De Anima (On the Soul)
60. The Soul in the Summa: Introduction to Question 75
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/060-the-soul-in-the-summa-introduction-to-question-75/

[0:03] That that that our life is tragic. Or that our life is ridiculous. It's both the result of the fall of man, huh? So I got to

[0:19] go here. Sure. Right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Angels illumine the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, pray for us and help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. So let's look first at this little proemium here that Thomas says at the beginning of question seventy-five.

[0:53] Okay, so we kind of situates the part we're going to be studying in the whole Summa here. He says, after the consideration of the spiritual creature, meaning the angels, right? Okay, and of the bodily creature, right? One should consider about man, who is put together from the spiritual, a spiritual and a bodily what substance, huh? Now have you ever seen this in some of the canticles of praise, like that of the three boys there in the furnace and so on, and some of the psalms where you have this whole of creation being invited to, you know, praise the Lord, all the angels and so on.

[1:45] Well, they'll begin with the angels, right, and then they'll go to the material world, and then they'll end up with man. In that same order, in those psalms of praise that you have in the order of the Summa here, right? You talk about the creature. You talk about the angels first. You talk about the material world other than man, right? And then you talk about man, who in a way brings the two together.

[2:12] What's interesting is that order is you know peculiar to theology, right? That you find it in the psalms of what praise and so on. And I was thinking again last since I saw you, I think I mentioned you know the connection between the Hail Mary in the psalms

[2:35] and how in the Rosary, you imitate the hundred fifty psalms by having hundred fifty Hail Marys, but that the Hail Mary, in a way,

[2:49] in its two parts, is like the two ways that the psalms proceed. When Thomas has his commentary on the psalms, he says everything is presented in the psalms per modum orationis by way of prayer, vel laudisa of praise. So either praying, asking God for something, or you are praising and honoring God. Okay.

[3:19] Now you know sometimes we use the word prayer in a broad sense, and then they'll talk about. The prayer where you're asking God for good things, and the prayer where you're asking for forgiveness, right? And the prayer we're thanking God, and the prayer we're praising God, right? But you could perhaps, you know, put those first two together and put them under prayer in the strict sense, the asking God for suitable things, whether it be forgiveness for sins or for the good things you need, and you can put to some extent praise and what, thanksgiving, which is something like praise, together, right?

[3:59] Now, when you come back to the mass, remember the the symmetry I was explaining the mass in the parts that are sung, huh? And it's A B C B A, right? Okay, but A and the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei are very much a prayer where you're asking God for His mercy, right? But the Gloria is mainly praise, and the Sanctus and the Benedictus are praise, huh?

[4:34] But the what? Credo is not praise or prayer; it's a confession of faith of what we believe. Okay. Now, which is closer to faith, prayer or praise?

[4:55] Yeah, thinking about that, I tried to talk to you about that again. It's closer to faith. Yeah. I was sort of thinking praise, because prayer would be closer to hope, maybe. Mm-hmm. And notice how the Gloria is kind of divided according to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, right? Which is often the way we divide the the profession of faith, like in the Nicene Creed.

[5:24] At least we profess that, right? Sure. Okay. Now, once in a while, like in the Athanasian Creed, so-called, you divide it according to the divinity and humanity of Christ, like Thomas does in the Compendium, there, right? And that's what you do in the what, Sanctus and the Benedictus, huh? So Sanctus is praising the divinity, the Trinity, and the Benedictus the what, humanity of Christ, huh? So those are the two ways you divide sacred doctrine, or the creed, huh?

[5:57] So it seems to me that praise is closer, in the way that even the praise is divided, huh? I think of all that now because of this again, huh? That those Psalms of praise, huh? There's one one that I kind of noticed, like in the late, towards the end of the Psalms, there, in the late 140s, 147 or something like that, huh? One forty-eight, where you praising God, right?

[6:24] And it has this order where you begin with the angels, and then you go down to the irrational, material world, right? And then finally, you end up with man. And another one that I kind of know is the one of the three boys in the in the furnace, right? Bless the Lord, all your works of the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Bless the Lord, bless the Lord.

[6:44] And then eventually you go to the what material world, and then ultimately end up with man. So in that psalm of praise, not a psalm of what, of asking, but a psalm of of praising. Oh yeah. You have the same order that you have here when you talk about the what creatures, huh? So sort of interesting here again in the Mass that the the two parts of praise, the Gloria and the Sanctus and Benedictus, should be closer to the Cradle, and the what prayer a little further away, right?

