Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
60. Eternity Defined: Boethius's 'Tota simul et perfecta possessio', the Now of Time, and Future Contingents
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/3-natural-hearing/060-eternity-defined-boethiuss-tota-simul-et-perfecta-possessio/

[0:00] Now, let's just come down, go to to the actual statement of the definition of eternity by Boethius and we'll give the Latin there first, and then try to put it into some close English. Tota simul et perfecta

[0:28] possessio vitae interminabilis. Tota simul et perfecta possessio vitae interminabilis. Now, simul is the opposite of what? Before and after, right? Um. So, if you went back to that chapter I gave you from Aristotle's Categories, the chapter on before and after, right? Proteron husteron in Greek there. The chapter immediately after it is about what? Simul or hama Greek, right?

[1:23] And sometimes you translate that as what? Together. Together, sometimes you translate it as at once, right? Okay, that just for sense. But it involves the negation of what? Before and after, right?

[1:43] So, in the Latin, you know, text of the Categories, Aristotle, you have prior and posterior for before and after. In the next chapter, is on simul, right? Because since we get our word English simultaneous, if two events are simultaneous, what does that mean? They happen at the same time. Yeah, but in what are you saying that one is not before or after the other? They were together, right?

[2:11] And tota comes from the Latin word for what? Whole. Yeah. Although sometimes you give maybe the sense of what? Of all, right? Okay. So in a way, you're saying here the whole together or the whole at once, right? Or make it a more idiomatic thing.

[2:37] You should say all at once, right? Okay. That's why you translate those words. All at once, but the whole together, right? Another way of translating it, huh? Okay, all at once,

[2:56] and that is simply the word "and," right? The all at once and perfect, of course, is perfect, right? The all at once and perfect and possessio of course, is translated as possession.

[3:17] And vitae is what genitive there of life, right? And interminabilis negative, without a term, without an end, right? Okay, so it's the all at once and perfect possession of unending life. Okay,

[3:44] this is the definition we have to try to understand now. Now, when Thomas takes up this definition of eternity in the Summa Theologiae, he takes it up after he's shown that what there's no motion in God, right? That God is unchanging, huh? Okay,

[4:16] and so in a way, eternity is to an unchanging thing. Something like time is to a moving or changing thing. Okay, and just as the unchanging involves a negation of change, right? So we're going to see how the definition of eternity, in a way, involves negation of things that pertain to time, right? But also, it seems it also pertains to negation of things that pertain to the what now of time, huh?

[4:52] So I think that's a very important thing when he says unending life, right? What is the unending there negating refers to time, huh? In time, yeah, yeah. If Mozart's life or your life is measured by time, right, then it has a beginning and a what end in time, right? I took Mozart because he had a a life whose what. Bicentennial, right? Of the beginning and of the end of Mozart in time,

[5:44] fell within the space of my life, right? Okay. So Mozart was born in what, 1756, right? And died in 1791, huh? It was 36th year, right? Okay. So he had a beginning and an end in what?

[6:05] Time, right? Huh? Okay. In the same way, each man's life, right, has a beginning and an end in what time? So when you say that God's life is unending, right? You mean it has what?

[6:29] No beginning and no end. That's interesting when we talk about the word beginning and end. You talk about it in the fifth book of wisdom. You know, if you call this the beginning of the line, this point here, and you call this point over here the end, right? Okay. But sometimes use the word end for either limit, don't we? We speak of the end points of the line, right?

[6:59] And then, you know, similar to that in time, right? Okay. So you could speak of the beginning of Mozart's life in 1756, and the end in 1791, right? Or you could speak of the ends of his life, right? Okay. And terminus there is Latin word that that's actually what he uses in the fifth book of wisdom. Merriki does, right? So, but probably the best English translation is unending, right?

[7:28] Okay. You see, it's a limitless life too, right? But I like the word unending a little bit better, right? Okay. So you're negating the fact what you find in your life or my life or Mozart's life that it has a beginning and end that has ends, right? The divine life has no beginning, no end.

