Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
76. Physics Book VI: The Division of Motion, the Three Roads, and First and Last Philosophy
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/3-natural-hearing/076-physics-book-vi-the-division-of-motion-the-three-roads-and/

[0:00] Um, You could say that in six, seven, and eight, they're tied together just like the general distinction or division or order are tied together.

[0:21] So in the sixth reading, he's talking about two ways that motion can be divided, right? Two ways in which you can distinguish parts. We'll talk about some of the things that can be divided similarly with motion. This is there division, just a distinction, right? Then, in the seventh and the eighth reading, he's talking about

[1:02] order, right? But in the seventh reading, he'll be talking about uh, whether there's a first in motion. And in the eighth, you'll be talking more explicitly about the order. about the before and after.

[1:33] The. Before and after moving and having. Now, what does the word "first" mean? Begin. Yeah. What's before? What's before everything else, right? Okay. So there's a little difference here, in, asking about first and asking about before and after, we all generally come under what before and after. He's talking in general about the order, in the ranks of the church. But there are also emotion and heaven.

[2:21] But the sixth one, he's talking about the division, Division, of parts is in some ways a synonym for distinction, but also it's a particular kind of distinction, distinction of parts of life.

[2:47] This looks like the word beginning and cause, the kind of beginning that philosopher is most interested in is the cause, and that's one sense of the word beginning. So a lot of times Aristotle uses the word beginning and cause almost as synonyms. Nevertheless, you can say that beginning has meanings in addition to cause. In the same way, Thomas will often use division, distinction, as almost synonymous, But sometimes, you know, he's more precise about the two words.

[3:24] And then, not every division is excuse me, not every distinction is a division, but every division is a distinction. And then division means a distinction of the parts of some whole. You see this when he's talking the Trinity because when we talk about the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is a real distinction between the Father and the Son, not just in our mind, like the distinction of attributes, but not a real distinction in God between, say, the

[4:04] goodness of God or the infinity of God, whatever it may be. But there is a real distinction between the Father and the Son, and between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thomas would never admit that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit that they are in division, right? Okay, because that would imply what They have parts in God or something like that, right?

[4:30] It just would imply division of God, or again that the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit are somehow parts, and part um is like always something imperfect As. Aristotle says in the uh, natural philosophy there that's true. Perfect and whole, mean almost the same thing. Thomas calls it in the fifth book of wisdom, Aristotle took up the words perfect and whole, right? And sometimes he calls that text.

[5:02] So in no way do you admit that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three parts. If you speak, you know, so you wouldn't want to speak in God as there being a division into Father, Son, Holy Spirit, So by the divine nature, somehow being divided, or somehow the divine nature is parts, and that's uh, contradicts the simplicity of that.

[5:28] But there is a real distinction, right? It's a distinction that's broader in meaning. Nevertheless, every division is a distinction. So in chapter six, you're talking about a distinction. And then we are talking about the order that presupposes understanding of that distinction.

[5:57] Now, In the very beginning, it's on page 8, the very beginning of the sixth reading Aristotle announces the name of the figure. He says motion is divisible in two ways.

[6:16] In one way by time, and in another, according to the movements of the parts of that which is moved. As if the whole AC is moved, both AB is one part, and BC another part will be what moved.

[6:41] So this circle here is being moved, right? The whole circle at once, right? In this part, this part are both being moved. and you can divide the motion, of, the whole circle, into motion of this part and motion of what that part. Now there's a different way of dividing it than to divide it according to time. Now notice the order in which he enumerates those two, but the order in which he manifests them is just the one.

[7:23] Why is that? Well, because from what has gone before, it's very clear that motion will be divided as time is divided, right? That was in our reasoning before,

[7:40] and so that doesn't need much manifestation. But the second way is kind of new, so he spends a little time manifesting that, and then he gets through with that he just kind of recalls what should be inferred from what's gone before anyway, in the framework of time. And Thomas you know speaks as if he's giving three reasons here, but I don't see them as altogether

[8:07] distinct. but let's look at the greater anyway. So he says let the motion of the parts be DE of AB and EF of BC. So AB and BC there represent parts of the whole AC. That's why he uses the letters the way he does, right?

[8:39] And then DE and EF will be, respectively, the motion of each of those parts, right? And then DF again right. DEF Then the whole DF the motion of the whole thing AC, right?

[9:03] For it will be moved by this since each of its parts is moved by one of those. Nothing is moved by the motion of another right. So the whole motion is the motion of the whole magnitude.

