De Anima (On the Soul)
91. Higher Powers and Universal Objects; Q.77 a.4: The Order Among the Powers of the Soul
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/091-higher-powers-and-universal-objects-q-77-a-4-the-order-among/

[0:00] Okay. Now, the fourth objection was saying, objects that distinguish, it seems, some powers don't distinguish what other powers, huh? Now, this is a very common thing that you meet many times in Thomas. That a higher power has a more what universal object, right? So in this particular example, the common sense has as its object the what sensible as such. And so it extends to the objects of all the senses, huh?

[0:35] The eye's object is not as sensible as such. That's accidental. Say, it's the it's it's color as such, huh? And the ear is sound as such, huh? And when you study the angels, you say, the angels only have one knowing power, huh? But by that knowing power, they know both the universal and the what singular. But we know directly the singular by our senses, like I know you directly by my senses.

[1:06] But I know what a man is by my what reason, right? But what I know by diverse powers, the angel knows by just what one power, huh? So the higher the power is, huh? The more you what know, right? And you go up the scale of the angels, you have fewer and fewer ideas, but ideas that comprehend more. Until you get to God, who what? In one word, said it all.

[1:38] Okay. So that Thomas begins to the fourth. It should be said that the superior or higher power, as such, regards the more universal definition of an object than the lower power, huh?

[2:00] Because the higher a power is, the more things to which it extends itself, huh? Of course, you see that even more so. if you compare the reason to the senses, right? Because my reason can think about color and what color is and what light is, like we did in modern science a lot, right? But we also think about what sound is, right? I'm seeing a book on came to the mail today, or you know, advertising for a book on on taste, you know, and so on, right?

[2:31] So reason, you know, can think about the objects of all of the what senses can't it, and it can think about many other things besides that, huh? So its object is much more universal. And you see something like that in the desiring powers because the senses know the good only as agreeable to the senses. So if something's agreeable to your senses, your emotions are drawn to it, huh?

[3:02] You see. But the will can love not only what is agreeable to our faculties, but many other things besides that, because it falls upon reason, huh? And reason has many other criteria, better criteria for what is good than what it agrees with our senses or not. Okay. And things you know like philosophy that aren't sensible, reason can see the goodness of them, right? So with my will, I can desire not only candy, but I can desire wisdom, huh?

[3:49] Okay. So the object of the will is good in a much more universal way than the senses. And Thomas points out as you go up the scale of the the angels, these higher things, their love of the common good is much greater than ours.

[4:12] But the senses, as such, don't know the common good, huh? What's agreeable to my senses in a way is my private good, huh? So by my my sense love directly, I have only what sense love of my private good, really, huh? Very limited to my love, huh? But by my will, I can love the common good of my country, huh? Like the soldier might do, fighting for his country.

[4:40] Any of them love the common good, the whole universe, which is God, right? So it's much more extensive in that sense, huh? The higher power has a more universal object, and therefore many things come together in one ratio of object, which the higher power regards, huh? Which nevertheless differ according to the reasons which the lower powers, as such, regard, huh? And you'll see that later on when we study the appetitive powers, huh?

[5:19] That there's one will, but in the emotional powers, there's two different ones. The concubiscible one they'll call it, concubiscible appetite, and the irascible appetite, huh? Two different powers, huh? The first one is the ability to what, to like something pleasant to the senses, to to want it, right, to enjoy it, right, and the other is the ability to what,

[5:46] get angry with what is getting in the way of your pleasure, or to feel fear for what is going to maybe what cause pain, right, and so on. So it's going to be you know two desiring powers. In Greek they call them epithumia and thumas, right, but in Latin they call them the concubiscible appetite the irascible appetite. huh? But the will is just one. So it's a more universal object.

[6:22] The concubiscible appetite knows only what is agreeable or disagreeable to the senses as such, but sometimes animals what they flee something not because it's disagreeable to the senses, but by kind of instinct. So the you know they notice how these little animals sometimes that are the food for some of these big birds, right? You and they're very little, and when these big birds fly over, right, they crouch down, right, not because the color of that bird is disagreeable, right, but because their instinct tells them that is what dangerous for them.

[7:02] I know one time my my friend Roy Monroe there he found a little kitten there in the tree and he brought it in the house and put the little kitten in in the drawer. The kitten liked to go in the drawer. They're kind of funny the cats that way. And so I came over to visit, and you know I like cats, so he brings out the kitten.

