alone am human? No. Merely. Yeah.

[4:17] Yeah. Now, if this wording alone is joined to an essential term, either this is with respect to a personal predicate or with respect to an essential predicate.

[4:37] But not with respect to a personal predicate, because this is false. God alone is the Father. Since man also is a Father, That's kind of strange. With respect to essential predicate, because if this were true that God alone creates, it would follow that this is true that the Father alone creates. Because whatever is said of God can be said of the what? Father. But this is false because the Son is also a creator, right?

[5:15] So we're talking about we're speaking before. Therefore, this wording "solus, alone" cannot be joined in divine things to a essential name, right? That's kind of a funny way of speaking. How it crept into us. Term, you know, in logic originally meant what? No. Yeah, and it was used in time with the syllogism, right? So you divide the syllogism into two statements, and the statement into three terms, eventually, right?

[5:57] And then people started saying, you know, well, define your terms. And then the term almost meant what? Words or names, right? This terminal would be used here more for a name, right?

[6:10] How about the word terminus? Is that completely different? Like, I mean, what terminus means? A limit, huh? Limit. Are they different words then? No, limit. Limit is one word. Okay. Okay. So even a definition could be called a terminus. Aristotle has a chapter on the word limit there.

[6:37] You know, it's a kind of interesting article and argument in the fourth book of Natural Hearing today, or excuse me, the sixth book. And the question was whether no line can be composed of points and so on, right? And whether points can be continuous. Of course, one argument is that continuous is things are continuous when they have a common what? Limit, right? Well, can you distinguish between a point and its limit?

[7:08] Can the point have a limit? Yeah. Now I'm thinking about it because there's there's an axiom that I talk about a lot, and that is that nothing is a beginning of itself. So there's always a distinction between the beginning and that which it is a beginning. What about limit? And that of which it is a limit.

[7:40] Is anything a limit of itself? So it seemed to me almost like the other axiom that nothing is a beginning of itself, like the other axiom I have: nothing is before or after itself. Nothing is a limit of itself. Nothing is the end of itself.

[8:03] So if the point had a limit, that limit would have to be the limit of something other than itself. And of course, then you have some multiplicity there in the point that you don't have. It's all been simple. So does can the point have a limit? Well, then can points be continuous? Because things are continuous that have a. So gee whiz, that's kind of interesting argument that Aristotle has there.

[8:34] But in the Greek, there they use the word eschaton, which is last, right? Rather than the word limit, but it seems to me you can you know carried over to the word limit. So limit is what is last.

[8:51] Now against all this nonsense. Is what is said in the first epistle to Timothy to the what immortal, invisible, yeah, the only what soli Deo And there, grammatically, how do you translate alone or only? Only God.

[9:19] Now, I've got a little tough words here. I answer it should be said that this word solus can be taken categorematice or syncategorematice. Now, what's the difference between those two? Well, let's.

[9:52] Yeah, yeah. You go on to explain what this means. For that is said to be a dictio categorematica. Which absolutely places a thing signified about some what subject as elbus about man when we say that man is what white.

[10:16] If therefore one thus takes this saying solus, in no way can it be joined to some what term in divine things, huh? Because it would lay down solitude about the term to which it is joined, and thus it would follow that God is solitary, right? Which is against what we said before that you know on the text, authority is text. But a dixio sin categoriatica, he said, what imports the order of the predicate to the subject, just as this wording all or every and none, right?

[11:04] Okay. So when I say that every man is an animal, right? Animal is something being said what categorematica, right? But every is talking about the relation of that what predicate to the subject, right? It's not saying something about the subject, right? But the fact that what's being said of the subject is distributed to all the members that come under that.

[11:33] And likewise, this diction alone, because it excludes every other suppositum or every other subject from a consortium of the predicate, huh? Just as when it said Socrates alone writes, huh? Well, what does that mean? You say that Socrates is alone. So I think I think when he's saying here, you say Socrates is alone. That's categorematica, that terrible word, right? Okay.

[12:11] But when you say Socrates alone writes, what do you mean? Well, the writing is said of Socrates, but no one else, right? Okay. Was talking about the order of the predicate to the what subject, right? And that it's kind of exclusive to that subject, and you exclude anything else, right? So if Socrates is writing at the desk there, and everybody else is sitting around reading or something, right?

[12:35] They're doing something else. Then Socrates is not alone because you got other people with him, right? But Socrates alone is what writing, right? You see the difference there? Kind of, kind of get an idea that myself, even, huh? Okay.

