Prima Secundae
73. Aquinas on the Effects of Love: Ecstasy, Zeal, and Whether Love Harms the Lover (ST I-II q.28 aa.3-5)
Class of 2012-05-03
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/073-aquinas-on-the-effects-of-love-ecstasy-zeal-and-whether-love/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias 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 have written. The Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:38] So up to Article Three, huh? The third effect of love. With your ecstasy, right, huh? Ecstasis in the Greek, right? In out of yourself. Outside yourself, yeah. Is not an effect of love. Is an effect of love, right? To the third, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that going outside yourself is not the effect of love, huh? For ecstasy seems to imply a certain alienation of mind, right?

[1:14] But love does not always make out alienation, huh? For those loving are sometimes, you know, sui compos, not nuncupable, right? Yeah. Control himself. Yeah. Get hold of yourself. You say, you know. They get their wits about. Yeah. Therefore, love does not make what ecstasy, right, huh?

[1:50] Moreover, the one loving desires to unite so far as possible the thing loved, right, huh? Once it united to him himself, right. Therefore, more does he draw the beloved, the loved, to himself, right? And then he what goes out into the loved, right? Extra se exiens on going outside himself, huh? Does love make you go outside yourself? Does love put you beside yourself?

[2:30] Moreover, love unites the loved to the lover. as has been said. If therefore the one loving tends outside himself, that he might what go out to the beloved, it follows that he always loves more the loved than himself, right? Which is clearly false. Therefore, going outside oneself is not an effect of what. Love, but against this is what Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names.

[3:07] That the divine love makes ecstasy, right? And that God Himself, an account of love, has undergone what ecstasy, right? I notice here, in a little footnote in my text here. I don't know if you have it, but anyway. he gives the Greek there: "Greek ekstasis," right? Huh? Okay. We got a little more like we have in Latin, we have in English. We have an S there, right after the X, right?

[3:39] But here it's just E X T. A, That's close, so yeah. But notice what he says there Greek ekstasis." It is that is excessus right? Exitus but excessus reminds me of that thing there, where our Lord is having a conversation with Moses and Elijah about his coming excess, right? About his ecstasy, right? Because he's undergoing ecstasy, right, in dying for us, huh? Okay.

[4:16] Since therefore each love is a certain likeness partaken of the what divine love, right? As is said there by Dionysius, it seems that every love causes what ecstasy, huh? Well, what does Thomas say now? I answer: It should be said that someone is said to what undergo ecstasy, right? To suffer ecstasy, but in English we could say undergo when he is placed outside what himself, and this happens both by the grasping power, the knowing power, and by the desiring power.

[5:08] Now, by the knowing power, the grasping power, someone is said to be placed outside himself when he is placed outside the knowledge that is proper to him,

[5:24] either because he is what sublime to a superior as man when he is elevated to comprehending some things which are above sense and what reason. Reason. Sense being the source of reason, right? Some sense. He is said to undergo what ecstasy, right? And this is on the side of the knowing power, right? Like Saint Paul made when he's carried up to the third heaven, huh?

[5:56] Insofar as he's placed outside the natural knowledge, the natural grasping of reason and the what senses. huh? That must have happened to Thomas there. Before he finished the Summa, right? It's out of straws, right?

[6:15] Or because he is what depressed, huh? To lower things, as when someone falls into fury, right? And amensia without mind, huh? He is said, to undergo ecstasy. Was it Nebuchadnezzar who was down there? Yeah, eating grass and an ox. Yeah, yeah, he's ecstasy, poor, right? Okay. According to the desiring power or part, one is said to what undergo ecstasy when the desire of something carries him into another thing, right?

[7:02] Going out in a way outside himself. Now he makes another distinction according to the two kinds of love, huh? But we'll see that the first ecstasy love makes by way of disposing us for this, huh?

[7:25] Insofar as it makes us meditate about the thing what loved, huh? But the intense meditation on one thing draws one or extracts one from what other things, huh? So people may get the little elevation, right?

[7:49] The body's almost like stiff, huh? Sometimes, huh? So it disposes for the ecstasy that is on the side of the knowing power, right? But according to the ecstasy, but the second kind of ecstasy that is according to the what desiring power, love makes this directly, right? Not just disposing. But now he makes a distinction between the two kinds of love. Simpliciter, right? Simpliciter, right? My old friend simpliciter.