[7:50] Now, a lot of people think of eternity as kind of a what? Endless time, right? Right. Okay. Um, but is that eternity? Certainly not. Well, they have something in common that they're both endless, right? And you know, Plato there in the Timaeus speaks, you know, of endless times being kind of a what? A moving image of God's, right? That's not the same thing he says, right? Okay.

[8:26] What's the other difference that would be between eternity and an endless time? Now, they have in common they're endless, right? What does eternity have? Or not have that endless time would still have. All at once. Yeah, yeah. See, even if

[8:50] next year I'm still around, right? And the year after that, and there's no year which Brookings ever ceases to be. And you went back in time, right? I lived last year. I was alive last year. A year before that, you never come to a year in which Brookings was. Wasn't right. Still, there would be a what? Before and after in Brookings, right?

[9:20] See, if you went back, you never came to a year in which Brookings didn't exist. And you never went forward. Come to a year in which Brookings has ceased to be, right? Okay, then Brookings would have an endless life, wouldn't they? A life without a beginning, right? Without an end, in this time. But still, there would be what? A before and. After in my time, right? Because last year came before this year, and this year came before next year.

[9:51] That before the one after that, and so on, right? See. But in eternity, there is no what. Before and. There's no before and after. And that's spread out by this part here, right?

[10:11] It's all at once, huh? There's no before and after, huh? So you say two things about my life, right? My life, like Mozart's life, has a beginning and an end in time, right? And it has a before and after in time, right? Okay. But the divine life has neither beginning nor an end. It's endless, and it has no what. Before and after.

[10:46] Because in that way you'd be subject to some kind of change? So you're negating here, right? So you need both of those really to understand what. Both of those negations, right? You have to realize, therefore, like we were saying at the beginning of class, that things that are measured by time have a beginning and end in time, right? And you have to realize that time is what.

[11:11] The number of the before and after emotion, right? You have to negate both of those, right? When talking about the divine what. Life, huh?

[11:25] Now. Is eternity something like the now in this respect? Because is there a before and after in the now? No. No. And. Is something that the now of time. Has in common with eternity. It has no before and after. Right. Okay.

[11:56] Now, Boethius, huh? In comparing. The now of time. With the now, of. Time, right? Boethius says. The now. That flows along. Makes what. Time. Time, like we were saying before, huh? The now that flows along.

[12:35] Makes time. Okay. You saw before there when we were talking last week, I guess. The now corresponds to the body motion, right? Huh. Okay. And it's the same body throughout the motion, but it's always other another, right? Where it is.

[12:58] So the now corresponds that, right? So it says the now that flows makes what time, right? But the now stands still makes eternity. It's a contrast you make, sure, it's not expressed in the definition here, but you see certain likenesses between them, right? Someone might say, "Well, if eternity is all once, that reminds me of the now of time, right? " Because no before and after in the now of time, and therefore, what's the difference between the now of time, right, and the now of eternal now, right?

[13:50] And Boethius said, "Well, this is one way of understanding, right? The now that flows along makes time. The now that stands still makes what eternity, right? " Okay.

[14:04] Um. Now, um, what in the definition is going to separate the now of eternity though from the now of time? Perfect. Oh. Possession. Yeah, possession, especially, right? Huh? Because possession is the idea of something, what? Firm, right? Huh? It reminds me a bit of of when Aristotle is talking about wisdom. Remember that? And he he says, in the third reading, there we had from the proemium, and he said that wisdom is looking knowledge, right?

[15:05] And then it's liberal or free, right? And then it's not a human possession, but it's what? Um, or divine possession, right? Okay. Now, when Thomas, comments on Aristotle's words, there, he doesn't mean that it's impossible for a man to in any way get wisdom, right? Ah, but he says it's not human possession. He gives us the reason for that: that man is in many ways what enslaved, right?

[15:39] Okay. And a possession is something that you can use whenever you want, right? So if you possess that ballpoint pen, you can pick it up and use anytime you want to, right? But this life of wisdom, this theoretical life, is not something that man can what hold on to anytime he wants to, right? But he's got to go and what eat. He's got to go and sleep.

