De Anima (On the Soul)
79. Replies to the Objections and Soul vs. Spirit in Scripture (1 Thessalonians, the Magnificat, John 4)
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/079-replies-to-the-objections-and-soul-vs-spirit-in-scripture/

[0:00] Now I'm just going to apply the first objection, which, if you recall, there is saying that the understanding soul is incorruptible, but the other souls are what corruptible, right? Thomas says to the first, therefore it should be said that the sensing soul. Of man, even does not have incorruptibility from the fact that it is sensing, but from this that it is what understanding, right? That's why incorruptibility is owed to it, huh?

[0:33] It's because the soul has an operation that is not in the body, right, huh? That we see that it must have an existence that's not entirely in the body.

[0:48] But the sensing soul, right? Its operations are in the body. When, therefore, the soul is a sensing soul only, and not an understanding soul, it is corruptible, right? Because if the animal is destroyed, it's destroyed. But when it has with the sensing, understanding is incorruptible.

[1:11] Although the sensing doesn't give it incorruption, right? Nevertheless, this incorruption cannot be taken away from the understanding soul. See where he's reasoning there? First objection is saying corruptible and incorruptible are not of one substance, right? Okay. And saying the understanding soul is incorruptible, but the sensing soul is not, right? Right. And Thomas is replying by saying that the sensing soul that is also an understanding soul is incorruptible, But the sensing soul that is just a sensing soul is not, right?

[2:03] Okay. Now the second objection kind of comes back and tries to argue that from the premise in the tenth book of metaphysics that the corruptible and incorruptible differ in genus, right? But man and dog are both animal in the same sense. But Thomas replies that forms are not placed in a genus or in a species, but the composed thing.

[2:33] It's man that's put in the genus of substance. It's a species of substance, and man is corruptible just as the other animals are. Whence the difference, according to corruptible and incorruptible, which is on the side of form, does not make man to be another genus from differing from other animals, huh? That's something again you learn in in logic, right, huh?

[3:04] Man is only what the soul. Man is only a part of what of man, right, huh? If you take the whole man. He's an animal. He's corruptible, just like Lucy is corruptible, being an animal. So they are both in the genus of the corruptible, right? Man and Lucy, or Socrates and Lucy.

[3:30] But the soul is not strictly speaking what a species of a genus, right? But it's a form of some gene, of some species. So it's it's led back to genus as substance, but it's not in there as a species of substance.

[4:03] They're the same. They're saying that it's man and let's say dog for him and cat and so on. These are species, particular kinds of what animal, right? Yeah. Okay.

[4:31] Gabriel and Raphael and Michael, right? Particular kinds of what angels? Angels, right? Okay. Well, these differ as the what incorruptible from the what corruptible. Okay.

[4:50] Now there's a good reason why Aristotle would say that the corruptible and the incorruptible differ in genus. Because genus is originally taken from what the things we know from matter, right? Yeah. And matter is the reason why these things are corruptible. Yeah. And these are incorruptible because they don't have matter. They don't really have the same genus. So the incorruptible and the corruptible differ in genus. Now the argument is saying, you know, well, man's soul is incorruptible.

[5:17] That's true. But man's soul is not a species of animal. The human soul is not an animal. Yeah. Right. Okay. It may be part of an animal, right? The human animal, right? But by itself, it's not a what. Part of an animal.

[5:35] It's not an animal. Right. Okay. And it's animal that is corruptible, right? And the whole man is corruptible, as you will find out. Happens every day. Right. So man and dog and cat are all corruptible. Greg, Michael and so on, Raphael, Gabriel are all what In corruptible. But notice if we consider our soul just by itself, then our soul, in that sense, is more in common with the angels, being corruptible than with the what.

[6:19] Dog and the what? captain, and if you consider the body of man, his body, right? Angel doesn't have a body. Consider man in his body; he seems to have more in common with the dog and cat, right? With Gabriel, and Michael.

[6:39] which is more me—my body or my soul? I say to students, you know, haven't you heard when somebody dies, they say he's gone, she's gone? I hear that in the hospital, you know. I hear nurses say it, right? He's gone. Haven't you heard that? What do you mean he's gone? The body's still there, but he spontaneously say he's gone when the soul is left, right? Yeah, He's gone, when the soul.

