De Anima (On the Soul)
5. Error as Wandering: The Sadducees, 'You Err Through This', and Ignorance as a Cause of Error
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/005-error-as-wandering-the-sadducees-you-err-through-this-and/

[0:00] Now, I'm making a larger excursion here to use the phrase I've picked up from Heath there in his notes and our friend Euclid there. Come back here to the line there, seventeen or eighteen there, eighteen I guess, nineteen.

[0:26] He speaks of this question around line twenty there as presenting many difficulties and what errors, right? Now, the Greek—that's pretty good translation of it, huh? Because error, etymologically, corresponds to the Greek word, huh? And the Greek here, eti, further, polas, many, right? Aporia, son—that's the word for doubts, right? Ek, it has many doubts, right? There are many things that are puzzling the mind about this, right? Kai planas, okay.

[1:13] Now planas there. I'll put the Greek on here so you can see it over here. That's like an N Greek planas, okay? So you're saying there are many errors about what the soul is, right? Okay. And etymologically, as I said already, the word error, the Latin word, and the Greek word are the same etymologically. In origin, they both come from the Greek or Latin word for what?

[2:20] To wander. To wander. Yeah. So you speak of a knight errant in fiction, right? You've probably seen this. Sometimes it's hyphenated that way. Some medieval stories. They have a knight errant. What is a knight errant doing? He's wandering around the countryside, and there's a dragon there, and there's a maiden being pursued by the dragon, and he rescues the maiden from the dragon, right? So what knight errant means is literally what?

[2:58] Wandering knight. Yeah, yeah. Now sometimes the poets will pun on the different senses there of knight errant, right? He'd be a sinful man who's not leading a good life here, wandering around the countryside, right? But the original meaning of knight errant is a wandering knight. Yeah. Okay. Now in Greek This is a P there, the pi. That's where you get the word what, planet, huh? Okay. And if you look in the Greek dictionary when they explain the various words that tie up with this, sometimes they'll call them the planetary asteres, the wandering stars, right?

[3:40] And so they just call them the wanderers. Period. Okay. That's we got our word planets. Now I don't know if you studied astronomy, but sometimes they speak of the fixed stars. You see that expression, huh? Okay. So you look out the sky there, and it's kind of revolving around us, or appears to be revolving around us, right? And the stars stay in exactly the same positions reference to each other, though.

[4:06] The whole sphere seems to be revolving, right? And so you see in astronomy books even today they'll speak of them as the fixed stars. And then you have these other stars, or look like stars, that wander around the sky, right? And aren't in the same place, but all in different ones. And so those are called the wandering stars.

[4:33] And that's where you get in Greek, huh? They're called the what? Planetary stars, right? The wandering stars. Unless we got our word planet. So much learning here now. Yeah. Okay. Now, I think that that

[4:55] etymology or origin of the word error is a key into something about how error takes place. What it seems to indicate is that error is the result of a what?

[5:13] Yeah. It's the result of a disordered movement of reason. Okay. If you apply this to the mind now, right? One thing. It seems to name a disordered

[5:35] movement, a reason. Okay. And we wander into what Error, right? We wander into illusions, as Shakespeare says in the comedy of errors. The play called Comedy of Errors, right?

[6:04] So when your thoughts and your thinking are out of order, then your mind easily falls into some what? Error, right? Okay. And they tell the students all the time, you know, when the machine is not functioning well, they put up a sign. Sometimes they hang a sign saying "out of order." Right? How often do you see that? So, in your mind or reason, you are thinking your thoughts are out of order.

[6:33] Then your mind is not functioning well, right? And therefore, it's apt to what fall into error. Okay. So the fact that the Greeks and the Latins, as far as I know, independent of each other, right? But both languages, you have a sign that error is a result of a disorderly movement of reason, from the very word itself. Do you see that?

[7:09] Now, when Thomas is is talking about logic, and I don't know if we did I don't know if we did logic, Thomas's proemium logic. Yeah. And Thomas says that logic helps our reason to proceed, and he uses three words. It helps our reason to proceed in its acts, he says, orderly,

[7:43] easily, and without error. Okay. I think the order there of these three is significant, right? If you recall that premium, Aristotle's comparing art to some extent, the art of logic, with the arts that are more known to us. And so, when you invite the carpenter into your house to to make something, right, or the plumber, whoever it is, right, if he's really a master carpenter, a master plumber, he goes about in a very orderly way.

