Prima Secundae
167. Last Replies on the Twelve Fruits, Fruits vs. Works of the Flesh (Art. 4), and Is All Knowledge Good?
Class of 2014-04-10
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/167-last-replies-on-the-twelve-fruits-fruits-vs-works-of-the/

[0:00] To the third, it should be said that to not be disturbed in what sadnesses has the notion of something what delectable, Delectable, right? Huh? I was driving up to Quebec one time there, and I was taking the route to Maine, you know, and so on, get across the border. You got the route to President Kennedy, right? Maybe not President Kennedy, but the road had all these potholes on it.

[0:29] I wasn't meeting Mr. Mononans, but our president, and I was always stopping, you know, I mean slowing down to avoid these potholes and so on. This this darned Frenchman is getting impatient behind me, and so he roars, biting, you know, huh? And of course he kicked up a stone, and I could hear it hit the side of my car. I knew it was going to leave a mark, and it was a new car, and you know, I knew it was going to leave a mark, you know, huh?

[0:55] But you know, I said, I'm having a blast. I'm going to send it up this morning, you know. So he said, here, huh? To not be disturbed in in sadnesses, right? Has the notion of something what delightful, right? Huh? Okay.

[1:18] And if faith is taken, right, huh? Insofar as it is a what foundation, it has a certain what definition or a notion of something glad and delightful, according as it contains what certitude, certitude, huh? The glossics. Hence the gloss says, right, that faith that is certitude about what invisible things, huh? Okay. You see in the Bible there, you know, that church saves you from the what conflict of tongues, right?

[2:02] Most people just go through, you know, life, you know, even academic world, right? They just, you know, what is it? Even what. Whittaker, Chambers said, "Right, you know, when he became a communist, right? You know, we admired because they were kind of really, you know, committed to their ideas, right? He went back to Columbia University after he became a communist, and he says he regarded ideas as ping pong balls, right?

[2:36] You know, ping, ping, ping, and knocking around, but you don't take seriously a ping pong ball, do you? Right? No big deal, you know, just to knock around. And that's what ideas are for most of the academic world. It's just play with them, you know, back and forth. Nobody takes them seriously, right? Because you can't get truth anywhere, you know. That's what they think. You know, truth is unattainable, and they literally can't find the truth.

[2:58] And so no one can find the truth, and it's not there to be found. So we just play with ideas, right, Knock them around."It's kind of fun to knock ping pong ball back and forth, isn't it? It's kind of, nice you know, it's kind of nice to knock the ideas back and forth, but you never resolve anything, right? It's not a reasoned out or understanding that you get to, huh?

[3:20] It's great when we're getting tenure though. I know, I know, I know. Yep. Okay. Yeah, now come to the fourth one here, which is the sed contra right?

[3:46] I wanted to multiply them, right? To the fourth, it should be said, that as Augustine says upon the Epistle to the Galatians, right? The apostle does not what. Thus, take that he would teach what are either the works of the flesh, right, or the fruits of the spirit, but they might show in what genus they should be what. Avoided, meaning the what works of the flesh, and those should be what followed, huh?

[4:24] Whence they were able to either what enumerate more or even less fruits, right? Huh? Nevertheless, all acts of the gifts and of the virtues are able, according to a certain suitability, to be reduced to what. The ones we give, right? According as all virtues and gifts, it's the Holy Spirit, huh? Necessarily, it is that they order the mind in one of the four said what. Ways, right?

[5:00] Huh? Okay. Whence the acts of what wisdom, and of whatever gifts are ordering unto the good, are reduced to what. Charity, joy, and peace, huh?

[5:20] And these more than others are enumerated because the ones enumerated here more imply either the enjoyment of good things or the sedation of bad things, huh? Which seems to pertain to the notion of what fruit, huh? Fruit being something delectable, right? Huh? Okay. So, there's a conclusion of the syllogism there? Is that a fruit? Yeah. Yeah, but you think of fruit as something you're going to enjoy, so you're kind of thinking of in terms more of the what appetite, right?

[5:55] Huh? Okay. Shall we take a break. Break. Break. Okay. Yeah. The fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the fruits are not contrary to the works of the flesh, which the apostle enumerates. For contraries are in the same genus,

[6:29] the species that are furthest apart are in the same genus. But the works of the flesh are not called fruits, and therefore the fruits of the spirit are not what contrary. to them. Moreover, to one, one is thing is contrary.

