De Anima (On the Soul)
26. Sight versus Hearing, the Continuous, and Socrates and Christ as Spoken Teachers
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/026-sight-versus-hearing-the-continuous-and-socrates-and-christ/

[0:00] Now, since we just talked a bit about the eye, and we haven't talked about hearing and so on, in the book on the sense of the sensible, Aristotle has a kind of interesting comparison here between the eye and the ear, right? And perhaps just give a little bit of what Thomas says in his commentary here.

[0:29] And Aristotle is kind of saying, which is better, sight or what? Hearing, right? Okay. You probably know from the proemium to the wisdom there, you know that he singles out the sense of sight.

[0:46] I remember having a pious girl in my class there, and I was arguing, you know, that the eye is better than the ear. That if you ask people, you know, would you rather be deaf or be blind? They'd rather what? Be deaf than blind, the average person would say, huh? But she insisted she'd rather be blind than deaf because she was a great lover of music, huh?

[1:10] And played the piano, the organ, and so on, right? And I had a silence there in some way, you know. So even though she was pious, you know, I I quoted scripture there about you know the apple of your eye, you know that so you like the apple of your eye. So I mean, scripture obviously was singing out the eye there as opposed to the the ear, so that kind of squelched there, but.

[1:33] She's going to say faith comes by hearing. Yeah, right. Yeah, that's usually the contrast they make now that the eye is the sense of what discovery, right? You're going to come up in this text a little bit too.

[1:53] The eye is the sense of discovery, huh? By itself. And the ear is more the sense of learning from the teacher. That's a contrast that Aristotle makes there in the metaphysics of that, huh? Okay, what comes up in this text again?

[2:29] Um. You see. He says, therefore, first Aristotle that sight, secundum se as such is better, right? Because the power of seeing, by its apprehension, announces to us many differences of things, and so on. And this is because its object, which is the visible, is found in all bodies, right? This goes back partly to that theory that the sun, the moon, the stars are not really hot and cold like the four elements down the earth here, but they are what visible, right?

[3:13] Okay. And we may not agree with that particular observation, right? But it is interesting to see would there be any astronomy at all if we didn't have eyes? We'd be very earthbound, huh? If we had no eyes, huh? We know nothing outside the earth by the other senses, do we? Unless we go there, I mean. I mean, so long as we're on the face of the earth here, we don't hear anything from the moon, really, do we?

[3:42] We don't really, you know, feel anything in the moon or the, you know. So this is kind of universality that the eye has, the distance at least. For something becomes visible through this that the transparency is illuminated, in act by a what lucid body, in which the lower bodies, right, communicate with the higher bodies. So fire is lucid in the sun, the moon, and so on. the proper for that.

[4:14] And therefore, he says, in color, all bodies partake both the higher and the lower, because in all bodies there's found either color in its proper notion, as in bodies in which there is the transparent terminated, or at least in them there are found the principles of color, which are the transparent and light, and therefore many things are manifested through sight, huh?

[4:45] Okay. Now the thing I wanted to point out in particular is this next paragraph. It is kind of interesting. Through this sense are known more the common sensibles. Now he's making a transition here, right? Because in so far as a power has a more universal knowing power and extends to more things, so is more efficacious in knowing. Because every power, in so far as it is more universal, is also more potent.

[5:20] Now he calls what we mean by the common sensibles as we mentioned in that earlier reading. And those are called common sensibles which are not known by one sense alone, as the private sensibles, but by many senses. And he gives the same enumeration of them: magnitude, right, figure, rest, motion, and number.

[5:45] He says the qualities which are the proper objects of the senses, or the private objects of the senses, are all forms in the continuous.

[5:56] They're all types of continuous, and therefore it is necessary that the continuous, in so far as it is the subject to such qualities, it loses senses not accidentally, but as a per se what? But as the per se subject and the common subject of all the sensible qualities. So the surface is hard, right? The surface is colored, right? So surface is something continuous, and they seem to be based on that, right?