[8:23] the love of friendship, right? That makes one go outside oneself, simply speaking, without qualification, right? But the love of wanting, of concupiscence, right, makes one go outside oneself, not simply, but secundum quid, right?

[8:47] For in the love of wanting or concupiscence. In a certain way, the lover is carried. I guess the lover is carried outside himself, right? Insofar as not content to rejoice about the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside himself, like Rip Van Winkle, right, or even the music of Mozart, right.

[9:18] But because that outside good he seeks to have for himself, right, he does not go simply without qualification outside himself. But such an affection, in the end, is concluded within himself, right? So I go out, go out for the candy to bring it into myself, right? You know, so I try to go outside myself. No, it ends up in me, right? The candy in my mouth, right?

[9:48] Okay, Rip Van Winkle in my mouth, Mozart in my ear, right? But in the love of friendship, the affections. Of someone simply without qualification, go or exit outside themselves. Why? Because he wishes to his friend good, and he acts for that good, right? As it were, having care and providence over the other, right? On account of the friend himself, right? Okay. So then you have ecstasy. Yeah, that's what our Lord had on the cross, right?

[10:32] Now the first thing about alienation, right? Well, Thomas said that ratio proceeds about the first ecstasy, right? And the second one, which is saying that the lover desires to unite the love to himself. Well, that argument proceeds by the or about the love of wanting, right? Which, granted, does not simply make ecstasy, right? But only in a qualified what sense, right? Come on, help! Oh, I need something.

[11:14] People say that sometimes you hear them say that, right? They kind of, you know, they need something, you know. And they go into the store and they get something. I got to get something to eat, you know. That's that's a w that's that means simply speaking, that's not ecstasy, right? Yeah. But one is in some sense going outside oneself, right? In some qualified way, to get something back to oneself, right?

[11:41] Fast food things and so on, right? Do you remember that next time you stop at a fast food McDonald's, order a double cheeseburger. It's not really ecstasy. Wendy.

[12:02] The third objection is talking about you loving another person more than yourself, right? To the third, therefore, it should be said that the one who loves, to that extent, goes outside himself, in so far as he wills the goods to the friend and acts for that, right? But this does not mean that he wills the goods of the friend more than his own, right?

[12:30] Whence it does not follow that he loves the other one more than himself, right? So that's the famous thing when they talk about the soldier gives his life for somebody else, right? Does he love the other person more than himself? Not necessarily more, but certainly as much. Yeah, yeah. But is he choosing the greater good for himself or for his friend? For himself. Yeah. The act, right?

[13:02] Okay. So, with God the Father loves God the Son, right? He dies on the cross. If this is not a greater act, right? But to someone who considers just the goods of the body, it would seem that the soldier is loving the man he dies for more than himself, right? And that's to say, you know, that you just see the goods of

[13:34] life, right? Partly life. That's interesting. Effect of love, right? So, it's the first effect of love, union, right? Second effect of love is this mutual indwelling, right? The third effect of love he gives is going outside yourself, right? But now that comes up, what zeal, right?

[14:16] I guess you know maybe in reading the article there, this, I guess the Latin word zeal, zealous, you know, can mean what envy as well as what zeal, you know. But in English you have two words, you know, so part of this may involve the fact that the word is a little bit of equivocation, right?

[14:38] To the fourth, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that zeal is not an effect of love, for zeal is beginning of what contention, right?

[14:57] Hence, it is said in one Corinthians chapter three that there is between you what zelus and contentio, right? But contention, fighting, or something like that, is repugnant to love, right? Therefore, zeal is not an effect of what love.

[15:22] But now you're getting to kind of different, you know, effect of love, the zeal with respect to those things that are what either impeding you to getting the thing you want, or you're moving against the thing that threatens what you love and so on, right?

[15:42] So if you're using my kids' target practice, right? Now I have some zeal, right? Move against you, right? But it's proceeding from my love of my children, right? Not from my love of you.

[15:57] That's an effect of love, right? That I get concerned and you know shooting up. My parents tell me when they moved in, the guy had barbed wire next to our house. Father, get that out of here! He's not going to put a real fence in, you know. Yeah, yeah. That was zeal, right? It's kind of

[16:28] funny. People on one side, you're very friendly, you know, and get your ball bouncing. Get your ball around. Go the other guy, your ball was in his yard. Mr. Anderson, can we get the ball? You'd say, goddamn nonsense.

