Prima Secundae
166. Q70 Art. 3: Why Paul Lists Twelve Fruits of the Spirit, and the Loss of Wonder
Class of 2014-04-10
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/166-q70-art-3-why-paul-lists-twelve-fruits-of-the-spirit-and/

[0:00] Silent prayer. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, ordain, illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:45] That's really the most powerful book ever written you know Questiones disputatae de potentia, right? But you know this scripture where it says, God, you know, would I be, you know, infertile or not be able to generate? I would give generation to others, right? Okay. And Thomas has a good explanation of that, right? Because someone might say, you know, how does that follow that if I give generation to others, that I would have generation myself, huh?

[1:20] Because he says, you know, God gives what motion to the world because he's the unmoved mover, right? But God is completely unchangeable, right? So I mean, how can you argue that because he gives generation to what animals and us, right? That therefore what he must have generation himself.

[1:46] Doesn't necessarily follow. Yeah. Well, but that's what Scripture is saying, though, right? Huh? That because he's the cause, right, of there being generation in us, and therefore there must be generation in him, which is the Father and the Son, right? And you know how's that follow, right? Doesn't seem to follow necessarily, right? Well, I mean, you got to defend Scripture, right? Oh.

[2:12] That's where God's arguing, right? You know. Okay, so. How do you agree? Well, because Thomas goes back to what, what he learned from his master there, Aristotle, right? That there are four kinds of causes, right? Okay. Matter, form, mover, and end, right? And under form, there's two kinds, right? One where you are what. The form of the thing itself, right? And the other where you're the what?

[2:46] Exemplar, right? So he's a cause of there being generation in other things, both as an efficient cause, right? But also as exemplar, right? Therefore, oh, interesting. Yeah, it's beautiful. I said, you know, I always been a little bit, you know, with with that, huh? You know, it's kind of seems a little bit weak, weak the the the reasoning there on God's part, right? But it's

[3:14] kind of a beautiful, beautiful what explanation, right? Interesting too, you know. You know, because he's talking about the three persons in God. Of course, he has to go to the definition of person, right? And the definition of person, of course, is the one that comes from Boethius, huh? Which is individua substantia, right? Rationalis naturae, right? And the objection, one of the objections to the definition is that it says rationalis, right?

[3:51] And ratio is what man has, not what the angels have or what God has, right? Okay, so the definition didn't seem to fit, right? Okay. Well, Thomas, of course, says, "Well, you're using the word rationalis not in the strict sense, right, of the faculty of reason that man has, that this one animal man has, but in the what broad sense of the understanding, right? Huh? Okay. But apropos of that, huh?

[4:26] Then he says, 'What does ratio mean when it's taken as the specific difference of what man and you know separates him from the animals, right? ' Well, then, of course, he says discourse, right?

[4:42] So that's exactly where Shakespeare begins his definition of reason, right? Its ability for large discourse, but the first thing he's saying is its ability for what discourse, and that's the way Thomas says that's what it means. It means the ability to discourse, right? Of course, Shakespeare was you know, you know, was more abundant there, but he had that basic what same beginning, right? Huh? So I said, my goodness, huh?

[5:06] Thomas must have read Shakespeare too, you know, as well as as me, right? And it's kind of amazing, right? Huh? And then, of course, when he gets into the question of whether, you know, God the Son could have a son, right? You know, he said, "Well, God the Son is what the thought of the Father, right? The verbum, right? Well, if the thought had a thought, then you'd have what discourse in God, right?

[5:37] Which of course is contrary to what we know about God's understanding, where he understands everything by one act, right? Understanding his own substance, he understands everything, right? So I mean, if the Son had thought. Then you have a thought that arises from another thought, and that's what we call discourse, and that's what defines reason in the strict sense, right? huh? Where we know one thing through what another, right?

[6:06] huh? Marvelous, huh? Marvelous things, huh? Amazing, amazing, Beautiful things in there. Get, get to get a break once in a while, you know, 'cause it's so powerful, you know, Kinda knocks you on your back there, but you get up and you read some more, you know.

[6:34] So we're up to Article 3, I guess, huh? Question seventy. Question seventy. Question is whether the fruits are suitably enumerated by the apostle, which is Saint Paul by antonomasia, right? To the third, then one goes forward thus. It seems that the apostle unsuitably enumerates them in the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter five, which enumerates these twelve what fruits, huh?

[7:20] For elsewhere he says that there's only one fruit of the present life, according to that of Romans, chapter six. You have your fruit in your what sanctification, huh?

[7:36] So it's first thing we ask for in the Our Father, right? Hallowed be Thy name, right? To be sanctified. And in Isaiah chapter twenty-seven verse nine, it says, "This is every fruit, right? That sin be taken away, huh? " So what's this talk about twelve fruits? I don't know.

[7:59] Therefore, there should not be laid down twelve fruits, huh? Contradicts Romans six and contradicts Isaiah twenty-seven, right? Stumps me. Okay. Moreover, fruit is that which arises from a spiritual seed, right? Huh? So we get the word seminar, right? Huh? Because the professor is supposed to plant a seed in your mind that will grow, huh? Remember my teacher Caserta, an undergraduate. He says when he was at Leval, right, he thought he'd learn more from De Koninck than from what Dionne, huh?

