Logic (2016)
29. The Post-Predicaments II: Before, Together, Motion, and Having (God's Goodness and Seeing Him Face to Face)
Class of 2017-02-23
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/2-logic-2016/029-the-post-predicaments-ii-before-together-motion-and-having/

[0:00] Let's go on to the next post-praegressum, which is what before, right? Now, if you distinguish the senses of before, you've also distinguished the senses of what after, right? And if you distinguish the senses of before and after, you've also distinguished the senses of order, right? If order means a before and after, right?

[0:34] Sometimes Augustine speaks as if you know in the Trinity there's no order of before and after, right? But there's an order of this from that, right? So in the Creed, what do we say? God, from God, life, from true God, from true life. Yeah. I was kinda using the word "order" in a different sense, right? Because usually "order" means before and after, right? I know Thomas himself, when he talks about order, he uses it in terms of what before and after, right?

[1:07] And has a formal text on this. So order is a before and after, and then Thomas says sometimes an order also involves distinction, or it's really presupposed order, right? Because what does it mean to say that things are distinct? What does that mean?

[1:36] Yeah, to say that things are distinct is to say really that one is not the other, right? Okay. And you're distinct, right? Where does the word "difference"? Sometimes he's a word "difference" there, right? What's the etymology of the word "difference" or "diaphora in Greek? Differentia in Latin. Difference. Carry something through, or yeah, the idea of carry apart, right? But there again, you see that we name things from what locomotion, right?

[2:20] Okay. I was saying to one of the students last night. There, I was saying, are you me? Am I you? He said, well, no, no, he's not, I'm not you. You're not me. Okay. And I said, What's the most obvious reason to say that I'm not Michael and Michael's not me? What's the most obvious reason to us? Different bodies What? different places. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's there and I'm here.

[2:53] It's because we're spatially apart, right? You know, that's that's that's the most obvious reason why I'm not you, because you're there and I'm here. Isn't that my charming good motion? look that distinguishes me Yeah, yeah, yeah. If if I was you, if I was you or you or me, how could you be there and me here? That's what they say. You wouldn't be here if you were all there.

[3:24] Thomas, you know, the, in that text, I was referring to in the De Potentia there, he's taking up, you know, going forward, the proceeding in God, right? And he has to stop and explain how we name things. First of all, from the continuous or what is in the continuous, right? And then we carry them over to other things, right? And but the example he gives all the time, I see him using the example a lot, is is we say contraries are the species that are furthest apart, you know.

[4:00] But is it really in a continuous sense that they're furthest apart? You know, you know. But it's taken from what place, right? From the continuous in that sense, right? Furthest apart, you know.

[4:25] Okay, so how many senses are are there before? Yeah. What's the first sense of before? Yeah, yeah. Now, time is a species of what? Yeah, yeah. And so, the first meaning of before is taken from time, right? The first meaning of to be in or in is taken from what place? So, place and time are species of what continuous quantity, right? So it's taken from the continuous, huh?

[5:05] The word procession, you know, is kind of the Latin word there, but what's the English word for procession? Going forward. Yeah, going forward. And going forward, first names what? Motion. Yeah, locomotion, right? Huh? Going what? Forward. Okay. Okay, mentioning how how

[5:36] in the sixth book there, natural hearing, Aristotle talks about the continuity of of a line or a road, right? And then corresponding to that, the continuity of the motion down that road, and then the continuity of the time it takes to go down that road, right? So as you could divide the road that I travel up to this place, right? You could my motion, right? Divide the time.

[6:04] And then the time, right? According to these things, huh? I got an habit of saying, and I'm eight hours from Quebec and 24 hours from Saint Paul. I used to go home to Saint Paul, and my mother was still living, and so on, you know. In summer, it's 24 hours to Saint Paul and eight hours to Quebec to see Mister Murray, and

[6:28] so. Do you see those three in in Shakespeare's definition of reason? Discourse. Discourse is taken from motion, right? From from running, right? Huh? Okay. But even if you're frightened, of, the word running there, you could say you're going from one thing to another, right? But that's again taken from change of place, which is the motion that is most clearly continuous, right? And then when he says large, discourse, is taken from what?

[7:04] Magnitude, right? Which is continuous, right? Large, right? So I try to explain, you know, large discourse. I say a discourse that covers a large area. It's about the universal, right? It's a discourse about the universal. The universal said many things, so it covers a large area, right? And then what's the next one? huh? Before and after. Yeah, and that's first time. So you have all three of them, right?

[7:33] Really, you know. One word is taken from continuous in the sense of magnitude. Another for continuous in the sense of the motion with the magnitude. And one for the time it takes, right? Everything goes back to continuous in that way.