[6:49] That's Socrates argues right now in famous dialogue here in the Protagoras right. There's only one contrary. He's trying to argue that that wisdom and temperance are the same thing, right? Because the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, right? And the opposite of temperance is foolishness.

[7:11] So you know the the and he mentions the word fond there. You know, Shakespeare, you know, fond originally means what? Foolish, right? And so to say that you're fond of the girl is to say you're acting foolishly over her, right? So, but again, we see that when a person drinks, you know, they tend to make a fool of themselves, right? So intemperance is a kind of folly, right?

[7:38] Well, if a contrary has only one contrary, and the contrary of temperance is foolishness, and the contrary of wisdom is foolishness, so then temperance and wisdom must be the same thing, right? Of course they're not, but but there's a connection between the two, right? All my reports go with the modest truth, no more, no, but so Shakespeare says, modest wisdom plucks me from over credulous haste, right?

[8:07] So there's a connection between modesty and and wisdom, but anyway. So Socrates develops that idea in the in the Protagoras right now that there's one contrary to one thing. But many things the apostle enumerates are what more works of the flesh than are the fruits of the Holy Spirit. So how can they be contrary if they outnumber them, right? And therefore the fruits of the spirit are not contrary to the works of the flesh are not contrary.

[8:42] Moreover, among the fruits of the spirit, first are laid down charity, gaudium, pax. To which do not correspond those things which are first enumerated among the works of the flesh, which are fornication, uncleanness, and what I suppose shamelessness. Pudicitia how do they translate that in modesty Okay Therefore, the fruits of the spirit are not contrary to the what works of the flesh. But against this is what the apostle says there, that the flesh

[9:21] lusts against the spirit, right, and the spirit against the what flesh. I answer it should be said that the works of the flesh and the fruits of the spirit are able to be taken in two ways, in one way according to a common what ratio or definition, and in this way, in general, the fruits of the Holy Spirit are contrary to the works of the what flesh.

[10:03] For the Spirit, Holy Spirit, moves the human mind to that which is in accordance with reason, right, or rather to that which is above reason, right.

[10:17] But the appetite of the flesh, which is a sense appetite, draws one to what sensible goods which are below man. What is a man if his chief good and mark of his time be but to sleep and feed a beast no more, right? So he's drawn to things below him, huh? The beast. Whence, just as the motion up and the motion down are contrary and natural things, so in human works or deeds, the works of the flesh are contrary to the fruits of the what Holy Spirit, huh?

[10:58] Because one is taking you up this direction, the other taking you you down, right, huh? So we can say that in general. Another way one can consider, according to the what particular reasons of the individual fruits enumerated, and the works of the flesh that are enumerated, right? And thus it is not necessary that individual ones, the singular ones, be placed against singular ones, right? A one-to-one correspondence, right?

[11:37] Because as has been said, this in the preceding article, article four, right, where Thomas said, "Don't take too seriously what I'm saying," right? That the apostle does not intend to enumerate all the spiritual works, nor all the what carnal works, right, fleshly works.

[12:01] But nevertheless, huh? That indefatigable Augustine, right? According to a certain adaptation, Augustine, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, places against what individual or singular works of the flesh, singular what fruits, right?

[12:26] As to fornication, which is a love, right, of seeking what pleasure divorced from legitimate what marriage, huh? He opposed to that what Charity. charity, through which the soul is joined to God, right, huh? In which also there is a true what chastity, right, huh? Well, doesn't God speak that way sometimes in the Old Testament? You know that you're kind of in what? What?

[13:03] Like prostitutes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you're abandoning God, right? You're kind of, yeah. Okay. So the reason kind of you know to adapt in a certain way, right? Okay.

[13:20] And to what uncleanness, right? All these things. Sorry. Okay. In the service of what idols, on account of which there is war, I guess, against the gospel of God, right? Is opposed to what peace, huh? Mister here has

[13:52] a kid on time. People say no rest for the wicked or something, you know. Yeah. Isn't that in Isaiah? Isaiah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

[14:06] And against what veneficia, what is that? Veneficia. Witchcrafts. And enmity and contentions and jealousies and and this is dissensions is opposed to what longanimity to sustaining the evils of men among whom we what live, huh? And to curing what indignitas, right? And for forgiving, I guess, huh? Monitas, okay. To heresies as opposed what faith, huh? To envy what mildness, huh? It's interesting. And to drunkenness, oh, you didn't get a guess.