[16:43] So there's these two neighbors, right? Oh yeah. It's like one of our neighbors over here. He's, I don't think he's in his right mind, but anyways, years ago we had a friend that lived on the other side of town, and he could go through the woods from his house. If he drove here, several miles, but if he came to the woods, it wasn't that far. Yeah, yeah.

[17:05] But he had to cross part of this gentleman's property, and so anyways, they were both members of the American Legion local chapter of the American Legion. And so one time this fellow went up to, oh, Mister So and So, ah, please meet you. He says, you know, I live just over here, and sometimes I go over the monastery, and I, I go right up the corner of your property.

[17:25] I shoot trespassers. The greeting he got. Oh well, okay, I won't do that anymore. Moreover, the object of love is the good, right? Which is communicating of itself, right? But zealousness is repugnant to communication. For to zealousness, more in the sense of jealousy, right? Not envy, it's jealousy, right? But to jealousy, it seems to pertain that someone does not undergo or allow consortium joining in the loved, right?

[18:22] Just as men are said to be jealous about their wives and so. I thought it's not going to take that, right? Share it with somebody else, which they do not wish to have in common with others, right?

[18:40] Therefore, zeal is not an effect of what of love, huh? That zealousness, you know, problem translating it, it seems to cover both jealousy and the words are relating is zealous and jealousy. In zeal and zealousness. Yeah, God says that I am a jealous God. He doesn't want to share it with somebody else.

[19:11] Moreover, zealous is not without what hate, just as not without love. For it is said in Psalm seventy-two, "I was what." Jealous for the wickedness. Wicked. Therefore, it ought not to be said to be more an effect of love than of what hate. hate. Hate. See how Thomas has ordered these. The first three effects of love is being closer to love than this.

[19:43] But against this is what Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names, that God is said to be zelotes, huh? Jealous, so he said, on account of the great love which he has for existing things.

[20:05] Thomas says, "I answer. It should be said that the zealous, zeal, or jealousy, in whatever way it is taken, right." Arise from the intensity of what, of love, huh? For it is manifest that the more some power intensely tends towards something, the more it repels everything that is either contrary or repugnant to it.

[20:35] Since therefore love is a certain motion in the what, in the loved, towards the loved, as Augustine says in the book on the eighty-three questions, right? Intense love seeks to exclude everything that is what repugnant to it. This is kind of in regard to something other than the good itself, right? Now

[21:03] again, he sees a distinction here. This happens in a different way in the love of wanting and in the love of what friendship, right? For in the love of wanting, who intensely wants something, right? He moves against that which is repugnant to the achievement of it, right? Or the quiet enjoyment of what he what loves, huh?

[21:32] So the political campaign is going to be some, some of this. Yeah. They both want to be president. And in this way, men are said to what? Jealous for their wives. Yeah, or jealous of their wives, huh? Lest to the consortium of others there be impeded the singularity which they seek in the wife, huh?

[22:02] Likewise, those who seek some excellence are moved against those who seem to what excel, because they are impeding their what excellence, right? And this is the zeal of what envy, envidia. About whom it is said in Psalm thirty-six, "Don't emulate in what bad or be jealous of those doing iniquity, of those doing iniquity, right now, to make our money bad way, right now." Don't worry about it.

[22:52] But now the love of friendship seeks the good of the friend. Whence, when it is intense, it makes a man move against everything that is repugnant to the good of the friend. And an account of this, someone is said to zeal for his what friend. So, if I'm supporting this guy for office, right, then I have zeal, right. And the enemy attacks him, I strike back, right.

[23:31] So, if something is said or done against the good of the friend, a man seeks to repel it, huh? And in this way, someone is said to be zeal zeal for God, right, huh? When those things which are against the honor or the will of God, he seeks to what repel, as so far as he's able, right?

[24:05] According to that, in the third book of the Kings, with zeal. I was zealous for the what Lord of the armies, Lord of hosts. And John too, our Lord says, the zeal of your house has eaten me up. Says the what gloss, right? He's eaten up by a good what zeal that made it a house of thievery, right? Who, whatever bad things which he sees, he seeks to what correct, right?

