Logic (2016)
22. Relation (Ad Aliquid): Real Relations, Their Causes, and the Knower and the Known
Class of 2017-02-02
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/2-logic-2016/022-relation-ad-aliquid-real-relations-their-causes-and-the-knower/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, move us, God, to know and love you. Help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, Lord illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:30] Eleven. minutes where I had left off you. Okay. So, am I taller or shorter, What am I? What taller and shorter says nothing about what I am in myself, does it? I'm only taller towards somebody, right? Maybe shorter towards somebody else, right? Strange, something, isn't it? Relation or towards something? Huh? I've

[1:15] got some, I've got copyouts and documents, you know, arrange them, you know, on the, um, relations of reason, right? Huh? So I know that you can put in your thing, and we can, you know, do that if you want to get into that, huh? But we'll see what he says here in this dark, anyway.

[1:40] Okay. Not so much to concern here, not about Christ, so much here, that problem, but the second paragraph here in this one on the bottom of the page.

[1:52] In this ad aliquid, huh, differs from other genera, right? Because the other genera, from their own ratio or their own meaning, have that they are something, right? Just as quantity from this that is quantity places something in us, my size or something like that, and likewise about the other ones. But ad aliquid, from the meaning of its own genus, its own meaning, does not have that it lays down something.

[2:29] Huh? It's a very strange thing, huh? But it says something ad aliquid, right? Okay. I'm not something, but I'm towards something. Okay. Whence there are found some ad-aliquid, right, which are nothing in the nature of things, right? But even the things that are in the nature of things are. Barely are right, Whence there are found some things which are ad aliquid, which are nothing in the nature of things, but in reason only, right?

[3:16] Okay. Which doesn't happen in the other genera. And although ad aliquid, by reason of its genus, does not have that it lays down something, right, or places something in it. Nevertheless, does it have from its particular genus that it does lay down nothing, right? Okay. It doesn't do one or the other, right?

[3:50] Because in that case, no relation would be something in the nature of what things, huh? Whence ad aliquid would not be one of the ten genera, right? Now Thomas often refers to the text of Aristotle in the fifth book of the Metaphysics (Wisdom) where he distinguishes being distinguished according to the ten genera, right, from beings of reason, huh? Some of which are relations, some are, you know, negations and so on, huh?

[4:20] And so there wouldn't be a one of the ten genera ad aliquid if there was no ad aliquid that was in things, right? They'd all be in beings of reason, right? So Thomas is pulling authority of Aristotle, right? Now, Aristotle saw this distinction, huh? But you know, Thomas often quotes Boethius too, you know, where he's talking about the weakness of relation, and some people have thought that all of these are just something of reason, you know, comparing things and kind of, you know, but that's a mistake.

[5:01] Okay. It's very hard to to see what makes relation be real, right? It goes back to what its causes. Relation has that it be something real from that which causes the relation, huh?

[5:24] For when there is in something found something real, through which it depends upon another or is compared to another, right? Then we say that is really what compared or dependent upon something or referred to it. Just as the relation of equality is real, right? And it's laid down to be real from the virtue of what quantity, which is its what cause, huh? Now, in case of God, the relations in God don't have any cause, but they are the same as the divine substance.

[6:01] That's what makes them real. That's a very hard thing to, you know, got to go to the potentia to see this. Okay. Now, because from the same thing a thing has being and unity, being and one are convertible. Therefore, the real unity relation should be weighed from its what Funda foundation, right, or the cause of it. And because one is quantity through which something might be equal to what many things, huh?

[6:38] This is a little thing. If I am what equal to two different things, is that two relations in me, or just one, right? But just you go back to the cause of it; it's just one, right? It's my size, size, or my height in this case, right? That is the cause of my being equal to these two others. So we have one relation, okay.

[7:07] And because one is the quantity through which one is equal, I am equal to many. In me is not except one what relation, right? A real quality having a respect nevertheless to what many, right? Similarity, right?

[7:27] Because by one nativity from one's father and mother, one was what Begotten. begotten, yeah. By one real sonship, right? I am said to be the son of both, huh? Although the res respects can be multiplied, huh? That's really basically one thing. Those seem very hard things, huh? No, it's really hard.