[8:23] You see, the same way the cook, the chef, in a very orderly way, that's exactly what they do in the kitchen. And therefore, it seems so easy with the two. Why could I fix the plumbing? Why couldn't I fix the carpentry? Right? See, and they don't make the errors that you make when you try to do this without possessing the what art? So my brother-in-law is a a carpenter.

[8:46] Sometimes he does a job now, but he still does carpentry, you know. But I just don't know any more carpentry, and he's fucking. Why would you do it that way?

[8:57] I don't know why. You should have done this, you know. See, okay. But there is a connection there between proceeding orderly and what without error. Same knowledge of what opposites, right? Orderly and without error, disorderly movement. Here, is it a connection? Yeah.

[9:32] Now, I need a little volume here. I picked up years ago. It was up in the Spencer Abbey there. You know, they have a little bookshop they have up there, and they have a bigger one now, I guess, in the old days. But I was wandering around there one time, and this is called a harmony of the Gospels, right? And what's nice about it is that it gives all four Gospels, son.

[9:59] Now, someone gave me one time a harmony of the what we call the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke, right? Because they seem to be close in some ways. And but this one here takes all four Gospels, son. So what it gives you is the parallel passages, son. And in some cases, you'll have a divided into 112 things. You know, 112 is the century, right? And

[10:32] number one is the eternal Word, found in John's Gospel, which that's found only in John, right? Sometimes it's found in two, sometimes on the count in three, right? So it goes through all of them, right? Came to the end. So I say it's very handy if you want to say, you know, if you want to compare what the different gospel writers might say about the same thing.

[10:55] Um. Yeah. Now, this is the one about here. And of course, it's number 84 here. It's the one about the resurrection of the dead, huh?

[11:15] And it's in Matthew and in Mark and in what? Luke, but not in what? John, right? Okay. Now it's interesting to compare the three versions of it, huh? Because sometimes there's something in one that is not in the others, right? You kind of note that, huh? I think I was mentioning how when I was studying the texts on the commandment of love, right? You should love the Lord your God.

[11:50] We usually translate with your whole heart, with your whole mind, your whole your whole soul, and your whole strength, and your whole mind, right? Okay. And in English, we use the same preposition for all three or four of those things. When I looked at the Greek text, some of them, you know, like that, had the same word in Greek for all three or four of those things, your heart.

[12:11] But in Luke, there was a difference. Luke had said, "You should love the Lord your God from your whole heart. And in your whole soul, and in your whole strength, and in your whole mind. So use the word "from" with heart, and "in" with soul and strength and mind. I think there's something significant about that, huh? Because the love of God and the love of your neighbor, of that matter, there—that's an act of your will, right?

[12:52] But it's an act of your will that commands or should command the acts of all the other powers of the soul, right? So there's a difference between the way you should love God with your heart and with your mind. It's from your heart, right? Into your whole soul and your whole strength, your whole, your whole mind. right So it was so interesting, you know, that that you had a change there in Luke.

[13:24] So it's more explicit, right? Okay. Now, what's similar to the three passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke? They all begin with the fact that the Sadducees, right, came to Christ, right, and the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. And all three passages say that. On that day too, he was approached with a question by the Sadducees, men who say that there is no resurrection. That's Matthew. Then he was approached with a question by the Sadducees, men who say that there is no resurrection.

[14:10] Then he was approached with a question by some of the Sadducees, men who denied the resurrection. But in each account, that's followed, that noting that, by an objection that they give, showing the ridiculousness, right, of the resurrection, okay, or belief in resurrection, right, the absurdity of situation that would arise, okay, and the objection is based upon

[14:41] following in good faith the Mosaic law. If my brother marries a woman, and he dies before his wife has any what, children, then I ought to, if I'm free, to marry my brother's wife, huh, and raise up children in my brother's name. We said there were seven brothers. The first one married her and had no children, and he died. The second brother then, the second brother then married her, and he died without any children, and so on through all the seven, right?