[16:07] He's got to go and and wash the car, or he's got to go and get the gas, or he's got to go and do all kinds of things, right? To go to doctor, to go to dentist, right? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, right? You see, so he's always being what pulled away from this, right? And he can't hold on to it, right? Okay.

[16:31] And that's the way the now is, right? The now of time is to say, right? You can't possess it, right? Because it's always what other, right? So when he says possession, he's bringing out the fact that the what divine now stands still, right? The firmness of it, huh? Okay. You know,

[16:59] when I was growing up, you always hear this saying: you, your parents had said, you know, all good things must come to an end. Having a good time, a kid, right? But now you got to go to what bed? You know, and do some other things, right? Yeah, but you better go to bed now, okay? And I used to hear that. Did you hear that? I know if your parents said all good things must come to an end, right?

[17:24] I wish this moment could last. People will say something like that, right? You see, and you know, a lot of times when I see a beautiful sunset, you know, you got to look at it right away because all of a sudden it's gone. You know, just and so you can't really possess these what exquisite moments, you might say, in your life, right? Because they won't stay, right?

[17:47] Do they keep on passing away, right? Okay. Um. So with this word possession, right, you're in a way negating the what flowing character of the now of time, right? Huh? In a sense, you're you're bringing out that it what stands still, right? Huh? Okay.

[18:18] The life that we have in the now of time, right, is always what fleeting, right? Huh? Always losing it, right? Okay. Um. My brother Mark used to say, the second beer doesn't taste as good as the first beer. In fact, he says the second swallow doesn't taste as good as the first swallow.

[18:45] You know. You know, and of course, you eat food too, right? I mean, obviously, you know, certain point, you know, food. I speak of the the law of diminishing returns, right? You're eating more, but enjoying it less, right? You're drinking more and enjoying it less, right? And

[19:07] yeah, doesn't matter, right? Remember when I when I one time I dropped in Quebec City, the old city. There was some students were interested in going to Laval, you know, from Assumption. And of course, I had spent a few years up there, you know, but we just got to the outer gates. Wow! They jumped out of the car, you know. Wow! You know, it's excited, you know, because sometimes, you know, sometimes, you know, with somebody like that, you know, you kind of revive your own sense of thing, you know, but you can't quite catch it at that first, you know, time when you're there, right?

[19:41] huh? First time you're maybe in Rome or in St. Peter's or someplace you know, and you know, you go back there again. It's not quite the the enthusiasm, or exhilaration, or excitement, or whatever it is, right? You see, so we we can't possess those really what you know. As my mother said, you know, climax spoils the romance.

[20:08] You see, and so there's all kinds of examples of that, right? Now that these precious moments, but you can't possess them, right? It's always flowing on, right? Time waits for no man, as the saying goes, right? Same is true about the now, right? It's always flowing on.

[20:32] But now, if you could stop the now of time, right? See, and you can't, of course, but in fiction we can stop the now of time. Of course, you have these fairy tales where the the bad witch came down to the thing, and and she cast a spell upon the princess and the whole court, right? And I can still remember these, you know, pictures in my little children's book.

[21:03] You know, everybody was frozen in one now, right? The now is frozen, and the princess will be frozen in bed until the prince shows up and gives her a little kiss on the cheek, and then all of a sudden, everybody come alive again. I remember, you know, seeing it. There's a servant bringing in, you know, a turkey or some bird on a plate, should I say? And he's frozen like that, right?

[21:25] But the point is, if you could freeze the now of what time, right? How much life would you have in that now? Hardly any. Hardly any, yeah, yeah.

[21:46] So it's not only the the fleeting character of the now, but you have practically no what. Yeah, you have practically no. You possess practically nothing, right, in the now of time, right? I can't really, you know, do an article of Thomas Summa in the now, right? I can't go through an argument really in the now, right? It is worthwhile, right? You see, in other words, what I have of life in the now of time is not only fleeting, but it's I practically nothing of life in the now, right?