[24:43] And if he is what not evil, yes, he tolerates and groans about them, right? Right. The populist. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's going to suffer them, endure them. Yeah, Warren Murray says this. If Obama is reelected, he's going to give up his American citizenship.

[25:10] I won't blame him. He could ruin anyway. Now, to the first, it should be said that the apostle there speaks of the zeal of what envy, Envy, which, to be sure, is a cause of contention, but not against the thing loved, right? Huh? But for the thing loved, against the impediments of it, right? So this is a different object in sense, right? Than the good itself, right?

[25:43] What's involved? So you see why he's ordered this fourth article after the first two articles, right? First two is respect to the good itself, right? Now it's just something opposed to it, right? But you're moving against what is opposed to it for the sake of the thing that is loved. To

[26:04] the second, it should be said that the good is loved in so far as it can be communicated to the one loving. Whence everything that impedes the perfection of communication is rendered odious, right? And thus, from the love of good, zeal is what caused, right?

[26:30] But it's from the defect of goodness that some little goods, right, cannot be wholly what possessed by the many. And from the love of such things is caused the zeal of envy.

[26:51] But not, however, properly from those things which are what, as a whole, can be possessed by many, right? For no one envies another the knowledge of truth, right? So I can envy you the knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem, right? Does it prevent me from knowing it, right? In fact, anything of it would be a help for me to know it. That you know it too, right? Talk about that.

[27:16] Which, by many, integre, right, wholly, right, is able to be what known, right? But perhaps, huh? About the excellence concerning the knowledge of this, right? Okay. I understand the Pythagorean theorem better than you do. It's something. You get hired to teach it, and I don't. Yeah. Your excellence is a pity. My job. There can be kind of a envy there about the truth, right? In that way, right?

[27:53] But not about the truth simply, right? Because that's something we can share, right? It's like a movie. Well, you know, I can see the movie, you can see the movie, right? And your seeing the movie doesn't beat my seeing it. In fact, if you're enjoying it too, makes makes it probably more enjoyable, you know. So truth is like that, right? Huh? You know, we go see a play, Shakespeare, go see a Mozart opera, you know.

[28:18] Yeah. There's something great about a live performance being there, whether it's music or play or whatever. Sure, sure, sure, sure. It's funny. Some some of the critics, you know, think that Shakespeare's plays can only be appreciated in your armchair, right?

[28:52] What is, yeah, you know, hard for an actor to maybe, you know, and sometimes, sometimes, you know, the lines, you know, you got to do a lot of gestures up there, you know, and it's kind of distracting for the lines and so on. But be careful that, right. Okay, now whether love is a passion that is what injuring the beloved, right? I mean, the lover, rather. Mm-hmm. It's interesting you stick this in, right?

[29:33] Huh? And it's kind of different because he's talked first about the effect of love with respect to the to the love itself, right? Mm-hmm. That's the first what? First two, I guess, huh?

[29:53] First three, right? First. Mm-hmm. First three, yeah, and then the what relates to the what is preventing one from getting to love, right? Or could harm the loved, right? But now he's talking about the effect on oneself, right? Huh? Injures oneself, right?

[30:21] So languor, huh? What's the word they use for that in the in the song songs? In the song of Songs. Yeah, we have the word languid. It's uh, it's in the, in the first objection. I languish with love. I languish. Yeah, languish. Let me. See what this says here.

[30:44] What do you have? Love causes languor. Languor. Okay. This is faintness, feebleness, or apathy, even languor. Faintness of people, anyway. Okay. The languor signifies a certain injury, right, of the one that is languid, but love causes this, right? For it is said in the Canticles, two five, prop me up, I guess. Mm-hmm. With flowers, huh?

[31:23] With apples there, what does stipite? What's that stipite? Compassing about the apples. Apples, because I languish with love, right? Therefore, love is a passion that is what injurious, I guess, huh? Mm-hmm. Moreover, huh? Liquefaction, right? Melting, I suppose, right? Huh? Okay. So Coriolanus, right? He melts there, right? His mother kneels down there, intercedes for Rome, right? Huh? Otherwise, he was hard, even though his friends came out and

[32:12] something about his mother kneeling down there, something wrong here, right? So melting, I guess you could say liquefaction, turning into making liquid. I guess it means that, but I think the English word would be melting, right now.