[6:33] But now he makes an interesting point here. All of these things which are called common sensibles, they pertain in some way to the what? Continuous.

[6:50] Either as its measure, which is magnitude, or according to its division as number, or according to its termination as figure or shape, or according to distance and proximity as motion.

[7:13] Okay. Okay. Now, I think I mentioned before how the sense of sight and the sense of touch seem to be the only senses that know the shape, huh? To know the form of things, huh? And they also seem to know surface, huh? In the way the other senses don't know, huh? Okay.

[7:50] Now, but since the sight, in some ways, is more clear than the sense of touch, but notice the emphasis that Thomas gives here: that all of these common sensibles are tied up with the what? Continuous, huh?

[8:07] Okay. Now we made a little study, if you recall, back a while ago, about the continuous, huh? But if you stop and think about it,

[8:19] the continuous is something very basic in our knowledge, and in the I think it's in the next book there, Memory and Reminiscence, Aristotle says the soul understands nothing without the continuous. Okay.

[8:39] That's because we never think without also forming an image, and all the images are tied with the what Continuous, huh? Now, if you stop and look at the basic words that we have in the axioms and the words that we use everywhere, especially in wisdom, these words are, as we've mentioned before, all equivocal. They have many meanings, right? But they're equivocal by reason, as a order among these meanings, a connection among these meanings.

[9:19] But you have to start with the first meaning and then what? See how the word is carried over to other meanings by some connection to the original meaning. Okay. Now,

[9:35] take my favorite words there from the definition of reason, right? Reason is the ability for a large discourse, looking before and after, right? We looked at that word before in the categories one time, remember? Okay. Now, that's very key words for reason, huh? But what's the first meaning of before? that he gives in the categories. Time. Yeah. And time is something what continuous, right? Continuous. And to that first sense of before is tied the before in motion, right, which is also continuous, and the before in the road or the distance over which you what travel, right?

[10:25] Okay. So I'll picture you there in that little newsletter there, right, looking out there on the road, right? See, He's starting with the continuous, right? Okay. But notice, mention how philosophy is called knowledge over a road, right? And the road is originally naming something what? What's out there? That's continuous, right? Okay. So this is a key word, before and after, huh? But it's taken from something continuous at first.

[11:03] Now, take the word beginning, very important word, huh? Okay. Now, eventually, we're going to be saying, like Aristotle says in the twelfth book of wisdom, and like said in the Apocalypse and so on, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, I am the beginning and the what? End. They're very important, huh? What's the first meaning of beginning and end?

[11:33] Magnitude. Yeah, like this is the beginning of the line right here, and this is the what end, right? We've got to, to understand beginning and end, which are again words equivocal, right? Let us say words that have many meanings, but words that are equivocal by reason. We have to start from the first meaning of these words, and then see how the word is carried over to other meanings, huh?

[12:07] And so we start with the first meaning, but seems to be tied to the what continuous. Eventually, we're going to be applying the word before and the word beginning and the word end to God Himself, right? But we have to come to understand that different sense, which God is a beginning or an end or before, starting from the meaning of it when we speak of the. what? Continuous, huh?

[12:37] Okay. If you state the word end, huh? First meaning of end is the end of a what? Magnitude, right? This is the beginning of the table, and the end is down there. Okay.

[12:57] God is not a beginning and end in that sense, right? But there is a reason why we carried the words beginning and end over ultimately to God Himself. So if you read the fifth book of wisdom, which we'll look at sometime maybe when we're prepared, the first word Aristotle talks about is the word beginning, and

[13:23] it's not until he gets to the fourth and the sixth sense that you see the sense which God is the beginning. He follows the meanings over. The first meaning that the word end he takes up, right? In the fifth book, the word before he does.

[13:46] Wisdom, you'll find out, is about being in one, huh? And the first meaning of one is the what? Continuous, right? This is one piece of chalk. We probably say, right? But if I broke it now, you'd say what? Two. Two pieces of chalk, right? It's no longer continuous, son. That's the.