[15:13] Okay. Now, in the resurrection, he says, you know, because they all believe in resurrection, right? But they're trying to present to a kind of a ridiculous position here. In the resurrection, whose wife will she be? Because they all seem to have an equal claim. No one has had children by her, so no one has any more claim to her than the other, right? Okay. Now, what Christ does

[15:48] is, and of course, assuming that there is resurrection, right? Okay, is to answer that objection, right? Okay, and he answers it in a similar way in each case, huh? That in the next world, right, there'll be neither what marrying nor giving in marriage, right, huh? But there will all be like be what angels in heaven, right, huh? Okay. So that's the answer he gives to their objection, right, huh?

[16:17] Okay, but then he goes on to the root of their problem, which is to their denial of resurrection, right? And then he quotes Moses, you know, "I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." Well, he's the God of the living, God of the dead, and so on, right? Okay. So notice that Christ's order there, right? He first meets the objection, right? And then he goes to the root of their thing, right?

[16:39] Okay, and that's similar in all three. But this is not the main point here, but just an interesting thing here. He's talking about we'll be like the angels, right? There's an interesting difference because the one text says we shall be like the angels, right? The other text says we shall be what? Equal to the angels. That's got an amazing thing, you know.

[17:17] Show the difference a little bit here. Yeah, in Matthew says that they will neither marry nor be given marriage, but they will be what? Hosts as right, angeloi en toi ourano. They'll be like the angels in heaven, right? Okay. So it's saying the same life position as the angels, right? Just the angels don't marry or give in marriage, so neither will we be in the next world, then.

[18:12] Okay. Now in Mark, Mark 12 here. Okay, is it verse 25? For when they rise from the dead, they will neither marry nor be given marriage, but they will be hos angeloi, right? As the angels in en toi ourano same way. They be like the angels, right? Now you come to Luke. Okay.

[19:06] Thirty six, twenty thirty six. Yeah. Now, see, again, I notice when they translate that thing about the commandment of love, right? They don't observe that distinction there, you know. There's just something to be understood from that. And in this particular translation here, Knox has, "Notice what he says here. He says, 'Jesus told them, the children of this world marry in a given marriage, but those who are found worthy to attain the other world, resurrection of the dead, take neither wife nor husband, mortal no longer.

[19:50] They will be as the angels in heaven are, children of God. ' Right? Okay. Now, the Greek says, 'Oude gar apothanein eti dunantai; they're no longer able to die, but they will be. ' It's one word in the Greek. isangeloi huh? isangeloi. So it comes from the Greek word what? Isos meaning equal. And is what equal to the angels? The way Thomas Aquinas speaks of you know as if, the saints will fill up the ranks of the fallen angels, right?

[20:26] So some saints will be greater than some angels. Some angels be greater than some saints, right? But there's kind of an equality there, right? Isos So it's kind of interesting, right? It's kind of missed in the translation, huh? Sure. Okay. But anyway, that's kind of a side thought that we're playing on. Do here. Now,

[20:55] the Sadducees have made a mistake, right? They are in error. They're in error about the resurrection, again with. And secondly, they're in error about what would be the state of us after resurrection, right? Okay.

[21:15] Now Christ addresses himself to both of those errors, right? In all three texts, but does he label it as an error, Or say, "it's, you are an error" in all three texts?

[21:31] Well, in one, he doesn't say you are in error, although he gathered he realized that, right? In one, he says you're in error. He starts off, right? In the Other one, he says it twice. Okay. Now,

[21:52] in Matthew, it's mentioned once, right? Because after they go through it, they're think about the seven brothers, right? Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, right. Okay. You do not understand the Scriptures or what is the power of God. Now.

[22:13] The Greek word there, not exactly wrong. You could, you know, not that bad translation, but what do you think the Greek word is? Something twenty. Yeah, yeah. Twenty-two here, twenty-nine.

[22:38] Yeah. Apokritheis answering right, Jesus, Jesus. Even now twice, he said to them, planasthe. Look at the Greek form there. You were not knowing, right? me idotes not knowing. tas graphas. The scriptures, meaning the Bible, right? Media nor ten dunamin the power, right? To tou Theou, God, right? Okay.