[13:01] Because that no one else, no one is consors is is yeah in writing is a consort with them writing writing although he is with although is with them many other what people existing right

[13:22] and in this way nothing prevents this wording or saying being joined to some essential term and divine things in so far as they excluded all other things from God in the what sharing of that predicate as if we say God alone is what you know or God alone creates we say huh okay because nothing beside God is what eternal right

[13:57] so what would you say two alone is half of four you get that is two alone four wouldn't exist then yeah yeah oh the numbers are right besides two, right and that would be kind of saying it's an absolute right but if I say two alone is half of four can that be joined to

[14:30] what does that what does that say if I say two is half of four I'm merely saying half a fourth of two right when I say two alone is half of four what am I adding to

[14:43] yeah anything else from being half a fourth there's nothing else besides two that is half of four but if I say two is less than ten

[14:56] that's true isn't it two is less than ten but would it be true to say two alone is half of is less than ten when it

[15:19] forms a pride right I alone understand this excuse yourself from it huh Hegel's saying is that no one else has understood me right I alone have understood the cosmos or whatever it is the system

[15:47] so you agree then that you can add the word alone right but Thomas makes a distinction right seems to hesitate to say that you can say God is alone.

[16:08] Let's see what he says in response to his first argument. Because, according to the philosopher in the second book of the Sophistical Refutations, that is solus alone, which is not with another, right? But God is with the angels and the holy souls. Therefore, we cannot say God alone.

[16:38] That seems to be taking it in the other sense, doesn't it? Categorematica. Let's see what Thomas says to this. To the first, therefore, it should be said that although angels and holy souls are always with God, right? Nevertheless, if there was not a plurality of persons in God, right, it would follow that God was what? Yeah. So it doesn't seem to be what

[17:23] denying that you can say God is alone because of the angels and the holy souls, right? But because that would seem to be negating what plurality of persons?

[17:43] It seems like something is only said if they come to God only in relation to persons. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of difficult thing to see, but you can kind of see. But you want to explain why why the one, not the other? For that, for solitude is not taken away through the association of something which is of a extraneous nature. For one is said to be alone in the garden, although there are many plants and animals.

[18:17] Huh? So if you're home with your cat or a dog, whatever it is you got, but no other human being is there, are you alone? I'm just home alone. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I know about this. Animal rights people. As the nature of the critter increases, though, it's harder to say it. Yeah, yeah. I mean, if you would say, you know, you know, a cat or dog is company or something, right?

[18:45] For some reason, if you had a horse in your house, yeah, some people do. Yeah. Very interesting. You would. At that point, then it's hard to say you're alone if you have. a dog No, I think the word now. Huge and sort of overwhelms the place. Well, then you don't really say you're alone. Got an elephant in the room, yeah.

[19:15] And likewise, God would be said to be alone or solitary. The angels and men existing with them, right? If there were not in God many what persons.

[19:35] For the consociation, the association of angels and souls does not exclude absolute solitude from God. And much less this respect of solitude, through comparison to some predicate. And there he's talking about that second that's in syncategorematica. Sin means what? Actually, the word categorematica comes from the Greek word what for predicate, to be said of, right? So Aristotle's book is called the Categories, and in Latin they translate that the predicamenta, okay?

[20:18] But it has the idea of something said of something, right? So why sin is something what? Not said of something, but the way it's being said of it, you might say, right? That's why it's said to be with the the predicate, okay? It's not what's being said of it, but how it's being said of it, like every or none or alone, right? Okay.

[20:43] When I say every man is an animal, is every being said of man? No, it's really animals being said of man. So that's categorematica okay? But every is saying something about how it's being said of man, said of man universally, something. Don't care if I say no man is a stone, right? Well, is no being said of man? No, being denied of him, but it's stone, right?

[21:09] How is that being denied? When you say two alone is half of four, is alone being said of two? Now half of four is being said of two, right? But it's being said of two and nothing else, you might say, right?

[21:27] So I don't know. I'm going to have company in there like the alone if... if you were with God, yeah, or with my guardian or something, right? It's a lot of the shape of your nose. Huh? You were able to shake your nose. Oh, yeah. So that's interesting. Thomas says you shouldn't say God is alone, right? Because of the Trinity, right? That's what comes in this. This whole thing is about those things that follow upon the Trinity, the plurality of persons, right?

[22:06] One thing that follows upon there being a plurality of persons in God, namely three, is that you shouldn't say God is alone. Since since God alone is wise.

[22:21] But you say God alone is wise, right? Even Aristotle says you know, either you say God alone is wise or only God fully is wise, right? you're taking wisdom in the strict full sense, knowing everything simply, then God alone is wise, huh?