[8:43] He learned a lot of courses from both of them, right? But after his out teaching a number of years, he realized he'd learned more from Dionne than from De Koninck Why?

[8:56] Yeah, Dionne giving him the seed, right, huh? And so I mean, Deconic is giving you a little more the finished product, right? But if you're given the seed, right, then you can get all kinds of consequences of this, right? Not not that the kind of going to give you the seeds too, you know, but Deon even more so, right, huh? You know, I go around with one sentence of Deon, you know, all day long, and you just stay thinking about it, you know, just one sentence of Deon.

[9:24] And you know, like he's giving you a seed, right? But I think it's interesting what Kasuri did, right? That when he was there, he kind of was learning more from this guy, and this guy, though, he learned, you know, much from both of them, right? Great respect for both of them, right? But after now teaching for a number of years, he realized he learned more. I think that's interesting, right?

[9:43] Most people, you know, they kind of don't care, they don't cultivate the seed, right? But if they do, right, then they realize they've been given more by maybe one man, but the time didn't seem that way, right? Right. where Stahl describes the early teachers of rhetoric right that give you sample speeches," you know. Well, you can't be saying that you're getting a lot, you know.

[10:12] I'm really impressed with those speeches of Churchill's, as I'll say, right? Yeah. But am I really getting the seeds that would develop into making me a full rhetorician, right?

[10:31] But the Lord in Matthew chapter thirteen, huh, lays down a threefold fruit of good earth, coming about from spiritual seed, right? To it, hundred and sixty and thirty, right? I always wonder about those three. Me, huh? Therefore, they're not not to be laid down. Twelve fruits, huh?

[11:02] Moreover, fruit has in its definition that it be something both last and delightful. But this definition is not found in all the fruits enumerated by the apostle. For patience, huh? And what? Long suffering seem to be in things that are what? Sadness causing, right? Okay.

[11:33] And faith doesn't have the definition of something last, but more the definition of a first what? Foundation, right? Therefore, a superflua, huh? In a superfluous way, are these fruits what enumerated, right, huh?

[11:58] Okay. But now he's got a sed contra, right, huh? That's going to be replied to. a sed contra look at this, huh? It's not just taking up his position, right? In this a potentia you know, he's acting, you know, like there are three persons in the Trinity the Trinity, right? There's a whole series of arguments, maybe twenty, you know, that there's there's more than three, you know, and then there's a whole series of arguments that there's less than three, and then finally there is three, right?

[12:28] You know, they're very short. and then you get the text when you says that there are three, right? He's got to answer all the objections on both sides.

[12:38] But against this, it seems that what insufficiently to these first three arguments are kind of saying that what they're too much, right? Now it's saying it's just the reverse, right? That insufficiently and in a diminished or what falling short, enumerated, right? For it has been said that all the beatitudes are able to be called what fruits, right? But not all of these are here enumerated, huh? For nothing is laid down pertaining to the act of wisdom and that of many other virtues.

[13:18] Therefore, it seems that insufficiently enumerated the what fruits, huh? That's what my old teacher, Kasurik, said. The business of the teacher is to confuse the issue, right?

[13:33] And that's of course a half-truth, but that's where he begins, right? Now, where does number twelve come up right now? Well, right in the beginning of the respondio, he says where it comes up, huh? Hence, it should be said that the number of the twelve fruits enumerated by the apostle is suitable, and they can be signified through the twelve fruits about which it is said in the last book of the Bible, there, right, the Apocalypse, from what?

[14:17] Both part of the what river is the what tree, of life? the wood of life, bringing forth what? Twelve fruits, right? Huh? You can't, you can't

[14:34] leave out that word duodecim right huh Can't cut short the scripture, right? Now, since a fruit is said to be something that goes forward from some beginning, as from a seed or from a what root, huh? Were not to observe a distinction of this of these fruits according to the diverse going forward of the Holy Spirit in what? Us. Wasn't it

[15:16] the last question there, the de potentia there, and it's about procession, right? Procession within the Trinity, right? And so I was thinking again about the word there. huh

[15:35] And Aristotle speaks of the tropos, huh? And he used the Greek word proodos, right? Which means to go forward, right? And then Latin, they say the modus procedendi, right? English, you say the way of what? Going forward. Way of going forward, yeah. Probably the best way of translating it, huh?

[16:01] So then, Thomas distinguishes between the going forward, say, within God, right, the going forward of the Son from the Father, and of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and that's all within God, right? And then the going forward of the creatures from God, which is outside of God, right? Huh? Beautiful.

[16:25] But it's there that he says that we use the word going forward because all our naming goes back to the continuous, right? All? Our knowledge starts with the senses, huh? And the senses do not get beyond the continuous. And so he says we name things first that are what in place in the continuous, and then we carry them forward to other things, right? And he gives the example of Aristotle, who says that we use the word distance there, right?