[7:23] I mean, they both precede or both presuppose, in a sense, faith, right? But praise, in some sense, seems to be closer, right? And you know, you can see it very clearly of course, in the. Our Father, right? The Our Father is divided according to you know the good things we ask for and the bad things we ask to be freed of, right? That's not really the division of faith, is it?

[7:48] No, no. But the the in the Gloria you see the same division of faith that you have in the Nicene Creed there, and in the Sanctus and Benedictus the same division that you have in the Athanasian Creed. So that's a little excursion there, but but so it's significant what St Thomas says here, huh? And of course, when you get to the culminating and the last part here of the Summa, which is about Christ, right, as man, and when Thomas talks about many of the reasons why it was suitable that God became a man and not an angel and not a dog or something, right?

[8:36] There's obviously many reasons why he did, but among the reasons is that in uniting human nature to Him, in a way, he's uniting the whole of creation to Him, because man is composed of spiritual substance and what bodily nature, right? Okay. And some interesting, huh? I was looking at a text of Thomas the other day there, where he's saying, "Is man more like a beast or more like an angel, right?"

[9:12] Where he says, according to his body, man has more in common with the beast than the angel. Beast angel doesn't have any liver, and the cat has these things, right? Huh? Livers and heart and so on, right? But in terms of his what spiritual soul, right? Man is more like an angel.

[9:36] And then Thomas says, but as Aristotle says in the tenth book there, the Ethics, something is what it's most of all. So this the soul, right? Yeah. Is more man than the body. That's why when someone dies, even the common man says he's gone. So what do you mean he's gone? The body's still there, but when the soul's gone, we say he's gone, right? Yeah. So

[10:04] man, in essence, more like an angel than like a beast, although he doesn't always act that way, obviously. So now we're going to be looking at the first of the two parts that Thomas subdivides his consideration of man. And First about the nature of man himself, right? That's going to take up to question eighty-nine, if I remember right, thing. Secondly, about the production of man. Now that's going to be going back to Genesis, right?

[10:40] And the creation of Adam and so on, Eve and their condition and so on. We're not going to be looking at that part, question ninety on, but this part on the soul, the first part.

[10:53] Okay. Now he says, as far as the nature of man himself, it belongs to the theologian to consider the nature of man from the side of what? The soul. Not, however, from the side of the body, except in so far as the body has a certain what? Connection with or relation to the soul, right? Okay. Now why does it? Why is that true? See, see, if you contrast what Thomas does here with what Aristotle does say in the De Anima and the books following them, right?

[11:32] As Aristotle goes from the De Anima, the three books on the soul that we looked at, on in the study of man, he starts to go down into the body, right? More and more down into the body of man and the body of the other animals too, right? The theologian doesn't care about that, right? That's quite secondary at least to the theologian, huh? And because especially the soul of man is made in the image and likeness of God, and everything in theology is considered in reference to what?

[12:01] God, right? Huh? So it's a special reason to consider the soul, right? At some length, huh? Much more so than than the body or matter, because the soul is made in the image and likeness of God, huh? If you ever read the soliloquies of Saint Augustine, right? He said, "Well, no, just two things: you, God, and the soul."

[12:26] Well, interesting emphasis, right? Huh? Yeah. And therefore, the first consideration will be about the what? Soul, right? Now, this question seventy-five, eighty-nine. How is it going to be divided? Huh? Well, he takes a quote here from the famous Dionysius there, and he says, and because according to Dionysius, in the eleventh chapter of his book on the angelic hierarchy, right? Incidentally, Albert the Great has a commentary on the book on the celestial hierarchy, right?

[13:11] The angelic hierarchy. Thomas is quite familiar with the work too. In fact, he uses a lot when he talks about the angels, huh? But Thomas has a commentary on the De Divinis Nominibus, right? On the divine names, huh? So, Albert. did On the angels and Thomas on the divine names; these two famous works of the great Dionysius. That work exists. Oh yeah, I have a copy of it.

[13:40] Yeah, the De Divinis Nominibus yeah, Yeah, I've read that more than once. And because, according to Dionysius, there are found three things in spiritual substances, namely the essence or the nature, right?

