Logic (2016)
39. Richard Nixon's Memoirs; How We Know a Statement Is True; Dividing Logic in Two or Three
Class of 2017-03-30
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/2-logic-2016/039-richard-nixons-memoirs-how-we-know-a-statement-is-true-dividing/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, 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, pray for us. Help us to understand all that you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Came from

[0:35] the heart, but here in California, right? Huh? You know, in 1922, my father sold our house in Lemon Grove in Yorba Linda, and we moved to Whittier, right? He did roustabout work in the oil fields, but although it paid well, this physical labor offered no challenge to a man of his ambition, intelligence, and light imagination. Early on, my father could see that even though there were still very few automobiles and only one paved road in the area, the horseless carriage was an idea whose time was about to come.

[1:11] He borrowed five thousand dollars to buy some land on the main road connecting the growing towns of Whittier and La Habra. He cleared the lot, put in a tank and a pump, and opened the first service station in the eight-mile stretch between the two towns. The enterprise was an almost instant success, and he soon opened a general store and market. Huh? He added a small counter for my mother's home-baked pies and cakes.

[1:39] One of her specialties was angel food cake. She insisted it was at its best only when she beat fresh outdoor air into the batter before putting it into the oven. I remember her standing outside the kitchen door in the chilly pre-dawn air, beating the batter with a big wooden spoon. The grocery business expanded rapidly, and had it not been for the illnesses that struck our family, two of his, oh, there are five brothers, I guess, two of them, you know, died in youth, you know, very young.

[2:12] The grocery business expanded rapidly, and had it not been for the illnesses that struck our family, right, we would have been modestly well off by the standards of those times. The Nixon Market, huh? That was the name of the Nixon Market. Was a mom and pop operation, right? The whole family worked in the store, right? In addition to waiting on the customers and keeping the accounts, inventory had to be taken, orders placed, and the shelves kept stocked.

[2:43] The store had to be cleaned and swept each night and sprayed for flies each day, right? Now, you guys did get a rough time here, right? Huh? When I was older, I took over the fresh fruit and vegetable buying. Each morning, I got up at four, in order to be at the Seventh Street Market in Los Angeles by five o'clock. I chose the best fruits and vegetables, bargained with the farmers and wholesalers for a good price, and then drove back to East Whittier to wash, sort, and arrange the produce in the store, and be off to school by 8.

[3:26] Now, do you guys get up at 4? Go to the market, yeah? It was not an easy life, but it was a good one, centered around a loving family and a small, tight-knit Quaker community. Yeah, there were Quakers. With those who were willing to work hard, California in the 1920s seemed a place and time of almost unlimited opportunity, right? So you get off the hard way, you know.

[3:51] Now his his um his wife, huh? You know, he married her? own, huh? This thing of her, her mother died of cancer when Pat that's his wife, was only 13, and Pat had to take her place, cooking and keeping house for her father and brothers.

[4:17] About the time she graduated from high school, the long years in the mine that's where her father worked took their toll, and her father became ill with silicosis. Pat gave up her plans for college and nursed him until his death two years later. With her father gone and her brothers away at college, she was now completely on her own. Of course, she had to work her way through college, and he describes all her jobs and so on, you know.

[4:46] You know, that's kind of a marvelous thing, there, right? Now, one of his brothers died very young, you know, and his name was what Arthur, right? And he's got part of the essay he wrote as a freshman in college, right? Where he talked about Arthur in his last days and so on, right? Okay.

[5:06] But notice what he's saying in this essay is a freshman in college. This for an English composition course, right? Now you got your essay, okay? There is a growing tendency among college students to let their childhood beliefs be forgotten.

[5:25] You know about that, huh? Sounds familiar. Yeah. Especially, we find this true when we speak of the Divine Creator and His plans for us. I thought that I would also become that way, but I find that it is almost impossible for me to do so. And he tells the story of his little brother's death or near the death, you know. Two days before my brother's death, he called my mother into the room.

[5:54] He put his arms around her and said that he wanted to pray before he went to sleep. Then, with closed eyes, he repeated that age-old child's prayer, which ends with these simple, yet beautiful words: "If I should die before I awake, I pray thee, Lord, my soul to take." I've never heard that prayer before. I don't know who wrote that. I don't know Where it came from.

