Prima Secundae
75. Summa I-II q.29 aa.2-4: Love Stronger Than Hate, and Whether a Man Can Hate Himself
Class of 2012-05-10
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/075-summa-i-ii-q-29-aa-2-4-love-stronger-than-hate-and-whether/

[0:01] A moment at the ad primum there in Article Two. Thomas has a threefold distinction there. In those things which are divided, ex opposito, right?

[0:16] Some are found which are naturally together, both secundum rem and secundum rationum. like two species of animal or two species of what? Color. Now secundum rationem, Aristotle talks about that in the chapter thirteen of the Categories, right? And he talks about the senses of hama right? Simul. Some are what simul secundum rationem, but one is really before the other and a cause of it. Notice examples he takes here.

[1:08] Just as in the species of numbers, right? Well, Aristotle is giving the second sense of before, right? The before and being, right? This can be without that, but that can't be without this. And he gives example of one is before what? Two. Two. On the same way you could say two is before what? Three. Three, right? But that's secundum rem, right? But secundum rationem, when you divide number, right, into two and three and four and so on, right?

[1:42] One is not a number before the other. They're equally a number, right? And then the second example is of figures, right? And that's the way in which the triangle is before what? The quadrilateral, right? Quadrilateral before the the pentagon, right? Okay, so you can divide these into these figures, and then of motions, right? Of change of place and change of quality, change of quantity, the sense of growth, you divide it what?

[2:15] Into these species of change, right? So secundum rationem, they're species of one what genus, right? And by one division of genus, so they're hama together, right? But change of quality can be without growth, like in chemistry, right? But growth cannot be without change of quality. And change of place can be without change of quality, but you can't have change of quality without bringing the things together in the same place, right?

[2:49] So there's a before and after there, he says, in the things secundum rem, right? Secundum rationem, they're the what? They're hama. Notice how important that is, right? As Aristotle distinguishes in the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of the Categories, right, the senses of before and the senses of hama, right? And now you're seeing how it's possible for something to be what before in one way and not in the other way, or something like that, or hama in one sense, right?

[3:23] Simul together. And then some things are not what together. Neither secundum rem nor secundum rationem has substance and what accident, right? For substance really is the cause of accident, and being secundum rationem even is attributed to substance before accident, right? Okay.

[3:55] Just like thing, right? My nose is more thing it seems than shape of my nose, the color of my nose, right? Not getting ready to scratch.

[4:08] Okay. That's that's a beautiful what distinction, right? Okay. Let's go on now to the third article. To the third one proceeds thus: It seems that hate is stronger than love, right? For as Augustine says in the book of the eighty-three questions, no one is there who does not more flee what pain than he desires pleasure, right? But to flee pain pertains to your hatred of pain, right?

[4:48] Therefore, the desire, or the desire for what pleasure pertains to love, right? Therefore, hate is stronger than love, right? See, so it's harder to be brave in battle, right, than to abstain from overeating or overdrinking or something, right, huh? Because it seems like it's you know this fear is stronger than this hatred.

[5:14] Moreover, the weaker is conquered by the what stronger, but love is conquered by love, huh? What happened to amor vincit omnia? When love is converted into what hate, Hate, huh? so therefore hate is stronger than love, right?

[5:38] There's some truth in what the objection is saying, right? If these objections are what probable, right? There's some part of the truth in them, right? So it is true that some hate overcomes some what love, right? That may not be the whole story, right?

[6:01] Moreover, the affection of the soul is made known through its effect. But more strongly does a man insist to repel the what odious than to what pursue the loved, just as beasts abstain from delightful things on account of blows, right? As Augustine says in the book on the eighty-three questions, huh?

[6:27] Therefore, hate is stronger than love, right? These two just stick there, you know. They they separate the dogs and they're mad at each other, right?

[6:39] But against all this is the truth that the good is stronger than what the bad, huh? Many times people see the worst, right? People look at at history, you know what's going on, the world, so on. And the reason for this is that the bad does not act except by virtue of the what the good, as Dionysius teaches us in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names.

[7:06] But hate and love differ according to the difference of good and bad. Therefore, love must be simply stronger than hate, huh? Most of Thomas says in the reply, right?

[7:23] First, he argues from the what second article, right? That love is the cause of hate. The answer should be said that it's impossible for the effect to be stronger than its what cause, huh? But every hate proceeds from some love, is from a cause, as has been said and shown there in the second article. Whence it is impossible that hate, hate be more strong than love, simply speaking, huh?

[7:56] But I goes on to make a second distinction here, a second point. But it is necessary further that love, simply speaking, is stronger than hate, because more strongly is someone moved towards an end than he is towards those things which are for the end. But to recede from evil is ordered to the what? Yeah, just as to an end. When simply speaking, stronger is the motion of the soul towards the good than in the what bad, huh?