[14:01] Virtus, the what? Powers, right? And third operation, right? First, we will consider those things which pertain to the what? Essence or nature of the soul, what the soul is. Okay. Secondly, those things which pertain to its virtus, ah, its virtue or its what? Powers, right? Powers, its abilities. And third, those things which pertain to its what? Operation, right? Yeah. Excuse me, talking very fast, but if you would indulge me for a moment, when I was reading this, I just want to say that you know I know we're reading Saint Thomas, and he's quoting Dionysius, but my mind just rebels at there are three things in spiritual spiritual substances.

[14:54] Why not two? Why not four? Where you know who is Dionysius to tell us that with certainty? And can you speak to that at least a little? I mean. Well, no. The reason why he quotes Dionysius, he could quote Aristotle too, right? Okay. Because we saw in our study of the soul there, in the beginning of Book Two, Aristotle tries to find out or to define the soul itself, right?

[15:22] Huh? And he went through a number of divisions to arrive at the definition of the soul. Remember that? And then he had a demonstration of the definition of the soul. Okay. But I mean, apart from all the details of that, the first thing he's he's determining, you might say, in Book Two of the soul, is the what? Nature of the soul, the essence of the soul, as Thomas calls it here, right?

[15:46] Okay. Then he goes through the various what? Powers of the soul, right? Okay. So he talks about the the feeding powers and the powers that we share with the plants, and then the sense powers, and eventually talks about the power of understanding and so on. And then the power of moving from one place to another, right? Now, one thing you've got to bear in mind here is that this order here, which seems to be also the order that Aristotle has, in there, um, it could be misleading, right?

[16:26] Because you might think that. We know what the soul is before we know anything about its powers or abilities, and we know the powers or abilities of the soul before we know something about its operations, right? And actually, as Aristotle pointed out, and Thomas often himself notes, um, it's through the operations of the soul that we come to know its what abilities, right? Powers, yeah. Yeah, powers or abilities, and then through the powers or abilities, we come to know the nature of the soul, right?

[17:02] Okay. So the order in which Aristotle proceeds, and this order here, might at first sight seem to be just the contrary of what the order that both Aristotle and Thomas teach, right? What's the solution to that, right? You know that apparent contradiction, right? Well, as you will see in studying the nature of the soul, he'll make reference to the powers and the operations of the soul. When Aristotle demonstrated, right, that the soul was the first act of the body, right, the middle term was taken from the operations of the soul.

[17:37] Okay. So what does this mean? It means that in understanding what the soul is, you come to understand what the soul is through some knowledge, right, of its powers, and therefore also through some knowledge of its activities, right. But after you've come to a knowledge of what the soul is in that way, right, then you take up each of the powers, right,

[18:09] to know each power more distinctly and more completely, right. Mm-hmm. And of course, in the De Anima, where you're concerned with all these souls, right, in so doing, you come to know the plant soul more distinctly, and in particular, through knowing the plant powers more particularly, right, and you know the animal soul through coming to know the sensing powers more particularly, and you come to know the human soul more fully, right, and in particular, through studying the understanding powers in particular.

[18:40] You see that? Okay. Now you may recall when we were studying, say, the power of understanding, right? When Aristotle first determines, huh, that the power of understanding, the ability to understand, is immaterial. He's reasoning from its activity. You see. But after he's he's discovered, you might say, in general, there the nature of the understanding is an immaterial power, right? Because in some way it what knows all material things, right?

[19:12] So he's reasoning from its operation. Later on, he goes into some details about the operation and the difference between understanding what something is and understanding the true or the false, right? You see. So it's not as if he had come to an understanding of what the. Reason is what the understanding is, not through some knowledge of its activities, right? Right. But he'd come to a certain knowledge of what the understanding is through some knowledge of its operations, right?

[19:46] But then later on, he comes back and takes up the operations and brings out some very particular things about that. Okay. Do you see that? Yes. So you're going to see that all along. That's that's very helpful. Yeah. Yeah. And to that end, myself, sometimes when I've taught this, you know, you know, the De Anima and so on, sometimes you know, just to avoid people getting misunderstanding order, right?