[6:16] There is a grave out down the hills, but like the picture, it contains only the bodily image of my brother. And so, when I am tired and worried, and am almost ready to quit trying to live as I should, I look up and see the picture of a little boy with sparkling eyes and curly hair. I remember the childlike prayer. I pray that it may prove true for me, as it did for my brother Arthur.

[6:38] Yes, that's very good, you know. Well, then, when he became vice president, right? It's the January twentieth, nineteen fifty-three. That's when he was vice president with

[6:55] Eisenhower. Yeah. January twentieth, nineteen fifty-three, the day of my first inauguration as vice president, was mild and sunny. For the swearing-in ceremony, my mother brought two Bibles that had been in the Millhouse family for several generations. That night, we had a small family dinner at home before the inaugural balls. While the others were all talking about the great events of the day, my mother quietly took me aside and gave me a small piece of paper on which she had written a message for me.

[7:28] No one else saw her give it to me, and I did not read it until I was alone later that night. I put it in my wallet, and I have carried it with me ever since. To Richard, you have gone far. We are proud of proud of you always. I know that you will keep your relationship with your Maker as it should be, for after all, that, as you must know, is the most important thing in this life.

[7:56] Your mother. That's interesting, huh? Yeah. That's interesting, you know. I don't think the Quakers knew too much. of Christ's exactly, I mean, he was, you know, with his divine or not? But it is kind of interesting, you know, things. But it can come a good way, you know. Kind of. like, And he said, horrible things, you know. They're wrong. And I don't know. Was it? Was it quoting?

[8:23] I forget. Was it quoting Johnson? I think maybe you know. Somebody said. He says politics is worse than war. He said. He says in war you die only once. He says. In politics you die many times. You know, every time you're crucified in the press, you know, you really are. You feel really crucified in the press, or get crucified in an election, or something, you know. And that kind of struck me.

[8:49] It's worse than war. But it's war, under a different name, you know. Okay, I'll actually listen, to the memoirs. I'll show you. Do we need to review a little bit, or what?

[9:32] So, what is a statement? A speech. Yeah. It's a genus. Signified by some custom. Mm-hmm. True or false? Yeah. Don't react to take in signifying by custom because that's kind of the definition of speech and name, right? A vocal sound signifying by custom, right?

[10:10] The one has no parts and signified by themselves, huh? And the other has at least two parts, right? More than one part that signifies. So we talked about what definition, right? And we talked about what statement, and they're both what speeches. But you define them by their what end or purpose, right? So the definition signifies what what a thing is, yeah. And the statement signifies the true or the false, right?

[10:46] Now sometimes I define a definition as speech making known what something is, kind of like its purpose there, right? Or speech bringing out what something is, right?

[11:03] Now is a difference there between the definition and the statement in this regard, huh? See, would I define the statement also as speech making us know the true or the false?

[11:29] Yeah, it signifies the true or the false, right? And if you understand the opposition of contradiction, you know that either Father Father Michael is sitting or Father Michael is not sitting, right? One must be true and the other must be what false, right?

[11:53] And I know that much, but do I know which one is true and which one is false by the statement itself? By the statement itself. Yeah. Statement doesn't make anything known, does it?

[12:09] So the question arises: How do you know whether a statement is true or false, right? I always give the example in class, you know, I ask a student, you know, what's an odd number? What's an even number? They seem to know what that was in some way, kind of defined a little bit. Then I ask them, you know, what is a perfect number? And no one, of course, knew it, right?

[12:32] And then I give them Euclid's definition that a perfect number is a number equal to the sum of everything that measures it evenly. And then I give the example: six is measured by one and two and three, but not by four or five. And one plus two plus three are six. So, okay. So I've made known to them who did not know what a perfect number was.

[12:56] I had made known what a perfect number is by the definition of perfect number, huh? Okay. But about giving you a statement about, you know, what's your name now?

[13:16] Patrick. Patrick is sitting. Patrick is not sitting. I know they can't both be true. They can't both be false. One is true and one is false. But how do I know which one is true, which one is false? You can see. Yeah, that's one way that you know, right? Huh? Okay. I would say that Patrick is what sitting is true right now. May not be true at another time today, but right now it's

[13:46] true. But in the other way besides senses, huh? What's any other way? Testimony by others? Well, now you now you're getting to the question a little bit of of belief, right? Huh? See, George Washington is the first president of the United States. George Washington is not the first president of the United States, right? I would say that George Washington is or was the first president of the United States, but this is kind of a belief, isn't it on my part?