[8:34] Notice in the Our Father there. the first two petitions are for the end, and the third and fourth petitions are for the means to the end, and then the last three are the impediments to the end, right? The order that way, right? Okay. So

[8:56] is my love of truth stronger than my hatred of error, right? You just say, "well, it's Aristotle you, know that. Error was, you know, his natural enemy, right? He just, yeah. If

[9:12] he came with some new idea, you know, his first thing is almost to reject it automatically, you know. You have to try to justify it, you know, if you could, but be careful.

[9:35] But nevertheless, sometimes hate seems to be stronger than love, right? On account of two things. First, because hate is more sensible than love. Interesting, you should say that, right?

[9:57] He's thinking of course more here of the emotions, maybe, huh too. For the perception of sense, right, is in a certain what change, and then from this that something is already changed. It is not what sensed as when it is in

[10:21] being changed itself, right? Whence the what heat of a what febrile what is a hectic heat? Hectic heat. Doesn't matter measure of the hectic fever What Hectic fever Yeah, is it is it more longer lasting one? It just doesn't have it. Although it is a greater one, right, is not thus sensed as much as the what tertian heat. Tertian heat. I've heard of that. I don't know what that one is different.

[10:59] Yeah, but because the hectic heat hectic heat whatever that means, is already turned as were into a habit and a what nature nature right. And account of this also, love is more sensed in the what absence of love. Right, absence makes the heart grow fonder. It's a proverb, right? Whence Augustine says in the tenth book of the Trinity that love is not what felt as much as when it doesn't uh, fill its need, I guess, you'd say.

[11:36] Yeah. An account of this also, the repugnance of what is what hated is more sensibly perceived than the what agreement of that which is what loved. huh?

[11:56] So I was in the car there with Warren Murray and uh, turned on Rush Limbaugh. right? And of course he's got kind of a theme song, you know, kind of you know you know kind of what are we listening to this for, Warren? He gets more immediate reaction out of him, you see. That's a theme song, you know. But it's for you know, he more what senses you know the hatefulness of this, right?

[12:28] Maybe if you started out with Mozart, he wouldn't have noticed. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tomorrow's the Mozart recording. Okay. What if you say about pain and pleasure, right? That pain in some ways more sensible than than pleasure, right? I'm more aware of the fact that I'm feeling pain than I'm being pleased. Maybe I'm being pleased, but I don't, I don't think I notice it quite much.

[13:00] Possibly, if you're relieved of the pain suddenly, then you might. Like the first time you put on shoes, it really fit. I remember for days, I was every time I put my shoes on, I was so relieved. Oh, thank God, these shoes.

[13:22] But if the shoe doesn't fit, you're going to notice it more than than if the shoe does fit. Yeah, sure. It's like you were saying before, you know how these sense desiring powers are named from desire, right? It's more like motion, right?

[13:43] You know the word in Latin there, passio, to undergo, right? When you're undergoing something bad, it's more obvious that you're undergoing it, right? You know, if I'm laying my head on the pillow, you know, don't notice it as much as if I got a pin there in the bed or something, or needle got left in the bed or something, you know. Notice that right away. Yeah, yeah.

[14:18] It's curious, huh? Fact, you know. Secondly, because one does not compare hate to the love, but corresponding to it, right? This is a different point now. For according to the diversity of goods, there is a diversity of loves in greatness and in smallness, to which are proportionally opposed hates, right? Whence the hate that corresponds to a greater love more moves than the lesser love, right? And from this, he says, is clearly a response to the first objection.

[14:57] For the love of pleasure is less than the love of the conservation of oneself, to which corresponds the flight from what pain, right? And therefore, more does one flee from what pain than that one loves what pleasure, yeah. Yeah.

[15:21] Immediate thing, you know. If you feel pain, you want to do something about it, right? Yeah. But that's because your love of the conservation of your own body, is greater than your love of of the pleasure. To

[15:38] second about hate conquering love, as it does sometimes, some hate conquers some love, right? But hate never conquers love except on account of a greater love to which what hate corresponds. Just as a man more loves himself than his friend, right? An account of this that he loves himself, he has in hate even his friend if he is what contrary to him, right?

[16:09] Cassius gets annoyed, with Brutus right? The famous scene that he says shows how Shakespeare understood men so well, you know. And then he, argues in regard to the third question there, right?

[16:37] Huh? That more intensely, someone acts to what repelling the things he hates because hate is more what sensible, yeah. So the animal feels the pain of the stick or something.

[17:01] My brother was riding in a bike with another guy, and this dog was going yap yap yap. Then you know, the guy, stopped the bike, got off, gave the dog, a one good kick. That's one way of handling it you know. Once with the dog? wouldn't they be they would take a bite out of your leg? but... Yeah, yeah. yeah. So he's been saying, he won't hurt you.