[8:00] Okay. Now, the next text here from the scriptum on the third books of sentences. Again, he's going to touch upon the fact that Aristotle was to point out that real relations in us have as their cause either what quantity, right, or acting upon and what undergoing. Okay, that's the sources of two kinds, huh? Okay. I was reading Thomas there a little bit about the Trinity today in God, right?

[8:34] Thomas says his article there on whether the relations here are real, right, and so on. God, which they are, but he says they can be based upon quantity or upon. Something like acting upon undergoing. There's no quantity of God, so it can't be based on that. Therefore, it's got to be based upon generation and those other things, right? You have a real, a real relation, father and son, right?

[9:03] But you know, Aristotle first saw this, right? This kind of amazing guy. Compare Aristotle. I can repeat the words of my professor. I got the brain of an angel Okay. So in the next passage, he'll talk about that.

[9:32] Relation does not have, from the fact that it is said to be to another, that it be something in Verum natura, right? From that alone. But it has this from that which causes the relation, which is in the thing which is said to be to another. And from that, the thing has unity and multitude, from which it has being. Therefore, according to that in which the relation is founded, one should judge. Whether secundum rem it is one or what many.

[10:05] Now there are some relations which are founded upon what quantity, just as equality, which is founded upon one in quantity. And since the unity of quantity is not except one in one thing, hence it is that through one equality, a thing is equal to all things to which it is what said to be equal. That's kind of a subtle thing, right? Okay. Now the other relations are founded upon what?

[10:37] Yeah, Aristotle points out more explicitly in the Metaphysics than he does here in the chapter on relation, right? But some are based upon quantity, some real relations, and some are based upon action, passion. And in these should be considered that one undergoing corresponds to two acting upons when neither agent suffices per se to complete the action, right? Just as in the one who by what one nativity is born from the what father and the mother, right?

[11:14] Huh? Whence in the father and the mother there are two relations secundum rem. So my father and my mother are not to be in the same the same relation, right? Okay. But in the one born there is one relation secundum rem, according to which is referred to the father and the mother. Okay. I want to explain that to couples.

[11:49] Okay. That's why I say you know the see the difficulty of understanding relation. You know either either it's the because of the sublimity of the object and the weakness of our mind, like in the Trinity, or else it's because of the weakness of the thing itself, right? It it hardly is. By its

[12:18] the notion of what it is towards something, right? It's not something in me, but it's towards something, not something in me. It's very hard to see how you can get a real relation, right? But got to go back to the the cause of it, right?

[12:36] The cause of it is something in you. Yeah, by quantity. Well, it it is an accident, right? And therefore it's got to be in us, but it's in us not by from the notion of what it was private to it, right? Okay. And it's in me because of some of its cause.

[13:00] So you know you're in the bar there and you had a few drinks and you get argued the guy next to you you know and then finally here you know getting into the fight you stand up and realize he's towering over you

[13:12] this is very real you know he's looking down at you you know and you're looking at him you know you you wish you had not risen from your seat because he was slouching in his seat and you realize what a big guy he was right now for example I use the cat there you know you know the cat if the cat was you know bigger size he'd be playing with me rather than the mouse you know

[13:38] and our relations would be quite different right something real about this right and you know how how would parents take care of the baby right if they were much bigger you know than the baby right

[13:57] the baby had to carry them in their arms rather than the adults carried the baby in their arms There's a picture there of Paul there with the little one.

[14:10] it's one of the most difficult things in the world right relations and then you go to relations of in the Trinity then it's the weakness of our mind right they can't fully grasp that you know

[14:31] it's kind of amazing that Aristotle saw this that they could be based upon quantity or upon action passion they're not based upon qualities unless they take on the aspect of something quantitative or take up the aspect of being you know the ability to act upon something or undergo so

[14:53] this thing is hotter than that thing Yeah yeah it's like you're you're quantifying it in a sense right even even though heat is a quality yeah yeah yeah it's how much yeah yeah or or they they say you know when you take these relations like same and and I mean equal or like you know it's one just something kind of quantity in a sense we have one quality or we have one you know size or something this is wider than that yeah I think this is wider And that sounds qualitative but this is wider than this one yeah but wider goes back to quantity really wider

[15:37] color itself This is whiter than white white White yeah white or you know redder this is isn't that a relation that this this has a relation to being well you know that's a question of you know you're kind of quantifying the quality right now that's a very complicated thing Philosophers always argue about those things, right? I mean, it is really a very difficult thing, right? Very difficult thing.