[16:56] When we talk about contraries, contraries are species furthest apart, the most distant from each other. That's borrowed from what? Originally, it names something with continuous, huh? Distance in place, huh? Okay. Or he gives the nine meanings of, or eight meanings of in and out, right? First meaning of in is in place, right? Huh? You gradually go forward. First meaning of before is what? Before and time. Yeah, and time is something continuous, right?

[17:31] And it's the number of the before and after in motion, and things in motion sooner catch the eye, than what not stirs, right? So these words they begin, right? But the first meaning of beginning is the point is the beginning of the line, huh? The line is the beginning of the surface, right? It's taken from continuous or what is in the continuous, huh? And this is seen here at the word going forward, right?

[17:55] Beautiful. I think it's especially those those words that are equivocal by likeness or ratios that you see this, like the word beginning, the word end, the word in, the word before, the word going forward, That's first chapter of all the Dionne lectures on

[18:20] the way of going forward in natural philosophy, the way of going forward in mathematics, the way of going forward in wisdom, right? And then he was talking later on about the way of going forward is common to the forms of reasoned out knowledge, right? And then find the natural way of going forward.

[18:44] They're all different, huh? So he's saying the fruits, right, are said what goes forward from some beginning, as from a seed or from a root. We're not to, therefore, what observe the distinction of these fruits, according to diverse going forward of the Holy Spirit in us, right? Which going forward is observed according as first the mind of man is ordered in itself, right? And when they say a Latin "mens," hominis, it doesn't mean mind in a narrow sense of just the reason itself, right?

[19:27] But the the immaterial part of man, which involves the will too, right? Secondly, he is ordered to those things which are what alongside of him, I guess, juxta. And third, to those things which are below him, right?

[19:49] Let's say distinction and what three. Thomas is not going to make distinction of twelve, is he? He wouldn't understand anything as terrible. Something as ununderstandable as that, huh But a distinction of three is understandable, right?

[20:11] For then, and I'm just going to go over each one of these in particular. Then, well, is the mind of man disposed in itself when the mind of man has itself well, both in good things and in what? Bad things, right? Okay.

[20:35] Now, the first disposition of the human mind to the good is through what? Love, huh? Which is the first affection, right? And the root of all the affections, huh? We saw when we studied the the emotions, right?

[20:59] So I like candy, right? I love candy, and therefore I want candy. We don't have any. I have great joy when I get it, right? I get angry if you take my candy away, and so on. So my liking candy gets the source; it's the root of all these other emotions, right?

[21:22] And therefore, among the fruits of the spirit, first is laid down what? Caritas, right? Okay. In which, specially, the Holy Spirit is what given to us, huh? As in His own what? Likeness, right? Because He Himself is what? Love. That's kind of interesting, huh? Because we talked about,

[21:53] you know, the charity is diffused in our heart by the Holy Spirit, right? You say, well, is this a work just of the Holy Spirit, or is it a work of God, and therefore common to the the three members, right? Yeah, and especially thinking of it as as an efficient cause, right? But if you're thinking about it as an exemplar cause, right? Then there's a special reason which it is attributed to the Holy Spirit, because it's He, being love itself, right, is the exemplar of of our own good love, right?

[22:27] Okay. Just as you know, we speak of the the Word as enlightening every man that comes into this world, right? Well, is that a work of the whole Trinity, or is it just a work of the of the Son? Well, if you say efficient cause, it's kind of ex equal there, right? huh? If you say exemplar, right? Well, then he's got a special connection with understanding, right?

[22:53] He's the Word, huh? You know, "Hugo verbo veritatis verius" says in the prayer, right? Nothing is more true, huh, than this Word of Truth itself. Nothing's more enlightening.

[23:19] Now, to the love of charity, of necessity, there follows what? Joy. Okay. That was interesting. Thomas is talking about the Trinity there, and of course, it's basically by faith we know there are three persons in God, right? But he has a number of quotes there from Richard of Saint Victor there, who wrote on the Trinity before Thomas, right? And the famous, I guess, Hugo of Saint Victor, right?

[23:49] No, there's Hugo of Saint Victor and Richard of Saint Victor. Oh, he's very attached to these guys. My brother's named Richard. I was Chris and Hugo, you know, Hugo, and the. But he has all these arguments. You know, there has to be joy in God, right? And joy is tied up with friendship, and friendship regards mutual love. So you got to you got to get these probable arguments at least, right, for there being this multiplicity of persons in God, huh?

[24:16] And but Richard St. Victor, especially singles out the Gaudium, right? that comes from charity, right? Nothing is more joyful than that. For everyone loving rejoices from the union of the what? One loved, right? Huh? So there's got to be some kind of union there, right?

[24:44] Charity always has present what? God. That's beautiful. Whom it loves, right? According to what is said in the first Epistle of John, huh? The fourth chapter, in the sixteenth verse, who remains in charity remains in God, in God, in Him. Whence the consequence of the following, you might say, huh? Sequela, huh? Of charity is what? Joy. Gaudium, yeah, joy, yeah. Now the perfection of joy is what?