[7:07] is left. As if that's more he or she in the body. Not the entire he or she. But we see that, right? Yeah, yeah. Or the other way I show it is, you know. Other things being equal, which do you judge more severely, premeditated murder or murder of passion? Premeditated. Yeah. Why?

[7:39] You seem to have done it more, right? Because your reason was more involved, huh? Yeah. And you had time to think this over. Honestly.

[7:49] So. That's a sign that we think that reason is more us than our emotions. Joe, can't control yourself? But when the emotions are in control, of Joe, Joe's not in control of himself. When reason is in control, then Joe is in control, right? Because if Joe is more reason then it's emotions. So even those ways, not just the crazy philosophers that think they're more soul or reason than emotion, right?

[8:17] But we all, in some way, recognize that. Though when you first ask a student, you know, you say, "You, which is more, you? Your reason or your emotions?" Especially a woman will say their emotions. But some of the clients agree with that. But then when you ask them these questions, right? Which would you, you know, judge more severely, premeditated murder or murder of passion, right? Yeah. And when your friend there is, you know, people get angry and they say nasty things and they come back and apologize, I wasn't myself yesterday, right?

[8:48] I lost control of myself. Well, something was in control of you. Full out of hand. Yeah, but it was anger. It was emotions in control, and when that's in control, you're not in control. So therefore, you're thinking you're less anger than something. It's commitment, an emotion or a choice. yeah.

[9:24] I tell them you get married not by emotion. Emotion doesn't marry you. The priest doesn't say, "Now, you have wonderful feelings about so and so." No, but you take so and so as your husband, your wife. You're asking them to express outwardly their choice, right? As if the things I've chosen is more me. Or I

[9:53] take the example of Alcoholics Anonymous, right? When is a man true to himself, the alcoholic? When he's true to the choice he made to give up drinking, right? Or when he true to his desire to drink? True to the choice. Yeah. Then he's being true to himself. Just the choice, which is in the soul, right, is more him, right, than the body urge.

[10:27] Now the third objection was dealing with the order of generation that Aristotle talks about. Aristotle speaks of how the embryo first has a soul which is what feeding only, right? Then later on has a soul that is sensing, and finally has the understanding what soul. But these other ones are not what they're replaced by more perfect soul.

[10:55] And so it's not as if in the original one there remains, and then it's something on the way to the to the generation of a full man, right? And so it's replaced by later one,

[11:12] just like if I have a friendship of usefulness, you and I are in business, right? And you are useful to me, and so you have a friendship of utility, but then we get to know each other, we get to like each other, right? Now our friendship of usefulness has been replaced by a higher friendship, right? And if finally we realize we're both good men and trustworthy because we're both virtuous, then our friendship of pleasure will be replaced by the highest kind of friendship.

[11:44] Now I have three friendships towards you, but I may first have this imperfect friendship. My father became the friend of the man who sold him paint. My father used a lot of paint, so the friendship of usefulness, right? This man wanted to sell my father paint. My father needed paint to first farm wagons, right? But then they got to know each other. They go out to ball games together or something, right?

[12:13] So it's now a friendship of pleasure, right? They could go into a higher friendship, right? This is with the saints there, right? With the young man that came courting Saint Rose of Lima because she's a beautiful girl, right? Of course, she has no intention of getting married, right? And she eventually converted the man, right? He became, guess, somewhat of a saint himself, huh? So you have examples of that, right?

[12:40] Our person is interested in friendship of pleasure with the woman, and then he's what transformed, right, by saint, huh? And and acquires a friendship of a much higher kind, which replaces the friendship of pleasure that he wanted to have, or thought he had. Does this one go against the church? Is wrong on this one? I don't know if the church, you know, has made that explicit. When the human soul, when the understanding soul, is actually what infused, right?