[23:39] See, well, in Luke, it just says Jesus told them, the children of this world marry and are given marriage, right? Doesn't say you, you were, right? I believe he's pointing out an error there, right? Okay. But now you get to Mark, okay?

[23:56] Now, now again, the translation here is not exactly perfect, and I'm going to point out a little bit. Knox too much, is well, Convert right. My favorite quote from Knox is, he says, "It's so stupid," he says, "of the modern world to have stopped believing in the devil, when he is the only explanation for it."

[24:29] So I get to respect him, right? Okay. But in the translation here, this is using the Knox translation. See this particular. The Harmony of the Gospels in the Knox translation. Okay, so it's called. It's very handy, nevertheless.

[24:51] So you get through with. The seven husbands. Jesus answered them, "Is not this where you are wrong? That you do not understand the scriptures, or what is the power of God?" Now, again, instead of wrong, I want to go back to what the word error. What's another more important thing I want to point out here. Jesus said to them, "Ou dia touto planasthe," right? The same exact word, planasthe, right?

[25:34] Okay. Okay. But there's something else that's added to the text there, right? That you don't have in Matthew, right? Matthew says, "um planasthe you're wrong. planasthe, right? You do not understand the scriptures, or what is the power of God." Okay. Now, what is the connection between their being in error and they're not understanding the scriptures or the power of God?

[26:11] Is that the cause? Yeah, that's the cause of there being an error about the resurrection. See. Now grammatically, I mean, you can maybe you know construe this in different ways, right? But

[26:33] you know, as their error is not understanding the scriptures, they might have other errors in that regard, right? But the error he's talking about is their one about what? Actually, there's two errors, right? One is there's no resurrection, and the second is that if there were resurrection, we'd be like we are just now again, eating drinking and marrying and giving in marriage, right? Yeah. Okay. You see, and they're in those two errors

[27:04] because they don't understand the scriptures or what is the power of God, right? See, but as you say, the Greek here just says "planasthe you err right? You err, not knowing. See, it's very it's very brief. Not knowing the scriptures or the power of God, huh? But in Mark, see, it doesn't say he's got translated here.

[27:32] Is not this where you are wrong that you do not understand the scriptures or what is the power of God? And the Greek is not where, That almost implied that that's where they're mistaken, Right? See? the Greek says "ephe autois ho Jesus, Jesus said to them, "ου is it not δια τοτο δια τοτο huh? Is it not through this, right, or because of this, huh? See, the Greek words are

[28:08] δια. Okay, is it not through this, right, That you err, right? Okay. Um, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God, right? Okay.

[28:46] Now, as a Aristotelian, right? Okay. Um, if you go back to the text we looked at earlier, look at the Greek now, right? When Aristotle distinguishes the four kinds of causes, huh? In the second book, we saw a text in English, but

[29:12] Aristotle says, "Having determined these things, the fourth lectio or excuse me, fifth lectio, having determined these things, we ought to what consider now about the causes. Remember that text. How they are and how many they are in number, right? This is what he's about to distinguish the four kinds of causes matter form, right? And he's going to give the reason now why he's going to take this up.

[29:39] For since the investigation is for the sake of knowing, of understanding, epei gar tou eidenai charin, for the sake of understanding, right, is the pragmateia the investigation. But we do not think, right?

[30:01] We know each thing before we take the what? Dia ti Very same word that you have in the Gospel of Saint Mark, until you have the what? Dia ti You have the account of what to the through what, huh? The Latin translates that propter quid, right? But the Greek word dia, the basic meaning is what? Through or by, right? So dia ti means what? Through what? Or by what?

[30:36] And Christ is pointing out what their defect is right? Dia touto through this, right? That you don't know the Scriptures and you don't know the power of God. That's why you're you're making this mistake about the resurrection and what happens to us after the resurrection, right? It's through your ignorance of Scripture and through your ignorance of what the power of God. You see that? So that same key word there, dia, right, which means through or by in Greek, huh?

[31:02] He's mistranslated here when he says what? Is not this where you are wrong? See, the Greek would be, is it not through this or by this that you are? That then it's clear. He's talking about the cause, right?