[7:55] What about opposites? Ante kimenon, the Greek word there, huh? Thesis. Place comes from place, right? Position, right? Get something, right? It comes from the continuous, doesn't it? The word opposites, huh? Yeah, all these things, yeah,

[8:33] yeah. But all three kinds of the continuous, huh? Magnitude, motion, local motion, magnitude, right? And the time it takes, huh? Okay. So the first meaning of motion, meaning of before, is in time, right? Okay. And time is your master, Shakespeare said. Time is your tyrant, right? The moderns say time is money.

[9:05] Sure, y'all back, backer. Yeah, what? But this is something monetary, this something mathematical about money, right? In the Middle East they say time is gold. Yeah, yeah. Grows in time, right? Money, yeah. Okay. What's the second meaning of before?

[9:29] Irreversible sequence. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now do you see a similarity between that and before in time? One is really before in motion, right? Because time is before and after in motion, and the other one is in what? Is in being, right? Before in becoming, and before in being. Becoming is coming to be, isn't it? There's some connection to those two, isn't there? Not the same thing. Is becoming being?

[10:14] Well Thomas says yes. He knows better than I. Nonsense right? But see, that first meaning of being, right? Because becoming is coming to be, right? But notice how you name that coming to be, right? Coming is taken from change of place, right? So becoming is coming to be. Okay. So some connection to being, right? There's some connection between those two, right? Yeah.

[10:43] Now the connection between the second and the third meaning is what? What's the third meaning? Yeah, before in knowledge, right? Okay. And there are it seems to be easier to see even the connection there. You say, just as this can be without that, but that can't be without this, so this can be known without that being known, but that can't be known without that being known, right?

[11:05] They're really very much alike, right? Yeah. Okay. And what's the fourth sense? Goodness. Yeah. Yeah. So that fourth sense of before is really you know, a synonym would be better, right? Mm.

[11:28] So you put the better before, right? Yeah. Now did you put Haydn before Mozart or Mozart before Haydn? Well, Haydn was an older man, you know. True. He came before Hay. Came before Mozart in the first sense, right? But not. But not. I don't think the one before that guy in in the second sense, but in the fourth sense, Haydn himself says, "You know, your son is the greatest composer known to me."

[12:01] Right? Said to his father, "It's an honest man. He's the greatest composer." Tell those stupid Englishmen they're not going to get Mozart over here right away. You know, listening. You know, I really admire Haydn, you know, by not being offended that the younger man, you know, is so superior to him, right? And you know, they say Haydn, you know, in his late symphonies, there is imitating Mozart, you know.

[12:38] It's like Albert the Great coming down to Paris to defend the teaching of Thomas after Thomas had passed away, right? And you know, it's marvelous to see that, right? To see that. Or Plato coming into the Academy. The story told, you know, that only Aristotle was in class that day, and he said, "Well, he's a whole school in himself." But sometimes I think they've seen some of the later dialogues, you know, influence Aristotle already that Plato's taking into account the objections of this this sub, you know, bright student.

[13:21] Yeah, yeah, yeah. See, wonder you know was was anybody capable of doing this but Aristotle? You know, seeing these distinction of the chief senses or central senses of these words that are equivocal by reason.

[13:57] Now, what's the third post predicament? Yeah, yeah. Now, why does it come third? Why does it come third? Why does it come after? Before, is there any reason why it comes?

[14:27] Yeah, yeah. Aristotle's interesting thing in there isn't it? What book of the metaphysics there were? He's talking about equal is neither more nor less, as if you know equal by what negation, right?

[14:50] Two straight lines are equal when one is neither longer nor shorter than the other. Kind of, you know, makes some sense, right? Okay. So together, or hama or simul in Latin, right? It's by negation of. Before and after, right?

[15:17] So that's why you place it after that, right? Now, it's interesting how if you put the genus before the species, the species in which the genus is first what divided are what hama together, right? Now, okay.

[15:43] Sometimes they take the first sense of hama as what The one's opposed to time, right? You know, we arrived together. What does that mean? At the same time, right? Now, I was either before or after you when I arrived. Sometimes runners do that. They run a race, and neither one wants to beat the other, so they hold hands and they cross. One was a coach of another one, and they ran the race together, and neither one wanted to beat the other, so they joined hands.

[16:16] and they cross. Still, one of them was over. Well, it's going to be a technical argument, but they neither one wanted to beat the other. idea Well what did they do They both get first

[16:44] So, is continuous quantity and discrete quantity hama, or not? Well, in some sense, they're hama, because you're in the same division, right? You divide quantity into discrete and continuous, but you do. But in another way, continuous quantity is what defined affirmatively and discrete, but yeah, by taking the negation of what's in it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you look at Euclid, there he takes up odd and even, right?