[17:28] As a kid, you know, I said. Now the fourth article, right? Whether someone can have hate for himself, right? Interesting. Tommy should have this article here.

[17:51] Now, in the Marietti text here, there are references, you know, to the Secunda Secunde, to the second book of the sentences, third book of the sentences, exposition of Psalms, thing on Ephesians. This is quite a thing, right?

[18:13] You know, people are supposed to wake up. You know, they see how fat they are or overweight. You know, I hate myself, right? That's the woman says. Women say that a lot. Yeah.

[18:27] I think that's also in that book, that book on abortion. that's the result. A woman has an abortion. She has a sort of loathing for herself because of what she's done. She doesn't know about repentance or something. It's interesting that Tom, you should stick this article in here, right? the first article was on the cause and object of hate, right? You can see why he began with that.

[19:05] That's fundamental. And the second and the third articles are about hate and love, right? One is the effect of love, and then which is stronger, right? But it's connected to that, right? Now, but now he's talking about, but in four, five, and six, about some more particular things, right? Particular objects, right? So one object I hate to be not only the bad, but myself. Okay. What you see now.

[19:33] Now to the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that someone is able to have himself in hate, huh? For it is said in Psalm ten, "Who loves iniquity hates his own soul." Don't get scripture saying that someone hates his own soul. But many love iniquity. Therefore, many hate themselves.

[20:01] So obviously, some way a man must be able to hate himself. Singing a song, right? To be more clear, who loves iniquity hates his own soul.

[20:17] Who loves rock and roll hates his own ears. Yeah. Yeah. Who likes salmon hates his own since the taste. Or maybe his sense of taste is wounded. They're going too far though. The first Friday of the war, I was here. By the way, got salmon for Warren and himself. Tunafish for you. No, I have a little, you know, fish with the stuff over it. You know,

[20:54] the two of them sitting there enjoying their salmon. Not those two. I knew they'd do that. Just to exclude you. We hate that to which we wish and do what bad. But sometimes someone wills and does to himself somewhat. Yeah. As example, those who what kill themselves. Therefore, some have themselves in in hate.

[21:35] Chesterton has an interesting observation on that. He says suicide is kind of like is not directed so much against me as against against the whole world. None of you is worth living for. That's kind of an interesting insight. Nothing's worth living for. The way you know what certain that would say. The Shakespeare presents Brutus, you know, and Cassius, you know, as nobly killing themselves, right, and that sort of thing, you know, or Empedocles killing himself rather than being led as an object of division there alone.

[22:07] Boethius says in the second book of the Consolation of Philosophy that avarice makes men hateful. From which it can be taken that every man hates the what? Avaricious man. But some are avaricious, and therefore they hate themselves. Interesting argument, son.

[22:43] But against this is what the Apostle says, Epistle to the Ephesians, that no one ever had his own flesh in what? Yeah, he's tied up to marriage. Wasn't it time there were? Yeah.

[23:03] Some men kill their wives, right? It's like they kill themselves, right? But no, I reckon so. Nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit. No one ever had his own flesh, right?

[23:21] Someone hates his soul, Right? Well, Thomas again. you'll, see the distinction there, right? Let me give you a little Shakespeare now. You know, I am going to read you it, don't you? I am going to read it.

[23:47] Which is the third? You know the play, don't you? General, which is the third? Richard the Third. You know, sets out to be what King of England, right? Huh? And there are many people standing in the way between him, right? And so what he does is to kill them one off after another, right? And then at the end there when the future Henry the Fourth, right, come back, you know, and it's going to be a battle, right?

[24:28] And Shakespeare presents the night before the battle, they're both having a dream, right? And everybody who's you know has been killed by Richard, you know, they come to Richmond, who's going to be the future Henry the Fourth, right? And they they bless him, you know, for the battle, right? And then they all come to what Richard the Third, and they curse him, right? Huh? We'll be fighting against you tomorrow, right?

[24:54] Huh? You know, so it's a terrible nightmareous dream, huh? See? And so I know who we've all heard about the ghost, but they've all cursed him, right? And they all things like that. And then Richard starts out of his dream, right? Huh? He says, "Give me another horse, bind up my wounds." He's dreaming, right? Have mercy, Jesu. Soft, I did but dream. O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me?

[25:26] The lights burn blue. So he's assigning ghosts in there, right? Lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight. Cold, fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh. What do I fear myself? There is none else but I. Richard loves Richard. That is, I am I.

[25:53] And just like we speak of likenesses being the cause of love, right? Huh? But you even what more like yourself than someone else, right? You you are yourself, right? Do something more than like yourself, right? So since giving the cause, Richard loves Richard. That is, I am I, right? Is there a murderer here? That's why they smelled the river No. Yes, I am. Then fly what from myself?