[16:09] In the De Potentia there, right? You know, they all talk the question of whether there is, you know, relation in God, whether it's real relation or you know, and they really, you know, ten fifteen objections, you know, and you know, it's amazing. It's amazingly difficult thing.

[16:35] And further, it should be considered that some relations do not arise from actions according as they are an act, but more according as a what were, just as someone is said a father after the action which the effect is falling from right said a father after the action which the effect is falling from, right? And such relations are founded upon that which in the action from the agent is left, right?

[17:00] Whether it be a disposition or a habit or some right or power or something of the sort. The one has over one's offspring, right? Because I generated you. My mother used to say, "I changed your diapers." Yeah, but they're always quoting Cicero. You know, the son is always indebted to his father, right? Okay, your mother too. You could say that.

[17:33] Okay, again, he goes back to the example there. and because this is left from the actions of one kind, it cannot be except one. Hence, it is that such relations also secundum rem are not multiplied according to diverse actions, but the more are one according to that from which the action is what left. And in account of this, there are not diverse relations secundum rem. now, right?

[18:08] In patre uno qui generat pluris filiosa, So am I, you know do I have two relations of fatherhood to my you know secundum rem to my two sons, or what? Yeah, but that's very hard to judge those things, right? Nor in the magistro, right, one teacher who teaches many, what? Yeah. So does he have a you know three different real relations, right? Teacher three times over. Yeah, yeah.

[18:43] Okay, these are really difficult things. I know this is text here from the Summa Theologiae, about the same sort of thing here. The unity of a relation or its plurality is not to be observed according to its what terms, but according to the cause or the what subject, because that's what makes it what real, right? Okay. For if it be observed according to the terms, it would be necessary that each man in himself has what two sonships, one but which is referred to his father, and one but which is referred to his what mother.

[19:35] But to the one right they consider it, yes, we pray for, right? The angels, um, appears by the same relation to be referred each one to his own father and mother on account of the unity of the what cause, right?

[19:54] For by the same birth, a man is born from his father and his mother, whence. By the same relation, he's referred to what? Both, huh?

[20:08] Now, what about that in the Trinity there? When you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from what? Father and the Son. Yeah. So, does he have two relations, one to the Father and one to the Son?

[20:25] Then we have we have quaternity, right? It's not what I like. This, is it? Yeah, it's very difficult. That's what they say about act and passion, spiration, right? So, you would end up having two relations because of that. Yeah.

[20:48] But you know, I mean, does the we you know have to understand how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, right? And they're maybe they're what mutual love, right, huh? From their being like each other.

[21:08] But the Holy Spirit's way of proceeding from the Father and the Son is so unlike what's found in creatures, right? They don't even have a name for it. So we use a common name, procession, right? But doesn't have a name like the Son. He has generation or begetting or something like that. But this other one is

[21:35] the same reason is about the teacher, right? Who teaches many students by the same what? Science, right? Doctrine? And the Lord who governs his diverse subjects by the same power, huh? So with with Trump, do we have? Yeah.

[22:01] So if you taught us philosophy or logic today, and then you taught some other students geometry, then they're those two different teachers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he goes on to talk about the next paragraph here, right? But if there are diverse causes differing in species, ex consequente, right? They seem to differ in what species, right? Whence nihil prohibit, nothing prevents there being many such relations in the same one, right?

[22:31] Just as if someone is the teacher of some in grammar, and of others in logic, right, huh? I use geometry. Yeah. Okay. Other is the ratio of magisterium in both, right?

[22:47] And therefore, of what diverse relations, huh? One and the same man, right, can be the teacher either of diverse ones or of the same according to diverse doctrines or diverse sciences, huh?