[22:30] So when he adds the word "fleeting," he's negating the what imperfection of life that we have in the now of what time, right? He has a perfect possession of life in this eternal now.

[22:57] I think in our false imagination, right, we're always, you know, falsely imagining eternity. I know one thing that I think it's hard for people to understand, and they tend to falsely imagine. When you talk about the will of God, for example, right? God, having willed something once, can never change his will.

[23:27] You say, "Oh, gee, whiz that sounds awfully confining," because we're always changing our will, at least about little things, right? You see, and never say never, they say, right? I'm never going to do that, and all of a sudden you are going to do this or that, right? And so we're always, you know, seeing things, you know, that we didn't think were worthwhile doing, and now realize are worthwhile doing, right?

[24:01] Or I'm going to start reading those sort of things, and all of a sudden I realize the reason why I shouldn't read this or study this, right? And so, so we kind of falsely imagine God to be what frozen in the now, right? Not

[24:19] realizing that He is what the now, but not in my now, but in the now of eternity, right? He is what actually choosing everything with full well knowledge of what He's choosing and why He's choosing and so on.

[24:42] We kind of imagine Him to be like us, huh? It's strange, huh? Now, sometimes Thomas, when he's comparing the now of eternity to the now of time, he uses little comparison here, the circle,

[25:13] and you have that point in the center of the circle, but you can have many points along the what circumference, yeah. And if you take this point here, let's say it's after this one but before this one, or vice versa, right? Okay. But if you compare these to the point here. That's in the center. They're all right across from it. You might say, okay, and that's because this point is not really a part of the what circle, is it?

[25:55] This kind of a homely example, though, to bring out the difference between the what the now of time with something said before and after there, right? It's always other in some way, in the now of eternity, but what's past or present or future is all what present to God in His what eternity, huh?

[26:22] So my old teacher Kasurik, you know, used to joke, and in the old days there used to be a program. I don't know if it's during your time you had it used to be on the radio, I guess in the old days. But the name of the program was You Were There. Yeah. Yeah. And it was always kind of a reenactment of some historical event. Remember one time they were doing Socrates' trial, you know, some, but but you know, assassination of Lincoln, whatever it may be, some historical event, you know, and it's reenacted, and it's like you you were there, right?

[26:57] Well, Casiric says you get to see God, and he says you'll be there, you know. But you can see that the the past, the present, the future—they're all what present to God, right? Yeah. Okay. But that's why he's got to be following Aristotle's what insight there that the way we know doesn't have to be the way things are, right? And if they had to do it the same way, then the past or the future in time couldn't be what present to God, right?

[27:30] Okay. Sometimes he compares it too, you know, to a man what is up in the mountain is looking down at the what people down there there walking along the path, right? And this man here can't wear that man or vice versa because they're too far apart, right? But man here he sees all three of them together, right? He sees the whole picture, right? Okay.

[28:03] Notice how we have a faint imitation of something like that when we talk about the past, right? Because I can remember the past now, and sometimes people talk about something in the past that they went to the same school or something like that, and they talk about that time when we did the action or something like that, and the past is present to you in your memory, right?

[28:33] Well, that's a faint image of something that God has, right? The past and the present and the future of time—they're all present to him now in his knowledge, right? But am I false in remembering the past now? No, I'd be false if I said the past is is here now because I remember it now, right?

[28:58] But I remember the past now, and to some extent, I try to anticipate the future now, right? But neither case am I false, right? Yeah, but I'm more sure about the past, obviously, than the future, right?

[29:24] So God knows the past and the present and the future. This is one thing where we say that God knows what what they call future contingents. Now. Future contingent, we mean something that's in the future and it's could happen or not happen, right? So you can't be sure about a future contingent, okay?