[14:59] Uh, continence, huh? Okay. Now we got the first objection. Now, why aren't the works of the flesh called fruits? Right. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that which goes forward from the tree against the nature of the tree is not said to be its fruit, but more a certain what corruption, right? Huh? And because the works of the virtues are natural to reason, right?

[15:42] The works of the vices are against what reason, right? Therefore, the works of the virtues are called fruits, but not the works of the what vices, huh? You learn to appreciate kind of that Latin word too, don't you? Felicitas, right? For happiness, right? It's taken from the same word there for fruit, right? Virtue is its own reward Yeah Since happiness consists in virtuous what? activity, right?

[16:23] So, it's well called felicitas, right? I told you how when I first started reading Nicomachean Ethics, of course, in English, Oxford thing, the word was happiness, right? But then you read Thomas, the word is felicitas Then you read Aristotle, it's not that eudaimonia there, right? But felicitas, in some ways, is a better word than happiness, right? Happiness kind of indicates where we start from, right? See, in the book on the poetic art, Aristotle is talking about tragedy and comedy and how you can represent men going from happiness to misery, right?

[17:05] In tragedy, or from misery to happiness, in comedy, right? But in the Greek for word for happiness, there he doesn't use eudaimonia they use it in the Nicomachean Ethics, but uses the word what eutychia, right? Which is like happiness, right? Comes from eutychia, which means luck, right? And happiness comes from hap.

[17:28] You always say if you go to the Two Gentlemen of Rona, you know, you see that kind of the etymology of the English word happiness, right? When you meet good hap, you know, we should be a partaker of your happiness. One of the Two Gentlemen of Rona, you know, Proteus says to his friend there, Valentine, right? Said happiness is something that we happen to get, right? Why fruit is something right?

[17:55] Fruit kind of suggests the fact that happiness is really the natural result of what doing good things, right? And misery is a natural result of

[18:10] doing bad things, right? Thomas would say virtue is the road to happiness, and vice is the road to misery. And that's what you can learn in literature too. It's always somebody who's in miserable situation. How to get there by this or that vice, right? Now, people have

[18:40] the funniest idea what virtue is, you know. If you tell them, they wouldn't tell them in school, though, would they? They'd tell them that virtue is the way to happiness.

[18:58] Get some wise guy. My way to happiness is vice, you know. They'd make a mockery of it I suppose Subjective happy, my way can be. Okay.

[19:25] Now, to the second, it should be said, right? Why does he enumerate more works of what the flesh than of the other? Right. Well, the famous thing that Dionysius says, and Aristotle says the same thing, that the good happens in one way, but the bad in what many ways, right? Hit the target, hit the bullseye is one way, and many ways to miss, right?

[19:52] Same way, even of the truth, right? Seems to be so many errors, right? It's amazing how many errors there are. That's why it doesn't make sense to say that the good we see in nature is result of chance, right? The chances for bad outweigh the chances for good. Infinity, right? I always take the example, you know, if you know, if you break the leg of a chair and you say, okay, now go down and sell me a piece of wood to replace the leg, right?

[20:30] Well, how long do you want? it? Just sell me a piece of wood. Well, there's an infinity of lengths that are too long or too short. Only one length that is just right to repair the chair with, right? That's a very simple thing compared to what you know other things are to be good, right? But just get the right leg, you know, the right length. Good is one, and there's infinity of of bad.

[20:56] How many ways to misspell a word, huh? I before e, except. That's the most common mistake that I was a college professor. You know, the most common mistake, I and e, you know, they get them in the wrong wrong order, right?

[21:16] Sometimes it's funny too the way people misspell words. They don't say what they want to say. Okay. The third he leaves you to go from what's been said already, huh? So, but going back to the second one here. Whence to one virtue, there are many vices opposed, right? Because Aristotle takes up the virtues and the vices there in the ethics, the moral virtues, the moral virtues in between two what?

[21:48] Two vices, right? So courage is in between. The courageous man is in between the coward and the what? foolhardy man, right? And temperance is in between the what the intemperate man and the the cowardly man and the foolhardy man say, right?