[13:14] There might be some probable opinions about that, right? I thought that that was resolved with the immaculate conception. Could be, but I don't know that it was very formally decided that. You know implicitly, yeah, yeah. That was like a conception, yeah, yeah. That was my understanding. These other, it seems dormant, like the intellectual. Yeah, it's there. It's dormant. Anyway, that's our point. here now to try to solve that, maybe.

[13:43] Yeah. Okay. But is applying to objection taken from Aristotle, right? Aristotle would speak of at first as having a kind of nourishing soul, right? Feeding soul, then a sensing soul, and finally the, you know, but that is just the earlier ones you made, right? But when you get to a new state of development, your the old soul is replaced by a new one that carries on the functions of the earlier soul plus has these new powers, right?

[14:11] Mm-hmm. And then eventually the plant soul is replaced, right? Okay. Now the fourth one there is taken from the idea that the genus is taken from matter and the difference from form, right? Huh?

[14:38] And therefore, there is what? Man is a rational animal, right? Huh? Okay. So rational there is the genus. I mean, the difference. Animal, the genus, huh?

[14:54] Okay. It says the objector says animal comes from a sensing soul, right? Rational from an understanding soul. So just as rational animal two different parts of definition here, man, right? So whereby by these rational, it's whereby as an animal is something different, huh? So you have the understanding soul over here, and the sensing soul over here. And Thomas says, "Well, you're confusing logic with reality here, because when you distinguish between rational and animal.

[15:30] What are you doing? You're understanding, right? Man and dog and cat when you say animal in a more what general way, right? Okay. And so it's a separation in your thinking, but not in reality. Okay. And that

[15:53] both rational and animal, like I'm healthy and white. Say, Lucy is not both a cat and an animal, right? But animal is understanding what a cat is in a more general, confused way.

[16:14] So he says, "Is necessary according to diverse rationes, huh? It is not necessary, he, says according to diverse thoughts or logical intentions which follow upon the way of understanding to take diversity in natural things, because reason. Is able to understand one and the same thing in diverse ways, because therefore, as has been said, the understanding soul and power contains what the sensing soul has, and even more.

[16:46] It can be reason is able to consider by itself what pertains to the sensing power, as something imperfect and material. And because it finds this thing common to man and other animals, it forms the definition of the genus, or the thought of the genus. But that in which the understanding soul exceeds the sensing soul, it takes as formal and completive of it, and from this it forms the difference of man. That's true in all these things, right?

[17:33] Huh? What's a triangle? Three sides, three. Yeah. It's also a rectilinear plane figure, right? Now, is it a rectilineal plane figure by some sides other than these three sides?

[17:59] Just take this as an example. There's other shaped triangles. huh? Euclid will define figure before you define its plane figure, and then you'll define rectilineal plane figure. What's a rectilineal plane figure? Well, it's a plane figure contained by straight lines, right? Huh? Yeah. Okay. And then we subdivide this into this by three or four or five or some other number, right? The quadrilateral and the pentagon and so on.

[18:35] Now, are the three lines by which this is a triangle? Are those other than the line by which this is a rectilineal plane figure?

[18:58] Some reason I'm not clicking. What. What's this again now? This is a triangle in particular, right? By having three sides, right? Right, right. It's a rectilineal plane figure by having sides that are straight lines. Straight lines. Now, are the straight line to which it's a rectilineal plane figure other than the line by which it is a triangle? No. No. Okay.

[19:26] Why? In my being a geometer, in my being, let's say, healthy, right? You know, it's not by the same thing that I'm healthy and that I'm a geometer. Okay. I could be healthy without being a geometer, vice versa, right? But it's by the same lines that this is a triangle it's a rectilineal plane figure. Yeah. And it's by the same lines that this is a quadrilateral and it's a rectilineal plane figure.

[19:59] Why is this a a quadrilateral? Because it's bound by four sides, right? Yeah. Why is it a rectilineal plane figure? Because it's bound by straight lines, right? No. But it's the same straight lines that make it to be a what quadrilateral and make it to be a rectilineal plane figure. But I can understand, right? Those lines more distinctly as four or three or five or six and so on the hexagon right.