[9:24] So AB is not moved by the motion of BC, or, vice versa, right? Nor is AB moved by the motion of the whole DF, right? But each part is moved by its own. motion right So The motion of the whole is composed of the motion of the parts. Further, if the whole motion is of something, the whole motion DF will be neither either part nor anything else.

[10:09] For where the whole is of the whole, the parts are of the parts. So the whole motion DF can't be the motion of one of the parts of the thing, and it certainly

[10:27] can't be the motion of something else, right? Motion of one thing cannot be motion of something else, can it? Okay. For where the whole is of the whole, the parts are of the parts. The parts will be of AB and BC and nothing else. For there is not one motion he says of many quite different things.

[10:56] And thus the whole motion will be of the magnitude ABC. Further, he says, if there is another motion of the whole as GH, the motion of each of the parts will be separated from this. But these will be equal to DE and EF for it is one motion of one thing. Thus, if the whole motion GH be divided into the motions of the parts, GH will be equal to DF.

[11:34] Now something is left over as IH. There is some motion of the whole or some part of the motion of the whole is not the motion of some part. This will be the motion of nothing, right? For it will be neither of the whole. nor the parts, on account of it being one motion of one thing, nor of anything else. For a continuous motion is of continuous things.

[12:04] Similarly, if it exceeds by division, if this is impossible, is necessarily the same and equal. This division then is according to the motion of the parts, and must be in everything which has parts.

[12:21] I noticed, you know kind of anticipated, If the motion of the whole is composed of motion of parts, then depends upon the motions of parts, right? But if those parts are also divisible, then their motion depends upon the motion of their part. And if they're continuously divisible forever, right?

[12:45] Then what? Yeah. You're going to see, you know, from this reasoning later on Aristotle actually in the seventh book, right, reasoning from things like this. to nothing moving itself, right? Okay. We'll see how Thomas, or Aristotle does that, in Thomas's words there.

[13:15] So this is one way the motion can be divided, right? Into the motion of parts. So when I jump out of the airplane and I start to fall down, right? huh? The motion of Glenn Griffiths downwards, right? is composed of the motion of his head, his motion of his arms and his legs and his trunk, right?

[13:40] Motion of my arm is composed of motion of my hand, my forearm, my upper arm, and so on. It's one way of dividing. And then in the next paragraph, he goes back to another division is by time. Of course, this will be clear from what's gone before, so he's very brief on this. Since every motion is in time, and all time is divisible, motion will be less and lesser, and necessarily, all motion will be divided according to time.

[14:21] So basically, what he's shown up to this point is that motion is divisible in two ways. Now, in the rest of this reading, he's going to talk about some other things that are divided along with motion,

[14:43] and these will be motion and time divided together, motion and being moved, right? And even motion, and that in which the motion is. They make a true distinction there between motion and things that are quantitative, like change in place and growth, right? And qualitative changes. And then

[15:14] the thing itself. So he announces this: since everything moved is moved in something, and for some time, and there's motion of everything moved. Necessarily, there are the same divisions of time and motion and being moved, and of the moved, and of that in which There is motion. He's speaking of five things there, right?

[15:55] Except not likewise in all things that should be things, I guess, in which there is motion, but a place to itself and quality to accident or by happening.

[16:09] What does he mean by that? When you go and move a certain distance, distance is something but continuous, right? And that's divisible forever, right?

[16:30] And so the distance you're moving is divisible just as a motion over that distance, right? And then being moved that distance, right? And as the time it takes to move that distance, right? And I was mentioning here, if you say something like that, maybe

[16:51] it's not as regular grow, right? Because grow, you see, you're quantifying your size, right? So it's a change in something what? Continuous. The size is a continuous quantity. of three-dimensional reality. Okay? But something is becoming what? Hot, right? Is hot a continuous quantity? Like a line or a surface?

[17:28] but if something is becoming hot in time, then it seems to be hotter as the time goes on, And since the time is divisible forever, Then becoming hot seems to be in a way to that to itself, right? Divisible forever, right?

[17:52] Now, when Aristotle talks about substantial change. You know, in one way it's in time, in another way it's not. It's in time by reason of the alterations leading up to it.

[18:13] So, if you take a substantial change like dying, right? How long does it take to die? It varies. Well, if you think of dying as a change from being to not being, right? Is there anything between being and not being?