[14:24] I don't know it the way I know that Patrick is sitting, right? You know. Yeah, you're you're named after the order or what? Marin or something? After the same Marin. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's quite. He's not the original.

[14:44] He throws his weight around though with the name Marin, right? Despite his stature. Yeah. So Marin is sitting, right? I don't believe that. I know it through my senses, right? Okay. But what about something like, you know, a whole is more than one of its parts. Then, if you know what a whole is and what a part is and what the sum is, then it's itself apparent.

[15:16] Yeah, yeah, it's known to itself, right? It's known to its parts, right? You know, sometimes they call a statement like the whole is more than one of its parts a statement known to itself, right? You got to be careful what that means. A statement known to itself, because you don't mean that you prove that statement to that statement, because that would be very bad logic, right? You'd prove anything about that, right?

[15:41] But it's known, you might say, through its what parts, right? It's known through the in some cases the first act of reason, right? So, or I know that, for example, that a square is a quadrilateral. That's true. Or I know it's true that a square is not a circle, right? But it's by knowing what a square is and what a circle is that I can see this, right?

[16:07] Okay. That doesn't mean I can always, you know, know that a statement is true. Okay Triangles angles are equal to right angles. Well, I know what two right angles means. I know what triangle means. But do I see just to knowing those two? See, there's got to be another way, which is what? By reasoning it, right? Reasoning it from statements like the whole is more than the part.

[16:34] Okay, so you go back. So we have at least three ways, right, of coming to know which of the two opposed statements, the affirmative, negative, is true, and which one is what false. Either by the senses, right? Or by the what? Understanding the terms what they are, or by what reasoning, right? Okay.

[17:02] Now, if you believe me that I'm eighty-one, do you really know that I'm eighty-one? Not strictly speaking, though. Yeah, yeah. If God revealed it, you'd know it for sure, right? But if you just did it because you think I'm a trustworthy person or something, right? Wouldn't you? See, even if I'm trustworthy, I might still be mistaken, right? Sure. Remember when my when my father died and there was when was my father born?

[17:35] There was these things for the settlement and so on, and there were two dates, you know, from the little town of Parkes Prairie, Minnesota. You know, I mean, there was some confusion as to the date was ninety-two or ninety-three or something, you know, nineteen eighty-two or so.

[17:54] So, those three ways in in general, okay. That's interesting, huh? You know the rule of two or three or both, right? Thomas divides logic into three parts, according to the three acts of reason. And understanding what something is, understanding the true or the false, and reasoning, right? And he divides in his proemia the logical works of Aristotle as to which one of those parts they belong, right?

[18:29] So the categories belongs to the logic of the first act, understanding what something is, Because genera will tell you what something is, and so on. The Peri Hermeneias is about what the statement, right? So it pertains to the logic of the second act, and all the rest of the books, like the Prior and Posterior Analytics, and the book on places and physical affections, and even to some extent the rhetoric, insofar as it has something argumentative in it, right?

[18:58] They pertain to the third act of what reason, right? You know, sometimes they they distinguish, you know, the Trivium and the Quadrivium, right? And then they distinguish rhetoric and logic, right? Well, to be more precise. Aristotle says that rhetoric is a what, parergon, which means like offshoot is the way you kind of translate that Greek word. It's an offshoot of logic insofar as the rhetorician does use some arguments, although they're kind of weak.

[19:31] And it's also an offshoot of political studies and so on insofar as he uses things that pertain to politics, right, and so on. So it's kind of a mixed science in a sense, right? But there is some part that might say that deals with some kinds of arguments, the enthymeme. I think we talked about that a little bit, and the example, you know, the argument from one singular to another singular of the same kind.

[19:59] So Thomas divides logic into three parts: logic, the first act, second act, third act. Makes very good sense, right? Yeah, yeah. But now, when I was at Leval there, when I was a first-year student at Louvain, right,

[20:20] we were studying the Isagoge, right, of Porphyry, right, which is the first book in logic, right. And Thomas doesn't have any commentary or exposition of it, so we used what

[20:36] Albert the Great, right. So you get Albert's division of logic in there too, right? Because in the beginning he does, and he divides logic into what two. And kind of nice the way he does it. He says,

[20:55] "What do you need logic for anyway?" He didn't say it quite that way, but if you knew everything, you wouldn't need logic, would you? Okay. So you need logic to come to know what you don't know. Well, there's two kinds of unknown, right? The simple unknown and the complex unknown. So it might be unknown to you what a perfect number is. That would be an example of a simple unknown, right?