[20:29] Or I can understand them in a more general way right. It's simply what. Rectilineal. Yeah, Yeah. yeah. So I shouldn't say that it's by different lines that one is a quadrilateral and one is a rectilineal plane figure. Same ones. Yeah. Yeah. But I understood right. precisely. in danger, right. The same way in man right. When you say man is an animal, he's an animal by some soul right.

[21:04] When you say man is a a man, he's a man by some soul too. Is it a different soul, by which he's both. No. But that soul is understood more distinctly, precisely. When you say it's a soul by which he is a what. A man, right? Huh. But that understanding soul was also a sensing soul, right?

[21:34] So you see the kind of mistake that that fourth objection is making, right? It's it's. Because the thought is different here, rectilineal plane figure, and quadrilateral, right? That the sides by which it is one and the other must be different. No. What what's different here is your understanding of one the same thing. Your understanding more precisely in understanding more what. General. Yeah.

[22:07] Are you a man or a woman, right? Well, you're a man, right? Okay. Now, someone else is a woman, right? Huh. If I compare you and I say, well, you're both a human being. Okay. Now, is it by something. One thing that you're a man. And by something else that you're a human being. Or in the case of the woman, is it by one thing that she's a woman, and by something else she's a human being?

[22:38] Or isn't that what a woman is? To be a woman is to be human being. To be a man is to be human being, right? I'm not saying really two different things of you, am I? I'm saying I'm understanding what you are more precisely when I say you're a man. When I say you're human being, I'm understanding what you are in a more what. General way, right?

[23:02] If I say you're an animal, I'd still say what you are. But in even more general way, right? You're a living body. That's what you are.

[23:11] But I'm understanding one the same thing, in a more precise way or a more vague way. In a more distinct way, or more confused way, in a more particular way, or in a more general way.

[23:31] So you consider that the human soul, the understanding soul, also gives us the ability to sense, right? And you just consider that, right? Then you can say man is an animal; he has a sensing soul, right?

[23:50] Just like in the number five, I can consider what four, right? There's a four and five, isn't there? If I want to, I can consider the four and five. Does that mean now that a number of five is there's five ones, there's also four ones, and they're not the same ones? No, but I'm considering the ones in five more distinctly or more completely, right? So you're confusing the way things are with the way we think, which is the most goes back to the common problem of philosophy.

[24:28] I'll take a little break and then I'll show you these scriptural texts that are kind of relevant to this. Now this is at the end of the first epistle to Thessalonians in the last chapter, and as he sometimes does, Saint Paul gives a little prayer, right?

[24:47] And he says, "What chapter is this? " This is chapter five of first first epistle to Thessalonians, and it's verse. Do you have it there? Your text. Okay, twenty three is the verse. Okay. So I got the kind of the Greek here, and the English. He says, "Houtos de, ho theos, God himself, right? Ho theos, God, autos ho theos tes eirenes, the God of peace, right? May he what?

[25:19] hagiasai, may he sanctify, right? You, huh? holoteleis huh? Complete or perfect, right? And kai holokleron entire. humon, may he sanctify what? And now he says three things: to pneuma, the spirit of you; kai he psyche, the soul of you; and the what? The body, to soma, blamelessly, right? Until the presence of the Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, may all be kept, okay? Now Thomas comes down and says, "What's he saying there?

[26:01] " Pneuma the the spirit, and the soul, and the body, right? What's the difference in particular between the spirit and the soul, right? Okay. Now he raised a question before there with the Magnificat, right? Because the original says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, right, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior, right." Okay, we had that same thing here. Now he speaks a little of Thomas's commentary when he comes to talk about that, and the reason why it kind of struck me was because he's talking about the same error that he's refuting in that article.

[26:42] Okay, it's not an error that St. Paul, is making, but an error in in the interpretation of what St. Paul is saying. Okay, he says on the occasion of these words, right? Some people said that in man, other is the spirit to us, right, and other is the soul, right? Okay, two souls. Yeah, placing two souls in men, right? Yeah. Now let me understand my Latin here Occasione? idem verborum historum On the occasion of these words is Saint Paul, right?