[17:20] He defines the the even, you know, as what's divisible into two equal parts, right? And the odd is what not, you know, it's negative, right? And he gives a second definition is that it's a a number that differs from an even number by one. So if you add one or subtract one from an even number, you get an odd number, right? You're still defining what odd number by what even, right?

[17:44] Huh? So when you know one thing through another, what way is that? Well, then the thing you know through which you know it is more known, right? Huh? It's before in the third sense, right? Huh? Yeah.

[18:11] You know which comes first, and if you look at equal and unequal, you say, "What? Well, equal is what affirmative, and unequal seems to be negating equal, right? Huh? But maybe the the real meaning of equal is that it's neither more nor less, right? Very kind of subtle, right? Okay.

[18:43] So God the Father and God the Son equal. Hama. Incidentally, what is the fifth sense that Aristotle gave of what before and after? Yeah, yeah. And I said that I don't think that's the what fifth in order, right? Huh? But it's a sense that's. Kind of what laid alongside the the second sense, huh? Okay.

[19:24] I remember now. There was an objection Thomas had somewhere where the guy was saying, you know, what's before is the cause of what is after. Well, not necessarily Thomas is saying, right? You know, they're different. What senses? Okay. Is that the what kind of opposition is cause and effect? Is that a relative, or is it dependent? Well, it seems to have something relative, but is that is it something that has a relation following upon it?

[20:02] You know, is my being a cause the fact that I'm towards another that I'm able to produce the effect, or am I really an ability to produce? You know, am I really a cause because of my power? Right. Let's say right, and because my power, I can produce an effect, and then I have some relation to that effect because I produced it, right? But maybe it's maybe it's a

[20:31] relative secundum dici right, rather than secundum esse, right, huh? There's fundamentally something other than a relation. It comes up with the Trinity too, you know. Is is the is the Father's ability to generate the Son couldn't generate the Son, wasn't able to do it, right? But is it his fatherhood that enables him to generate the Son, or is it his divine nature?

[21:01] Yeah, yeah, and a sign of that is the fact that the Son has the same nature, because every agent makes what is like itself, right? If he generated him by his fatherhood, he would have generated another father, right? So who is the father? Someone who's a father is going to see what's. There's some likeness to Father because he has another come from him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It gets kind of complicated.

[21:26] I mean, sometimes they say, you know, his fatherhood, insofar as it's the same thing as divine nature, right? But not insofar as it's just a relation, right? It's a very subtle thing. It's a very subtle thing. Okay. Now, what's the fourth one? It's fourth one.

[21:50] Yeah, yeah. Now this seems something different. I kind of divide the last two against the first three, right? Now, obviously, before and what together go together, right?

[22:07] Because together is is what involves negation of before, right? Now, but we see the connection between before and distinction, right, and order and distinction, and. Opposites, right? So those three kind of go together. Those first three, right? And then perhaps motion and having go together, right?

[22:32] Because motion ends up with you're having something, right? Now, in what order does he give motion? What does he do? How many kinds of motion does he distinguish? Six. Yeah. So you have what generation and corruption in the genus of what? Substance. Does he mention that first? He does. Then you have growth and what? Shrinking. You're saying something is shrinking, right? Okay. So quantity. Quantity.

[23:09] And then you have in quality you have what? Alteration Yeah. And then in where you have locomotion, right? Aristotle takes this up in Natural Philosophy because that's about motion, right? And it's in the what? The fifth book, right?

[23:32] You know, he defines motion in the second book, but in the fifth and sixth books he takes up the division of motion. And one is the division into kinds, right? Which is what he's doing here, right? And the other one is a quantitative division because you divide something continuous and so on.

[23:53] So motion is not just in one what category, right? Okay. But sometimes I'll speak of motion as a kind of genus, right? Just like we speak of kinds of causes, we speak of kinds of motion, right? That's one kind, like it's like one species almost, right? But you've got to be kind of careful because they they're in different what? Highest genus, right? Okay.

[24:21] Incidentally, where did the word genus come from? Do you know? Beginning generation. Yeah, it can come from generation, but a father, but. Yeah. If you read Porphyry's Asclepiade, which we didn't really read, you know, but Porphyry, following Aristotle, right, goes back to two meanings of genus before the logical meaning of genus. And a genus can be said to be one man from whom many men have descended, right?

[24:55] Or it can be this multitude of men that descend from one man. So it has both the sense of something one, right, as a source of many, right, and it can also mean the many that are from that one source, right. And so it's kind of anticipating what you're going to find with genus, right? Because a genus, in the logical sense, is something one, but something said of what?