[29:57] But you know, why I'd be standing, you know, ten minutes from now, or I'd be sitting there? I don't know. You know? it's undetermined, right? See, but God knows now, right? Whether I'll be standing or sitting ten minutes from now,

[30:21] and when that's present to you, ten minutes from now, right? You see, just like now, you're sure that I'm standing rather than sitting, right? Okay.

[30:32] But God knows what ten minutes from now, just like you know me now, right? So you can't be what, mistaken about this, huh? That's why it says in Scripture, there, you know, announce the future to us and we'll declare you gods, right? Okay.

[30:58] But you know, in the second, not second, but the first Vatican Council, it talks about the motives of credibility, and the ones that are proportioned to everybody in a way is the fulfillment of prophecies, right? And the miracles, right? But the miracles are a sign of the divine what power, right? But the fulfillment of prophecies is a sign of what divine power. That was a future contingent, huh?

[31:31] And you know, some people wonder, you know, what was exactly the sin of Adam and Eve, right? You see, and the way Thomas understands it sometimes is that they wanted a knowledge of what

[31:46] a future contingent, huh? And that, of course, what is something that can't have, huh? Then we'd be like the gods, you know. It wasn't knowing the moral law. I mean, it's if Adam and Eve were even to that, huh? It was a very intellectual sin in a way, you know. Adam and Eve, you see, people misunderstand them because they they cover themselves and they recognize their nakedness afterwards, right?

[32:17] But that's after the sin, right? You see, God punished them. This, so long as their their reason and their will was what subordinate to God, then their body was what completely subject to their soul, and their emotions and passions, right, were completely subject to their what reason and will, right? Well, then God proportionately punished them, right? If you're not going to be subject in your reason and will to what you should be subject to, right, then what should subject to you will not be what, or revolt, right?

[32:53] So, but I can have the story of David, right, where David sins, right, revolts, you know, against God, and then he's punished by what? Son revolt against him. Yeah, yeah, that's kind of appropriate, right? It's kind of a yeah. I would say, what justice, kind of divine justice, there, right? Huh? You see, you know, where

[33:19] I mean, without over simplifying too much here, you know, when parents are not subject to God, sometimes they're punished by their own children being not what, subject to them, right? Yeah.

[33:33] Not saying parents are always involved from God when their children revolt. Yeah. Not saying that. I mean, this is you know, sometimes this is the way it is, right? You see, and

[33:45] when you're not subject to whom you should be subject to, right, then those who should be subject to you are not subject to you, right? But it's inappropriateness of being punished that way, right? Just like in you know, asking God to forgive you, you have to forgive those who offended you, right? You see a proportion, right? And so, so long as their reason and their will was subject to God, their emotions were subject to their reason and their will, and their body to their soul, right?

[34:17] So their first sin would not have been a a a carnal sin or something like that, right? They discovered sex, something like that, or some stupid explanation, right? But their first sin was a sin of what? Pride, huh? It's a spiritual sin, huh? And

[34:36] and it wasn't that they were seeking a a knowledge of the moral law, right? Because they already had a knowledge of the moral law. They were buying this better condition of moral law than we have. but in a sense they wanted to be able to what? Be in a sense self sufficient in the direction of their own actions, huh? But the point is, the future contingent is something that makes all of our what?

[35:07] Providence, our human providence, right? Our human foresight, but imperfect and defective in some sense, right? That we can't foresee, right? These things are going to happen, right? These future contingent things, huh? And so we have to what? Turn to God for guidance, huh? And so on, right? So, so in a sense, they were seeking to what? A knowledge of the future contingent, knowing good and bad in that sense, right?

[35:41] See. Not just knowing, in other words, which they already knew what was morally good to do or morally bad to do. That wasn't what they were seeking. They knew that, but that they could what foresee any good or bad might happen as a consequence, unintended, right, of what they were doing. Yeah.

[36:05] See now. What would that mean? How would they seek that? Well, that's that's what Thomas understands. And in a way, that's what the devil is promising them, right? That they'll be like God, huh?

[36:32] Now, like you know, in a very what in a way that man cannot be like God, right? You can't be like God knowing moral law, yeah. It can't be like God knowing the future contingent. He depends, right?