[26:21] Great reason why? Must I revenge? What myself upon myself? Alack, I love myself. He says, "Wherefore, for any good that I myself have done unto myself? No, alas, I rather hate myself, for hateful deeds committed by myself. Right?

[26:48] I am a villain. Yet I lie, I am not. Fool, of thyself speak well. Fool, do not flatter. My conscience hath a thousand several tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale, and every tale condemns me for a villain. Purge me in the highest degree, murder, stern murder in the direst degree, all several sins, all used in each degree, throng all to the bar, crying all guilty, guilty.

[27:20] I show despair. There is no creature loves me, and if I die, no soul shall pity me. Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself find in."Myself, no pity to myself. Methought the souls of all that I had murdered came to my tent, and every one did threat tomorrow's vengeance on the head of Richard.

[27:48] My lord comes in to wake him up. Right? Who is there? The early village cock had twice done salutation of the morn. Your friends are up and buckle on their armor. Richard says, "oh rat, if I dreamed a fearful dream."

[28:08] Notice how he says you know, fools think well of themselves. Does he love himself? Well, in one sense he hates himself, right? In another sense he must love himself, Richard loves Richard. I am I? Why would I love myself? It's kind of interesting the way Shakespeare plays in that, right? It's kind of corresponds to the subject matter, of Article 4 here, right? Does Richard love himself or not?

[28:34] Yeah, in some way he doesn't, right? So there is some distinction you have to see to understand, you know, the representation that Shakespeare has given there, Richard III.

[28:44] So Thomas answers right away. It's impossible that someone per se loquendo, right? Hates himself, right? For naturally each one wants the what, or desires the good, right?

[29:04] Nor is someone able to what want something for himself except under the what? Yeah, ratio good. For the bad is outside of the will, right? Can't we can't will the bad as bad, as such, As such, yeah? As Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names. For to love someone is to wish good to him, right? As has been said. Whence it is necessary that someone loves himself.

[29:46] And impossible, no, so strong Thomas says, right? It's necessary that he loves himself, right? unnecessary is what must be. Can not not be. And impossible that someone hate himself. That can't be per se loquendo right? Okay.

[30:12] But per accidens, it can happen that someone hates has himself in hate. Okay. I think I mentioned before in the thirteen kinds of mistakes that Aristotle gives in the book on Sophistical Refutations Right. Six of them. Come from words, right? And the other seven from things, right? And the first one among words, right, is the fallacy of equivocation, as I call it, but it's a mistake for mixing up the senses of a word, right?

[30:53] Okay. And then outside the words, the first kind of mistake is one for mixing up the per se and the per accidens, right? So the second one is the simply and some respect, right? So here you can tell people can be misled, right, in a sense, right? But in some sense, you must say, right?

[31:20] Yeah. Sacrifice to say you know. Can a philosopher cook dinner? What'd you say? Not as a philosopher, not as a philosopher. Yeah, not per se, right? See, but it could be per accidens by happening, right? He happens to be a cook, right? Okay. Miss De Koninck was a very good. Mrs. De Koninck was a very good cook, right? And someone asked her, "How'd you learn? Oh, my husband taught me.

[31:50] So I don't know. That was guilty or what, but So. Or Eisenhower was known for being a good man in the grill there, you know, the steak for his soldier buddies.

[32:08] Friend of mine, that's what he said Padio dadio So a general can cook then right? I know. But uh but uh it's per accidens, right?

[32:28] Now, in what way can someone have himself and hate per accidens, right? Well, this can take place, he says, in two ways. In one way, on the side of the good that someone wishes to himself, right? For it happens sometimes that that is desired as, and notice the expression here, secundum quid, what Bonum. So the other distinction comes in, right?

[33:01] To be what? Simpliciter mal, right? And I've talked to you about that before. I used to talk to students. They said, you know, this distinction between is so simply and was so not simply, but in some way, right? This is very important in in ethics, right? Because you may have a hard time understanding distinction, right? But explains what you're doing most or not doing, you know. You're doing something you shouldn't do because, in some way, it's good.

[33:37] You're not doing something you should be doing because, in some way, it's bad, right? So getting up to go to mass on Sunday morning might prevent you from getting a little more sleep, right?

[33:51] Smart. But notice those two distinctions: distinction of per se and per accidens and simply and secundum quid, right? the way you say in Latin. Um, those correspond, say, to the first two mistakes outside of words, right? And of course, Aristotle makes a famous saying, you know, that the the fallacy of the accidens, you know, deceives even the wise, right? You know, very strong. If you go through modern philosophy, you know, Descartes used to say in class, you know, "I'll teach you how to start your own philosophy.