[23:08] It happens, however, sometimes that someone has relation to many, according to diverse causes of the same species. Just as someone is a father of diverse sons according to diverse what acts of generation, whence the paternity cannot differ in what species, since the acts of generation are the same in what species. But because many forms of the same species cannot be at the same time in the same subject, it is not possible that there be many fatherhoods in the one who is a father of many sons by natural generation.

[23:49] It would be, however, other if he was a father one by natural generation and of another by what adoption. Then you'd have a different.

[24:00] That's why you have you have you may have by different acts of generation different children different sons, but they all have one father. Yeah, but if I'm a father this man by generation and this man by adoption, then that's different. And that's that's a very you know this stuff would drive you crazy, you know. You can see trying to understand relation. That's what different difference that father of God.

[24:33] That's what at least in one interpretation of the Lord's Prayer when he said we say our Father who art in heaven is three different kind of paternities you can understand by those words. Fatherhood in general of all creation. Our father by adoption, he's our special father more so than the rest of creation. But then the father who is in heaven by an eternal generation, which is unique to itself.

[24:57] So it's three different kinds of eternities there There's three different kind of paternities there. Now the distinction between real relations and relations of reason is not made much in the categories, right? I mean, Thomas points out, you know, that that the category of relation is about real relations, huh? And he points to the text of Aristotle in the fifth book of Wisdom, where he divides the senses of what being, right?

[25:30] Huh? And there's one division of being according to act and ability, right? And another division of being according to the figures of predication, which is the ten categories. And they are divided against the other sense of being, which is the being of what of reason, right? As well as divided against accidental being too, but you know accidental things divided against all these other things. So Thomas would say, you know, there wouldn't be any what relation among the genera of being, right?

[26:02] If All relations were of reason and not real, right? That's a division of of being and things, right? Not in our mind, too. Okay. But you know, when I was talking about the reason why we, why Porphyry considers species before difference, right?

[26:29] And I gave the reason, you know, that there's the same knowledge of opposites, right? And genus and species are what kind of relative to each other, right? So they're kind of defined with reference to each other, right? And so on. But those are relations of what reason, right?

[26:51] Huh? Now he says of relatives, there's found a threefold diversity, right? This is only one of the several texts, right? Huh? Grinds you up here, huh?

[27:10] I was joking with my students last night at the house there, and I said I was talking about how I told the monks and I had this attachment to number five, right? And since likeness is the cause of of love, right? Maybe that's my number, right? But I was saying, how did I get this attachment to number five? Was it because my name Dwayne had five letters?

[27:33] I noticed it sometime, or because I noticed I had five fingers, or I don't know why, but I was thinking, you know, the categories here, you know, and how many, you know, how we divide the text into three, right? But how many antipredicaments are there? Is that is that Porphyry?

[28:01] No, no. The categories of Aristotle. Four. Is it four? No. Five. Must be five. Must be five. Yeah, because it's five antipredicaments, right? Huh? Okay. And then how many postpredicaments are there? Five. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was I was overjoyed, yeah. And of course, there's ten categories, but that's five and five, kind of, you know.

[28:29] But I was looking at the the nefarious Loeb edition, you know, huh? And I noticed here where he's beginning the what we call the post-predicaments, right, huh? Chapter ten there, right, huh? We have now said enough on the subject of the categories that we proposed, and with opposites, next we must deal, right? That's the beginning of the things. He's got a footnote here, a little a, right, at the bottom.

[28:56] It says the chapters that follow. Are commonly regarded by scholars as spurious. Well, now I mean, all the all the you know guys I've read, you know, all the great and you know Cajetan and whoever it is, you know, all the they're all you know talk about the post-predicaments, right? And when you stop and consider the post-predicaments, they're extremely there's nothing accidental there attached on? You know, something you know by by chance?

[29:30] We'll talk about that in post-predicaments, but these uh, gratuitous uh, Marx scholars, you know. I see. I always wonder, You know, I mean, I guess most of the scripture scholars don't think that the epistle to the Hebrews is by Paul. Yeah, that's the majority opinion now. Yeah, yeah. But you know. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. That's a real problem because God's the author. The Scripture, I mean, I still think it's by Saint Paul, you know, and I don't know how they they conclude these things, huh?