[22:23] But that's true about truth. I'm in between two extremes. All my reports go with the modest truth, nor more nor clipped, but so. They say more or less the truth. They are the villains and the sons of darkness.

[22:48] They talk about the Trinity. I got the two main heresies there. What the heresy of Arius, right? And the heresy of what Sabellius, right? But Sabellius, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit—they're all God, but they're really just one person with different names from different activities, right? He became a man. He's called the Son when he was. He sanctifies us. He's called the Holy Spirit, you know.

[23:16] And then you have what Arius, whom they're really distinct, right? But only the Father is God, and the Son is just a magnificent creature, and the Holy Spirit another magnificent creature. But so it's in between two what vices, right? Huh?

[23:34] The same with the Trinity. I mean, the truth of the Incarnation is in between Eutyches, you know, the Monophysites, only one nature there, right? And then the Nestorians, and those who say there's two what persons there, like there's two natures, huh? So truth is in between two extremes. One which is more than the truth, saying what is not is, and one is less than the truth, saying what is is not.

[24:08] I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Those aren't just repetitions of the same thing. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. The whole truth is against saying what is is not, and nothing but the truth is the other error, right? Saying what is not is.

[24:34] I figure if I explain that to the judge, he won't put me on the jury because he figured I'm going to fall up. I'm pretty sure I'm going to influence this.

[24:49] I start to instruct now. What do you you say when you take that vow? You know, or take that after this guy gets the jury too much.

[25:04] I don't know how they decide that. I've been called in once, and of course it's kind of a fool, and they they didn't take me. So I don't know why. Maybe I was college professor. Maybe. We just had a brother. Brother just got off the train today. Can't wait to see when he was gone. Trying. Yeah. Just got off. Daddy. He's glad

[25:27] to talk. I know we are. So times and things are not that clear. You know, you need to need to send somebody up. I'm not sure about. They should send him up and free him.

[25:46] An account of this is not Miriam, not wonderful. If many are laid down to be the works of the flesh, then are the fruits of the what? Spirit, huh?

[25:59] Okay, well that's the into that question. I think we should go into the next question here now, huh? This is we're going to go over to what vices and sins, huh? So is the same knowledge of the good and the bad?

[26:27] Yeah. The same love of the good and the bad. Why is it the same knowledge of the good and the bad, and not the same love of the good and the bad? Because this is his knowledge right now. so he's going to go into the bad. He's going to go deeply into the bad. You

[26:46] see all kinds of horrible things coming up here. He's going to be depressing. Why is there the same knowledge? of the opposites? This is a big thing for Plato and Aristotle, right? Right. And Socrates talks about that too. If you know one, then you know the other, because it's it's a it's an absence of it's. If you know how to give somebody health, you also know how to take it away.

[27:18] I mean, is the definition of virtue something good? It's a definition of vice something good. Yeah, yeah. Because knowledge is good. All knowledge is good. Well, then, but it's all love good? No. Because you you become what you love. Yeah. See, you ask them which is better, knowledge or love? What did they say? And especially girls would say that, right?

[27:50] You say well, then you point out, you know, that all knowledge is good, right? But not all love is good, right? If I love to torture you, that's good. No. And so, how can you say that love is better than knowledge if all knowledge is good and only some love is good, right? It's kind of that way,

[28:12] right? You don't get a second date. You can mention that you don't get a second date. What you say? You don't get a chance for a second date if you mention that on the first. See Aristotle in the beginning of the De Anima, right? He says that all knowledge is good, right? But some knowledge is better because it's about a better thing, or because it's what better known.

[28:40] or certain, right? But then you know, he says that those two criteria, the better object is more important, right? But there's two of them, right?

[28:52] So mathematics is better than natural philosophy, and since it being more certain, right? But natural philosophy is about better things like the soul and so on. And

[29:07] so I remember giving a talk one time about this, and the questioner afterwards, the guy, says to me, "I don't like the sex education that's going on in the schools, and

[29:33] so these young people shouldn't be hearing these things, right? " And I agree with the man, right? Does that conflict with Aristotle's saying that all knowledge is good? Yes, the suit

[29:53] to the person. Yeah. Maybe if it if it'd be bad for the student to have this knowledge, right? And it is, I think, right. Is the knowledge is such bad?