[27:28] Dixerunt they say, right? Quidam, some people say this. Quod in homine, in man, aliud est spiritus, right? And aliud anima. Other is the spirit, and other is the soul. Ponentes, placing, right, or positing, duas in homine animas. Is it? Two souls, right? And he says, and haec sunt reprobata, these are disproved in that book Ecclesiasticus the same one that was referred to here, right? Yeah. Interesting. I wanted to mention I forgot, but in the volume that I was that I just had here, as a footnote on that, mentioning that that was condemned by the Eighth Council of Constantinople.

[28:14] and has two souls. Yeah. But it is mentioned. Yeah, okay, that's good. Did you look it up? Church. Okay. Okay. Quence, it should be known. and I was just about to correct it error, right? That these do not differ secundum essentium, they don't differ in their substance or nature, but secundum potentiam, according to their power, right? For in our soul there are some powers which are acts of bodily organs, as are, for example, the powers of the sensing part.

[28:57] Others which are not the acts of such organs, but are separated from them, as the powers of the understanding part. That means the reason and the act of understanding and the will. And these are called spirituales,

[29:16] as the word immaterial, right? And separate in some way from the body, in so far as they are not the acts of the body, right? And sometimes they're also called mens. I used to say that in Augustine a lot, mens for that part of the soul. But in so far as it animat, meaning animat a body, it animates a body. It is called a soul, because this is proper to it, right?

[29:46] So, in other words, man's soul, in so far as it has powers, right, that are not in the body, is called a spirit sometimes. And it shares understanding and will in a way with the angels of God, who are also called spirits, right? But in so far as it's the form of the body and animates the body, it's called a soul, right? Yeah. Yeah. But it's really the same thing, which you're thinking now.

[30:16] The fact of it has some powers that are only in the body; others are. Oh man. And Paul speaks here properly. Thomas says, and look, Paul is propriae. And for he's talking about you know going sin here. For three things run together in sinning.

[30:42] Reason, sensuality, right, meaning the souls, and then the body carrying out these things, right? Okay. Wait, what is this? These three things, or what? Nam ad peccandum right, to sinning. Tria concurrunt. Three things run together. Ratzi always says, which is he's going to have the spiritus, right? Sensualitas, which tied up with the what anima, because this is talking about the emotions, the passions, right? And then the executio corporis, the body carrying it out, right?

[31:18] Okay. He wishes, therefore, Paul, right, in his prayer for them, that there be no that in none of these be any sin, right? Not in reason, right? Whence he says, ut spiritus, uh he, has spirit. That is mens vestra, your mind, servetur integer, be preserved whole, complete. For he says that in every sin, and Aristotle already pointed this out, and in Socrates, in every sin, reason is corrupted.

[31:52] Never. Yeah. According to the way in which everyone who is bad is ignorant, right? He's mistaken. Also, not in sensuality, whence he says anima, because that's a power in the body, right? Also, not in the body, meaning carrying the body carrying the salad. And Jeffrey says et corpus in the body. I mean, isn't texta? Yeah. Do

[32:27] you see that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Now, a little differently speaking here, let's let's take the Magnificat first. The Magnificat, I think, is found only in Luke, right? Okay. Again, you have the same words, psuche, and what? Anima or pneuma anima, spiritus. So it's sometimes in anima and in spiritus.

[32:58] She says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Saviour." Okay. Why does she use the word soul first and then the word spirit later on? Yeah. See. Well, there's two ways you can understand the words of Our Lady. At least two ways. My soul magnifies the Lord, right? Huh. And one I think is more subtle than the other.

[33:28] The more obvious one would be that through her body she praises the Lord, right? Okay, when she genuflex, when she what, sings the psalms and so on, right? She's giving glory to God, she's magnifying God through her body, right? And therefore through her soul, insofar as it's the what form of the body, right? Enemy of the body, huh? Okay. But it seems to me there is a much more subtle thing, a much more subtle interpretation of those words of Mary, right?

[34:00] And that is that our Lord, I mean God rather, God I think is called Lord, most strictly speaking, because He made us. Okay. Kurios, huh? Okay. We belong to Lord, right? He's our Lord because He made us.