[20:12] Sometimes I've begun talking about the powers first, right? Even some details, so they get some knowledge, right? And then finally come and say what the soul is, right? Okay. How has. that gone when you've done it like that Well do you think they caught on in a more easy way Well, as much as they ever catch on, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

[20:38] See, so I say both in the De Anima and seeing the order of the De Anima, right? Where presumably you talk about the what the soul is before you talk about its powers, you know, you might misunderstand how we know the soul at all and what it is, huh? Okay.

[21:00] Of course, in particular, you'll see here you get down to question what eighty four that he's talking about mainly just some of the operations in particular those of understanding, huh? And the ones like willing and emotions, he's going to leave that for the second part of the summa where he's taken up the moral life, right? And there it's more relevant to that, huh? Okay. Oh. Yeah. Notice what he says at the beginning of question eighty four there.

[21:31] Consequently, we're not to consider about the acts of the soul as far as the what understanding powers and the desiring powers. The other powers of the soul, like the ability to what digest and so on, right? Do not pertain directly to the consideration of theologian, right? And then the acts of the appetitive part pertain most to the consideration of moral science. And therefore, in the second part of this work, we'll treat about them, in which we will consider about moral matter, right?

[22:05] Okay. So I mean, sometimes you know people use that term moral theology, but that's more in the second part of the summa, right? And dogmatic theology is more the what first part, right? Huh? So even there he's not going to consider all the acts of the soul, right? But he's going to take up the understanding powers, of their operations in great detail, right? We'll see that when we get there.

[22:29] Okay. Now the first of those three parts, now, right? Um. He says going to be a two-fold consideration. One is about the soul by itself, right? Secundum se, and the second about its union with the what body. So question seventy five, which we're going to be beginning today, but not going to go through the whole thing, is considering the soul in a kind of what separation from the body, right?

[23:04] Huh? Not concerning the body, but then we're going to consider it in reference to its union with the body in the question what seventy six, huh?

[23:22] Now, this question seventy-five is divided into seven articles, which is appropriate. Seven is a symbol of wisdom. Doesn't mean all the article questions divided into seven, though.

[23:37] First, he's going to ask whether the soul is a body. Okay. Of course, the answer is going to be it's not. Okay. But in the objections, we'll see why people would think that it's a body. Huh? Of course, most people imagine the soul to be a kind of air-like substance, and therefore as a kind of continuous body. Huh? And that's the way Homer represents them, right? And even Dante, although he knows it's not the way it is, he represents the souls right in Purgatory as a kind of air-like what substance that has the same shape and so on as the man.

[24:21] That's how you recognize it. So if you ever read Dante, you read the Dante, you know. But he sees the souls of people he's known in this life. He recognizes them because of their shape, right? And of course, he wants to hug them and embrace them, right? How can you hug hug the air, right?

[24:39] Frustrating, right? Okay. That's going to be the first article. Second article is whether the human soul is something what subsistent, right? Which, in a way, is asking whether it's something what whether it's a substance, right? Whether it's something substantial, right? You may recall the distinction there between substance and what accident. Yeah, an accident is a thing that exists only in another; it's in a subject and can't exist apart from it.

[25:21] By the substance is a thing to which it belongs to be not in another, right? Okay. What's the why would why does he use the word subsistent then? Yeah, instead of substance. Well, because because he's going to show that the human soul is not a complete substance, right? Okay. Okay. Now you're going to learn in that first article, again, what you learned in the De Anima, that the soul is the form or the act of the body, right?

[25:54] But in the second article, you'll learn that it's a form and the that subsistent, right? And therefore, it's what we might call a substantial form. Okay. Now, I may have mentioned, ah, in fact, I've been talking about in class recently. In the introduction to philosophy, I do the Phaedo of Plato, right? Huh? And you meet in the Phaedo of Plato.

[26:22] The two main opinions about what the soul is before Aristotle, right? Now, if you read the first book, let's say, of the about the soul in Aristotle, which we didn't do, but after the proemium, right? Aristotle recounts the opinions of all his predecessors about what the soul is and how they arrived at those opinions. opinions, and he does a kind of critique of those opinions, right? And then, the beginning of the second book, he determines the truth about what the soul really is.