[36:49] Did you ever read? Oh, actually, an example that comes to mind there. Though, read the Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque and Claude de la Colombière. You know, Claude de la Colombière was going over to England, you know, which was dangerous for a Catholic at that time to go over there, right? And before he'd leave he'd talk to Margaret Mary Alacoque, and are you going to meet so and so there?

[37:11] Da da da da da. You know, and sure enough, so and so will be there, right? You know, but but but she was a goodness, right? From from God, right? Yeah. You see, and then she told Claude, and then he goes there, and so and so is there. Yeah.

[37:32] Did you ever read Churchill's there account, you know, of his escape from South Africa? You know, Churchill, as a young man, was involved in the Boer War, and he was working as a correspondent partly. He was captured by the Boers, right, and imprisoned. And he escaped from prison. They're trying to find him, and he was moving along. At first, he got to a district where he's you know starved and so on, and he he went and knocked on this door, and there was the one house in the whole city where there was somebody of English origin or something, English affiliation, right?

[38:16] He you know took him in, had him on his way, so he stuck him back into. I mean, you see, I mean, you could possibly foresee that, right? And if he hit the other door, he would have been, you know, alarmed and would have, you know, captured him and so on.

[38:36] So this is you know something that's God's prerogative, huh? But because of eternity. So does Saint Thomas say that they thought they could get back from the devil? Well, they they were tempted of pride. Pride blinds you, right? In other words, it had to be something that was very good,

[39:26] appealing, you know, not to their concupiscence, right? Like in our fallen state where we usually fall into. They didn't have any disorder of concupiscence like we have, disorder of emotions, right? Yeah. Maybe something that appealed to an intellectual, what? Yeah, yeah. Creature. Right, see, and

[39:50] you know the man's given reason to direct him in his actions, right? And it's natural sense to ought what direct your actions by reason. Yeah. See, and

[40:12] but your reason cannot direct you infallibly, right? Because many things could happen, right, from what you intend to do, right, that you could in no way foresee. yeah.

[40:31] I know it's the what's the name of the what's the name of the virtue concerned directing our actions? Foresight. Foresight, yeah. See, you know we use sometimes the word prudence, right? Okay. Because from prudentia in Latin, but prudentia comes from the word providentia.

[40:50] And if you look at Thomas there when he's taking up the integral parts of providence, right, or prudentia rather, and one of the integral parts of prudencia is providentia. and the objection that you have in the article there is that providentia means the same thing as prudentia. and that's not you know one of Thomas's Isidorian etymologies, right? You go to the Latin dictionary and it'll tell you that prudentia comes from providentia, contraction of that, and Thomas, you know, says, "Well, the whole virtue is named from this because kind of the crowning part, right?

[41:31] " And I made a study of many things of Winston Churchill, and I noticed he likes to use the word foresight, huh? Recently, I read two biographies of you know Theodore Roosevelt, one of our better presidents, and I noticed he's, you know liking to use the word foresight, right? That's really the English word, right? But the point is,

[41:56] you can't entirely foresee the consequences of what you decide to do, right? Mm-hmm. And it's because of the of this, huh? I'm at the drugstore, right? Okay. Well, the light turns green, I go, right? But somebody goes to a red light, backs me, right? I couldn't foresee that, right? Somebody's going to stop for a red light. No, a lot of people, you know, that when they come to a car like that, they they stick a little spout out their their car.

[42:44] You notice that something little bit there? Kind of aggressively, like no, it makes me uneasy, you know. I I tend to react. I was, you know, starting to break a bit, you know, because you know you don't know where to stop or just go, you know, and sometimes things do fall out kind of quickly, you know. So you can't foresee these things, right? I can't foresee them.

[43:06] I can't foresee them. I can't foresee the knowledge of good and evil in the full sense of that word. Yeah, yeah. What what kind of knowledge were they seeking? See, you know.