[21:25] It might be unknown to you what what the soul is, right? And that would be a what simple unknown. Or it might be unknown to you that the human soul is immortal, and that would be a complex unknown, right? Okay. So he divides logic into two parts: the art of defining, which is the way of coming to know the simple unknown, and the art of what reasoning, the way of coming to know the what.

[21:56] Complex unknown. Yeah, yeah. So what Thomas calls the logic of the second act, right, which is about statement, right, he includes that in the art of reasoning because in reasoning you're reasoning from two or more statements to another statement, right? So statement belongs to the logic of the what art of reasoning, right? So. So who's right, Thomas or Albert? Both.

[22:26] Okay, both. Yeah, yeah. I mean, so I sometimes give as my rule of two or three. The rule of two or three, or what? Both. Yeah, yeah. And I always take the example from my one of my famous teachers, Aristotle, right? Who praises Homer, you know, as teaching all the Greeks how to make a good plot. And then a good plot is not about everything that happened to Barnabas or somebody, right?

[22:59] But it's about a course of action as a beginning, a middle, and a what? End. So he divides the plot into beginning, middle, and end. But Homer taught them. This is the way to you know to construct your plot, huh? And but then later on in the same book, Aristotle says that the plot can be divided into tying the knots and the untying the knots. So now Aristotle himself is dividing into two.

[23:29] Was Aristotle right when he divided into three, and wrong when he divided into two, or vice versa? He's having a good day. All right, it's good to do it both ways, right? Or I like the example, you know, when we say that it's very important in logic to distinguish between a name set of many things univocally, right, with the same meaning in mind, right, and a name set of many things with more than one meaning in mind, right?

[23:59] So you have distinction of two, univocal and what, equivocal, right? Now you can follow that up with a second distinction, which is a distinction of equivocal into those names that are equivocal by chance.

[24:17] I'm always telling my student who comes on Wednesday night, Richard, that he has the same name as my brother Richard, right? But there's no real what? Reason. Yeah, they probably don't know each other exists. And no one looked at the two of them and said, "Hey, they did so much alike, we'll give them the same name," right? You know? Yeah. And

[24:40] they're both a little bit taller than me, though. I don't think that's the reason why they're both called Richard, you know? And I think my brother Richard is called Richard because my mother's father was named Richard. Yeah. Okay.

[24:59] And then there's a name that's equivocal by what reason, which I made a big fuss about, right? Okay. Okay. So now you're dividing name set of many things into two, and then one of those is subdivided into two, right? Anything wrong there? No.

[25:21] But sometimes Thomas comes along and he says, "Now, when one name is said of many things, sometimes it's said of many things with exactly the same meaning when said of each one of them, and sometimes with entirely different meanings when said of each one of them, and sometimes it's said of them with meanings that are partly the same but partly different. What's wrong there? Well said. And sometimes they call the names that are said with many meanings that have no connection.

[26:00] Right? We call them simply equivocal, period. Right? And then we get this new name, analogous, to the middle, but it's the same as the, you know, name equivocal by reason which

[26:13] Hamblin finds. So, should you divide names said of many things into two or three? Will be the question on your exam. Anybody? No, I said, should you divide into two or three? Right. Oh.

[26:33] I was thinking, you know, kind of a playful question, right? Huh? See what you get. You answer this question now. Is God a philosopher? That's what you mean by philosopher. He is a lover of truth.

[26:57] Yeah. The word philosopher comes from philos, which means lover, right? Huh? And sophia, which is what is the lover of. It means a lover of wisdom, right? Huh? Now, if that's what you mean by by philosopher, if that's what you mean, I'm giving an if then statement, right? If philosopher means a lover of wisdom, then God is what? Yeah. He's a lover of wisdom, right? Okay. And therefore, there should be, as Aristotle says, you know, there should be reason for friendship between us.

[27:34] We're both lovers of wisdom, right? Huh? Okay. Now, I think we'd confuse people if you said that God is a philosopher, right? Huh? And so you want to put him in the company of the modern philosophers? I think the modern philosophers are not really lovers of wisdom, huh?