[32:32] I always think of my sister's kids or something when one of them has a temper tantrum. Oh, we're having a meltdown! Whenever I see this word, now I think of meltdown with the kids having a fit. you know. Yeah, yeah. I was when Shakespeare's plays there, the guy compares, Which is the second? He's losing his throne and everything, you know. he could be like a, you know, a snowman almost, like that, you know, he melt away in the son of uh, who's succeeding him.

[33:00] So melting is a certain what? Dissolving or resolution, right? Resolutio is the opposite of what? Compositio, right? So it's a kind of what taking apart, right? Now, so when the snowman melts, that's the end of his days, right? But love is what melting things, right? It makes one melt. And this also is taken from this famous work, the Canticles, right now. My soul, what? Melt. Yeah.

[33:36] As when my love what? Spoke to me, right? But love is what? Dissolving it. Yeah. Yeah. Therefore, it is what? Harmful. Yeah, yeah. I noticed in all of these objections, there he's going to quote the what? The Canticles, right? So the Canticles is called what? The Song of Songs, right now. But it's the book of the Bible that is most uniquely about what?

[34:16] It's about love. So why is the Song of Songs like King of Kings, right? You know, as Thomas say there. When you see the King of Kings, right, the Lord of Lords, right?

[34:33] Jelly bread and so on. But why is why is this work that's the chief work on you know most exclusively about charity, not the only one? Why is that called the Song of Songs, right? I think of a line from Augustine, cantare amantis est. Yeah, Yeah, yeah. It shows a connection between music and what? Love.

[35:03] Something Mozart well understood, right? You have all these things in Shakespeare, you know. Music be the food of love, you know. Play on, you know.

[35:21] Twelfth night. It's interesting, love. Connection to music and love, you know. Stop and think about that a little bit. That's where music has a place in in the liturgy huh Moreover, fervor, huh? How would you translate that in English?

[36:16] What? They just say fervor. Fervor. Fervor. yeah, Burning up. Could be. For fervor, designates a certain excess in what? Heating, right? Huh? Yeah, it says heat, boiling heat, boiling, fermenting, ardor, passion, fury. Yeah.

[36:44] Ah, which excess is corruptive, right? Huh? But fervor is caused from love, as Dionysius says in the seventh chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy That among other properties pertaining to love, the seraphim, right? He puts down what? Hot and sharp, sharp, and super fervid Yeah, boiling over right? Boiling over yeah.

[37:17] And in Canticles 8 6 we're recording again the Song of Songs, right? It is said about love that its lamps are the lamps of what? Fire and flames, right? From harm, how they put their

[37:33] flames. Therefore, love is a passion that is injurious and corruptive. Against this, is what Dionysius says that each what love themselves contentive, right? Huh. In containing way, right? Huh. In conserving way, right? Huh. Therefore, love is not a passion that is injurious, but more that conserves and perfects, right? Huh. What

[38:08] Thomas says, I answer it should be said. as has been said above that love signifies a certain adaptation, you might say, right? Fitting to right of the desiring power to some what good right. That's kind of a definition of love. That's conformity of the heart to what. Yeah, yeah.

[38:38] But nothing from what being adapted to to that which is suitable to it right, huh, is from this very thing injured right. But more, if it be possible, one progresses and is made what better right. But what is adapted to something that is not suitable to it right,

[39:04] is from this injured right, and made what worse. Love, therefore, of a good that is suitable, is perfecting. Of and making better the lover, right?

[39:25] So if you love something that's suitable for you to love, then you're made what more perfect and better for that love, right? But love of a good which is not suitable to the one loving is injurious and making worse the what lover, right?

[39:51] So they don't make these distinctions even in church very much, right? So tell me how love is. But does love make you better or worse? Depends on what you're loving. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. If I love sin, I'd be made worse, right?

[40:11] Whence Maxime, most of all, man is perfected, right? And made better by the love of what God. But he is injured and made worse by the love of sin, according to that of Osee. Chapter nine. They were made abominable just as the things which they what loved.