[30:12] Yeah, circumstances. Yeah. It's because of what he might do with this knowledge, right? See, his knowledge of how to make a bomb is is that good? Very useful. Making a bomb. As such, good, right? The knowledge to make a bomb, but is it good for a terrorist to know how to make a bomb?

[30:43] Not good for the country, right? You know, some make a bomb, and I wonder how these guys get all this. Know how about how to make a bomb? That they're delusional students of how to make a bomb, I guess. As soon as they blow themselves up, too, and that's that's kind of amusing, but kind of poetic justice there, right? Some of the early people, but but again, there's a distinction there between the as such and not, right?

[31:12] Hm. The apothecary there, who sells the poison there, right? To Romeo, right? See, but is is it bad as such to know this is poisonous? Hmm. Yeah. But I mean, you can use the knowledge that this is poison to avoid it, or to get rid of something you want to get rid of, you know? Right. So it's not the the knowledge of this poison that makes it what bad.

[31:58] It's not the knowledge as such that is bad, but it's the man's desire to harm somebody else, right? It makes it accidentally be bad for him to have this knowledge, right? You got to be very careful. You can say, you see, it would be better that he didn't know that this was poisonous, right? No, and in Shakespeare's play, there, Cymbeline, right, the queen is evil, and she's talking to the doctor.

[32:27] She wants to know about poisons, right? And he doesn't trust her, and so he's giving her false information, right? And she thinks this substance that he's given her, right, will kill you, right? Huh? But actually, it kind of puts you to sleep, like you know, Juliet. You know, it's put to sleep by the function of that thing, and then she did the things of his dagger. But anyway, he doesn't trust her, right?

[32:59] Okay, because he knows her, her evil, what cruel, you know. And their husband doesn't realize how evil she is, but the end of the play, he meets realizes how evil his wife had been. And so he says, "is, who isst can read a woman? Who understands a woman? " right? You gotta watch out for her. And so,

[33:27] so is it good that he keeps her ignorant? Right? That's good, right? It'd be bad for her to to know. You know, good for her to be deceived as to think that she has poisons, but. She doesn't, right? But is it the knowledge as such then that is bad?

[33:46] Well, it's bad for her to have that knowledge, right? Huh? Because she's going to use it for evil, right? Huh? So it's accidentally what bad, right? Huh? Is it bad for me to have a butcher knife in the house? No. It'd be kind of hard to some kinds of meat, you know, you want to cut a knife, you know, me to butcher knife or something, huh? Have a nice knife to cut a

[34:13] orange up in the morning for breakfast and a nice orange. So the definition of knowledge in this particular case, the way that we would understand it, are true things. I know it's a simplistic kind of question, but I don't have the philosophy to really know if it's worthwhile questioning. But it seems like there are all sorts of things that are considered knowledge, which are maybe partially true but partially erroneous, and therefore their value may not.

[34:50] There may not be much in the way of utility, any utility, or maybe a little bit of utility because of the truth that's mixed in with the lies, for example. But so, how how do we understand the term knowledge in this particular way? Well, I mean, I mean, the question is the distinction between the as such and what, meaning by happening, right? And that's that's a distinction that's difficult for people to see, right?

[35:18] So, so this man was objecting. I knew where he was coming from. He was a Catholic Man or something, you know. And I knew where he was coming from, right? Huh? But he was objecting to the statement that the Chrysostomics that all knowledge is good, right? Only as we do that, all knowledge is good, right? But one knowledge is better than another for this reason or that reason.

[35:39] And he was saying, well, then, then the sex education is is good, right? Because all knowledge is good, right? Well, it's not good. The sex education is bad, right? And maybe even apart from the knowledge, they actually see false things, right? Huh? But if you just give them the the true facts, right? You know, then they're going to experiment or do something, right? Huh? It's not good for them to have this knowledge, right?

[36:07] Huh? And they should be thinking about other things. than these things, and so does that make the knowledge bad, though, as such? Yeah, I see there. But is there, are there things that are considered to be knowledge, but yet are in and of themselves toxic because they're not necessarily true knowledge, are untrue things, are lies, also? Well, you know, I told you I was reading the speeches of Winston Churchill right now, and this is you know, thirty-eight to about forty-one, being forty-one, right?