[14:13] Well, we got to believe that there is what? One God, right? Huh? And the fundamental thing there you find with the Hebrews, right? Be the one God, huh? But what does one mean instead of God? It doesn't mean continuous? See. Well, that's the first meaning of one for us, right? You see.

[14:38] So he says, just to quote a couple sentences again here. Through this sense, the the sense of sight, the common sensibles are more known, right? Okay.

[14:52] And then the second sense, I mean, later on. All of these things which are called the common sensibles pertain in some way to the continuous, right? Okay. And then you realize the continuous lies behind all our thinking. Even the words we what? Use, huh?

[15:20] Now, if you contrast that a bit with the private sensibles, huh? The private sensibles. It seems to me, are not carried over and given new meanings, like these names derived from the continuous.

[15:46] They're used metaphorically, right? So when I say that taste and see how sweet is the Lord, huh? Mention that in the Psalms when Thomas explains why God is called sweet, he explains that the word sweet is said of God metaphorically. Okay. T here is

[16:13] a certain likeness there, right? Distant likeness, but t here is not a new meaning of the word sweet. Otherwise, it would not be a metaphor. But when God says, "I am the beginning and the end of all things," huh? That's not a metaphor.

[16:37] But it's a different meaning of beginning and end than the first meaning, which is tied with the continuous. Now we understand nothing without understanding the what continuous, huh? And we never think without the continuous. And in the De Trinitate there Thomas, coming in and Boethius says, "well, how do we think about God who's not continuous? " Well, by thinking that he's not continuous, you know that's the via negativa in theology, right?

[17:15] So in this life we know God what negatively, right? See, yeah. In the beatific vision, we know God through God, right? We see God through God. We

[17:32] not understand God through the thoughts that we have derived from our senses, huh? But we see God through God being joined to our reason itself. So be both what we see and that by which we see. Not the only way we'll see him as he is, huh? But in this life we see him as he's not. Not that in the sense that we see him falsely, but we see that he's not a body, that he's unchangeable, and so on, huh?

[18:04] So it's kind of interesting what he says there, huh? If you see that the sense of sight especially makes known the common sensibles, the common sensibles all are part of the continuous, and the continuous is so basic in all of our what our know knowledge, right? And in our naming, huh?

[18:30] Then he goes on to point out how the sense of hearing doesn't know right so many things as the sense of sight does right.

[18:40] But then he says in the next section here, Aristotle manifests how hearing hearing is better for the understanding, in some way. And this is hearing, he says, because speech, which is hearable, is a cause of learning not as such, that is according to the very differences of sounds, right?

[19:19] But accidentally, in so far as the names which speech is, that is, speech is composed, are symbols, huh? That is signs of things understood, huh? And consequently of things. And thus the teacher teaches the student, in so far as through speech he signifies to the student the conception of his own mind, right?

[19:52] And more is man able to know by learning from another, right? To which is useful hearing, although more than he could find by himself, to which sight is especially useful. So he's saying you can learn more from the what teacher, right? Through the ear, even though sounds as such are not teaching you, right? What they signify, than you do through what the eye, where you have to find out everything for yourself, huh?

[20:24] Okay. Now he makes a a point here, and I I I don't have enough experience to really say this, but interesting what he says there. And hence it is, Thomas says, that among those deprived from birth of either sense, he's thinking now of some people who are blind from birth, right? And others who are what deaf from birth, but not blind, okay?

[20:58] Those are wiser who are blind than those who what? Those who are deaf, huh? I don't know. I don't have experience, you know, to speak of with deaf people or blind people, but that's kind of interesting that he apparently had some observation of that, huh?

[21:24] Yeah. Um. Now. Apropos of that, come back to. In what two ways is Socrates like Christ? There's two very noteworthy ways in which Socrates, who was the teacher of Plato, who was the teacher of Aristotle, there are two ways, very striking ways, I think, that Socrates is like Christ.