[31:21] And there still goes on here. Idenai, huh? Let me just find just a register. Idenai means understand. O poteron, that's the word, not before, right? Idenai o poteron before oymethal. We think we don't understand before hekaston each thing. prin an labomen before we take to dia ti right? The dia ti about each thing, and then he says touto de esti to labein ten proten aitian. This is to take the first cause, right?

[31:56] Okay. So he's explicit, right? We don't really understand the thing until we what? Know the dia ti, right? Through what or by what it is, what it is, right? And that means to take the cause, right? This phrase here, You see that? Okay.

[32:21] So, no, so you compare the three texts. In all three texts, you have the. the errors of the Sadducees brought out right, and Christ refutes the two errors right. But in Matthew and Mark. In Mark again, he says that you've heard right. He doesn't say it again. He says it once, you know, without saying "dia touto right, "dia touto in Matthew. Again, Mark at the end, after he refutes both errors, and that's the way he translated.

[32:58] Yet it's a living man, not a dead man, that he is a god, right? That's end of the second refutation. You are wrong, then, altogether. What did the Greek ask? Yes, our Lord, in the Greek it alliterates. Polu planasthe right? So the last words there in Mark twenty-seven, this chapter twelve, verse twenty-seven, he says, "Ouk estin ho theos nekron." He's not the god of the dead, right?

[33:37] alla zonton, but the god of the living, right? Okay, and then next sentence says, "Polu planasthe So that same word, huh? Okay, so this is said not at all in Luke. Once said, what

[33:59] Matthew, right? Without the dia touto right? Making explicit, and here it's said twice, right? But he says polu planasthe Now that's interesting, right? And the polu, which means what? Much, you could say, right?

[34:18] They err much because of course they're making two errors, right? They're mistaken about resurrection, about this, but also, you know, in retrospect, we do think of what Saint Paul says, you know, when he's dealing with these people who deny the resurrection, right, or misunderstood some kind of, you know, calling of Christ's memory or something like that, right, and and deny the the literal resurrection, right? You know, he says, "If Christ didn't rise, and we're not going to rise, then our faith is in vain," etc.

[34:48] Right? It's really a essential thing in Christianity, right? So the Greeks had a hard time accepting that we went to the Ariopagus, right? Ah, I have to talk to the resurrection, right? But I mean, if you deny that, you know, which is so central to if you deny that, it's an end of faith, he's saying in a sense, right? It has a special prominence the resurrection, huh?

[35:08] So Polu planastha, right? Then you deny the resurrection, you are very much in error, right? It's not just the number of errors they're making, right? That's Polu planasthe You err much, meaning you've made many mistakes, right? But you err about something that's as important as the what resurrection, right? And we don't redeem. We're not really redeemed if we don't rise, right?

[35:35] Now, next part. What's the cause of error, right? Well, there's many things to be said about what the cause of error is, huh? Okay. But

[35:56] let me suggest something here from the text of our Lord here, right? Okay. He said that you what err do this, that you don't know the scriptures, right? And you don't know the power of God, right? That you err because you are ignorant of something, right? Okay.

[36:24] How fundamental is that in understanding the causes of error? Is that where you begin to to show to what men are in error? And this is going to be very important for this book, Aristotle, because although we're not going to be reading through the whole book one, right? If you read through the whole book one, you'd find out that you have all these different opinions of what the soul is.

[36:55] Some say it's water, some say it's fire, some say it's water. Some say it's air, some say it's a number, some say it's the atoms. You know. If everybody's got a different opinion as to what the soul is, either all of them are mistaken, right? Or all are one of them. Okay. In other words, most men are mistaken about what the soul is. Most philosophers are mistaken about what the soul is, right?

[37:21] And that's enough to. It's an important thing, right, to make you stop and say just a minute now. We want to try to avoid error if we can, but the truth is, everybody seems to be mistaken, right? And when Aristotle gets to the second book, we'll come to a very famous passage there where Aristotle is talking about his predecessors, and he says they tried to explain how man and the other animals know, right?

[37:47] But he says they gave no explanation of how man and the other animals are mistaken or in error. And Aristotle says this seems to be even more common than knowing, right? So he says if you're going to try to understand what is found in man and the other animals, you ought to try to understand mistake or error, because that's even more common than knowing, right? So he's kind of pointing out a a sin of omission, you might say, on their part, right?