[18:44] So in that sense, the change that we call a dying. doesn't take any time at all. But if you realize that that change—the way for that is prepared by deterioration of your body, the spread of the cancer, whatever it may be—right?

[19:10] Then by reason of that accompanying alteration it is what? In time. So in that sense, it takes me some time. Different depending on its

[19:25] condition, but it takes some time for me to die. right? I think it's progenance. The reason is accompanied by alteration that leads to this

[19:43] Distinction taking motion of being, moved. Well, there's what is is taking motion by itself, right? And I'm just taking the the mobile. It's So the mood is, the mood is the body itself that is in motion. right? The body is not its being moved,

[20:22] but its being moved is not said exactly the same way as its motion. My health, is my being healthy? You see? Are you saying?

[20:56] Is my wisdom my being wise? Huh? There's a, there's a relationship between the two, which is not the same. One is involved with the other. Yeah. That's got to be connected right. That's got to be divided. to get. Yeah. that basically being moved a distance like locomotion, right? Or is it a quality you're being warmed or heated, right? Okay, horizontal, uh, size of your body growing, right?

[21:43] I said all these are going to be, what? Divided in a similar way. Of course, this was clear in the case of locomotion. So you say

[22:09] this is the distance, right? The body moves this distance, and it takes some time to move that distance, right? Okay. So long as motion continues, so long that body is being moved, right? It's always going to be divided in some similar way.

[22:45] Well, I'm saying if I go from this town, if I go from Worcester let's say to Boston. let's say down here. you've got Framingham. up here you've got Westborough, right? So my motion from Worcester to what?

[23:10] Westboro is part of my whole motion, isn't it? And from Westborough to Framingham, is another part, right? And the third part here is from Framingham to Boston, right? Well, now the road over which I travel, this is one road going in the morning. Here, right, Framingham. Well, you can divide that the road from Worcester to Westboro, right? And from Westboro to Framingham, and from Framingham to Boston, about the same way.

[23:47] and they're being divided together. And then we can talk about the time, right? The time I go from Worcester to Boston, and one part of the time I went from Worcester to Westboro, and then a later time I went from Westboro to Framingham to Boston. So the road and the motion over the road are divided what? Similar way, right? And the time it takes. And the road it takes.

[24:27] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Let's get to in the senses that. Now, I may not be traveling a distance. I may be growing in size, right? Well, okay, I said, "growing taller. I'm going, uh, uh, you know, yeah, the grasshopper. " then I'm going higher, right? So you could, you know, if some apprentice did it in my place and then mark off. stamp against that marks it off, right?

[24:59] Anybody would, you know, mark the date when you got to that height time. So the time is being divided as the what? That in which the change is, and this is the

[25:35] magnitude of the size. So you're going to manifest a bit of this. Should pretty turn the surface. Incidentally, that's why. Both the division and the order.

[25:51] So you can speak of three ways of proceeding in one sum, or you speak of three roles. And this seems to underlie all of Aristotle's thinking in Thomas's too. We don't have a text in Aristotle that explicitly, you know, makes a distinction.

[26:23] He does talk about this natural road, but the text that he is, he does read the logic to talk about the road, which is our, and then he'll talk sometimes about the pride, some sons of our. But, what Monsignor Dionne did, and it's evident to his great credit, is that he, he, he saw the distinction in these three ways, we see that. Uh, we see this, the distinction of the roads around, and we don't find it explicitly in Aristotle.

[27:14] Aristotle was down here, but uh, the example of Avia explicit. Right? But you can see Thomas doing it already there, make that distinction there. Aristotle there doesn't make that distinction.

[27:41] Yeah, it's explicit. They say there's two ways of speaking, see. Remember when it was time for Dionne, we start thinking about those lines, looking at the Latin text there, you know, because Dionne would say via, via, it's a Latin word, but translate hodas in Greek, right, by via, which is the word, right?

[28:16] Incidentally, when you have Christ saying, I am the what? Usually English is I am the way, the truth, and the life. It's usually translated that. But in Latin, there'll be the word for way there. Yeah, tibusum via veritas. What's the word in Greek? Odas. Where do you get the word in English.

[29:06] That's why, you know, it's all an H, right? An H to it. And that's a hodasa. Sir Aristotle speaks of the hodasa, the hodas, or what the houdas which is more known to us, what is more known simply. And this is, this he says is, is inborn, it's natural. In fact, he says in natu est, right? It's inborn rasa, where nature is born. But in the Prior Medics, it's the hodas there that you follow, syllogism and so on.