[22:09] Well, one way is suggested by those chapters in the Gospel of Matthew. You may recall there's a series of chapters there where Matthew is bringing out the reasons why they wanted to put Christ to death. Remember that, okay? And one of the reasons, of course, is that he claimed to be God, right? Okay. Another is that he was pointing out their what wickedness and so on, right?

[22:43] But another reason was that he what examined the Pharisees and showed that they didn't understand what they claimed to understand. Who's son is Christ? And they said, David's son. Well, how could David call him Lord then, right? If He's the Lord of David. He's not the what son of David, right? And they couldn't answer him, right? So one reason why they wanted him, not the only reason, just one reason.

[23:12] One reason why they wanted to put him to death was because he showed them in his examination of them that they didn't know what they claimed to know and what their reputation for knowing, namely the scriptures, right? Okay.

[23:31] As you all know from the Apology of Socrates, right, the defense in the courtroom, that's what got Socrates in trouble. The very same thing, huh? Okay. So in that one respect, huh, Socrates wasn't claiming to be God. But in this one respect, that you know, Socrates was what examined people, right? Who claimed to know something, had a reputation for knowing something, were admired for this, and he showed that they didn't know what they claimed to know, right? In one respect, Socrates is like Christ, right?

[24:08] And in that respect, the one of the reasons why they wanted to put Christ to death is the main reason, the only reason, almost, why they wanted to put Socrates to death. Okay, that's one very important likeness I think of Socrates as a historical figure to Christ. Okay, they're both put to death unjustly, right? There is a reason why they want to put them to death, and there is a similarity there.

[24:42] Now, what's the second likeness that is suggested by this text here? He taught by the spoken word, right? Right. Yeah. Now, Christ wrote nothing, right? Yeah. Christ is not the author of any books. Christ taught only by what the spoken word, right? Yeah. Well, Socrates is like that. If Plato had written the dialogues, right? Right. And others wrote, you know, comments on these conversations too. We wouldn't have any written words, right, for Socrates.

[25:44] So Socrates, in that respect, is like Christ, that he taught only by the spoken word, not by written word. And Saint John's a bit like that, right? He taught only by the the spoken word. Okay, he didn't write books or articles, things. Okay. Now, Thomas asked a question somewhere. Why is it that Christ taught only by the spoken word, not by the written word?

[26:17] Of course, you know Christ is the teacher by antonomasia And he says it himself, right? He is the teacher. Well, Thomas says that the spoken word is a more perfect tool of teaching than the what written word, huh?

[26:41] And so the supreme teacher, right, is going to use the most perfect tool. But in some ways, Socrates is what like that, huh? You know, Socrates, maybe Plato, but some dialogues, you know. And to talk about how the written word corrupts memory and things of that sort.

[27:07] I used to make a joke, you know. Sometimes I'd take some things down to the printing office for something, you know, for the distribution of the class, right? And I don't know, perhaps in my ignorance or what, that would leave some folded down there, and the office would have to come back and get it there. And I said, "Well, it's who's the thing, you know, the written word, and who's this forgetfulness?"

[27:31] So it's interesting, huh? That Socrates, in that respect, is like Christ, that he teaches only by the what spoken word, right? But kind of, I think, reveals the you know, nostrates in a way, but is being said, right? That the spoken word is more perfect instrument of the teacher. That one learns more by the spoken word if one can get the spoken word, right?

[28:02] Now, if Christ is no longer walking around talking to us, right, or Socrates, you know, has been, it was good that someone, you know, wrote down something of what they said, right? But I mean, to be taught by a man, right? Plato was supposed to have said, you know, he thanked the gods for three things: that he was born a man, not a woman; secondly, that he was born a Greek, not a barbarian; and third, that he had met what Socrates, right?

[28:40] Okay. So Socrates really was something of a what great teacher, right? Of course, you know, with Plato and Aristotle, we don't have the spoken word, huh? What?