[43:21] We have you have you know I said that the stupidest interpretation is is false imagination that they discovered, you know, sex or something, you know, lots of innocent. But I say that that is based upon a misunderstanding of their original state, right? See.

[43:43] As long as their as their mind and will were subject to God, their emotions were subject to their mind and will, and their body was subject to their soul, right?

[43:59] But in a way, the punishment of revolting from God is that the body is no longer entirely subject to the what, to the soul, right, and the emotions to the what, to the reason and the will, huh? Okay.

[44:17] So the first sin is going to be a spiritual sin, not a like we're accustomed to, you know, more we're used to the to the to the body leading us astray, right?

[44:30] Emotions. So the first sin had to be a spiritual sin, huh? That's the only kind of sin you could have. in the devils, obviously right. The sin of the devils has to be basically what pride, and then envy, you know, rose because of that pride, right to us, and so on.

[45:10] Yeah, I think Augustine has that same explanation too. I believe. Yeah. The very type of splendor, when our Holy Father speaks of it, your sin is a desire to be able to determine good and evil, to have a sort of control over good and evil. To determine, would you say that sort of links up with what you were saying as we you spoke about? Having the knowledge of the future contingents, they could therefore sort of manipulate their own actions and sort of decide.

[45:51] They knew what was good and evil, so they could therefore sort of determine independently of the objective model. Well, I think I think so. Yeah. In fact, the text again, you are referring to, but I think one thing the Pope is talking about is the fact that people think that they are the measure of what's good or bad, right? See that they can, you know, if I want this, then it's good for me, right?

[46:21] See, so that they kind of the you know whatever they happen to want, right? But that's that's you know a more stupid thing than than what you have in in a way in Abelard right? Abelard you're not trying to say that something is morally right,

[46:49] or it's good because they happen to want it, right? See, but in a sense, they're seeking a a what? um sometimes we define pride, in fact, as a what disordered love of one's own what? Excellence, yeah, yeah. See, and so the fact that you can direct yourself right by your own actions is a sign of certain excellence, Senora.

[47:17] Does Saint Bobot see John? Right, he can, you know, the student can move in his own mind, right? That's if he says that about you, that's a good compliment, right? You see, so a man wants to direct himself in his own actions, huh?

[47:34] But he can't fully do so. He depends upon God because of the what? The contingent things, sir. See, there is the the unintended good that comes from what I do, right, or the unintended evil, right? I can't foresee those things, right?

[48:03] Angels don't have a knowledge of future contingency, right? That's not even not even the angels, no. So the divine providence, right, extends down. What is it? Is an account? Isn't there one of the books of the Old Testament there of a conflict? You know, kind of a between two angels, right?

[48:25] And the one angel, like the guardian angel, wants to get his his client out of the way, right? Of some danger, and the the other angel who sees the whole picture, you know, wants him to what keep him there, right?

[48:43] Yeah. I forget which book that is, but it's kind of a striking example there, you know, because in a sense, I suppose, representing in a human way, there kind of, you know, how the higher angel has to illuminate the lower angel, right?

[48:57] So, I mean, the lower angel is seeing something more particular, right? And and the higher angel is seeing something more universal, good that's going to come from this.

[49:14] But you know what they say? It was the same Paul says, you know, for the good, all things work for the good, or something like that. You see, but it's talking about how God in His divine providence watches over them, right?

[49:34] Or the example of Saint Fulgentius you know, comparing God to a father who has what run along the path ahead of you. And found something that you're going to stumble over, right? And he's removed it, right? You see, something you can foresee, right? But you're dependent upon God for those things.

[49:57] So I mean, it says in the Sapientia books, uncertain are the what providence of men, right? The foresight of men. So we experience that all the time. We can't foresee the consequences of certain things we ought to do, right?

[50:32] So in a sense, it's very appealing to the intellectual nature of man, right? To be able to be to direct himself, huh? But you see something like that in people, and sometimes even young people. You know, they want to do their own thing, right?