[29:48] And, uh, it talks about the hodas you follow in the life. That hodas is studied in logic now. And then... So, I mean, this, the way Aristotle could take this as being almost the same thing, right? The way of going forward, the road, they correspond, right?

[30:20] As we see, the natural road, for the most part, is from the effect to the cause. The effect to the cause. But then corresponding to that, then we know the effect usually before the cause.

[30:41] We notice that's kind of tricky to understand things. Emotion. Something in our knowledge. It's, uh, just as the word going forward is taken from forward.

[31:01] When I walk forward along the road, and the division of the road and the order of the road, we have the similar division, the similar like forward and back, back and forward. Yeah, the first road in our knowledge is a natural road, and the second road is the road of reason as reason, which is the road of some reasonable guesses towards reason out in the other.

[31:38] The third road is the private road in which is about knowledge. It belongs to the wise man to distinguish the words in our knowledge and show the order of the words. You have to distinguish them so you can see the world. And the first road, in a way, enters into the second road, explains part of the reason why you have what you have in the second road.

[32:14] And the second road enters into the third road. So this you knew from the common road, reason down now, that you have to define, right? You wouldn't see the relevance in talking about the private road, as you talk about the way you define geometry, the way you define philosophy, the way you define this department.

[32:41] But, you know, understanding the, that in defining you should begin with the genus and the man, the Durkenson effect. But the reason for that was back to the natural world, that we naturally know things in a confused way before we know them distinctly, and then we know them generally. So we begin with the genus. So the first road is presupposed the second road, which is into the second road.

[33:11] It shows you how basic this is, you know? It was understanding the sixth look of Natural Hearing that enabled me to understand better, right, the connection between the way of going forward and the road. And as I said, the very text there is down back to that in the first, the game of physics there, right? Natural Hearing was that one.

[33:48] So it's going to start to manifest on most of these things, I think they divide somewhere. Let the time in which it is moved be A and the motion B. If it has been moved the whole of the whole time, the half will be moved less, again this divided less than this and always thus.

[34:12] And likewise, if the motion is divisible, the time will also be divisible. For if the whole is in all, the half is in the half, and again the less in the less. That should be

[34:28] easy to see, right? It takes me an hour to go from Shrewsbury to what? Boston, right, huh? And in half an hour, have I gone the whole distance? Part of my journey. So that's going to be divided similarly.

[34:52] And vice versa. If I go to Boston in an hour and want to go to Framingham or some other town along the way, and something less than an hour. Kind of obvious, right?

[35:16] In the same way, to be moved will be divided, right? That's more obvious, right? Let it be moved to C according to half the motion, there will be less than the whole, again according to half of the half, and always thus.

[35:38] Having placed to being moved to each of the motions as according to DC and DE, one must say that the whole will be according to the whole. will be going to the hole.

[35:51] So, um, we talk about the motion of the car from Worcester to Boston, there will be some part of the motion where it's not being moved, the car?

[36:12] Doesn't make any sense, or vice versa. So there are emotions being divided that are the... For other to be moved to be more like the same motion. This has been shown in motion to this effect. Taking the approach to reach the whole, he goes to the third finger, then to the second. Likewise, it's been shown that length is to this effect, and in general. One being divided, all will be divided.

[37:06] And as we'll see more fully later on, to be limited or unlimited will be found in the same way in all, right? We touched upon that earlier. Remember, we talked about that in particular.

[37:19] But notice if all these things are divided similarly, which one is really most fundamental? The thing that's being moved, he says. For all to be divided and to be unlimited, follows especially from the one changing. The divisible has been shown before. The limited will be clear in the things fouling. Why does he say it's more fundamental? Which is more fundamental, motion or the thing in motion? The thing in motion.

[37:54] Yeah, because motion seems to be like almost like an accident to the thing in motion, right? It's really kind of the thing in motion that holds it all together, right? Because you know, I hit the baseball in the infield and knock it out of the ballpark, and that motion is what

[38:18] belongs to the ball. Yeah, one part of the motion is over, and you know, in the past, another one's to come, and so on. The only thing that seems to be there throughout the motion is what the ball. The ball, yeah, yeah, seems to be what's responsible for the unity of it, huh?

[38:40] Okay. And time seems to be more property of motion, right? Than motion of time. So the thing in motion is kind of the fundamental thing here.