[40:48] What is it? You know, you read this article now. Came out February, you know, the Journal of Medical Ethics, right? And saying you know that they should you know be allowing you know newborn babies, you know that are out of the tomb out of the womb to be killed, Be killed, right? huh? Now if it seems for the you know to the parents to their better good, right?

[41:09] Even if they're perfectly healthy. It specifies everything wrong with them. And so he's saying you know I'm going to start off by you know approving abortion, you know, and now they're approving this, right? And of course, Obama voted for it he's in the Illinois Senate and so on. But they they're getting worse, right? You know they're not getting better, you know they're getting worse.

[41:33] More abominable. Yeah. But they're kind of like pursuing as if it was a real good, you know. Yeah. It's not just you know a couple of college kids. You know, getting what are they going to do now? You know, you know that you know in a mess like that. But

[41:52] yeah, this important. But you know, just positive good now they're trying to maintain, you know, just terrible. You know, they get really they're really evil lives in the world, you know, really, really, really.

[42:16] Now Thomas, in the reply to objections, right, is going to distinguish between what love is formally speaking, right, and what it is in the body, right, huh? Because there it could be harmful, right, huh? Okay.

[42:40] To those things which are objected in the contrary, it should be said that to love can be attributed four proximate effects, huh? To wit, melting, right?

[43:00] Fruition, which is enjoyment, right? Languor, which is what kind of a weakness, huh? And effervescence, right? Among which the first, I notice the order he sees here, right, is melting, right, which is opposed to congealing, huh? Congealing, but what would you say? Yeah, hardening, right? Yeah. Because the hardening of the heart, right, huh?

[43:42] The hard heart. The stony heart, huh? With a heart of flesh. Now those things which are congealed are constricted in themselves, right? That they do not easily

[43:59] admit the what entrance into, right? Of another, right, huh? That they are not able to easily undergo, right? the entrance of something else, right? So you can't put your

[44:16] spoon, very well in the, in the rock, right? But you can in the ice cream, huh? So to love, however, it pertains that the desiring power be adapted to a certain receiving of the good loved, right, huh? Insofar as the loved is in the what lover, right?

[44:48] So the loved has to make an impression upon my heart, right? So we can say that the what, the girl made an impression upon my heart, right, huh? Or even the the music of Mozart made an impression upon my heart, right? And sometimes they use even the word wounded, right, huh? Okay.

[45:19] Whence the congealing of the heart, or the hardness of the heart, right? Is a disposition that's repugnant to love, right? Have you ever known any hard-hearted people? But melting, liquefactio as he's translating it, implies a certain softening, huh? Okay, He's soft-hearted, huh? Soft touch.

[45:52] He's a softy. He's a softy. Yeah, soft touch. Yeah. That's what one of the monks, when the cat stands outside his door, he can't refuse. He's got to go in. That's it. Whereas me, I can tell her go away. I'm hard-hearted. So, but melting implies a certain softening of the heart, which shows itself as a heart able that the loved can go into it, right? Enter into it, huh?

[46:28] Make an impression upon. As people go to the dog or cat place where they get the ones, the stray ones, like that, you know, some one little dog there makes a little impression upon you, you know, huh? When I was getting cats, when I was in grade school there. You know, I'd go to this woman who had maybe you know six, seven kittens in there. as a cat, just had kittens, and I used to go in there and you know we'll pick one out, you know, and so on.

[46:58] I used to kind of then usually one would you know leave the pack and come over to you, you know, kind of make an impression upon you, you know. That's what happened with our dog. The guy that bred them brought a whole bunch of them over, and one of them just ran to one of the brothers. This is it. This is the one. This is the guy.

[47:13] This is the one we're going to take. Yeah, right there. If therefore the loved is present and had, right, huh? It causes pleasure, right, huh? Or, by another word, fruition, right? Okay.

[47:36] So that's again an effect of love, right? But you have the thing now, right? If, however, it were be absent, there would follow two

[47:48] two passions, to wit, sadness. Over the absence, which is signified by what? Yeah. Whence Tullius, in the third book of the Tusculan Questions, most of all calls what? Sadness a what? Sickness, huh? Okay. But Shakespeare has that in the sonnets, right? Huh? You know, which is absent, right? Huh? It's kind of a weakness or a language there, huh? Do you see? Um.