[25:26] Peace. That's beautiful. It's exordered no. As regards two things, right? First, as regards rest from exterior things disturbing one, I guess, huh? For one is not able to perfectly rejoice about the good loved, who is disturbed in its enjoyment by what? Others, right? Huh?

[26:02] And again, the one who perfectly has his heart in the one in one, right, is what at peace. By no no nothing other can he be what molested or annoyed, huh? Because other things he regards as were as nothing. Okay.

[26:28] Whence it is said in Psalm 118, Pax multa, much peace to those loving your law. And there is no what scandal for them, right? Because they are not disturbed by what exterior things, huh? But that they enjoy what God, huh?

[27:01] Secondly, as regards the what sedation, the resting resting it doesn't mean sedation, the sense of, what we call sedation. But the settling down, you might say, is of what fluctuating desire, right, huh? For he does not perfectly rejoice about something to whom does not suffice that about which he what rejoices, huh? And these two things peace implies, right?

[27:36] That neither are we disturbed by exterior things, right? And that our desires come to rest in one thing, right? The famous quote of Augustine, right,

[27:50] Once after charity and joy, third is placed what peace, huh? Where is it Augustine? Isn't it in the Confessions? Or is it in the? confessions or is it in the Well he talks about peace being the ultimate thing, kind of huh? Tranquility, of order, What? Tranquility, of order. Yeah, yeah. I mean, really, you know, was into a great discourse on on that peace that God gives, huh?

[28:14] Okay. So that's where we have ourselves well towards the what in bonis, right, huh? Okay. What about in malis, In malis, huh? In bad things, one has himself well the mind as regard two things. First, that be not disturbed the mind may not be disturbed by the what imminence or the approach, I guess, of evils, huh? Which pertains to what patience, right, huh?

[28:53] And secondly, that one be not disturbed in the delay of good things, right. Which pertains to what? Yeah. For to lack the good as the notion of something what? Bad, as the philosopher says, right? Aristotle, in the fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, right?

[29:23] I? Remember my English professor there in freshman college? He said you've described life as mainly waiting. He says, an enumeration of all the things we wait for, right? Waiting for dinner, waiting for this, waiting.

[29:44] That's interesting. Those two, huh? So, he's distinguished how many fruits so far? Five. But he did so in in bonis, right? And those were three, and In Malis there were what two? So so far, he's still following the rule of two or three, right? Okay. Now he goes to the second of the original three, right? Okay. The iuxta hominem, right? Huh? Which is, I guess, your neighbor, huh?

[30:17] To that which is iuxta hominem, right? To wit, one's neighbor. One is well disposed, the mind of man, first, as regards the will of doing well to him, right? Treating well. And to this pertains what? Bonitas, goodness, huh?

[30:43] Secondly, as regards that the will now, right? Secondly, as regards the carrying out of this what? beneficentia. And to this pertains what? The Latin word is benignitas, huh? Can you see the way they translate that? Benignitas. Benignitas. Benignitas. Benignitas. Benignitas. More impressive, to say benignity, right? Not really in translation. For those who are said to be benign, right? Huh? Whom the good fire, right? Of love, huh?

[31:27] Makes them fervent, right? To doing good for their neighbors, right? Third, that they what? Even keel, right? Tolerate the evils inflicted upon them, right? Huh? And to this pertains what? Meekness Yeah. Meekness, or you could say mildness, to that's another way they translate sometimes, huh? Which restricts or contains angers, right? Huh? Fourth, as

[32:17] regards this, that not only through anger do we what? Not harm our neighbors, but also neither through what? Fraud or deceit, I guess. And to this pertains faith, if it be taken now not for the theological virtue of faith, but for what? Faithfulness. Yeah. But to

[32:49] be taken for the faith by which one believes in God, thus through this is ordered man to that which is above himself, right? That man subjects his understanding to God, and consequently, everything which is what of him, right? Because he has four there, but the first two could be divided against the last two, right? Because the first two are kind of good, and the last two are yeah, tolerating the evil or avoiding harming them, right?

[33:47] So that means four more. So we got how many now? None I mean I'll get to eat three more. But to that which is below, a man is well disposed, first as regards exterior actions through modesty, huh? Which observes the mode or the measure, right? In everything said and what done, huh?

[34:19] That's the exterior actions, right? And then against, as regards the interior concupiscences or desires, through what continence and what chastity, huh? Whether these two are distinguished by this, that chastity refrains a man from illicit things, right, huh? Continence even from what?

[34:47] Yeah. I remember my brother Richard there. I was stuffing myself with candy as a little boy. He said you should be doing that. He said, and I said, "What's going on with eating candy?" I said.

[35:07] He said, "Well, if you can't say no to candy, he, says, there'll be things that you won't be able to say no to that are really gonna be bad."

[35:17] So. Or through this, that the continent man undergoes what concupiscences, but is not led away by them, right? That's the way Aristotle used the word continence, right? It's something less than virtue, right? But chastity would be more virtue. It neither what undergoes nor is led away, right? Okay.