[29:00] Know myself sometimes in class, you know, you have these secondary texts, and you kind of debate your mind, say reproduce these, you know, because you don't have a chance to go through them with the students. It gets a little out of it, huh? Because they don't read carefully enough, and so on, and I don't know, I say throw something at them, you know, that I don't go through and try to illuminate to them, you know.

[29:25] But you realize the importance of the spoken word, huh? I see, Diana. You know, if you're in class, "Why you? Why you? " He'd be so excited to be saying, you know, "Why you? " Really singing, you know.

[29:49] So the main reason is that it's more perfect. Well, I say the reason Thomas gives it seems to be a fact that our Lord didn't write down anything, huh? Right. Makes of the time going in the sand there, right? Little.

[30:09] And Thomas says, "Why did he do this, huh?" And Thomas attributes it to what his role as the what, the teacher, right? by antonomasia huh. And something could be said like that of Socrates, right? Huh? That Socrates saw the, I mean, Socrates to some extent too may have thought, of course, he had nothing to say, right? He had draw it out of you, you know. But I think there is also partly that idea that the spoken word was more, more perfect to one.

[30:40] Oh was it St. Thomas. who said that the printed word leads to forgetfulness. And that was Plato or Socrates in the dialogues. Yeah. Could you develop that a little, and what's why? Well, you start to rely upon it. See, Remember what kids do with the computer and so on, huh? Um, they, you know, computer supposed to give them access to everything they want. So why do I memorize anything?

[31:07] Don't memorize anything now. See. Um, I my my children went to the trivium school, and of course there you had to memorize certain things, huh? And remember my son Marcus there memorizing the whole Raven, which is rather long poem, right? But people don't memorize things anymore, huh? And and yet you know whatever things that are worthwhile memorizing, you know I memorize some of the Psalms, and I don't know all the psalms but a few of the Psalms, you know, they come back to you know when you are thinking about something else, and and there is some relevance to this.

[31:47] And the same way, you know, if you memorize you know some lines of Shakespeare, right, then you begin to see which is in these ones, huh? It kind of concentrates your what attention on, you know. I know myself sometimes I am impressed with a sonnet or something of Shakespeare, and as I start to memorize it, I start to notice all kinds of things I didn't notice in there before.

[32:08] Whatever drew my attention to it, huh? And then after I memorize it, and I say, okay, I am going to go ahead and press the students in class, you know, put a little Shakespeare that's relevant to something I am saying. And then I go into another class, an entirely different class, and all of a sudden I see this relevance that I memorized to something else, right? And just amazing, huh?

[32:27] These these fundamental things, huh? But people nowadays they don't what exercise the memory at all. I suppose in in in Thomas's day too. I mean, you know the famous anecdote of Thomas. He's traveling with another Dominican there, and they came up over the hills, and they could look down upon the city of Paris spread out there, you know. And this guy said, "Would you like to own this whole city?"

[32:55] You know, I mean something like that, you know. And Thomas says, "Why I trade the whole thing for." Copy of John Chrysostom, you know, commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, right? Well, you could just, you know, go your computer or go to the library or something and get these books, maybe, right? You might have access to this book, you know, in one place in Europe or something, right?

[33:19] And you would maybe, you know, memorize these things, huh? I assume that Thomas must have known the Psalms, you know, by heart, and maybe the gospels and other things, you know. And

[33:39] kind of me, sometimes you go back. Even you know, in English, some of these poets, you know, they memorize plays and stuff. They said, "I'll play Shakespeare right from heart." I know how they. I remember seeing stuff. We decayed our ability to do these things. But why is the spoken word more perfect tool then, Is it because? you're a Direct access to the teacher. Well, you got to realize that the spoken word is the original word.

[34:13] Yeah. And the written word is only a sign of the what? The spoken word. Yeah. Yeah. So you know, when the when the when the missionaries went out, say, in some of these more primitive countries, they always had a spoken language. Mm-hmm. But sometimes, you know, when they wanted to translate the Bible or the Gospels or something for these people, they had to invent a what? A written language.

[35:10] Okay.