[25:22] Many right now, while in the previous senses is something one from whom many have descended right now. So you take some famous man and you say, you know, the Kennedys, right? you're from Joe Kennedy, that one, villain, right? And and so he's one man from whom many Kennedys, we might call the Kennedys, right, have descended, right? Huh? Yeah. So you have

[25:51] in those previous meanings of genus the idea of one and many and something connection between the one and the many, right? But then you get this odd thing, you know, that it's something one that's said of many, right? It's interesting expression that that one's said of, right? Thomas says this is the way of logic, huh? To consider the way something is said of something. He says natural philosophy proceeds per modum motus, by way of motion, and logic proceeds by way of predication, right?

[26:30] Something is said of something, huh? Okay. Okay. Now what's the last post predicament Yeah, yeah. Now notice, so in a way, it's connected a little bit with motion, huh? Because the result of a motion is that you have something, right?

[27:06] So now, as a little boy, I was growing, I guess, huh? For a while, and now I have this height, right? Is some connection between my growing and my having the height that I now have, right?

[27:22] You were learning, and now you have some knowledge. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's kind of connection between those last two, right? So I kind of put those two together and separate them from the first three, right? Okay. But now I think it's kind of interesting to see this have, right? Huh? How many senses of have does Aristotle distinguish there in that last reading? Seven senses, right? Okay.

[27:46] Okay. Now, I kind of put the first three senses together, right? Huh? Because they tend to what? Take off from three of the categories before, right?

[28:05] And he first says one is said to have a what? A virtue or knowledge, right? Some quality, right? Of course, you do use the word have seems to be almost in the word habit, right? You have something, um, but you're having an accident, which is. In the genus of quality, right? Okay, that's one sense of have, right? And then it goes to the genus which is before it, but maybe less.

[28:39] Using the word have, and that is to have a certain size or have a certain height or some quantity, right? Huh? Okay. And then the third sense of have is what?

[28:54] Three kinds. What? In case of habit. Yeah, one of the categories, right? Yeah. Categories. Yeah, which I think in the Greek is called echein, right? To have, right? Huh? Okay. Okay. So I have shoes on my feet today, right? I have pants on my legs. I have shirts on my Right chest, right. I have these, right? And we use the word "have" there, right? Okay.

[29:24] You guys, wear a habit? There it is. Yeah. But is that "habit" in the sense of the species of quality? Well, it's his name is other genus, right? So he seems to, in the first three meanings, right, to take senses of "have," right, which are tied up with three categories, right? A little bit like we did with motion, where he tried, you know. Okay. Then the fourth sense, I'd say, let that stand all by itself.

[29:52] That fourth sense, right? And what's the fourth sense? I think it is on a part, like a. rim on a hat. Yeah. Yeah. Like I say, my mouth has a tongue and and teeth. Hair has your head has some hair. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or my, you know, certain part got, have a stomach and I have a heart and I have a lungs and God knows what else.

[30:22] You know, but you you have parts, right? Okay. Now he's talking here about how whole has what parts, right? But this reminds me of what Aristotle says in the, I think, in the fifth book of Wisdom, that the senses of the word "have" to some extent correspond to the senses of the word "in," right? Okay. So

[30:54] you know, one sense of "in" was what Part in the whole, right? Another sense of "in" was genus in the what species. Another sense of "in" was species in the what genus, right? And these are all senses of part in the whole, right? Well, then you have three senses of "have," of course, tied to these, right? So the whole has parts, right?

[31:30] The the species has a what genus, and the genus has species, right? So that is a kind of you know extended senses. I'm maybe not the first sense of have, right? I don't know if anybody puts in the middle, but it kind of stands out and like a sort of thumb, right? And but it touches upon a number of senses, right, that might correspond a bit to those three senses of what in, right?

[32:04] Okay. Now the other senses of in which are not whole and part, which you say the the form is what in the matter, right? It's in there originally in potency, right? Okay. We can say the matter has a what? Form, yeah. Yeah. And then I've got you in my power. I have you. You're in my power. In my power, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So he does touch upon all these other senses of in, right?

[32:45] But he doesn't expand it there, right? He says that as a wise man, you know, the connection here between the senses of in, right, and have, right? Okay. So when Shakespeare says time has you, right? You know it's your master, your tyrant huh, okay. Okay. So

[33:09] you say, well, this is something that's found in every genus, right? Because in every genus, every genus has what? Species, right? And every species, and every genus has has a genus, right? Okay. So he's all kinds of you know things that's touching upon, right? But he doesn't unfold it there, right now. But you can see that's right. You can see how insignificant is the word has, right?

[33:34] Okay. And one of the last three senses, they kind of go together too, right? What's the the fifth sense? The sixth sense and the seventh sense you assume, you know. Not so much set up with the, with the with the general like the first three were, right? What's the last three senses? What are they?