[35:46] So now we got our twelve, right? Huh. Now, what about the first objection that speaks about sanctification? To the first, therefore, it should be said that sanctification comes about through all the virtues, huh? To which also sins are what taken away, right, huh? Those are the two texts we had there in the previous what in first objection, there, right?

[36:19] Have your fruit in sanctification, and then the one from Isaiah, says every fruit to take away sins, right? Whence fruit is there named singulariter, right? If there is one fruit, right, on account of the unity of the what genus, right, huh?

[36:45] Which is divided into many what species, huh? According to which there are said to be many what fruits, huh? So one genus and many species. That's something else.

[37:04] Now, what about this hundred and sixty threefold? I always wondered what that meant. I suspect it was only three fold to Jesus right? The second, should be said that hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold are not diversified according to what diverse species of virtuous acts, right? Which the way these things are, fruits are distinguished, but according to diverse grades of perfection, even of what one virtue, right? Okay.

[37:47] Just as conjugal continence is said to be signified through the 30-fold fruit, right? Widowed or widower through sixty, right? And the virginal through what a hundred, right?

[38:11] What do you say about Christ there? He chose to be born of a virgin, right? And then he was the widow there, right? In the church there, right, or in the temple, right?

[38:29] Praises him, right? And then he goes to the wedding feast at Canaan, right, huh? So you have the the three, right? So he approves of all three of them, right? But in a certain what order, right, huh? Okay.

[38:51] And in other ways, the saints distinguished the three evangelical fruits according to three grades of virtue. Now, why do they have three? That's important. And three grades are laid down because the perfection of each thing is to be observed according to its beginning, middle, and what? End. Beautiful, right? Homer taught all the Greeks how to make a good plot. Course of action as a beginning, middle, and end, right?

[39:28] But then you know that's kind of the way they organize the three groups of the psalms, right? So when Thomas Aquinas in the beginning of the commentary on the psalm, I don't know if you've read that or not, but he discusses a bit the ways people divide the psalms, right? And he mentions number ways and rejects them as being really the solution. And then he goes to his master there, Saint Augustine, right?

[39:53] And now you got to use the correct number, but not this Protestant number that we're using now, but Augustine notes that the 50th psalm is a psalm of what penance, yeah. This is the one that Saint Teresa of Ávila was so fond of, right? Huh. And the hundredth psalm was a psalm of what good action and growing in the virtues, right? And the 150th psalm was a psalm of praising God and resting in God, right?

[40:20] Well, this is the beginners, right? Who are mainly fighting against their vices and their that that's their their preoccupation, you might say, right? Huh. Although in every every you know stage you have to do that, but that's that's the predominant in the first stage, right? Huh. Okay. In the second stage, you are trying to grow in the what Virtues. virtues, right? And then the third stage, you are what resting now, already in God, kind of.

[40:48] So it's beginning, middle, and what end, right? So they distinguish these three states, right? And there is something very satisfying to the mind, huh? So you see, Thomas, he didn't comment on the whole Psalms, he died before that, but it was up to about what fifty-four, huh? But the first text they found was the first fifty-one, right? But the first fifty, he'll subdivide them, you know, in that way that Augustine had uh, indicated, right?

[41:21] That's kind of beautiful, right? Looking philosophy. What's the beginning of looking philosophy? No, that's just a tool. That's just a tool. Natural philosophy. No.

[41:41] Mathematics. Mathematics. Yeah, that's what's put in the liberal arts, right? Huh. The liberal arts are kind of introduction to the secrets of philosophy, as Thomas says. So, so the beginning of looking philosophy is mathematical philosophy, right? And then the middle is what? Yeah. And then metaphysica, right? Wisdom or first philosophy is the what? End, right? And then in practical philosophy, what's the beginning? Ethics. Yeah. And the middle is what?

[42:13] Domestics. Domestics, yeah. And then. Politics. Yeah, that's a kind of wisdom, right? Huh. And it's beautiful, you know, when you see Aristotle and the politics there, it's a little like like in looking wisdom, right? This is kind of practical wisdom, right? And that he considers the cities that are especially praised for their governments, right? Like Sparta was especially praised, and then the governments are proposed by the great thinkers like Socrates in the Republic, right?

[42:52] And Aristotle thinks that there are defects, right, both in the government of Sparta. And the government that Socrates proposes, the city proposes, in the Republic, right? So it's not a desire to shoot his mouth off, you know, or a desire to make a name for himself, right? But there really are defects, right? And sometimes very serious defects, like you know, Socrates has a community of wives and so on.

[43:21] Really serious defects, right? In the cities praised or the cities proposed, right? And therefore, this is for him to take the investigation further, right? But he begins by pointing out the defects in those cities or in the one proposed by the great Socrates, right? And he does the same thing in the Metaphysics, right? He begins with what others said about the causes, right? And he takes what he can get that's good for them, right?

[43:56] And you know, they did touch in some way upon only these four kinds of causes that he has distinguished, right? But he sees the defect in how far they went and so on. I think it's beautiful, right? huh? Um...