[34:26] And it's said very often in Scripture, right? The Lord said, "The Earth." Okay. Now, the things that God makes, you know, manifest His excellence, right? They magnify Him in some way. But what is the greatest thing that God made? Man, Jesus. Yeah, the word made flesh. Okay. Okay. And Thomas is very clear about this, huh? You know, in the Summa Carta Gentiles, he divides, you know, theology according to consideration of God Himself.

[35:03] You know, God is the Maker, and then God is the end and the provident, right? When he gets to the third part, there is very clear the incarnation is the greatest thing that God has made. Okay. But Mary is what? Second. She's cooperating, right? In the greatest thing God has made, because the Word is made flesh, taking her flesh, right? Yes. And her blood and later on her milk, I guess, right?

[35:31] Um. So, insofar as she has a body, right, with flesh that Christ can take, right, and blood and milk and so on, then she's what? Cooperating with the greatest thing that God has made, the Word made flesh, huh? Okay. And fits together with the use of the word Lord there, right? Kurios I think there's a Latin, there's a Greek word, huh? But most strictly speaking, kurios is a name applied to God because He made us and we belong to Him.

[36:09] He's our Lord, that's why. See? So she's magnifying the Lord. He's magnifying the Maker, right? By cooperating with Him in the making of the greatest thing He's made. See, magnificent to see that my soul, right? See, but she does that through her body, right? Yeah. But then, when she rejoices in the Lord, I mean, rejoices in God, and there, just to make sure I'm not misquoting it, the word is not.

[37:10] Yeah. See, the first part of the word is megalune, magnifies he psyche. That's a really good psychology, psyche. he psyche, mou my soul, ton kurion right? Lord, right. you show. So, so you take that in the strict sense, Kurian is naming God right because he he made us and we belong to him; he's our Lord. Then she's magnifying God as all his works do, but most of all, the greatest work he made, most wonderful work he made, the Word made flesh.

[37:42] And then she says, and exalts right, to pneuma, my spirit, to pneuma mu, epi to theo which is the word God. See, so she's rejoicing in God as in Himself, right? And that's only the spirit can do that. It's only insofar as the soul has what powers that are not in the body, right? Maybe the reason and the will that God in Himself can be an object for the for the soul.

[38:19] He can rejoice in God in Himself. So that fits the difference between the two, huh? And my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior. Now, I think in the Hail Mary, you have two parts there. In the first part, we say, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee," right? And what does that refer to?

[38:50] She never was sin because she was full of grace. Okay, but it refers more to her pneuma, her spirit, right, than her soul, right? Huh? Because grace is what in that part of the soul that transcends the body, right? Okay, yeah. And that's why you have theological virtues in reason and in the will, but not in in the senses. in my emotion right emotion, right? You might have infused moral virtues, but you don't you don't have theological virtues, right?

[39:22] Okay. Um. So, um. That's what the angel says here before she's has agreed to incarnation, right? Huh? Okay. Hail, holy Queen! No, no, it's not another. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Right? Okay. And then the next words are the words Elizabeth gives here. Really, huh? Now, a little later on, Elizabeth said a little before that. And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb.

[39:59] Right, that's John the Baptist being purged of original sin. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, right? And she spoke with a loud voice and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Right. Well, she's thinking of the bodily aspect there, right? Huh? That Mary is what among women, huh? She's, you know, the only woman that's both virgin and mother, right?

[40:26] And blesses the fruit of thy womb. Well, that's referring to the incarnation, right? And something that that she cooperates with in her what? In her body, right? Huh? In her soul.

[40:41] You probably heard Augustine, He often says, you know, Mary would profit nothing from conceiving Christ in her body if she had not first conceived him in her what? In her soul. yeah. In her spirit, right? In her spirit, right? Okay. Of course, there you have the same order, but not the same order, the same distinction, but the first order from which you have the Magnificat, right? You start with the words of the angel, and you know, the words of Elizabeth, right?

[41:05] It's beautiful to see that, right? Yeah. But the soul of Mary and the spirit of Mary are not two different things, right? But it's called a soul, especially insofar as it animates the body, right? Yeah. And therefore provides the flesh and blood and and it's kind of amazing to think that you know I guess the blood from your mother circulates to your body and then back into your mother, doesn't it?