[50:58] So you see, you know, in people's ways. What do they say about men and women? Sometimes that men are less willing to ask directions than women is. Was that pride in our part or something? Better something direction, maybe. Yeah. We certainly not. Or both. Yeah. Yeah. The proprietors' stubbornness or something. You see.

[51:43] So direct yourself is to be more excellent than to be. You need it being directed by another, right? It's somewhat understandable, huh? You know, Thomas says the guess that

[52:05] the devil was the highest of the angels, and we don't know for sure, huh? There's some, you know, opinionally that's so, right? But Thomas says unless he had been extremely excellent, right, how would he be what tempted, right, to rest in himself, right? He's so wonderful. He was so wonderful. What

[52:34] do they call Lucifer? Yeah. So, in a sense, we we don't realize how how miserable Adam and Eve were, right? How much they wanted to direct themselves. The sin

[53:26] was just wanting that. Yeah, in a sense, there's a movement for what I mean. The way Thomas presents it, I mean, I think, I mean, Dusting Forum is that that E was more deceived, right? Than Adam, right? Adam was kind of what going along with what, you know,

[53:57] flesh of his flesh, right? Bone of his bones, he said, right? But the devil, you know, devil was crafty. What he did, right? He didn't come with the temptation to to Adam directly, right? He came to E, right? And she might have been a little weaker than he had. Can't see the dog, is it? You see? That's why they're all only explaining the incarnation, right? That they they explain why does it begin with the woman, right?

[54:38] And Mary's saying, you know, you've done it to me, right? This is part of the redemption of woman, right? That just as as the downfall began with a woman rather than a man was perfected by the man, the downfall or the perfection of the downfall, completion of the downfall, right? Well, then you know the same thing was done, right?

[55:02] But our redemption begins with what Mary saying yes, right? It's completed by Christ, obviously, right? But you have you know that that same what a redemption of woman as well as man, right? See,

[55:41] Adam should have said like Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics. Plato is a friend, but. truth is a greater friend, huh? But Socrates says the same thing in the apology, right? Or not an apology, excuse me, in the Phaedo, right?

[56:01] If you listen to me. You'll, what, pay a lot attention to the truth and little to Socrates, right? Okay. You know, Socrates is talking about the human soul—is immortal or not, right? And Simmias and Cebes have come in with these objections, and Socrates says he replied to them or is going to reply to them, but he says no. You know, if you see an objection to the immortality of the soul, or an objection to my arguments for the immortality of the soul, bring them forward, right?

[56:38] See, but it's kind of a you know a classical example because if Socrates is about to die, as he is, right, but he's convinced that the soul is immortal, he's going to face death with what greater courage or greater dignity, right? Um, but if if he begins to doubt whether the soul is going to survive death, then he's he could maybe panic at the thought of death or suddenly be disturbed, right?

[57:08] So you might, out of friendship, say, "We don't disturb the man now, you know. Don't don't get him upset, you know. He's going to die, right? "

[57:16] See, in which case your concern for Socrates is more than your concern for the what truth, right? So Socrates is very much aware of the fact that they might be influenced that way, right? So he says, if you take my advice, he says you'll care a lot about the truth and a little about Socrates.

[57:40] Well, then Aristotle, you know, when he's attacking the position of the Platonists there in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, he says that

[57:51] it's hard for him to attack these because these men are his friends, right? Huh? But then he says it would be impious to prefer your friends to the truth, right? And that's because piety refers to God, right? And God is truth itself, right? And we got to, you know, Plato was a friend, he says, but truth is a greater friend, see. And Thomas, when Compton does, you know, he says, you know, Plato and Socrates said this before him, you know.

[58:21] So I mean, that's the way to proceed, huh? Well. So I know a famous philosopher who asked other philosopher to support his position in friendship. We all proudly condemned him for this.

[59:11] Okay, some European philosopher, but obviously contrary to both the teaching of Socrates or Plato there, and the Phaedo and the teaching of Aristotle there,

[59:37] Yes uh one of the plays there uh that the duke or somebody asks the fool, "how are you doing?".