[22:42] Not even Lucifer is wise. Would this be because you could say that God alone creates, but you wouldn't make the statement that the Father alone creates? Right, right, right. That's what'll come up in the objection. I think you know why can you say God alone creates? The Father is God, therefore, right? Okay,

[23:11] get some very, very subtle things here. So that second objection is really that, isn't it? Okay. He says this dixio, this word solus, right? This thing said, this dixio, this thing said solus. Properly speaking, is not placed on the side of the predicate, right? Which is taken formally, because the predicate is to the subject a little bit like what form to what matter. Yeah, that's why we call the the other thing the subject, right?

[23:54] Because such is like the matter, right? Subject and predicate. So it's not placed on the side of the predicate, which is taken formally, but it regards the what suppositum, right? The subject, insofar as it excludes another subject from that to which it is what joined. That's why I'm going to translate that subjectness, huh? Not exactly the thing, but it's better than suppositum. Yeah. Maybe you understood that right?

[24:26] Yeah. But this adverbium tantum. See, now I think that's what you translate only, right? Right. Only is an adverb, right? How do you translate your text? Yeah, I'm the only one. Yeah. So what's the difference between only and alone, right? See. Well, I know what alone is. What part of speech is that?

[25:00] It's an adjective. Maybe. But only is only an adverb, right? But this adverb only, since it is exclusive, can be placed on the side of the subject and on the side of the predicate, right? For we can say only Socrates runs, right? That is, no other one runs, and Socrates runs only. Berquist thinks only. That's all he does.

[25:42] So if you say only Berquist thinks, that means what? Nobody else thinks Nobody else thinks of Berquist right? We say Berquist thinks only. That's all he does. It isn't true. They're doing media, right? Okay.

[26:04] Whence is not properly be able to be said that the Father is God what alone right or the Trinity is God alone unless perhaps on the side of the predicate is understood something implied as when it is said that the Trinity is the God who is alone God

[26:37] and according to this one this could be true that the Father is the God who is alone God if the relative refers to the predicate and not the supposing term right otherwise you could say that the Father alone is God right

[26:58] but Augustine when he says that the Father is not what God alone but the Trinity alone he speaks what yeah laying it out I just wanted to say that when one says the this is that famous text there from Saint Paul to the King of Ages invisible the only God right should not be explained about the person of the Father but about the whole what Trinity some people are using that as a text of Arius something like that saying well only the Father is God right and then

[27:46] the Son is not God right okay but that's misunderstanding that text right the God is not standing there for the person of the Father but for the what Trinity right okay so that's it you can have some fun with the word only right huh English term if you say

[28:20] only Socrates thinks what does that mean yeah but now if you say in English Socrates only thinks so does only go at the predicate then

[28:40] Socrates only thinks that's all he does yeah it seems like that why do I say in English only Socrates thinks nobody else you know Homer describes I forget the guy's name but They're out in the field there, right? Achilles about to come back in the battle, right? All he's done is appeared at the thing, roared, and and I forget the guy's name, but he's urging them all to get back into the city and behind the walls before he comes on and he shouts down and and Hector, you know, you know, he alone, you know, looked before and behind, right?

[29:28] So you see, Socrates only Socrates thinks, only this man looks before and after, right? It means no one else did, right? Everybody else thought they just stay on the plain there and keep up their, you know, events standing against the Greeks, right? The Achaeans.

[29:52] If you say Socrates only thinks, what does that mean? It's kind of kind of funny in English, huh? That's why you got to go back to the Latin, Latin, Augustan, Augustan, because you don't quite get it. But here in English, at least it seems to me, if you put the only before Socrates and after, it you don't have exactly the same meaning. Only Socrates thinks. Only children play.

[30:21] Children only play. Yeah. We have to go to school. Who's it? Yeah. He only thinks of himself. Hmm. Yeah. Doesn't think anybody else. Yeah.

[30:49] Only, only he thinks of himself. What does that mean? He's the only egotist among us. He's the only guy who knows himself, right? Yeah. Okay. Yes,

[31:12] I got it. Now the third objection. If this dictio solus is joined to an essential term, either this will be with respect to a personal predicate or with respect to an essential predicate. But not with respect to a personal predicate because this is false. That God alone is the Father is the way we translate it How do we translate it. God alone is the Father. Since also man is the Father, that's kind of strange.

[31:54] Nor with respect to a predicate that's essential, because if this were true, God alone creates, it would seem to follow that this is true, that the Father alone creates, right?

[32:08] Since God alone creates, or the Father is God, therefore. Yeah. Yeah. The third, it should be said, that in both ways this wording solus can be joined to an essential term. For this proposition, again, now that's another example there. Proposition originally meant what? The premise of a what? Syllogism, huh? And etymologically, propositio is placed before, right? The premise means sent before, right? But then proposition came to mean what?