[34:00] There's uh, having us on a part of us, like your foot, that would be the fifth. That's the fourth sense. to have a part? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. And the fifth sense is what? Jar has the wine. Yeah, yeah. And that has some connection with with where, doesn't it, right? You see, where is the wine? It's in the wine bottle, right now. Where is the water?

[34:24] It's in the. Okay. Where's the milk? It's in the milk carton or something, right now. Okay. It's a little bit tied up with that category of where, right now. A little bit like that, right now. Okay. Now what's the next sentence?

[34:41] We have have a house or have a field. Position, like acquiring something. he says. Is that? Yeah, having a possession, right? Okay. Now Albert the Great, in his paraphrase of Categories, calls this that's proper, most proper, he says. And I wonder if he's thinking of that as being the fundamental sense, you know. And I was joking with Warren Murray about this expression we have in English, the has and the have-nots.

[35:11] And what are you talking about? Your possessions, right? You have the have-nots. Okay, and then finally takes a sentence, it was an odd sentence, that a man is said to have a wife, right? Okay. Now Albert the great remarks, you know that it's mutual because the husband has a wife, but the wife has a husband, right? Now, okay. So in a sense, in the marriage ceremony, the husband and the wife gives himself to the wife, and the wife gives herself to him, right?

[35:40] Now, and so if you give yourself to somebody, then they have you. And, uh... So after the wedding, they say you've been had. There's some there's something similar between having a possession and having a wife right now. Because possession is something outside of you, right? Huh? Right. It's not a part of you, like the the middle sense. It's not like what an accident of you, right? Huh?

[36:08] You see. And how how do you have that right now? Okay, it's kind of strange sense, right? I mean, it's a fundamental sense of have, right? Okay. And the having a wife or having a friend, right? Huh? Or having a son, right? It's something outside of you in a sense, right? You know, but you are said to have it, right? Huh? Maybe that's the first thing you sense.

[36:31] Now you're struck by the fact that to have has a what sense of implies a distinction between you and what you have, and it's more clear in the case of me and my house that we're distinct, right? Than me and my knowledge, or me and my size, or me and my me and my being clothed, right? Huh? You know, the house is really very distinct from right now.

[37:00] And maybe I don't know. Maybe Albert is hinting at that being a fundamental sense, right? So you've got to be kind of careful when you say that God has wisdom, right? Because you might say that you might imply that that these it's distinct from Him, right? Why He really is wisdom itself, right? I guess I kind of ran over here.

[37:26] Oh, what's at four o'clock? Four o'clock. Okay, I was thinking I was thinking it was five twenty or something. Okay, it's four o'clock. Okay, that's cool. Okay, okay. Um.

[37:43] So you see this kind of similarity among those last three senses, right? Because the wine, you know, bottle or whatever you want to call it, lagena um, is something really what like yeah, kind of like the place, right? Huh? The place is not really a part of your place, right? Huh? And if it's yours, you're not your possession, right? Huh? You're not even your wife or your son or your friend or whatever it is, right?

[38:15] Huh? Have right. Why the first three senses there, and especially the first two, you have an accident, right? Okay. Now thinking of another kind of odd sense of have, right? Do you have a name? What does it mean to have a name? Do you have a name?

[38:42] A name is is a sound, right? A vocal sound, and probably probably you guys might have been given a name when you came into the order, right? But someone gives your you know parents give you a name, right? You know, and then you go into the order, maybe you're given a a new name, right? What does it mean to have a name, right? See, it's like those last senses, isn't it?

[39:08] Or you know something kind of what? Um is my name, really. a Part of me, Hm or is it like my having a house or having a? That's interesting, because with scripture being given a name, which only you and God know, from that sense, will be a different sort of state of name of this. But the sense of have that you have in mind when you say I have a name, right, is very important.

[39:46] in the categories, isn't it, right? Because everything that we talk about, in the categories has to have a name, right? Okay. And the genus has a name, and the species has a name, right, and so on, right? And you know, there are practical reasons why we have to have names, I suppose, but there's also theoretical. You know, we were talking earlier tonight, today about having what we have to have even names that are equivocal by reason, right?

[40:16] I began by talking about things are named equivocally that have, but they all have the same name, but not the same what, meaning of the name, right? But the logician would like to say, you know, well, things have a name, and sometimes they have a definition, right? But it's what does a strange sense of have? But it's very important to talk about in in our thinking, isn't it?