[27:53] President Bush, the last president Bush, was asked who his favorite philosopher was. He said Jesus Christ, and the media wasn't overjoyed about that. Yeah. Jesus Christ was a lover of wisdom, yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But now you see, if you go back to the origin of the word philosopher, right? Huh? The legend says that Pythagoras, when he discovered these wonderful theorems like the Pythagorean theorem, etc.

[28:21] Someone said, called him wise, right? And he said, "Don't call me wise. God alone is wise, huh?" So, in the full sense, only God is wise, as Aristotle says, right? You call man wise; it's in a very diminished, diminished sense, right? In very few men, right? But even those are, you know, not wise in the way God is, right? Huh? So, it's a sign of humility on the part of Pythagoras, right?

[28:49] When he says, "Don't call me wise. God alone is wise," right? It's kind of a good lesson for us, right? Huh? Because the philosopher needs not only the love of wisdom, but he needs what humility, right? Huh? In pursuing wisdom, so far as man can do so, right? You know, Thomas talks about how pride is a cause of error, right? In two ways. Because of pride, a man may attempt to judge something that he's not capable of judging.

[29:22] Right? He thinks he's better than he is, and therefore he makes a mistake. Or he's not docile to those who are really wiser than him. Right? And

[29:36] Thomas was what? Was docile to Augustine and Aristotle, and many thought were very wise. And so these great minds they pull us back from many errors that we're in along the way, too. And so if you don't have humility, you're going to be a bad what? Philosopher, right?

[30:02] And you know, Ketchum has a famous remark. You know that Thomas so reverenced the Church Fathers that he seemed to have inherited the mind of all of them. Right? And that's what you're doing, in a sense. Right? I can say Thomas inherited the mind of Aristotle. Aristotle, too. Right? Thomas was, in my experience, the man who was capable of understanding Aristotle. Right? So my rule of thumb is, you know, Aristotle means what Thomas says he means.

[30:30] Scandalizes, you know. And always remember Thomas talking about some of those, you know, stupid interpretation of Aristotle. And Thomas says, "So great a philosopher, and so great a matter, but not saying that. " I mean, that. I mean, there's got to be some some way of understanding this, and this guy has misunderstood it, right?

[31:12] So I think you could divide logic into two. You know, Oesterle's old book that we use in college. My my oldest grandchild there is studying Oesterle's logic book, right? But the name of the book is Logic, the art of defining and reasoning. Well, they're following what? The distinction of logic that Albert the Great, right? But you can see a reason for that, right? Because reasoning is a way of coming to know a statement you didn't know before.

[31:43] Definition is a way of coming to know, you know, simple thing like a square or virtue, wherever it may be. But a statement, a way of coming to know the true or the false. Well, something to do with the true or false, because you know that the affirmative or the negative, one must be true and the other must be false. But understanding the statement and the meaning of the statement doesn't tell you whether it's true or false.

[32:13] And so you have three ways, it seems right, of coming to know whether this statement is true or false, huh? And one is by the senses, as we said, huh? Like I know that you're sitting, right, because I can see you sitting, right. So I know it's true that you are sitting, and that you are not sitting is false, right? Or you are standing is false, and you are not standing is true.

[32:37] I know it through my senses, right? And then others by knowing what the parts mean, right? If I know enough what a square is and what a circle is, I'm bright enough to see that a square is not a circle, that that's true. Or that a square is a quadrilateral if I know what those two are, right? Okay. And you get to God as a philosopher, that's a little more complicated, right?

[33:01] So you might have in mind going back to Pythagoras, right, the philosopher means what? You know, someone who's not wise but loves wisdom. Although if you just take the word itself, love or wisdom, right? You could say God is a philosopher, right? But you got to be kind of careful about that, right? Some would like to know. You find the church fathers, the early ones, they they they will call theology philosophy, right?

[33:29] Christian philosophy, right? What is, you know, kind of wisdom, right? When Thomas, you know, says that if you want to give a synonym for philosophy, in Latin would be sapientia, wisdom, right? Okay. Well, theology is wisdom even more than first philosophy, right? So I mean, it kind of might confuse people if you call it philosophy, right? Because we're accustomed in custom and importance in in how things, right?

[34:03] So we're not accustomed to use the word philosopher for God, are we, right? So we're not accustomed to, use it for the modern philosophers. I told you about the text we had from Pius the Twelfth about reading the modern philosophers. And in the courses on modern philosophy, they started bringing this text up, you know. And he says there's three reasons for reading them, right? One is for the scraps of knowledge there is in them, right?