[44:12] Santayana, you know, taught at Harvard. They're kind of a famous guy earlier in the century. He says today he says we no longer bother to refute our predecessors; we just wave them goodbye. Well, that's that's very open, you know, is what they're doing. But that's that's the way it is, right? You know, the Aristotle, you know, he'll recall what you know, Heraclitus said, or what Plato said, or you know, whatever these other famous men said.

[44:43] And if he disagrees with it, he'll give a reason why he disagrees with what they say. And if they give a reason for what they said, he'll show why he thinks that the reason is not sufficient, and so on, right? But when I read the modern philosophers, they would disagree with Aristotle on something very basic, you know, very fundamental, without recalling that Aristotle says the opposite, without giving a reason against what Aristotle said, and not examining the reason he gave and showing what's defective, you know.

[45:15] Was that the way to to go forward? And it's kind of it's kind of pride, too, you know. How is it that the moderns got away with this? Essentially, we read in biographical sketches of some of these uh, leading lights like uh, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke. They had or Descartes, as, well, and they're certainly not alone. They have certain disagreements with Aristotle. the stagnant, uh, Aristotelian scholasticism or whatever they call it.

[45:53] But how was it that got away with this well, part of it part of it is what what Shakespeare talks about in Troilus and Cressida, right? Where he talks about the influence of what fashion, right? And he says, you know, he sums it up, you know, beautiful way. He says, and they give to dust that is a little guilt. He says, more laud, which means praise, right?

[46:17] Than gilt or dusted. So real solid bars of gold that the dust of time have what, carved a little bit, right? They give to you know dust as a you know, gold spray paint. To dust it is a little gilt, more laud, more praise than gilt, real gold or dusted, right? I see. If they were to seriously address some of these issues that were pointed out by Aristotle and Saint Thomas and others, then they would be unable to go in certain directions.

[46:56] I think that they would personally like to go. Yeah. Yeah. So. yeah it's kind of bizarre You know that thing I'm always quoting there, and things in motion soon catch the eye and what not stirs, right? Well, he says one touch of nature makes the whole world kin that all with one consent praise newborn gods.

[47:20] And so that's what people do, right? You know, something is is fashionable, right? You would expect. Used to always say, you know, people, you know, what's the most read thing today? You know, and this is you know before the computers got so, going, you know, but it's a daily newspaper, right? The newspaper, you know, and people would say, you know, somebody calls up, you know, say, "I'm talking, What's new?

[47:45] " You know, "What's new? " Yeah, it's still on the air, right? What's new? And the newspaper, and and of course the news programs, you know, are talking what's new, right? What's new today, right? I see. So you kind of

[48:04] we kind of have a very what undeveloped wonder when all we wonder about is the new, right? You see. Paul Johnson has a fascinating book called Intellectuals, where he gives these vignettes about some of the leading lights that essentially corrupted the culture. And one whose name escapes me, very brilliant and super charismatic British gentleman, was at Oxford when Paul Johnson arrived there, or was arriving when Paul Johnson was arriving there.

[48:37] And this is right after the World War II, and this man had incredible charisma, such that you have these war-hardened majors and high-level officers who were basically carrying his luggage and doing little errands for him, And he became a major producer of plays and things like that. Created Old Calcutta. It was really wacky, actually, but had this tremendous charisma. And so the issue of fads. And how they're pervaded by certain people with tremendous charisma.

[49:07] It's a very interesting facet of the phenomenon. Napoleon was somebody who, they say, had such charisma that men would just love him and follow him. They leave their families to go to war with him. and uh, where you have other people who may be much more virtuous and have much sounder philosophy, but they don't have that exciting, electric charisma, and so people just ignore them. Very interesting.

[49:33] Yeah. I remember Monsignor Dionne talking about this. You know, you can be attached to the the, so we call it personality. Let's say the teacher, right? And that's not even the way to judge how well his understanding is. And

[49:49] but you see, sometimes in students, right, they get attached to a professor for because of some something outside of his his knowledge, really, right? You know, and and then they they. uh don't profit like they would you know One of the classical Chinese thinkers, his name was something like Su Ma, was lamenting the fact that the power, of personality, and charisma was something that caused certain people to be accepted as leaders who were completely inappropriate for the position.

[50:18] Whereas the more virtuous, the more qualified, were left in the dust, essentially because they didn't have that. Which is interesting, cross-cultural. but fashion is a little bit different, right? Fashion is something new, and you know we say, you know Aristotle and the Greeks say that wonder is the beginning of Plato says wonder is the beginning of philosophy, right? Huh? You know, but this wonder can be kind of a what?

[50:42] Of a superficial thing, right? You know, I was taking an example. We're doing the the third book there of the physics there. You know, actually hearing last night there in our class of Tuesdays and you know, Aristotle was working out the definition of motion, right? Huh? And then at the end of the third reading, there Aristotle says that motion is difficult to understand, Kalapad ide, right? It's difficult to see, to understand, right?

[51:16] Huh? But he says actually twice he says it's difficult, right? Huh? You know, but it's possible for it to be, right? It's a very strange thing. And I was taking an example, you know, when I when I walk across the room, right? Part of my motion is gone by already, and part of it is to come, and in the now, how far do I move? I don't know.