[32:49] Statement, right? But it's very common in Thomas and other people to use the word proposition now for what? Statement. Just like the word term for a name, huh? Define your terms. Define your names, you use it. Would be more correct to say define your names, say what you mean by your names, right? Terms.

[33:10] So this proposition, huh? Thomas, he follows the custom sometimes, huh? He's only. Right? God alone is the what? Father is twofold in this understanding, because the word "pater" is able to predicate the person of the Father, right? And thus it is true,

[33:43] For man is not that what person. Okay. What does that mean? No man, no angel is what the Father, right? Only God is the Father, right? Okay.

[34:04] Or it can predicate the relation only, and thus it is false, because the relation of fatherhood is also found in others, right? Okay. Although that kind of got me wondering about why he objected that way. Okay. Similarly, this is true that God alone creates, but nevertheless, it does not follow, therefore, what the Father alone, huh? Because, as the Sophists say, now notice sophistae dicunt. He's not taking the Sophists here now in the pejorative sense, right?

[34:43] But apparently, the Sophists were kind of the first thinkers to work out what grammar, right? Shows you they're kind of interested in words more than thoughts, right? And so I guess grammarians got to be called sophistae, huh? Okay. But anyway, they're talking about something about language, right? That a dictio exclusiva, like solus, right? Immobilitat. It what puts at rest the term to which it is joined. That it cannot what

[35:24] have descent under it, right? To what's below it, right? And he gives an example. If you say man alone is a what mortal, rational animal, but Socrates is a man, therefore what? Socrates is alone irrational.

[35:45] So, so, so I say the philosopher alone is a lover of wisdom. That's what philosophy means, right? So if you're not a philosopher, you're not a lover of wisdom, right? So. Socrates is a philosopher. Therefore, Socrates alone is a lover of wisdom. Does that follow?

[36:14] So the book puts that down. It says so. It mobilizes, right? And you can't descend from that. So as I say this, a an even number alone is divisible into two equal parts.

[36:46] Or I mean, you know, the even number is the only number that is divisible into two equal parts, right? Four is an even number. Therefore, four is the only number divisible into two equal parts. Sophists are righty, right? The grammarians, huh? Yeah.

[37:15] Used to have this joke about Albert the Great. You know, we used to have a hard time at least Latin texts we have. You know, what the heck is the guy saying here? You know, A hard thing, you know. and of course, the story was that Albert the Great was kind of stupid. He went prayed to the Blessed Virgin. She enlightened him, right? But I said, it happened after he studied grammar, so.

[37:38] Never got the grammar straightened out But you've heard me make fun of the grammarians, right? I say, well, if you say to the philosopher, what do you think of these two sentences? Man am an animal, and man is a stone. Well, the logician would say that man am an animal is better than man is a stone. Man is a stone is false, right?

[38:22] Yeah. Or I am a stone, or I is your professor, which is better? I is your professor, isn't I? You know. And I am a stone is false, right? The grammarian would answer, "I am a stone, perfect, wonderful, 100%. I is a professor, or I is a man, wrong, right? So he doesn't care about whether the statement is true or false, just provided it is said right, huh?

[38:55] Yeah. But what's the the uh, is it Tolstoy the story of the death of Ivan Ilyich? You ever seen that little thing? And you know, why is he struck with this disease, and he's going to die, right? He's thinking back over his life and so on. How he has made love in French You know He has done an immoral life, right? He has done it in French or whatever the proper way of doing it, right?

[39:22] It's kind of like the verities, right? You know, not what you say, you know, whether it's true or false. but let's just say it correctly, you know with the little things huh? Things you gotta make sure you're speaking grammatically correct.

[39:38] Of course, one of the things a sophist would do, if he could do nothing else, is to get you to say something ungrammatically, huh?

[39:45] And then leave you in that difficulty. Well, should we try to attack this fourth article. and I don't I don't know. if I'll go too far What Only one more. You can go through this last? one I do think so Okay, we can try it here.

[40:06] We got to go home and go to a wake so we gotta can't stay too long here. But you wanna go? Go ahead. Yeah, maybe you should go. Yeah, back home and then we've got to come back to a wake Yeah, yeah, go, go,

[40:20] See, when I retired I got his picture of the five of us so they put him on the Assumption magazine. Yeah, yeah. So two of the guys have died already. since uh think where to go?

[40:32] Well. He was dying, yeah, but he died Sunday. so he had his wake tonight and his funeral tomorrow.