[34:30] " I want to, you know, just ignore the distinction between the per se and per accidens you got a new philosophy, you know. So make a lot of money that way.

[34:45] Yeah. Oh yeah. Now we mentioned how in the great dialogue they're called the Meno, right? Uh, Meno was saying you can't investigate what you don't know. So I'd say to the students, but why are we paying these guys to find the cause of cancer or some other disease, right? You know. Yeah, they don't know what they're looking for. Why do you get pay a guy to do?

[35:15] You know. And so, but it seems that you can't direct your thinking to what you don't know. See. Yeah, but is it possible that you could know in some imperfect way what you don't know?

[35:40] You know what you don't know. Somebody's name. You don't know what the name is. You don't know. You know. All right, you take the example. I think I told you in class. You know, I'd say, how many students are in class today? I don't know, right? But I know enough about what I don't know to realize I should count to get the number of students in class today.

[36:08] I don't know how many chairs are in this room. I don't know, but I know how to get there. Pretty smart, you know, to direct myself to what I don't know. But if I count these chairs and I get, you know, fifteen or something, right? I didn't know I was looking for fifteen. But fifteen is a number of chairs in the room, let's say, and I knew in some way fifteen.

[36:31] I knew I was looking for the number. That's not strictly speaking to know one. I used to take a girl in class. boys, I'd say, I am going to get her to convict herself, right? So I'd say to the girl, you know, do you know my brother Mark? And she'd always say no, right? And I said, do you know what a man is? And she says, yes.

[36:52] Do you know what a brother? is? Yes. That's what my brother Mark is. So you didn't know what you said you didn't know, right? See, but obviously, to know what a man is, to know even what a brother is, you have to know simply and fully my brother Marcus. See, but in some ways, know my brother Mark, right? In some way, I know every man in this world.

[37:13] I know what a man is, huh? Just like when I know what a chair is, in some way, I know every chair, every chair, right? But not simply.

[37:27] That's a famous what mistake. But you say that sounds kind of abstract. You know, talk about the Meno or something like that, maybe. But when you talk about people in their daily life, right?

[37:41] You know, if you had a delicious poison, right? It's good in some way, right? It is delicious, right? Sweet poison. I've used it with some people in terms of pornography, as to pornography it's like sweet poison. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Aristotle speaks in the Dionysian kind of fundamentally that

[38:14] what is good here and now is very often what not good simply, right? And if you look before and after, then you kind of what see that, right? You know, people.

[38:32] You know, like people get cancer from smoking, and see they do, right? But if they do, you don't get it from one puff, you know. But that, you know, if you look at before and after, you know, course of a lifetime, then you see maybe you're going to get this thing. You know, you might get it anyway.

[38:50] So Aristotle often talked about that distinction between good simply and bad simply in some way, right? So this is one way. So I give you. I prepare the poison I'm going to kill you with, right? And I and I and that have a good flavor, right? And I say, sniff this. That smells good. I said, do you want to drink it? Oh yeah, I'll have one. I'll have one, right?

[39:36] So is it true that you want to drink? You got to say your answer. You know, you want it, right? But it's not really good simply, right? But it does smell good. Tastes good, right? Yeah. But still you say it's not good to drink that, huh?

[40:03] Told you about that pill I had when I was a kid. You know, cinnamon on the outside, like a cinnamon drop, and don't put in my mouth too long. Didn't die for that, but it's got a bitter taste, right? I never did it again, right? It's a good type type sucked through, you know, to the inner sort of thing.

[40:30] So how basic those two kinds of distinctions are, right? There's a treatise come down to us from one of the Greek philosophers there, perhaps Andronicus, but on division, right? And Albert put a little work on it too, you know, kind of paraphrasing what he said, right? He distinguishes, you know, about six kinds of division, right?

[40:57] And most of these divisions are divisions in the strict sense, but what's the difference between distinction and division? Like I talked to you about that before, right? But what's the the

[41:16] distinction of distinction and division and definition for that matter, right? Remember that? Distinction is more definitely Yeah, yeah. So that every division is a distinction, right? But not every distinction is a division, right? A division is a distinction of the parts of some whole, right? And so the two main kinds of division are the division of a integral or composed whole, a put together whole, into its parts, right?

[41:52] And the division of a universal whole into its parts, like he's talking about when you divide a genus into its species, right? Huh? The Greek word "katholou" comes from the Greek word "holos," meaning whole, right? And the word "particular" comes from the English word "part," right? So those are the two main kinds of what division, right? And there was accidental division, like you might divide white into snow and you know and milk, you know, those kinds of accidental division, but that's not as important as these two, right?