[26:56] But I think, in some ways, the Phaedo is a good work because it kind of singles out, you might say, the two most probable opinions about what the soul is. And one opinion is the opinion that Simmias brings in from the Pythagoreans, that the soul is the harmony of the body, right? Okay. And

[27:29] in general, you have this opinion that the soul is somehow the order or the organization, right, of the body, huh? And as I tell the students, you know, the modern biologist would not use the word soul, right? But if you ask them why is this body alive and that body is not alive,

[27:53] he would say that the living body, if you break it down, you find in the living body the same materials you find in the non-living world. So the reason why the body is alive, he would say, right, is the way these materials are combined and ordered together, right? Huh? You see? Just like in a in a piano in tune, in a piano out of tune, there's the same material parts, right?

[28:22] But they're not ordered and arranged or harmonized, right, in a way that's going to function well, right? And the same way in a car that's out of tune, right? Needs a tune-up, huh? So Simmias is bringing in from the Pythagoreans one of the most common and probable opinions about what the soul is: that it's a form, but an accidental form of the body, right? They're thinking of the body as being composed of many different material substances, right?

[28:58] And the way that these things are arranged or put together is what makes it alive. And they think, therefore, you know, if we were clever enough, we're not clever enough yet, we could take all the materials out of which a cell or something is composed, and we could make it what? Make a living thing out of it, right? By combining them in the right way, in the right ratios, in the right thing, you see?

[29:20] Okay. See. See. Now. Socrates in the Phaedo defends another idea about the soul, right? That it's a complete, right, immaterial substance, huh? Somehow imprisoned in this body, huh? Right. Okay. Now, I say these are the two most probable opinions about the soul, and there's evidence for both of them. But like many probable opinions, they don't contain the whole truth, either one of them. But they both contain a very important part of the truth.

[29:58] The opinion brought in by Simmias that the soul is the what accidental form, the organization of the body, something like that. The harmony of the body is that term. Has an important truth about the soul. The soul is a form, right? The soul is an act, huh? But it's not an accidental form. That's what's for the mistake, yes, huh? The opinion that Socrates is defending has a part in and element of the truth of the truth.

[30:31] The soul is something. The human soul, especially, is something substantial, right? Something subsistent even, okay? But it's not a what complete substance, right? Okay. Now the whole truth about the soul is that it's a substantial form of a body, huh? Yeah. Could you give an example of what an accidental form? Your health, your shape. So health is itself as a form. Yeah, yeah. No, no. So you say form there, you don't mean just shape, right?

[31:07] Sure. See, using that for the the act of the matter, right? Huh? Okay. So it could be the the it could be the shape, right? It could be the disposition of the matter. It could be the ratio of the matter, right? It could be the order of the matter, right? See. So all those things. Yeah. So if I was talking about Manhattan, right? Well, if I make a Manhattan, you got to make it out of the standard formula anyway.

[31:38] Is rye whiskey, right, and sweet vermouth. But you have to combine them in the ratio of what two to one, two parts whiskey to one part sweet vermouth, right? So two to one is the form, and rye whiskey and what? Vermouth. Yeah, yeah. The same way you could say, you know, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are made out of the same matter, right? Mm-hmm. But monoxide, the ratio is one to one.

[32:09] Mm-hmm. And carbon dioxide, the ratio is two to one. So that ratio of one to one will kill you, I said, right? But two to one, that's fine. You see. Okay. But if you take the word cat and the word act, right? Then you say, well, they have the same letters, but the order is different, right? Huh? In cat and act. Mm-hmm. So

[32:39] if a living body, right, is made out of the same things a nonliving body is, right? Ultimately, right? You might say, well, you got the living body protoplasm or something like this, right? But if you take apart the protoplasm and so on, keep taking it apart, you end up with the same kind of things that you find in the nonliving world. So the living body doesn't differ from the nonliving body, but ultimately being made out of a different matter.

[33:12] But it's the way the matter is what put together, right? It makes it living, huh? And that way of being put together is what we call its what form, right? Huh? Mm-hmm. But the thinking of a form now that exists what? In another right, and is not really substantial, right? Okay, a little bit like the order of the letters in the word "cat," right? You know, C A and T are more substantial, but the order there is something that exists only when they're brought together, right?

[33:47] It's not something what subsistent, as the second article shows here, right? Okay, but it's especially the human soul that, and through its operation, you know this. The fact that the human soul has an activity, right, that's not bodily, shows that it's something substantial, right? So eventually, Aristotle put together the two parts of the truth. They're divided in the two most probable opinions. And from one, he took the truth that it's a form of the body, right?