[48:26] And it also, the absence has an intense desire for the what? Obtaining of the loved, which is signified through what? Fervor, right? Huh. In these, he said, are effects of love taken formally, according to the relation of the desiring power to its object. But in the passion of love, that is the emotion, right? Which is a bodily thing, right? There follow some effects which are what? Proportion to this, according to the changing of the organ.

[49:01] and they can be what harmful, right? Huh. Okay. It's kind of interesting. With Thomas Aquinas, right? But he's saying the main point he's making is that love. What makes the lover either better or worse, depending upon what he he loves, right? With this footnote about the bodily chains, right, it'd be harmful, right?

[49:35] So it seems to me you could you could restate this article a little differently and say, you know, raise the form of the question, you know, does love make you better or worse, right?

[49:47] That's talking about the effect of love, right, upon the lover himself, huh? Right, to have loved and lost, as they say. But is it make you better or worse, right?

[50:03] Am I a better man for loving truth? What you say? Yeah, I think so. A better man for loving candy? Not necessarily. Although you might enjoy it when you have. Yeah, but I don't think I'm a better man for having loved candy. Don't think so. No, I don't know if it made me a bad man. No. It's not good for my character, huh?

[50:40] Well, all things in moderation. I love root beer floats. I mean, is that? But one, on occasion, helpful. Relieves the stress of ordinary life. Those things are kind of in between, though, aren't they? You know, I mean, they don't don't seem to make you say bad, but they don't often make them very good either. You know, they're good for. I say they're good for something other than themselves.

[51:06] Good for festivity. See in the Symposium, Socrates speaks of the love of the beautiful, right? Huh? And he says it begins with the love of a beautiful body, right? Huh? And then the next step is the love of all beautiful bodies, right? Huh? And then there comes about the love of the beauty of the what soul, right? Huh? Keeps going up to and to come to the beautiful itself, which is really what the same as the good itself.

[51:39] It's God, right? Huh? He's kind of you know speaking of kind of an ascent, you know, in the lovely beautiful, right? So does the love of the beautiful make one better?

[51:54] But if you ascend in this way, right? Huh? You know. So if I was, we didn't notice some beautiful girl, you know, a friend of mine, Jim Berquist, he says the world is full of beautiful women. You haven't seen half of them. We didn't say something about this. So you're talking going to the second stage of philosophers, right? So on. Yeah. But there's.

[52:22] You know, two parts of Socrates' discourse, and I don't know if you read the Symposium, but the first one is the lesser love matters, right? Huh? And then when I was talking about, it's the higher love matters, right? Which is how you can ascend to the love of the beautiful itself, and

[52:42] it's kind of supposed to ascend by the by the heart, right? But taking the mind along with it, right? But the lesser ones are the ones where, where the love of the beautiful makes one want to what? Reproduce, right? The beautiful, right? And

[53:01] that's something that Shakespeare hits upon in the sonnets right. So, you know, other things being equal, man is more attracted to the beautiful, woman, right? But? That's in a sense natural because you want to perpetuate, right? The beautiful. So Shakespeare, you know, says some fairest creatures we desire increase, that thereby beauty's rose might never die might never die, right? The same way, you know, a teacher, you know, maybe wants to teach someone else to play the violin, or you know, or teach the science of everything that he has, right?

[53:37] Because if he doesn't teach somebody else, then this knowledge will disappear, right? Huh? You know, with Max Planck there, you know, and the German, a lot of the German scientists, but even Germany when Hitler came to power, right? Especially especially the Jewish ones, right? Like Max Born and so on, right? And the Heisenberg said, should I go too? and he says, well, if all you guys go, German science will be, you know, will die, right?

[54:02] Huh? You know, and he actually had conversations with Hitler, you know, and we can't force these guys out. You don't want to listen at all. You're just a madman, you know. Maybe it's like he's destroying, you know. You know, Germany is kind of, you know, the science of the 20th century was kind of an invention almost the German mind, you know, some help from other people, but you know, here you let this thing die.

[54:26] It's a great, great thing, you know. The same way, you know, people teaching on art, you know, you have to play the piano, the violin, they don't, have you know, I die off. Don't we be here to play Mozart sonatas, you know, or or play these, you know, these violin pieces and so on? Yeah. Nobody to make coffins. Let me finish one first, and then I'll reproduce.

[55:03] Okay.