[38:58] If that was not divisible, would motion be divisible? See, that's the reason why you know you can't have a point moving very well, right? So I can come into this room, and it takes me a little while to get in the door, not too long though, exaggerate.

[39:18] But you know, when I'm coming into the room, part of my body is through the doorway, and part of it's still outside, right? Okay. And I couldn't do that unless I was divisible. But if I was a point trying to come in here,

[39:39] could I come through the doorway and have part of me outside there, part of me in here, right? No, I'd have to be either altogether out there or altogether what. In here, see, I don't seem to be able to what have this divisible motion, right?

[40:04] And it took me the point some time to get through the doorway. Then what? Me the point would have to be divisible, right? You see, so because me the point is is indivisible, right? There can't be any time or or motion that's divisible for me the point, right?

[40:30] So in the geometry, speaks you know of a point by its motion making a line. He's not speaking of motion, strictly speaking. That's that's the imagination doing that, not really motion.

[40:49] So in a way, you can start to see maybe that what he says there is true that divisibility is found first in the what thing that moves, right? And if that thing was really indivisible, you wouldn't be able to have a divisible motion and divisible time and so on.

[41:11] Okay. Now we try to start here at least on reading seven, right? The reading seven and eight are going to go from the discussion of the division of motion and these things to

[41:31] the order, right? But in the seventh reading, the discussion will revolve around whether there is a first in motion, some way, right? Okay. And in the eighth reading, the question will be more about order, right? Okay. But as I say, those two are connected, right? Because first is defined by what before and after, right? Okay.

[42:03] So the first is that which is what before everything else, right? And and it's not after anything. You can maybe add that too, but so this before everything else, right? Okay. So

[42:19] words like first and words like last, right? They have as many meanings as the word what before and after have, huh? So when you understand those central meanings of before that Aristotle gives us in the categories, he also enables us to see the meanings of what first and last, right? Okay. Um.

[42:56] So that when Aristotle talks about first philosophy, huh? He usually refers to to wisdom, not as metaphysics. That's the name that came in after Aristotle, right? From Andronicus of Rhodes. When Aristotle refers to what we, you know, commonly refer to as the metaphysics of Aristotle, or I call the fourteen books of wisdom,

[43:19] but he usually refers to it as first philosophy, right? Okay. And if you read Descartes, you'll see him using the term first philosophy, right? But for Descartes, first philosophy is what you have to what? Learn first. Yeah, yeah. And that would be first in the corresponding to the third sense of before, huh? Before in the discourse of reason, huh? Before in our knowledge, huh? But in that sense, Aristotle would have to call wisdom last philosophy.

[44:01] See, and Thomas, like in the beginning of his commentary on the Liber de Causis, right? He gives the order of all the parts of philosophy in the order of learning, and it's you know logic, mathematics, natural philosophy, practical philosophy, and last of all what? Wisdom, right? Okay. There are texts in Aristotle indicating that roughly too that same order, Boethius Aristotle too, huh?

[44:35] So when Aristotle calls wisdom first philosophy, it doesn't mean first in the order of learning. Okay. So when Descartes speaks of first philosophy, he uses the word in a quite different meaning in Aristotelism, okay.

[44:59] Aristotle means it's first, maybe in the order of dignity, right? Which would be corresponding to the fourth sense of what? A first, huh? And that's why he calls natural philosophy, huh? In the sixth book of wisdom, he calls natural philosophy second philosophy. Okay. If there were no immaterial substances, if all that existed were material things, then natural philosophy would be wisdom. Natural philosophy would be first philosophy.

[45:37] In fact, the Greeks before Plato, Aristotle identified wisdom with what? Natural philosophy, huh? And it's only after the great Anaxagoras and especially Plato and then finally Aristotle that they begin to have. Good reasons to think that there existed immaterial things, and then they realize that natural philosophy is only a kind of wisdom about human about natural things, but not about all things, right? It's not wisdom simply, huh?

[46:11] And so then, what Aristotle calls it second philosophy, he means, I think, second in what dignity or worth, huh? See, not second in the order of learning. You You learn logic first, and then geometry would be second, right? Okay.

[46:35] But no, so when you call wisdom metaphysics, you know, originally it means meta means after, huh? Metaphysica, after the books in natural philosophy, after natural philosophy, therefore, huh? And then you're using the word after there in the third sense, right? In the order of learning, huh? In that way, you could call. Natural philosophy, Metamathematica.