[34:36] One is to be familiar with their errors so you can refute them and not be taken in by them, right? And then the third is so you can know your own position better, right? By its contrast with this, huh? Okay.

[34:53] So there's an obligation to do this, right? Huh? My, um, I teach Kant and Hegel and Marx, right? My doctor thesis was a comparison of Hegel. I mean, of Descartes and Aristotle and the three roads and so on. So, but after you get through going through these modern philosophers, you know. Do you have too much desire to go back to him? You know, when I retired there from Assumption College, I said I'm not going to take all my modern philosophy books into retirement just to go through them.

[35:30] Do not irresponsible, but the man beside just going to think about God. You know, that was my idea. I was going to think about God in my retirement. I'm going to. You haven't pursued any study Kant. What you're learning about is Kant, right? Kant thinks you read Descartes. You know, why would I read Aristotle? It's the way things are that I'm learning, not for anybody Aristotle thinks particularly, but just the way things are.

[36:01] Was your sense about Descartes that he was an honest? He was honest intellectually, or was he sort of playing games? I've heard two contrasting views on. Well, it can be a little bit of both, you know, huh? You know, the thing about the modern philosophers, you know, I mean, Aristotle disagrees, you know, with some of the philosophers before him, right? Huh? He recalls what they said and why they said it and why he thinks it's not correct, right?

[36:30] Well, I'll find the modern philosophers saying something just the opposite of what Plato or Aristotle said, but they don't recall that you know Aristotle said the opposite and why he said it and why it's wrong. But he said they don't. You know, it doesn't seem like they're you know understand what they should do, right? But they got some insight, you know, all of a sudden that you know that nobody else has ever had, and they start to build on this insight that they think they have, and that's what I mentioned last week.

[37:01] It seems like some many people. It's a kind of a habitual fault. Yeah. Many people, each of us, in some way, we have some idea, so we set up a strong man and knock it down and big shit. See how great my idea is. How stupid that he was before. Somebody else said this, and well, of course, that's ridiculous. Yeah.

[37:19] I remember talking to my my friend Rodney Nockin as I was starting to read Thomas now and so on. He says, "Why don't you do my own philosophy? "

[37:28] I don't get very far, you know. I mean, you know, I mean, Thomas says that Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers, right? And Plato, as I've told you, thanked the gods for three things: he was born a man and not a woman, he was born a Greek and not a barbarian, and then he had met Socrates, right? He was one of the chief philosophers, right? Plato, right?

[37:58] But without Socrates, there would have been no Plato, right? And without Plato, there would have been no Aristotle, right? And so it's really kind of a magnificent buildup there, right?

[38:13] What did Mozart say? There's not a master in the art of music whose works have not gone over many times. You know, just trying to, you know, and he dedicated his greatest quartets there. Six of them called the Haydn quartets, right? And he said, "I had to do so because he taught me how to make a quartet." You know, you know, but kind of the humility there, right?

[38:35] That's when Haydn recognized Mozart as the world's greatest composer. He told him, told his father that he is the greatest one I know. You know, either alive or that his works. You know.

[38:53] Okay. Now, how do we divide? We divided statements last time, didn't we? Did you divide statements into two or three? One or the other. Well, didn't I divide it into the simple and the compound statement? Right. Okay. Now, the simple statement you can divide into what, the affirmative and the negative statement, right? Okay. But the compound statement you can divide into what? What? Two or three. I'm guessing three.

[39:44] Yeah. Yeah. And these individuals, you know, the important ones, right? You have what I would call the if-then statement. I don't like the term. In fact, the hypothetical statement that they use in books sometimes. Um, and the either-or statement, right, which is sometimes called the disjunctive statement. I think either-or is more clear. And then the what? Conjunction, right? Okay, but you have the word and there, right?

[40:13] Okay. So, is Saint Augustine's statement, "Thou hast made us for thyself, " and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee, Is that a simple or a compound statement? Yeah. And and joined by hand, right? Okay.

[40:39] I was kind of being playful with it, and I said you could probably make out of this a good if-then statement, right? If God has made us for Himself, then our hearts are restless until they rest in Him. Because when you're pursuing the end, but don't possess it yet, your heart is in motion, right? It's not at rest until you, until She says yes, right?