[42:26] Um. Now he puts in there the distinction of the senses of a word, but I'm not so sure that that's really a division in the strict sense. That's a whole in the same way as he's an integral Um, but he doesn't have the distinction of the perceiving the progeny there, right? Because it's not really a division, right? And he doesn't have the distinction of simply and not simply, right?

[42:51] Huh? So those two kinds of distinctions, it seems to me, and I would put myself the distinction of sense of a word, right? Those three kinds of distinctions are extremely important in philosophy, right? They appear over and over again, right? Huh? And the more you get used to these kinds of distinction, you know, you can pick up quickly when it's this kind of distinction is relevant again, right?

[43:15] Huh? But there's no real part of logic where these are formally taught, although in a way it corresponds to the treatise on what on the six fallacies, right? Because the first one is mistake from mixing up the senses of a word, and then. The one who got the first year the Pratchettians and then the simply and what is not so simply right, and so and of course you kind of appreciate the importance of the distinction.

[43:45] You see how people are misled by not seeing this distinction, and in a way you know to to give the the fallacy right is to kind of make them aware of the importance of that distinction right. So like you know I tell I've told this example many times but it's it's easy enough to see. I'd say to students knows the whole always more than the part. Well yeah you know and then I'd say you know well what is man right well he's an animal right and I always make a joke about my mother didn't like me when I said that he didn't like me saying that man is an animal and I'd always say well mama he's not just an animal he's an animal that

[44:30] has reason that's better she says my mother went to college but she had some sense right and so then I'd say well then animal is only a part of what a man is he's not doesn't tell you the whole man right okay and then I'd say but animal includes besides man dog cat horse elephant right so sometimes the heart the the part has more than the whole right huh I say yeah yeah well if you if you call him question that the whole is more than the part geometry's gone rhetoric's gone you must forget right you know even the very important thing in practical philosophy the whole is better than the part right it's all gone right the whole if the whole is not more

[45:21] than you know you can't you know and but then you realize the importance of this distinction right I say and or I'm saying you know

[45:35] is geometry a knowledge of reason? They says yeah yeah knowledge of reason I say well yeah but geometry doesn't tell you what reason is so how can it be knowledge of reason I say that's not as maybe as important but it's kind a little but that's a second kind of mistake there right where you have a multiplicity in the speech rather than the word right okay why when I say that Shakespeare's definition of reason is a knowledge of reason in both senses it's a knowledge whereby reason is known right but as to what it is and it's also a knowledge which reason has right by the definition of square is a knowledge of reason only one sense right or like the great Aristotle says that

[46:26] wisdom is a knowledge of God in both senses. It's a knowledge of the first cause, and the first cause is God. So it's a knowledge of God, right? But it's a knowledge also which God either alone has, or at least who only has it fully, right?

[46:44] So you kind of learn the importance of these kinds of distinctions, right? And the distinction of these kinds of distinctions by the what famous mistakes, right? That are made, huh? You know, the early Greeks. You know, they say

[47:08] if you become something, you are, right? You become a stone, you are a stone, right? Okay. So if the cold becomes hot, then the cold is hot. That's what Heraclitus seems to say, right? Well, that's a mistake, right? But mistake of the accidental, right? Because not the cold as such that becomes. hot. But the metal that was cold, right? But the coldness is lost, you know. And when the ignorant, you know, come to know, then the ignorant, no, no, no.

[47:44] But its ability to know, right? To know, right. That's a mistake that that French existentialist made, right? Huh? He identifies the ability to choose with the lack of choice before you choose, right? So that freedom is a kind of non-being, right? And man's the one by whom non-being came into the world, right? So nonsense. But he's making the same kind of mistake as early Greeks, right?

[48:15] You'd be saying, you know, you can't come to know unless you're ignorant, right? So it's ignorance that makes you capable coming to know. Well, that ain't true. You're confusing per se with per accidens But I can teach you, you know, how to imagine a kind of philosophy you want to, just overlook one of these distinctions. So it's very important. But Thomas here uses the distinction of per se and per accidens here, and then when he's explaining per accidens, how that's possible, right?

[48:49] The first one he uses the distinction of what? Simply and not simply, right? But then notice the second he says, very interesting. In another way, ex parte sui ipsius, right?

[49:11] Well let me finish the first part there? And according to this, someone per accidens wishes to himself evil, which is to hate himself, right? Huh?

[49:23] But he's wishing it under the fact that it's good in some way, right? Huh? If I get rid of you, I'll be the king. You know. If Someone stands between you and promotion, right? If they Get rid of him, then you'll be promoted.

[49:45] But another way, on the part of the one himself, to whom he wishes what? The good. Good, huh? Because each thing, most of all, is that which is chiefly in him. Okay. So they always say they toss in what and the king.