[51:42] Yeah. And this same wonder will be found when you get to what? A time, right? Because time is made up of the past, which doesn't exist anymore, and the future doesn't exist yet, and the now that's between the past and future, how long is that? It couldn't have any length at all, any time there at all, because it wouldn't be all there, right? And so this is a very strange kind of whole whose parts don't exist, right?

[52:12] It's like saying that there's a a word, but none of the letters in that word exist. You know, that's kind of a strange word, right? See? Now

[52:25] or a hole, you know? Twin virtuous exists, but his head and his arms and legs and his trunk don't exist. Or I got a book here, you know, but but none of his pages exist. You know, it's it's very strange, you know. I mean, if this whole chair exists, all the parts of the chair got to exist, right? Huh? If the word cat exists, the letters c and a and t have to exist, right?

[52:52] But here you got a hole whose parts don't exist, right? And yet somehow this exists. So Aristotle is filled with what wonder, right? Huh? You know. And I remember when De Koninck was teaching, you know, the course on place there in the fourth book of Natural Hearing, and he came down before class that guy you know. Now standing in the hall there, right? And the guy was kind of a sharp man, so.

[53:17] He's standing in front of me, looking up at me, you know. He says, "You see, isn't this wonderful? Saying something like that to me, you know. You can see the man was filled with more wonder than any student in the classroom, right? Even though the material was new to the students in the class, right? And he kind of could have been teaching this since the 1930s, right?

[53:37] But it was more wonder, right? But but a very profound wonder, right? You see. So people wonder about what superficial things and things that are have on the surface, right? And there's always something happening. So always some weird event. This may be every day. There's some weird thing to read about, you know. And and but they don't wonder about the fundamental things, right? They don't even wonder what happiness is.

[54:06] I mean, that's kind of relevant to all of us, right? I remember when first you know picking up the Nicomachean Ethics there, I was, still in high school, you know, and Aristotle trying to determine carefully what happiness is and what is really going to be our goal, you know. It is our goal, you know, And so on.

[54:28] I remember, memorizing kind of a passage for me, you know. My father came by and he said, "What are you doing, Duane? I just recited." He said, "Oh, he's that impressed, you know, Aristotle, you know." But people don't wonder about those fundamental things, right? See, and or like we're saying there last night, I mean, they don't wonder about what motion really is, or what time is, huh?

[54:53] Or what eternity is, huh? You know, when De Koninck would finish the the course on time there, you know, he'd always spend the day there just talking about what eternity is, right? And to understand what eternity is, you have to understand what time is, huh? Because the various parts of the definition of eternity, right, involve negations of things that pertain to time. You have to understand time first, then you can understand, so far as we can understand it, you know, eternity, right?

[55:23] Those things are extremely what interesting, right? And you know, you know, people always say, you know, Christ says, you know, before Abraham was, I am, He didn't say before Abraham was, I was. See, because as a man, he was in time, right? But he wasn't before Abraham in time, was he? But as God, he's before Abraham, but not in time, right? But in duration, right? And so he says, "Before Abraham was, I am," right?

[55:56] If he was before him in time, you'd say I was right, but he wasn't before him in time. He's not in time, God, in His divine nature. He's in eternity, huh? But people don't wonder about those things, right? So they have a kind of what superficial, right? Wonder about things, huh? You know the things you know just have it right in front there, you know. Some big ocean, right?

[56:23] And you have certain training which helps prepare the mind, prepare the ground for the seeds to be planted. They make the ground fertile, but then other types of education, from working to schooling, which actually do not fertilize the soil. So no matter what seeds happen to get planted, usually inadvertently, because the good seeds aren't planted, the ground isn't ready. Yeah, yeah. And so there's a superficiality of.

[56:55] it. Yeah, Monsignor Diano pointed out an interesting text from Albert the Great, the teacher of Thomas Aquinas. Albert the Great says, in in the beginning of his commentary on the metaphysics, he says that poetry, dat modum admirandi, right? See, that great fiction gives us a what, the way of wondering, right? And so I I was saying one time to Monsignor, Diano, saying you know, would there have been any Greek philosophers without Homer?

[57:27] He says no. See, because Homer gives you a certain wonder, right, huh? That you know, our cheap fiction, our knowledge don't give you, right, huh? You know, and and on myself, you know, Shakespeare had some of that effect upon me, right, huh? So this kind of the the wonder of the philomythoi, right? Aristotle himself compares the philomythoi the lovers of the myth, right, with the philosopher, right, because they both have this wonder, right?

[58:02] But you need something like Homer to arouse a wonder that is a real stepping stone to the wonder of the what philosopher, right? De Koninck kind of would say, you know, you should have read good literature before you you read philosophy, right? But these kids don't even have haven't even read good literature, right? And even if they have, they've read the deconstruction, of the abridged version. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[58:27] I mean, maybe maybe you know the little kids you begin with the fairy tales because they have rather some wonder, right? But then you go on to to the Homer and so on, and then you then you go on to the wonder of the what philosopher, right?