[36:46] Kind of crucial time in the war, right? This book was printed in nineteen forty-one. It's my library sale, right? And it's kind of interesting to read it because you really get a sense of what it's like to be in England, you know. See what he's doing, but Churchill uses the phrase, you know, talking about the Nazis there, you know, perverted science, right? There's a lot of perverted science in the Nazis, right now.

[37:11] But but is the science itself, is the knowledge itself bad, right? No one knows better how to kill you than a doctor, I'd say, right? To make it look, you know.

[37:32] But is the knowledge as such bad, right? Is the knowledge that this is poison just take that simple example? Is that knowledge as such bad? Speaking of a book that very twisted person that I worked with years ago had, it was a book on dirty tricks, how to get even with people, and it had all these sort of evil, nasty things to do with people, making like booby traps in their sidewalk and stuff like that.

[38:01] I never went through it, but I mean. That sounds pretty good. Can you share this? So is that kind of? You still have the book? I I don't want that book. Well, I've been curious because I would have been curious now to see what he's in there. But also like torture techniques, yeah, using evil interrogators and thumb screws and stuff like that. Is that knowledge? What notice here?

[38:26] Notice here, we see it's the same knowledge of what good and bad, right? See, could I really know logic, right, without knowing, you know, which forms of an argument are, you know, have a conclusion, you know, if A is so, B is so, A is so, therefore B is so, that's good, right? But if A is so, B is so, B is is so, therefore A is so, that's not, you know, would I really be a good logician if I didn't know which forms were good, which ones are bad, right?

[39:00] And you know, and I know how to what deceive my students, right, by my knowledge, right. Equivocal words, right? And I told you I would show the importance of words of equivocal reason, right? I would actually convince the students that a

[39:27] part is sometimes more than the whole, right? You know, which is oh yeah, but then the whole is not always, you know. And I got to go and correct them, you know, right? But because you know they're mixing up different senses of the word, but whole and part, right? I give you the example I use on, you know, you know that one. I'd say you know, I always told my little story about my mother there.

[39:56] My mother didn't like it, and I said, "Man is an animal." And I said, "Well, mother, he's not just an animal; he's an animal that has reason." Which is that's better. That's better. My mother would say, "They went to college, and that's better." But they just said man's an animal. She said, "Okay, so man is not just an animal; it's only part of what man is." Yeah, okay, okay.

[40:20] But animal includes besides man, dog, cat, horse, elephant, and so on, right? So sometimes the part includes more than the whole, right? So animal includes more than just man. It was only part of what man is. Oh, yeah, you know. So there are sometimes the part is more than the whole. So I know how to deceive people, right? Okay. Aristotle, you know, reason is question because to the rhetoric, right?

[40:47] Huh? Because rhetoric can be used for good or for bad, right? Huh? See, so if I'm a, if I'm good at persuading the jury, I can persuade the jury to what? The guilty man being innocent, or the innocent man being guilty, right? I can, you know. And Aristotle says, "Well, that doesn't make rhetoric itself bad, right?" But you're, you're, I might say you're misusing this, right? Huh?

[41:11] Okay. Like saying we shouldn't we shouldn't teach the art of medicine because a doctor could use that to kill you, right? They do kill you, you know, abortion and so on, right? You know, so euthanasia, right? Huh? So, but does that make the knowledge as such bad? Well, then all knowledge would be bad if there's the same knowledge of good and bad, right? Huh?

[41:43] See, if I know how to cook the meat, I know how to spoil the meat too, right? If I know how much salt or pepper or whatever it is seasoning to put on, I know how much to ruin the thing by putting too much on, you know, diminishing it by not putting the right amount on, right? So all knowledge would be what? Yeah.

[42:10] Because all knowledge. The same knowledge of the good and the bad, right? So, so when the apostle says, "Be wise in things which are good, but innocent in things which are bad," what does he mean? If it is the fact that it's the same knowledge of good and bad, I don't know if that's exactly the same thing you're talking about there, you know? Be wise as serpents, right?

[42:35] Innocent as doves, because the the wise is in is in the mind, right? But the innocence is in the what heart, right? Huh? And they often take an example they have Othello there, right? And Iago, right? Iago is what wiser than Othello in a sense, right? Understands things better, right? But he's not so innocent, right?