[34:22] From the other, that it's something substantial, but he left out the falsity in the one position that it's something accidental, and the other that it's a complete spiritual substance, right? That really has no connection with the body; It's just imprisoned somehow in the body. Do you see? And they'll come back in a way, in these first two articles, because in that first article, besides the negative conclusion that it's not a body, right, Thomas will be arguing that it's a form, right.

[34:50] But then, in the second article, that it's something substantial—in fact, something what Subsistence, huh? That can exist by itself, right? But once you see that, you see you sometimes are inclined to go to the opposite extreme, right, and and think that it's something complete in itself, you know, complete substance, huh? Okay. Of course, now the souls of the of the brute animals, which I talk about in the third article, um, they're something substantial, right?

[35:20] But they don't what subsist; they can't subsist by themselves apart. They have no operation that's not in the body. Now, Aristotle announces there in the beginning of the in the proemium there the De Anima dianima. He says he talks about this question. You know, does the human soul survive death? Right? Does the human soul have existence

[35:49] only in the body? Right. So when the body perishes, it perishes, right? Or does the human soul have an existence that's not immersed, right, in the body? Huh? Not entirely. It's shared in by the body, but it's not immersed in the body. He says, "Well, he says the answer to that question depends upon the answer to another question. Does the soul do anything not in the body?

[36:15] If it does something only in the body, like the souls of the animals or the plants, say for example, there's no reason to think that its existence is not. Immersed in the body, right? Yeah. Well, if it has some kind of activity, like understanding, some people think, huh? And choosing and so on. If if it has some activities that are not in the body, right? That are not performed through a bodily organ, then its existence is not tied to the body, huh?

[36:49] And of course, you can see that, right? A thing must exist before it can do something, right? And but we know what it does before we know the kind of existence it has. So if the soul had existence only in the body, it would only have operation or doing in the body. But the fact that our soul has an operation not in the body, as Aristotle showed, and we'll see it again in Thomas here, understanding, right, shows its existence is not just in the body.

[37:24] You see that? If you look at the Phaedo there, the last argument that Socrates gives, it's not quite perfect yet, and it has a lot of difficulties in it. But he's he's trying to approach what Aristotle eventually will do. Yeah. And of course, what's interesting is that Cebes is pushing Socrates to come up with a necessary argument for the immortality of the soul, and he's starting to, you know, approach that, but doesn't quite get there.

[37:51] I see. But you see, you see the very second road in our knowledge there, the road from reasonable guesses towards reasoned-out knowledge, right? And Socrates is moving that direction, right? Under the prodding, so to speak, of Cebes, right? The ones a reason for saying the soul necessarily does survive the human soul, survive death, huh? Okay.

[38:18] So those first two articles, in a way, will bring out those two what parts of the truth that are hidden in those two other opinions, huh? Okay. I see. The Platonists thought that even the souls of the other animals were subsistent, huh? And of course, the third article was going to be excluding that, right? Okay, because the animals don't have anything higher than sensing, and sensing is always in a bodily organ.

[38:57] So they have no activity that's not in the body, and therefore the existence must be tied to the body. Now, once you see that the soul of man is something that has existence in its own right and not just in the body, right? Then you might tend to go to this other mistake and think that what the soul is man. Okay. Now there is I forget the name of it, but there is an early.

[39:27] Dialogue of Plato, right? There's some question about its authenticity, but I think it is authentic. Where Socrates asks explicitly the question: Is man a soul or a body, or something composed of the two? And Socrates reasons that man is just a soul. And in the Phaedo, you get sometimes an impression of that famous opinion there, right? It's presented in the Phaedo anyway. His friend Crito says to him, "He's going to die."

[39:59] He says, "Where shall we bury you, Socrates?" And Socrates smiles. He says, "You have to catch me first." Oh yeah. Because Socrates is just the soul. It's going to be hard to catch him and bury him, right?

[40:14] But you see, it's really a matter of inward experience, which is the way we know the soul. That the one who who what feels pain in his body, right? And who's thinking about how to relieve that pain is one and the same. I think we all have the experience of feeling pain somewhere in our body, right? And thinking how we can relieve that pain or that discomfort, right?