[40:57] I'm always struck by it. Wasn't in the book of Genesis that didn't God kind of have the animals parade in front of Adam? Yeah, I was calling it to my wife and saying, you know, we have a terrible fight about, I call it the thing ice box, and she calls it no, she refrigerator. We argue, argue. Well, all you see is say, you know, that that it's Adam that was given the right to name things, but it's not an ice box, she says.

[41:27] it's a. There's something significant about that now that man had to name all these things, right? It's almost like a having that's related to knowledge. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and then you have the ones that attach that like to have a definition, right?

[42:01] Does does word have to have a meaning? Everyone's have significance. You know, there's a guy on Fox News there that interviews these people that are. Marching, you know, all the time now, you know, and we don't seem to know what they're marching for. Some some excuses, you know, huh? During the beginning of the second Gulf War, I was in New York City Grand Central Station. there was a huge protest, and there was an obvious refugee from the sixties protests.

[42:34] He's having a time of his life, and he has he's dressed like a hippie. Yeah. He hasn't changed for decades, and he runs up to me, and he's like, you know, like, come join us. You know, it's like a time of his life. It's just he lived to to protest. It didn't matter what Yeah, yeah. Now you know I've mentioned before how Thomas in his consideration of the goodness of God, right?

[43:04] Now in the Summa Contra Gentiles, there's five chapters, right? In the first chapter, he's showing that God is good. The second chapter is showing that God is goodness itself. Third chapter is saying that there can be nothing bad in God. I see if if God was good but not goodness itself, there could be something bad in him, right? Now, you can probably find something good to say about me, but more easily find something bad to say about me.

[43:42] But why can you see something good and something bad about me, right? Well, it's because I have some goodness, but I'm not goodness itself, right? So, in the original meaning, isn't there a real difference, right, between the haver and the had? And especially in that sense that Albert the Great says is most proper. He says, you know, I said, why does he say that? You know, it doesn't expand on it.

[44:08] He just says it, right? Now, this is proper and most so, you know, as if you know this one of having property, right? Having a house or having property, right? Because there it's very clear that the haver and the had are not the same thing, right? You know, you're even further away than you are when when you have some knowledge or you have a virtue, right? At least that's in you, right now, or you have a size or something like that, right?

[44:35] Or even have clothes that kind of cling to you and take on the shape of your body and so on, right? And so, you

[44:49] see, what is the difference in signification of of health and healthy, right? Why do you say that I am healthy, but I'm not health? Why do you say that, right? Have some virtue, but not yourself. Yeah. Yeah. And even if the things are intrinsic, it's the idea that the. There is a distinction between the form or the accident and what has the form and what has the the accident, right?

[45:24] Huh? You see. Well, now, would you say that I am a little bit wise? You can see that, yeah. Okay, I am a little bit wise because I have a little bit of wisdom, right? Huh? Was God wise then? Because Aristotle says that either we should say God alone is wise, or only God is fully wise, right? So, should we say that God is wise because He has some wisdom, or are you speaking?

[46:01] Are you stuttering? Because you are using a kind of distinction that we would make in creatures, right? And so, who would you say? Is God, you know? See, we say both, but we have to say that there is a what imperfection, right? Huh?

[46:26] We say God is wise because He really is wise. Maybe He alone is wise, fully, right? But there is something imperfect about saying He is wise because it seems to imply that He has wisdom rather than that He is wisdom. See? And He's like me, who I am a little bit wise because I have a little bit of wisdom, right? But the little bit of wisdom that I have is in me,

[46:54] you know. See? Now you see, wisdom signifies that through which or by which you are wise, right? Huh? Well, if God is not, if God is wisdom itself, then He must be, you know, in in a unique way wise, right? Huh? You know, but then you see He's wise, aren't you? Kind of implying that He He has wisdom and therefore that He's not wisdom, you know. See?

[47:24] But if you just say that God is wisdom itself and is not wise, then you say, what good does it do for Him to be wisdom if He's not wise? For what, right? You know.

[47:39] Um, what good would it be for me to have a virtue if I wasn't virtuous by having a virtue, right? You know. If I was virtue itself, wouldn't I be that by which one is virtuous? But I wouldn't be virtuous. I'd be that by which one is is is virtuous, right? I'm baptizing. Yeah. But you see, in us, though, I mean, the haver and the had are not the same, right?

[48:09] Huh? And me, there is something in what Albert the Great says, right? Huh? That that sense of having possession. Is proper and most so. He seems to emphasize it, right? I don't know how much he doesn't unfold himself there at all. It's very brief, but I can show you the text sometimes. But you know,

[48:31] there's very much a distinction there between the haver and the had, right? Huh? He takes the one where they're most distinct, right? Then you get these more subtle sense. You know, you say, well,

[48:43] pretty Greeks would think I'm just substantiating my body. I am, you know. I would say, you know, that's whole and part. I mean, I have a body and I have a soul, right? But I'm not a body. I'm not a soul. I'm something put together from a body and a soul, right? But I'm said to have a body because that's part of me, and I have a soul because that's even better part of me, right?