[30:15] Apparently, some of the fathers didn't think Saint Paul. wrote it. So yeah, you you do have that. there was doubts among the fathers. Same thing about the the style, of actually, it doesn't fit, you know, but he's writing for a different audience, Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it was 100 years ago but they said that the style, was internal evidence, that the Holy Spirit said, "Well, no, I don't think."

[30:37] I forgot. I was reading one of Thomas's, you know. Now we use you know four styles, you know, a couple of them. You know, if I can't change, you know, and and I always take the example, you know, you know, I find Thomas's Latin is very easy Latin, I think, to read, right? Except when he has the dedicatory letter to the Pope or something like that, and then it's kind of a Ciceronian, or you know, even you know, Augustine's much more difficult, right?

[31:02] These guys are closer to things, and I say, Thomas, I mean it's obviously not the same guy writing this, right? You know, because the style is different, right? You know, you know, and and a man couldn't couldn't write in different styles. He'd have to be a genius to do that, you know.

[31:21] It's like it's like if I write a letter, I write to my nieces and nephews. I write a different style than I would write to the Pope or the Bishop or something like that. Yeah. And there's C S Lewis talking about that, you know. I mean, addressing God, you know, it's not unheard of that you use a already written prayer, right? You know, rather than inventing your own, you can do that too sometimes.

[31:57] But I mean, this is kind of a special guy to talk to, right? And you want to have, you know, some of this kind of adequate, you know. You know I said the Anima Christi there after the communion, you know, and that's a really marvelous thing, you know. Or I said, Thomas' prayer, you know, The E. S. word, the Eucharist, and so on, and

[32:23] couldn't have said it better, you know. Just it was like they couldn't, you know, think the guy could what, you know, write in different styles, huh? I know Thomas's. I have a hard time reading those. A dedicatory. I don't have much difficulty reading Thomas's ordinary things.

[32:49] Okay, says of relatives, there is a threefold diversity. That's curious. Some there are some which are what. Both imply relation not existing in the thing, but in reason only, as when being is referred to what none being, because that's nothing, right? There'll be something towards nothing is nothing real. Okay. Thomas will say, you know, that if you say that today is before tomorrow, right? Well, tomorrow doesn't exist, right?

[33:32] So it's not a real relation. Well, today doesn't exist either. Yeah. Not as one thing, that's. Yeah, yeah. Or if I say, you know, the first world war came before the second world war. That's relation of reason, right? Because neither one of those things exists now, right? What did you say, Shakespeare came before Shakespeare? Yeah. They still exist.

[34:00] At least their souls do. Yeah. Okay. So this is one kind of relation where neither one what exists in reality. Yeah. There's some of which both relations imply a relation, right? Of which both things As the father and the what son. I don't actually refer to the Trinity or even to the. No, actually.

[34:34] But there's some. This is the famous example of Aristotle, of which one implies a real relation and the other relation of reason only, as science and the knowable, right now. Okay. So, you know, knowing is a kind of a unusual thing, right? And so when I'm knowing a material thing, I'm knowing it what, an immaterial way, right? And that material thing doesn't share that immaterial knowing, does it?

[35:05] So it doesn't have a real relation to me because of my knowing it, huh? But I have a relation to it, isn't that unusual, right? Now Thomas points out distinction in a number of texts, you know, but here's one place where he does it, right? So two things are related. Sometimes the relation is not real on the side of either one, right? But only of reason. Some both are real, and some one is real and the other is not, right?

[35:35] It's interesting distinction, right? So Thomas, you know, in the De Potentia, he talks about God being the creator, right? And the creature, right? Which says the creature is really related to God, but is God really related to creature? No, that's a relation of what? A reason, right? That's an example of what the knowable thing he's talking about. Aristotle saw that, right? The scientia and the knowable right?

[36:07] I see, you know, just perhaps many, really subtle stuff, you know. And even I, when I was interviewing somebody for a job in the philosophy department, I was asking these kind of questions.