[40:39] And so, any doubt in your inward experience that the one who's thinking about this is the one who's feeling the pain. Therefore, the body is part of us, right? As well as the soul, right? Huh? Socrates' argument, I remember, right, is kind of weak in a sense kind of weak in a sense.

[41:01] Um, if you use something, right? Are you and the one you use the same? No. No. Okay. Now we use our body, don't we? Sometimes we use our body to do good things. Sometimes we use our body to do bad things. Right? We use our body, right? But the user and the used are not the same.

[41:29] Then the body is not me, right? Huh? I think it's one of the arguments he uses there, right? And it's kind of interesting argument, right? But a little bit, a little bit weak, you know. But what's wrong with the argument? You know, a lot of people are kind of uneasy about these arguments, but they have a hard time answering what's wrong with the argument. Because it makes some sense to say if the user and the used are different, right?

[41:58] And we always talk about how you should use your body or not use your body, right? So we use our body for good or for bad, right? Right. Well, then we must be something other than the body, right? What about the tactic of well, we use our soul to think, so. Yeah. Yeah. There are problems about this, right?

[42:20] Yeah. Now there's a distinction between my using my hand to do something, and my using, you know, the knife to do something, right? Right. There's a difference between a tool that is what joined to me and really a part of me, and a tool that is what extrinsic, right? Right. It's kind of interesting in philosophy. There used to be a debate sometimes that Albert mentions among the in the beginning of logic: is logic a part of philosophy or a tool philosophy, right?

[42:52] And of course, Boethius, I think, had touched on this too. And Albert, I think, is following Boethius. You know, well, a tool—some tools could be a part of, right? You see. So my hand, you know, we call it the tool of tools, but my hand is a tool that is a part of me, right? But my knife or fork or something is a tool that is not a part of me, right?

[43:19] Yeah. Yeah, that's a very important distinction, huh? And Thomas comes back to that when he talks about the incarnation, huh? Because the divine nature of Christ, excuse me, the human nature of Christ, right, is a tool of his divinity, yeah. And because it's a tool of his divinity, it's more efficacious than any human nature could ever be. It has a power, right, and a universality of causality.

[43:48] Because it's the tool, and as Thomas says, the joint tool, right, of God Himself. See? Because the human nature is joined to the divine person there. See? That's very striking, and that's a very important distinction there between the joint tool and the intrinsic tool, yeah. So I mean, but there's some truth to what Socrates is saying, right? So there certainly is one kind of tool that is not what a part of the one who uses it, right?

[44:26] But you know, might just be this other kind of tool. Okay. So you can see how the how these articles and way are arranged, right? The after you see that second article,

[44:47] well, there's two maybe confusions there. You might go and think that all souls, or at least the souls of the animals, are what subsistent too, and he excludes that error, right? Well, then you see how it's unique to man, and you might be getting into this way of thinking of Socrates or somebody, right? That the soul is the whole man, huh? And there, Thomas Aquinas, of course, obviously shows that man is something composed of soul and body, right?

[45:13] Huh? Of course, that goes back what we were saying before that to consider the angels, right, which are a complete substance, right, but wholly spiritual, wholly immaterial. and then you have these bodies that are complete substances, but rather material, right? And then you have man who's composed of soul and body, right? Huh? You're making that explicit there, huh? Okay. Now the fifth one may is a little bit strange there, but you have this kind of a strange opinion that runs through some of the earlier writers in the Christian tradition too.

[45:51] You know, they'll think of the souls being made out of some kind of spiritual matter. right? They get rid of matter, so he's going to exclude that kind of famous mistake there.

[46:04] Now the sixth article, of course, will follow from the fact that the human soul is what subsistent, right? Huh? That it's incorruptible, right? The human soul. But now when you get to and finally realize that the human soul is something subsistent, it has existence not only in the body, it's incorruptible. See, just like an angel, right? Well, no. See, an angel is a complete what? Substance, yeah.

[46:31] And the human soul is not, right? And if the human soul were a complete substance, well, then there'd be no sense in the resurrection, would there? Oh, yes. See, the resurrection is necessary that the whole man might be there, right? And you know, one time they, one thing they say too about the resurrection there, that the body has some share in our good deeds and unfortunately in our bad deeds too, and therefore it's got a share to some extent in the reward of the soul, or in the punishment of the soul, right?