[38:14] That they gave no explanation of error, right? But if you don't know the cause of error, as the great Boethius says, and if you don't know the cause of evil, it's hard to avoid it, right? Right? How can you avoid disease if you don't know what causes the disease, right? You know. Okay. So how can you avoid error unless you? You know, it's going to be hard enough if you know the causes, but you bet what the causes of error.

[38:41] And in this text, we got pretty good authority here, all right. There, he seems to be touching upon ignorance as the cause of what, error, right? Okay.

[38:58] Now, let's try to understand a little bit. We didn't want to say that. Let's just put out: ignorance as a cause of error. Maybe this is the place to begin.

[39:28] Now, let's again try to manifest this by. I am on your deck too here, by opposites, right? When I was a little boy, I think I learned something like this, and you probably did maybe too, huh? I mean, it was something like in a in a

[39:51] prayer to have faith, or something like that, you know, or. That we're supposed to believe God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Remember that formula.

[40:04] Okay. Now, just take one part of that. God cannot be deceived, right? Okay. If you were to answer, you know, I try to get a simple or first answer to the question: Why is it impossible for God to be deceived? What would you answer?

[40:30] He knows everything. Yeah. That's in my mind, right away, right? God cannot be deceived because he knows everything. Presumably, therefore, we can be deceived because what? We don't know everything, right? Unless we're ignorant of something, we would never fall into what, error, right? Okay. Now, get be careful there, right? Because ignorance is not the same thing as error, is it?

[41:02] I take a very simple example here. Take my favorite syllogism here. Um, Happiness is the end of life. The end of life is death. Okay. Suppose we're deceived by this into thinking that happiness must be death, then, right? And this would be a mistake, an error, right? Happiness, death.

[41:42] But if I'm deceived by this, and some of my students are close to being deceived by this sort of thing, right? When the students are saying, you know, answer the question, why is it important to consider that the nature acts for an end, right? He says, well, I said, nature is bringing all things to an end. It'd be rather pessimistic view of the world. So it's it's the different senses, right?

[42:12] What ignorance? If you're deceived by this argument, right? It's dia dia ti through what that you're deceived. Ignorance of the different meanings of the words. Yeah, yeah. So if you're ignorant of the different senses of the word end, right? In these two sentences, right? Through your ignorance of the distinction of the meanings of the word "in, you are what? You can be deceived by this, right? I gave an example of the word "park, I deceive my students.

[42:52] yeah, I try to do a lot of it. but. They see it, right? That the argument against the whole being greater than the part, remember that? Yeah, where animals only a part of what man is, and they agree to that, and then I argue that, but animal includes besides man, dog, cat, horse, right? So the part sometimes includes more than the whole. Wow, I guess you're right.

[43:14] That's why I explained to them that you're mixing up here two different senses of the word "whole" apart, right? The universal whole, right, where animals are said of more than man is said of, and then the composed whole, the definition of man, which contains more than animal. Okay, that's a more difficult example than this one here. But see, this sometimes deceived. Roger Maris hit 61 home runs with the bat.

[43:45] The bat is a flying rodent There you go. It's a flying rodent People will not probably deceive that because they can see the two different meanings of "bat," right? This is more difficult, right? Part is even more difficult. So you can see how there's some truth in saying that it's dia tuta. It's through ignorance, right? It's through your not knowing something that you what? Make a mistake or an error, right?

[44:12] Okay. Okay, the authority of Christ Himself saying that, right? It's through not knowing, through being ignorant of scriptures, right, and being ignorant of the power of God that they make this mistake about what resurrection, right? Partly because they don't see that this is really taught in Scripture, right? And partly because they think the power of God is limited to what nature can do or something. That's right.

[44:41] Okay. Yeah, many modern thinkers, you know, who you know commonly deny miracles because they seem to contradict the laws of nature, so-called, right? Well, as if God is limited by the laws of nature. You see. Um. So you can say you you err thinking there could be no miracles. Uh. Because you are ignorant of the power of God, right? You think the power of God is limited to the laws of nature, huh?

[45:15] Um. Okay. Now.