[50:08] So when the dean died, he l'état c'est moi right I'm the king I said, "Well, half the faculty's gone now." I said, "When the island died, it was all over, I said, no, I should go wait out. So Aristotle says in the in the Nicomachean Ethics, there at the end, there in Book Ten, that reason, more than anything else, is man, right? Principle. Once the city is said to do what the king does, right?

[50:35] Huh? So the king declares war. Then France is at war. Okay. As if the king be the whole, what city, right? But it is manifest that man is most of all the mind of man. Okay, reason more than anything else is man. Aristotle says. Now it can happen that someone estimates himself to be most of all that which he is according to his bodily and sense nature.

[51:06] Right. That's kind of interesting, now. We think of ourselves primarily in terms of our body, right? Anybody at home? There's somebody here, you know. Nobody. We don't say, you know, any soul here? Some soul here, right? And the soul seems to be kind of a you know ghost-like thing in the body, right? I was saying to Warren the other day. I said, you know, when the soul separates from the body, you realize what your chief part is.

[51:33] The body is really kind of the transitory part, right? The part that's you know corruptible, right? Huh? The soul goes on, right? But as long as you're in this world with your senses, right, and your body, it seems the body is what you, right? And some people don't even seem to know that they have a soul, right? You know, they always say it's not you know ignorance of being, like uh Heidegger said, but ignorance of the soul that is behind us, right?

[52:01] Once they love themselves according what they estimate themselves to be, right? You see. But they hate that which they truly are when they will what is contrary to but reason, right? Okay. And in both ways, the man who loves iniquity, right, hates not only his soul but also what himself. That's for you, I used to talk about the distinction when we take the words of Polonius there, right?

[52:37] This above all to thine own self be true, right? Well, you know, I just take the example there of Coriolanus, right? Coriolanus is a man who's what extremely brave, courageous, right? A great soldier and so on. But he has a temper, right? An anger, right? You know. And the tribunes, you know, don't like him because they think he's against the people, you know, that sort of stuff.

[53:06] And if they can get him, you know, aroused, right, then he's going to you know hurt himself, right? Huh? Of course, the friends of Coriolanus are trying to keep him from you know. You got to show your wounds, you know, in order to get the people's voice and so on, and all these things. And and he says, I'm having to be false to myself, right? Okay. " But is he being true to himself when he's true to his what his anger, right?

[53:38] You know. Right, see. And I used to use example two in in marriage, right? Huh? Yeah. So when a person, see, is married, and they get some passion for some other woman, right? You know. And they pursue this other woman, right? Huh? Are they being true to themselves? See. Well, they're being true to their passion, right? Okay. But is that what's most of all you?

[54:13] Because you're married by choice, right? Huh. And is your choice more you or your passion, you, right? Huh. See. So when I'm true to my wife, I'm true to my choice. Um, you could say I'm being true to myself. Then when I'm true to my my passion, right. Christ, take example of the man who who has a problem. Let's say drinking with his mother's car, right? And he smashed up the car, whatever it was.

[54:41] Anyway, in in a quiet mood, he realized I've got to stop this thing it's ruining my life and so on. And so he joins, you know, Alcoholics Anonymous, like that, right? Huh. And so on. But now he's going to be tempted sometime to to have a drink, right? I mean, he's one of those guys that, "Can't stop once he starts," right? And now is he being true to himself?

[55:04] When he what has that drink? Or when he follows his reasoned choice to give up drinking, right? And calls his buddies to support him through this conflict or however they do it. Ah, you see me? Well, it depends upon what you think is more yourself, right? Huh. I suppose a baby or a little child thinks himself as being what. Primarily body, right? Huh. And so these movie actresses think of themselves that way, right?

[55:40] And so. Not in such a different way now than the other way, right? Huh. I mean, you can have both of them involved in the same thing, but. One case, you're what willing something that is not really good for you. Because it seems in some way good, right? In some way, it is good, right?

[56:04] And sometimes you you are what doing what the body wants, but it's not reasonable, right? Huh. And then you're not what. You're willing what's not really you, but in both cases there's a mistake, right? Huh.

[56:24] And thus it is clear the response to the first one. To the man who. Loves iniquity, loves his hates his own what. So, right?

[56:46] He? Loves iniquity because in some way it's good, right? He's loving his body rather than his soul, right? Just really himself, right? So, when your soul separates from your body, it won't be the body in the coffin there, wherever it is in the ground. Say, what happened to my soul? So, is he loving himself parashions? I don't know what you're trying to think. Well, you see, you naturally love yourself, but you love what you think is yourself.

[57:22] You see. So his love will be per accidens for what he thinks is himself. Well, yeah, but the point is this. It's not really myself, right? Or not chiefly myself. And one of the other questions in the distinction in the sentences Saint Thomas addresses that by saying that he loves himself in his actions and his emotions, but he really hates himself. When when the two things you're mixing up, one is the object, the other is himself.