[47:02] Even though the soul is the primary culprit, huh, or the primary thing, yeah. And so, I remember when my little cousin died. You know, just a little girl, yeah, sweetest little thing, you know. And my aunt, you know, of course, very, very upset about this, huh? It was her fourth child, but fourth one, but, um, you know, saying to the priest there, you know, in the confession, you know, "Wasn't she an angel?"

[47:37] You know, and the priest was, "kind of sober, yeah. Now she's an angel now." Well, don't want to disturb the poor woman. Yeah. And and she's something like an angel, and of course Christ himself says, "you look like the angels," right? When they asked Him, you know, you know, the guy who woman who married seven brothers, right? He was, he said, "No, you'd be like the angels, but never.

[48:01] You'd be like the angels, but you won't what? You won't be an angel, huh? You'll still be a soul that is incomplete without the body, right, huh? Okay. So when we pray, you know, Saint Peter, pray for us, right?

[48:20] Thomas always explains that as a what? synecdoche, huh? You're giving the name of the whole to the part, right? Rather than say "soul of Saint Peter, pray for us," we call the soul Saint Peter, Saint Peter, right? But so it's something kind of unique there about Christ, of course, who rose from the dead, right? So it's not synecdoche when I say Christ when I pray to Him, right?

[48:47] Or when I say, you know, Holy Mary, pray for us sinners, and so on. That's not synecdoche because of the what? Assumption. Assumption, yeah, yeah. So it's very significant about that, huh? She's there, huh? The Decarie I guess, when the before the definition there of the Assumption, right? It was around 19 what 50, was it? Yeah, with Pius XII, you know, but among other things, you know, you know, certain theologians had an audience with Pius XII, and I've been told that Decarie was one of those who had an audience with the Pope, right?

[49:20] Wow. So he gave, you know, the Pope some very interesting arguments in favor of the assumption, right? Huh. Which is said to have impressed Pius XII. Sometimes you hear. like I heard, It wasn't too long ago. Um, someone saying like, "Oh well, I'm an Augustinian. I don't believe in this kind of silliness about, you know, the soul's an incomplete person up in heaven."

[49:52] Well, no, that's going to get you into a lot of trouble when you get talking about the resurrection, right? And about our resurrection, so on, right? Uh huh.

[50:02] I believe in what communion of saints, the resurrection of the body, life everlasting. That's an article of faith. you know? Of course, you know, with the Manichaeans, there's a tendency, with the Manichaeans, and to some extent with the Platonists, right, to regard matter as evil, right? Yeah. Right. And therefore, the separation of the soul from the body is a separation from evil, right? And therefore, they would tend to what?

[50:33] Be opposed to the idea of of reincarnation or of the soul being joined to the body again, right? This would be a sign that the soul was not yet perfect or not purged, yeah. And this would be the triumph of evil again, you know, being united. So that's even more of an impediment, right, to the mystery of the resurrection, right? Which is an article of the faith, not only Christ's resurrection but ours, right?

[51:03] You know, the famous text there in St. Paul, you know, he's talking about some who say that resurrection is understood in some spiritual way, right? And St. Paul is very clear that don't make our faith in vain, huh? Yeah. And but I mean, included in that is also the idea of our resurrection. But so if you if you think that the soul is the whole man, resurrection doesn't make much sense.

[51:28] And a fortiori, if you think that the body is something evil, right? Which is what the Manichaeans thought and the others. And did Saint Augustine really have only that understanding that the soul is the complete man? You know. No, Augustine. I think knew that. The soul and the body. Sure, I'm sure he knew that both of them, yeah. So it would even be wrong, to have an excuse to say, "I'm just.

[51:52] " It's even a false excuse. Yeah. Okay, so you see, kind of a little bit of the order there in the seven articles, huh? Yeah.

[52:12] But that last article again would, you know, if you made the mistake of thinking the soul was of the same species as an angel, it's because of the likeness, right? Likeness is the cause of what? Deception, yeah. It's a slippery thing, as Plato says, huh? And but at the same time, you know, you can see why Thomas says, you know, I study the body so I can study the soul.

[52:37] I study the soul so I can study the angels, huh? And I study the angels so I can study God, and the angels are more like God than the soul is, and the soul is much more like God than the what body is, huh?