[36:29] Now, what's the reason for this diversity, right? We got to look before here in terms of what's the reason. Because that upon which is founded the relation sometimes is found in one only, and sometimes in what both. It is clear that the relation of scientia to the scibile huh, science to the knowable, is founded upon a what grasping that is secundum esse spirituale, right? Okay, okay. That's the famous thing that that immateriality is the root of knowledge, right?

[37:09] But this esse spirituality in which is founded, huh, the relation of science is only in what the one knowing and not in the thing being known, because there it is the form of the thing according to natural being, right? Okay.

[37:30] But then it's interesting thing about the difference between these things and the lover and the loved, huh? And this is a famous text from Aristotle in the sixth book of the Metaphysics, magnificent text. It's contrary about the lover and the loved, because the relation of love is founded upon the desire of the good. But the good is not something existing only in the soul, but also in what things.

[38:01] Whence the philosopher says in the sixth book, Whence he calls him the philosopher by antonomasia. Whence the philosopher says in the sixth book of metaphysics that good and bad are in things, but true and false in the soul. That's one of the most profound things that Aristotle ever said, huh?

[38:31] And therefore Avicenna says, right, in his book, in the third book of metaphysics, that in the loving lover and the loved, in both of the relatives, there is found a disposition to which is referred to the other, right? But not in the one knowing and the knowable, and therefore in both relation is real, right? Yeah, that's in the lover and love right Yeah Thus also equality, which is immediately founded upon quantity, which is involved.

[39:03] Right now, if you read the great Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae, right, When, he takes up God. He takes up the unity of God before the Trinity, obviously, right. But then, what does he do with the unity of God? He takes up first after the existence of God, right? The exist. He takes up the substance of God, as he says, right, and then he takes up the operations of God, his understanding and willing, right.

[39:34] Okay. Now, where does he take up the goodness of God and the truth of God? Goodness is in the substance. Yeah. But I guess the other is in his operation. But the truth is taken up. He takes up the operation of God, understanding. It goes back to Aristotle, right? That's really amazing, you know, to realize how subtle Thomas is right. In the substance of God, in both Summas, right, you have five things, right, and sometimes there's something attached to it, right.

[40:12] So, God is said to be unchanging, right? There's no motion, God at all, right? And then to that they attach the consideration of God's being in eternity, right? Eternity of God. Or God is infinite, right? And then God being everywhere in some way, right? Okay.

[40:39] Well, one of the five things he takes up again is the perfection of God, right? And then to that he attaches what consideration of the goodness of God, right? That's an amazing thing. We are careful, Thomas was, right? He takes up the goodness of God in his what substance, right? But he really is. Yeah. But he takes the truth of God, right? And he takes up his understanding of operation, right?

[41:08] It goes back to Aristotle, right? It's amazing, Thomas. You know, how much he learned from Aristotle. You know, sometimes I remember here, you know, some people are misunderstanding what Aristotle is saying, and, Thomas would say, you know, an important matter, right? That's so great a mind and so great a matter, but think this is doesn't make any sense. I mean, he can't explain them, you know. And I just noticed today, you know, a couple somebody's quoting Damascene and somebody's quoting Augustine, you know, and Thomas explains what really Damascene meant to what Augustine meant, you know, and say that's the kind of guy you need, huh?

[41:58] But I'm trying to see the difference because so he's saying that when you have a lover and a loved thing, there's a relation, a real relation going in both directions. Yeah, to make a simpler thing to say. Yeah, yeah, that's true. Yeah, yeah. But then he's saying that's the case because in the loved thing there's something real there that's the basis of it. Yeah. Okay. But with the knower and the known thing, the known thing also has something by which it's known.

[42:28] In other words, if it doesn't have actuality, it doesn't have being, that it wouldn't be known, it wouldn't be knowable. So there's something in the known thing as well that is the basis for my being able to know it. I think the best way to approach this is kind of easier for us, you know, to approach it, right? Is to bring out that

[42:49] loving is something that proceeds from the love to the thing in itself, right? Okay. So if I love the woman, I want the woman herself. Okay. Hence, I'm going out, right? And therefore, love is said to be in the thing loved, right? I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Gather treasures up in heaven, right? Because where treasures are, there your heart shall be, right? Now, so love is in the thing what?