[43:01] So, so what is in the will, right? Now, just like I say, you know, the the you know, in the origin of the word philosopher, there's humility as well as a love of wisdom, right? Because in accordance of the legend, anyway, Pythagoras said, "Don't call me wise, right? God alone is wise. What shall we call you? Well, you got to call me something. Call me a lover of wisdom, right?

[43:31] So there is not only the love of wisdom there, but also what in the origin of the word, the humility that man is not wise in the way God is wise, right? So man's wisdom is is something imperfect compared to God, right? Very imperfect.

[43:50] Aristotle, you know, follows, you know, Pythagoras. Pythagoras, Pythagoras is at the beginning, kind of early, anyway, Greek philosophy, and and Aristotle is at the culmination of the golden age of Greek philosophy, right? But he's still teaching what the other guy said, right? But but the humility is in the what? The love of wisdom is in the will, and the wisdom is in the reason, right?

[44:22] Thomas is very wise, but I think he's humble, right? Now, and when he got to writing, you know, he said he got to writing the part of the Tertia Pars on on the incarnation. Right, supposed to have gone in the thing before the altar, cried the crucifix of Christ, and said, "No, is this satisfactory?" He says, right? You know, and and Thomas, the Lord was supposed to have spoken to him from the cross, right?

[44:48] You've written well, Thomas, right? So now in the college St. Thomas, you know, we had it between the two main academic buildings there. There was you know, kind of you know, kind of a thing in the there was a statue of Thomas up there, right? And many scriptures said, "Oh, you've written well, right?" You know, that's that's the thing came, you know. So it's in humility there, right, in Thomas's pardon.

[45:15] You can see his humility and respect to, you know, Augustine or Thomas, the Church Fathers, right? What's his name, Cajetan, you know, who wrote the famous Commentary on the Summa? And OJ says that Thomas so reverenced the Church Fathers, right, that he seems to have inherited the mind of all of them, right? The same way he reverenced Aristotle, he seems to have inherited the mind of what Aristotle,

[45:44] right? But can't see that about the modern philosophers. They inherited the mind of Plato, Aristotle, or even. I often think it's it's not worthwhile comparing them to Aristotle. I mean, the distance is so great, you know. You compare them to the very first Greek philosophers, you know, we're still way way above them, you know, but you know, or or or I say, you know, Shakespeare is wiser than any of the modern philosophers.

[46:14] You know, far wiser. You know, you can't bother to compare Aristotle. It's ridiculous, right? You know, you know. Why Shakespeare's wiser than all the modern philosophers? You know, that's that's smart. You know. Should modern philosophers be called by a different name because they're not? Yeah, the word is the word is kind of equivocal, yeah.

[46:41] They certainly don't think that they're, you know that God's wisdom is better than theirs, right? What I find striking as I'm reading through a number of the different ones, it seems they almost all seem to have an agenda. You know, it's like they have an agenda. They want to get to it. The philosophy is for the sake of the agenda. So it's not like yeah, let's try to understand truth and reality.

[47:07] Yeah. If they've got an end that they want to, and you see that number of them, it's like they're after something else. You can see that, you know, Karl Marx. There, you can see the the preface to his doctoral thesis, right? You can see the the will there involved, right? You know.

[47:26] And you can see it in Sartre. It's so clear in Sartre. He says, he says, we're not atheists in the sense that we would exhaust ourselves trying to prove that God doesn't exist, right? We say it doesn't make any matter doesn't matter at all to us whether he does or does not. Well, you'll find out whether it matters. We're not going to pay attention to him, you know.

[47:49] Whoever he is. I mean, I mean, I can see you know, I mean, being some kind of doubt about whether God exists, you know, but just makes no difference whether he does or doesn't exist, But... it's kind of stupid. Yeah, it is. Yeah. Yeah, but you can see the will there, you know, the will. This lady I knew who was talking about somebody she knew who was supposed to be some brilliant intellect that he had passed away, and he was quite vehemently atheistic.

[48:16] And she said, you know, he didn't believe in God. And I said, well, now he does. And she didn't think that was very funny. What was it? This, this you heard that testimony there, Cecil Richards. There, you know, she's on this program. She's a head of the the Planned Parenthood or something federation, and you know, they asked her, the guy asked her, you know, when do you think life begins?

[48:50] Well, that question's irrelevant, she says, you know. You're on it, you know. I gotta get to the to the bank here. I mean, he says, get there by five thirty. She says.