[49:11] You know. And so there's some distinction between me and. What I have, even there, right? Well, it's not as obvious as the distinction between me and that car out there. And how can it be out there and me being here if I'm that car? You know, how can my house be in Shrewsbury if I'm here in

[49:34] what's the name of this place? Pearson Pearson yeah. How can I be here and my house be in Shrewsbury if we're the same thing? You know, it's very clear that we're not the same, right? That's why I said to the guy last night, "There, I was there, " and said, "You know, what's the most obvious reason to say that you and I are not the same? That you're there and I'm here.

[49:55] You're there and I'm here. " You know, so you have to say that. To say that God is good, or to say that God is good as itself, you've got to some extent say both, right?

[50:17] And if it's through goodness that you are good, and God is good as itself, He must very much be good, right? But but then that's kind of that way of speaking. It's like saying he what good signifies what? It doesn't signify. Signifies to have goodness

[50:37] doesn't signify goodness itself, does it? You know, I'm I stutter. That's what I'm going to say about that. Thomas says both. First chapter is that God is good. The Second chapter is goodness itself. The third chapter is nothing bad in God. The. Fourth chapter, therefore, He's the good of every good. And finally, He's summum bonum. You know, But just take the first two chapters, though, right? He's good, and He's goodness itself, right?

[51:07] You do the same thing with God. You can say God is wise, right? And you could say you have another chapter where you say that God is wisdom itself. So, which is not true of any of us, right? Any of us are wise because we have some wisdom, right? I'm a little bit wise because I have a little bit of wisdom, but I'm not that little bit wisdom that I have.

[51:34] But God is that little, not the whole thing. He is that wisdom. He is that wisdom. It's the whole thing. Yeah. So maybe if you say, "What shall we say? " Right? You've got either one, that there's something imperfect in my way of talking about God, right? Thomas puts it. I don't know. Who's it? Which prophet is it that says in that day there will be one name?

[52:03] Zachary? I forget, but you know, which is because you'll see God as He is, right? And then we won't have to say that He's both good and goodness itself, right? But given that I'm stumped with this human way of thinking, you know, I have to say both, and it's the best I can do. Okay.

[52:34] He's he's good, but not good in the sense of having a goodness that's other than himself. Thomas often would say, God is whatever he is said to have, right? God is whatever he has.

[52:50] God seems to contradict our way of speaking of creatures, right? Because we're never what we what we have, especially when we have his possession, right? In what what we have is knowledge, and what we have is you know, is something to say about love, right? Huh? You know,

[53:10] I have some love, like the love of candy, you know, love of wine. I have many loves, man, have many loves, but am I love itself? Am I the love of candy? You know,

[53:27] Gracefully always say, you know, do you eat to live or live to eat? But even if I live to eat, am I the love of candy? The love of, you know,

[53:44] but we say God is love itself, right? So it sees about all of these things in God, right? These wisdom itself, right? He's justice itself, right? He's love itself, right?

[54:04] Incidentally, I've been I've been mulling over my mind, you know, these two ways of speaking of the of our ultimate goal there. Um, and one way of speaking is to say we see God as He is, right? Which Saint John uses in his epistle, you know. When He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, right? And then the other way of speaking, which I guess Saint Paul uses, you know, it's in the Psalms too, I think.

[54:33] Seeing God face to face, right? Such as the people that seek the face of God, says one of the Psalms, and so on. And I was trying to figure out you know that to see the face of God seems to be a bit what metaphorical, right? Okay, but what's the meaning of that metaphor? See, what is it saying? That seeing God as He is is not saying so clearly.

[54:55] What does it mean? Well, you know, if you think of your your friend's face or your mother or father's face, right? Huh? You know, all their what emotion is seen in their face more than any other part of their body, right? And even their sense of humor or their their intelligence, you know, in in the way they respond to what you say or ask, right? Their face is that right?

[55:27] And the head, the face is where all the you know the eyes and the ears and the nose and the sense of taste they're all concentrated there, right? Huh? So I was thinking maybe to see God face to face means to see God's understanding and love

[55:48] because we see in somebody's face, right? You know, a sign of their understanding and of their what love, right? Huh? You know, you know, I ask the question sometimes. You know, what's the most beautiful thing in a woman? You know, and they all say her shape. That's what they say. But but I think the most beautiful thing in a woman is her smile, right? In her smile, you see her her love, you see her kindness, right?