[57:52] Based on your knowledge, I've always had a hard time with her saying per accidens thing. I'm trying to see. I'm not. Is that making that distinction there? He's saying one way in which that you can do the per accidens, right?

[58:10] Like, my friend Jim Frensac was a Golden Gloves boxer, right now. But but he describes these guys, you know, working out, you know, all the time, you know, and so on. And they kind of worshiping the body, you know, being strong, you know. And because he's soft one, that says, you know. And but there, in a sense, they're thinking of what I'm being good to myself, right?

[58:33] I'm making something of myself, you know. And you know, that is part of you, but it's not the the main thing to be made something of, right? So I'm kind of identifying with my my body, right now. Or the woman, the movie actress, whatever it is, you know, you know, his body's got to be beautiful, you know, and so on. And everything's ordered to that, right now.

[58:56] You know, some of them go and have an abortion, right? You know, because it's going to hurt their figure or something, right? And pregnancy doesn't hurt their figure, and you know, makes more. I mean, you know, not just temporary. I mean, you know, just the body. So,

[59:13] or you know, the famous feminist tennis player, her name was, you know, but she had an abortion, you know, because it was going to hurt their tennis career, you know, and so on. So what's important to me, what I am most of all, right, is is this bodily excellence I have in tennis, you know. So,

[59:36] so she's doing what's bad to her soul because it seems to be good to her body, which she thinks is herself, right? It's not mainly herself, right?

[59:51] I used to take the example with the students, and I'd say, you know, that other things being equal, are you going to judge a murder more murder of passion or or a

[1:00:04] premeditated, right? And most would say the premeditated one, right? That's because it's more you doing it, right? You know, what you choose to do, right? More right. You had time to meditate on. You really choose to commit a so and so right? I told you about a case in California there, where the guy comes home at noontime, you know, and he can hear the voices in the bedroom.

[1:00:42] You know, so he's too afraid to go in. But then he saw this little, you know, the convertible that the guy had arrived at. You know, so he backs up his cement truck. Of course, the guy tries to sue him. You know, and he gets the judge to dismiss the case. That was justified. The obvious man, you know. We used to, we used to, you know, you know, in Italy, you know, that the man comes home and finds his wife with somebody else, and a passion kills the man.

[1:01:08] You know, case dismissed. You know, I mean, just I don't know if that was the way to tell it. You spent more time in Italy than I did. But it's, but that indicates something, right? That that you know, it's less you doing it if you're doing it in passion, right? Okay.

[1:01:36] So you see the distinction then, right? There's two distinctions here, perhaps three distinctions, right? Distinction of per se and per accidens, and then. Yeah, he's subdividing the two ways that you can per accidens, what hate yourself, right?

[1:02:02] The first one uses the distinction of simply and not simply, right? Doesn't use those words in the second one. Maybe you might try to do that a little bit too, but.

[1:02:20] Yeah, this famous thing of the Greeks know thyself, right? Now, in a sense, that could be said to be an exhortation to know what the soul is, right? Because if you don't know the soul, you don't really know yourself. That's more you than the than the body, huh? But most people seem to be so, right? Anybody home? Nobody's home. That's what Father Harding used to say about the angels.

[1:02:50] He said they have no bodies, but that doesn't mean they're nobodies. Okay, so Article Five here, whether someone can have and hate the what? Do we do? Oh, oh, excuse me.

[1:03:15] The second should be said, right? That no one wishes to himself, right, and does something bad, except in so far as he grasps that under the

[1:03:30] notion of good, yeah. For even those who what take their own lives, kill themselves. This, which is to die, right? They grasp under the notion of something good, insofar as it ends their misery or what, and or pain, right? Okay. So it's an escape from misery or pain or dishonor or whatever you know. That could be with those Romans and so on. So, like the Japanese, you know, generals, you know, they lost a battle or something, you know, you know.

[1:04:08] So, it's good to escape misery, pain. Okay, this this death and dignity stuff to talk about now, right? You see, they're trying to what? Just do something bad under the notion that it's something good, right?

[1:04:38] Okay. To third, it should be said that the average man hates something, right? Just happen to him, is that? What's the other thing? To through. Either hates something accidental to himself. Yeah, so, yeah. Not on account of this, however, does he hate himself? Just as the sick man hates his own sickness, right? So the actor saying, "I hate myself because she's put on some fat or something," right?

[1:05:16] And this follows from the fact that he loves himself, right? That you don't want to be sick or fat or something, right? Or it should be said that avarice makes what one odious to others, right? Not to oneself, right? Insofar as it's caused some disordered love of oneself, according to someone about temporal goods, wills to himself more than he ought to, right?