[41:31] Yeah. Yeah. So it's kind of amazing to think this is happening with Mary, and Christ is sharing her blood, really, huh? And then you know, I'm sure he's he was breastfed too, right, for some time, right? Yeah. So, well, but this is all her body that she's doing this, right? It's it's her her her soul. It's a part that animates the body, right? But insofar as her soul has powers like everybody's soul has that transcend the body, right?

[42:00] And it can know God in himself, then she rejoices in the the Lord, huh? Now looking at the other text, there, you know, the one where our Lord is in the garden of Gethsemane, and everybody knows the words. The spirit is willing, right? But the flesh is weak, right? Now I just find that in Matthew and Mark, I don't know if that's in Luke or John. Those words.

[42:26] Do you see the Luke or John? But there's Matthew and Mark, there's no difference, but in both cases you have the contrast between the the spirit, right, and the flesh, right. Well, there you're thinking of that part of the soul, right? The spirit, right? That has these powers that are material and can and you know would would be more not be corrupted by the body so much, right?

[42:51] And then the the soul, insofar as it's got sensuality, like he said there, right? Huh? You know, doesn't use the word soul there, but he uses the word flesh, right? But that refers to the soul insofar as it's animating the body, huh? So you're kind of divided against yourself there, you know, when you're being tempted there. Your body is, you know, there's a conflict between your your reason and your your emotions, which are bodily, huh?

[43:15] Yeah. Passion, your fear, whatever it is, give us that. Yeah. Another text I was thinking of is the one just where, where Christ is talking to the Samaritan woman, and she's talking about why don't you worship? Well, we worship her up in the mountain, right?

[43:43] And that's where he says, you know, that what? Worship in. In spirit, yeah, spirit and truth, right? And you don't have to worship, you know. We won't worship on this mountain or any other mountain particular, but you know, and but there you see what's interesting about that text is he's talking about us worshiping in what, in spirit and truth, and God wants that kind of a worship, right?

[44:11] Because God Himself is what. Spirit and truth. Yeah, he's he's a spirit Himself. Yeah, of course we use the word spirit for for the the angel. I mean, for the angels as well as for the God, right? Huh. The immaterial substance, right?

[44:28] So, insofar as the soul is has these immaterial powers, it's also called a what spirit, right? Yes. It's that part of the soul that.

[44:43] let me see here Yeah. Yeah. But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, right?

[45:11] Ah. So in the Greek it says, "Hoi hoi alethinoi proskynetai the true worshippers, right? And then the verb form of that same thing, proskynesousin to patri to the Father, in pneumati in in spirit, right? kai aletheia And he goes on and says, "And the Father seeks such ones, ah,

[45:37] to worship Him, huh? For God is a what? Pneuma. God is spirit, right? And those worshiping, and it who's us to worship Him. Those worshiping Him to worship Him in the spirit and in what? Truth, right? Huh? Yeah. I just mention that text because it's a very clear text. The way you use the word "spirit" to us to name something, what? In material, right? Yeah. Originally, it comes in the word for breath or air, right?

[46:12] But and it's carried over and applied to an entirely material substance, huh? So the angels are said to be spirits, and God Himself is said to be spirit, but also the soul. A man, right?

[46:26] The souls of the other animals are not said to be spirits. So it's very striking. I mean, if you've got one text that I'm very familiar with, you know, where you have that contrast, but this one here is kind of interesting. That Saint Paul should use that same distinction, right? He wants them to.

[46:56] And Paul speaks here, he says, properly, for at the conduct, sinning three things run together: reason, sensuality, and the executio corporis. Right. But just take the first two: there, ratio and sensualitas. Ratio is this immaterial power that we have, and sensuality is this passions, the emotions, which is something bodily, right? He wishes, therefore, that in none of these be there sin, none in reason. Whence he says, with spiritus,

[47:33] that your spiritus might be served or conserved integer whole. And then he said, in every sin, reason is corrupt and so on And then nec in sensualitate not in sensuality either. Whence he says, what anima? That's kind of barbarous, barbarous thing.