[58:44] And you know, I remember seeing a book there on the emotional effect of Shakespearean tragedy. The name of the book was Woe or Wonder. Woe or wonder. Woe or wonder. And this is taken from the end of Hamlet, right? You know, where we have a dead king, a dead queen, a dead prince, and a dead courtier, and so on. If you would see out of war wonder.

[59:09] You come to the right place, you know, something that effect. It's taken from Shakespeare, right? But but has that effect of arousing wonder, right? And if you look at even the plays of Shakespeare, you know, they're not tragedies, but they arouse a certain wonder. And the description, you know, of the wonder there in Winter's Tale, you know, just incredible, incredible. No description, you know, of these people in the.

[59:38] As a former Episcopalian, I can attest to the fact that there is a war on wonder within Protestantism, and also you can see it in the culture at large. Maybe it's part of that modern project with the materialistic view, which takes root and develops in this poisonous way, where the wonder in conjunction with God is lost. And the wonder with the beauty of this creation, this very wonder which leads us to God, is also lost.

[1:00:06] And it seems like, well, this because it cuts us off. more than God Yeah. Actually, an example there of Moses, right? You had the burning bush, right? Yeah. I've got plants in the backyard. They call it burning bush, right? Really, it gets red, you know, in the at the at the end of the season if you have the right conditions. And so Moses wonder is aroused, right?

[1:00:30] Huh? But the bush is what not being consumed by the flames, right? Huh? Well, the burning bush is really a what metaphor for the incarnate Word, right? And his divine nature does not what consume his human nature, right? Huh? So you have the divine nature there represented by the fire, and the human nature by the bush, right? So it is something to really wonder about there, right?

[1:01:00] And but in general, you wonder about these great metaphors, right? So if you see that God is what you know metaphorically, fire is God, right? Huh? Well, fire is both what enlightens, as gives light, and it it warms, right? Huh? And you know they compare sometimes God, you know, to the sun, right? Huh? We see the sun enlightens the world before it warms it. And so God enlightens us by faith, and then he warms us by charity, right?

[1:01:37] Huh? So it's really really beautiful, but the metaphors are there partly to make you what wonder what is the meaning of this what metaphor, right? It's

[1:01:50] the meaning of this twelve fruits on this tree, right? I didn't read that. So people who haven't gone through great literature, their wonder is what stunted, right? Huh? And they don't wonder about the what the great or important things. Huh? We tend to wonder about what a new fashion, whatever new fashion is, right? A new weird way of acting.

[1:02:23] I looked on the website in my college's literature department. I was an English major as an undergrad, and the type of courses absolutely bizarre. As far as like gender issues in Shakespeare, and it gets worse. And so any sort of incalcation of wonder is blocked because of this type of literary education. You're not looking at the wonder. You're sort of disenchanting one with it, and it just becomes a political narrow game.

[1:02:58] I was listening this morning to Mozart's first quartet. You know. Written in, when he's down in Italy, in Lodi, Italy, you know, to Ian and Robert, you know, beautiful little thing, you know, Köchel 80 there. But in the same, when they had the first of the six Haydn quartets, which are probably the greatest of his quartets, and I just listened to the first quartet again, you know, just it's absolutely incredible that thing.

[1:03:21] It rouses wonder, you know, the thing there. I remember, you know, before I ever owned these CDs or records of the, you know, I used to come out of the library, you know, take out six LPs for two weeks in the St. Paul Public Library, you know. I remember, you know, the day I had to go down to the bus, take the bus downtown to return the CDs, you know.

[1:03:42] I mean, the the old you know records and and once just once more, you know, and I'm getting ready to go down. I get wouldn't work. Play once more, you know, before I go down. And it's just absolutely incredible, you know, but Mozart's music rouses that that wonder, you know. It's

[1:04:02] really really does affect you that way. Homer and Sophocles and Shakespeare, those three poets, you know, they're kind of the supreme poets. Homer and Sophocles and Shakespeare. And the Greeks had to say, you know, that Sophocles is Homer writing tragedy, and Homer is Sophocles writing epic, you know. But they they saw, you know, that the affinity between those two great writers, poets. These metaphors and especially similes, these similes of Shakespeare, just tremendous, you know.

[1:05:04] Really rouses rouses wonder. Incredible. There's a movie Il Postino, which was very very popular, about a postman in Italy who befriends Pablo Neruda, the South American communist poet who was in exile because of his communism and founds him in Italy for a while. And it's essentially a communist propaganda film. And but Neruda in the film is always saying metaphor as he's teaching the simple postman about poetry, and he becomes a poet himself and finds the beauty in his in his poetry and stuff like that.

[1:05:50] And but Neruda's idea of metaphor, its power, it's a corrupted use, it seems, and it certainly focuses on the material. Creation on the simple pleasures, but it's certainly not a transcendent focus on things higher, and that seems to be such a hallmark of our culture. We talk to young people, and oh, rap is so great because it's so real, man.

[1:06:18] But you say, what about the transcendent things that go higher? They're like, huh? Okay. So we see the perfection of thing is not important to its beginning, middle, and what end? Yeah. There's enough truth to that.