[47:04] Although today, you know. people I'm sure would understand it, you know, in another sense, right? Metamathematics, and we could call geometry metatheologica. You see, but I always cringe when I go into, you know, borders of some bookstore, you know, and you get the, you know, one section of books there, you know, the occult, you know, metaphysics and the occult, you know. I hate to admit that I'm a teacher of metaphysics, you know.

[47:37] So I don't refer to as the fourteen books of metaphysics, or the fourteen books of wisdom. I, you know, it sounds much more impressive anyway. Which is interesting, right? Fourteen books of wisdom, but it's only a better way, maybe, of referring to it, huh? Or the fourteen books, even of first philosophy, but as they say, because of Descartes, you know, people might take it in the wrong sense, right?

[48:09] And and that sense of first that Descartes is using it in is more known to us than the sense in which Aristotle is using it. It's the third sense as opposed to the fourth sense, and we generally fall back upon the earlier senses because they're more known to us, huh? So, so in reading seven, we're going to find out about first, and in what way there is a first in change, and in what way there is not a first, right?

[48:47] And that's a very impressive discovery, huh? Okay. In in mathematics, in arithmetic, is there a first number? What's the first number? Two. Thank you. I'm glad you're educated.

[49:18] But now, is there a a first line in geometry? It'd have to be then the shortest line, right? Because the first number is the least number, right? It's lesser than all the other numbers, huh? So, is there a first line in geometry?

[49:43] No, no. Because of the what? Infinite divisibility. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If a point was a line, you see, then the point would be what? First. Would be the first line, yeah. But does a point have any length? No. No, so it can't be the first line if it's not a line. See, just like one can't be the first number if it's not a number. Yeah, Shakespeare was aware of that, by the way.

[50:11] Oh, where does he say it? Um in the Phoenix and the Turtle, the great love poem. See, There's a very subtle one there. but. He says he's talking about how love murdered number because love made the lover and the loved one, and one is not a number.

[50:32] But then he has reason, you know trying to figure out. Well, how can two be one? See, he really was brilliant. Of course he was. Yeah. Yeah.

[50:45] You know, you know, when Homer or not Homer, when the great Socrates, you know, is talking about you know death and going down to the underworld, he says, but you know, it'd be wonderful, you know to be talking with Homer and so on. And

[51:01] well, we will be able to talk with Shakespeare, you know, if we get to the right place, huh? Yeah. Okay. Okay. I was listening to EWTN the other night there, and there's some. I think it was Mc Bride, and some priest, good good guy, this guy, good guy. Priest is talking about I think talking about Michelangelo, I guess, and Michelangelo has had some cardinals like the way he was doing his painting.

[51:29] Have you heard the story, but it's kind of funny, and he went to complain to the Pope about it, right? And came back in the chapel next day, and Michelangelo had painted a picture of this cardinal in the painting, but he'd put him down in you know where down to hell, like you know the way Dante put his enemies, you know, and he didn't think much of his post down there, right?

[51:59] And so he was even more indignant, right, about what Michelangelo was doing. He went back to see the Pope and he went. He says, you know, he said, "Can you at least get me out of hell?" He said. And the Pope says, "I have no control over that, just over purgatory. Can get somebody out of purgatory, take somebody out of hell. So he let it stay. I guess I don't know if it's still there.

[52:24] He didn't go into I mean, it's kind of a really interesting story, but. The papers today, by the way, they're reporting in such a stupid fashion, you know. The Pope's remarks a bit, you know, because they're they're they're saying he's giving a mixed message, right? You see, of course, he condemns unequivocally, you know, this this abuse that's been going on, but but then he he speaks, you know, of how people can be forgiven, you know, and there's always conversion, you know, and.

[53:01] But they're speaking as if he was talking about you know he's not sure whether they should go back or not. He's talking about a man who can be forgiven his sin. It's always possible, you know. I mean, where there's life, there's hope, right? You know, he wasn't saying about he wasn't saying about them going back into into into active duty. You know, as a priest, there, you know, he's talking about you know he's not he's not you know saying that they're necessarily damned, right?

[53:29] They they can still repent, you know, of their evil and so on. He's very severe about the evil, but he's but he's still holding out the possibility of divine mercy. You know, but they have no understanding of these things. you know And so I said You know, there's a mixed message coming, you know, from him. It one of the headlines said that you know one of the one of the articles.

[53:45] You know, it is it is very