[43:25] Loved. I'm going out to the thing itself. But knowledge, right? Now, in knowledge, the known is in the knower, right? And so that the, you know, even the early Greeks in some ways saw that, right? Now, you had to have the thing known inside your mind to know it, right? And that's why the in the first act of mind is said to be simple apprehension, simple grasping, right?

[43:53] Well, when I grasp something, it's contained in my hand, right? That's that's the cause. Yeah. Yeah. So when the mind grasps something, when it knows something, when it grasps this, it's in some way in the mind itself, right? Okay. And that's why truth is primarily in the mind, right? Following upon that, and where the good is primarily in the thing, right? In one case, you're you're going out to thing itself, right?

[44:20] Your heart is moving, and so the heart is said to be in you know we have the expression you know even saying my heart's not in it, you know, heart's not in it. What does that mean? See, the heart is said to be in what you you love, right? Now, if I love some doing something, right, my heart's in it, right? Enthusiastic about it, right? You know, um, one of the students last night went to Boston University, asked me about Kuhn, you know, and said I don't like those guys to read them at all.

[44:56] I said, you know, I'd much rather be the you know Heisenberg or Einstein even or Max Born, you know, the scientists themselves. They talk about their knowledge, right? And I mentioned Duhem. I said, well, that Duhem is different, right? Because Duhem was a working physicist, right, and made contributions to

[45:17] physiology and so on, right? And he did a great historical research too on the history of science, right? And then he wrote his thing on what we call the philosophy of science, right? The nature of science. I trust those guys more than some philosopher, you know. I always tell the story, you know, that some kind of philosophical meeting there, and we had a lunch or something like that.

[45:40] So I got talking to somebody, and something came about talking about hypothesis. So I quoted Einstein, who said that an hypothesis is freely imagined, you know. Oh, that's Einstein's opinion. Here's a guy who in one year, you know, had three ideas, all which are worthy of the what Nobel Prize, right? They didn't give him the Nobel Prize for the special theory of relativity because it was too hard to understand for a while, right?

[46:09] I mean, nobody's so fertile of mind, right? Presumably, he knows something about how scientific, you know, theory arises, you know. And you know, I always used to say, you know, get it from the horse's mouth, right? The expression. Don't know that expression, but he should know it, you know. The horses know who's going to win, right?

[46:39] Okay. Okay. That's really that's really profound, though, you know. But to me, you know, it's easier to see. You know, I'm amazed by Tom's taking up the good, where he does, and then the truth where he does, huh? Because these things are all what they call the transcendentials, you know. They're convertible with being, right? Truth and goodness are convertible with being, but you know he still sees the differences, right?

[47:07] It goes back to his teacher Aristotle. So, in knowing, obviously, the existence of the thing is a cause of my knowing. Yeah. But not in the same way. Yeah. Precisely. That the grasp of my mind is the cause of my knowing. Yeah, there's kind of a kind of a being that it has in the mind, which it doesn't have in itself, right? Yeah. And that's why I know not just because it exists Because I don't know everything that is When I when I love steak or I love a woman it's a thing itself right And what's in the thing

[47:47] So I guess there's more than one Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, when when we say you take charity, right, which is the highest kind of love we have, well,

[48:05] faith disappears, right? In heaven, but does the charity disappear? No because the copy it's still there Yeah. Yeah. And so, since God is more proportion to our what will you may say, or our wills more proportion to God, I should say, than our mind is proportion to Him, right? I used to use the metaphor, and I say it's easier to to jump into the water, the ocean, than to get the ocean inside you.

[48:40] So, you know, like that little appearance of the boy to Augustine to Augustine, right? Huh? But I mean, it's easier to when you love God, you love God in Himself, right? You're not loving.

[48:57] But in in in theology, you know more what God is not than what He is, right? Very perfect way of knowing him That's what I know. Some of the fathers would say about the parable that says, "Enter into the joy of your Lord." And I say, "no, it doesn't say the joy of the Lord is going to enter into you. You're going to enter into it." Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[49:26] It's very, very, very subtle. Very subtle.