[56:23] Huh? You see her delight in things, and all this, you know, it all comes alive in the face, right? Huh? Both her her her her mind and and her love, right? And so that's why we delight in the sparkle face, right? Huh? You know, one of my grandchildren there, her name is Isabella. First name, middle name is Rose. Isabella Rose, so I call her Isabella the Rose.

[56:51] And she says, "No, my name is Isabella Rose." I said, "No, your name is Isabella the Rose." She has a beautiful smile, you know.

[57:00] And and you know, in teaching, you know, men and women, you know, in class, you know, you know, you can tell if a woman who's enjoying what your your lecture or something, right? By the expression of their face, right? The smile on the face, right? So maybe you know to see God face to face means to see His understanding and His love. You know, that's a kind of a you know it's kind of metaphor for that, right?

[57:27] Because you see somebody's understanding intelligence in their face, and and and their love and so on in the expression of their face, right? You know, I mean, I'm always smiling at little children, so you know. And there's a family comes in, master, daddy, master, sometimes, and eight, ten children, you know, and I'm walking by and I touch the arm of the

[57:51] boy, and he gets a nice smile. I mean, you know, they're really nice little children, you know, and so on. So you just kind of naturally smile, and you, you know, and you kind of. But when you understand something, you you tend to smile and so on. You do that. It's a sign of understanding as well as of love and so on that you have for these things, and and so.

[58:15] It makes it what makes makes me think. Maybe that's the meaning of seeing God face to face: is to see His understanding, His love, rather than so much as His His nature, so to speak, right? His substance, right? When I think of seeing God as He is, I think of you know what He is, you know, you know, a little difference there, you know, in the thing, but they're the same thing, really.

[58:42] I mean, God's understanding, love is the same as His nature. I mean, it's a little difference in the in the in the metaphor, right?

[58:50] Now, Thomas's beautiful explanation there in the very top there of the De Veritate there of the Book of life, which is what you know metaphorical, right? And Christopher's objections, you know, saying you know, well, a book you write upon it, you know, and so God would have some what something some undergoing you know, yeah, yeah, yeah. So yeah. all these injunctions, you know, but they kind of, you know, and Thomas has to explain this being said metaphorically, right?

[59:21] But he says, but then there are other objections, you know, which are closer to it, right? Huh? But but they still don't understand it as metaphor, right? So Thomas says, you know, God is said metaphorically to be a lion, right? But it doesn't mean he has you know, gloves You know, you know, you got to see what what reason he's called that, right? See, or or the Lord is my rock, we say, you know, and well, okay, but in terms of the stability, you know, and the permanence of the rock and so on, you got to see, but it's there, right?

[59:56] Well, then he he he distinguishes three senses of metaphor, the book of life, huh? And he says, in one sense, it can mean what the the Bible itself, which is the book of life by way of teaching how to live. See, and then he says, in another sense, the book of life is Christ Himself, and this is by way of His being the exemplar how to live.

[1:00:28] So you know, this famous book, the Imitation of Christ, you know, Thomas a Kempis, I guess, you know. And I remember reading there Saint Teresa of Jesus, who was taken up with this book, you know, and trying, yeah, yeah, yeah. And so he's the book of life, metaphorically speaking, Christ, right? Because he's the exemplar how to live. See, so he he's the book of life per modo exemplaris, you know, that's what he says by exemplar.

[1:01:00] Why the Bible is the book by way of instruction, by way of teaching, right? Huh? And then there's another sense of the book of life where God remembers, right? You know, he has the names of those who are what predestined, right, to eternal life, right? And that's like the book of life where you have people going to be admitted to the city, right? Very much like Trump now, and and people who will be admitted to the heavenly city, right?

[1:01:29] Huh? To the big vision, right? So it's kind of a real beautiful understanding there of the metaphor, right? What seems to me to see God face to face is a metaphorical way of speaking, right? That God does not, properly speaking, have a face, right? But what is it about the face, right, that we what we have in mind as a likeness at the basis of this metaphor, right?

[1:01:55] Was it because the the faces were intelligence and and love and so on is shown, made manifest, right? So that maybe could make some sense to me anyway. I don't know. I haven't seen a explanation of Thomas of what that You know what precisely that metaphor would be, right? But seems to make some sense, right? To see God face to face and see His understanding and love, right?

[1:02:27] See the woman with her her baby. Yeah. And just staring with love and understanding at her baby. Yeah. And baby's just staring back with love and just. Yeah. Such a beautiful. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the first thing, you know, when you talk about new, new parents, right? Huh? No, and you go in the morning, and the baby smiles at you. Then you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[1:02:55] It's kind of interesting the smile of the baby. You know, you kind of you know it really sticks in your mind the kind of smile the baby gives you. Walk in there. Okay.