[7:17] We were playing with the little kitten, and we had some you know belts, you know, and we kind of you know, and the cat was jumping on, you know, how the cat does, and then my friend Roy took a belt and it was kind of a studded you know pattern belt, and the cat suddenly was afraid of that belt. You couldn't even hold him, you know. One of us couldn't hold him when that belt was coming towards him, you know.

[7:40] You know, and it looked to me a little bit like what snake attacking, you know, and I kind of thought it must be the instinct of the cat because she was, you know, the kitten was playing with with all the belts, you know, having a lot of fun with us, and we're having fun with it. And all of a sudden it's afraid of this one particular belt, but the looks of that belt, you know, a kind of fool, a young kitten, maybe not a cat would be fooled by that kind of a belt.

[8:03] See, but the kitten would, see, but it's resisting it not because it's it's hurting itself, you know, it's not like a flame or something, right? See, the concupiscible appetite is limited to what is agreeable or disagreeable to the senses. That's the only way that that it reacts to the good or the bad. But the irascible is something. Closer to reason,

[8:36] of course. You see that even human beings, how the angry man—you know—he's going to get even because of this, right? And he doesn't, you know, measure himself very well, right? In many cases, in most cases, but he has a reason for why he's angry, right?

[8:54] Yeah. And this is very important in representation of tragedy and comedy, huh? Because the tragic characters are supposed to be, you know, better than us, right? But the tragic characters are more characterized by anger, huh? If they have a fault, why the comic characters are more characterized by their what? Concupiscence Concupiscence huh?

[9:27] You see. Like St Francis of Sales, he had a real struggle with anger, but he obviously was a doctor of the church. a Brilliant, yeah, yeah. Holy man, And he struggled between those two—the anger and reason. Yeah. And uh What you notice, you see in powerful men, right? Men who get to be rulers and things that sort, right? They often have, you know, real anger. They they learn maybe to control it if they get to the top, right?

[9:50] But they do have a real anger, you know. Remember when when LBJ there, you know, spoke out at St Mary's College, you know, during there. And I was teaching out there. There was like the hundredth anniversary of the college, and somebody knew LBJ, so he came there for the ceremony, and he gave a little talk. But he didn't come out until it was time to give his talk because he had kind of a little cold there or something like that.

[10:14] But the Christian Brothers, you know, those Christian Brothers College there, St Mary's, describing how irascible he was in there with his subordinates. Oh. And they say even Kennedy was that way with his subordinates. Oh. You see. And uh really chew'em out, uh, if they? Didn't have the things ready, huh? Yeah. And so, but I think men who who tend to be

[10:36] domineering, right, get to be heads of companies or heads of government, so on. They often have this, but irascible side to them. But that's kind of goes with leadership, it seems. Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. But again, as you say, that goes back into tragedy, right? Because you know, you take the tragedy of King Lear, let's say, huh? You know the tragedy, or say Coriolanus, huh? A very famous one, huh?

[11:05] Coriolanus is the invincible warrior, right? Soldier, right? But he can't quite control his anger, huh? You see, but in the same way with the greatest work of ancient fiction there the Iliad of ancient fiction, there, the Iliad huh? The wrath of what Achilles, right, huh? You know, way Homer presents that, huh? Yeah. And and and the wrath of the great men, like you know, the the tragedy starts because of the anger of what Achilles and Agamemnon, huh?

[11:35] Right. You see. And so you you see that, that the great poets represent the the great men, right? The men who rule cities or rule armies, right? As being what,

[11:52] and more irascible, huh? Not a mild person. The comic characters, you know, like Falstaff, you don't see anger in Falstaff really. You see his what indulgence and food and drink and woman and so on, and his kind of his grasping nature for money too, right? To feed his vices, huh? But but the great men represented as what you know lovers of honor, maybe, huh? As Henry V says in the play, right?

[12:21] You know, if to love honor, you know, is a sin, I'm the most offending of men, right? You know, and and at the Battle of Agincourt, there, you know, there's. Somebody says, you know, wish, you know, ten thousand of these idle men in England were here to fight with us, because they're greatly outnumbered. And says, why the fewer men? He says, the greater the glory, you know.

[12:43] You know, but these are the kind of men, you know, who who who who lead, you see, and they have to be kind of what fearless, you see, and because you know, in some some of these comedies, you know, they're set in the old

[13:01] days of the duel and so on, right? And some guy who's a coward gets challenged, and the military man who you know accompanies him to the field of doing, you know, can't figure out what's what Confound, What's wrong with you, man? You know, you know. Well, you see, you see, the tragic hero is is what more or less fearless, huh? You see, but the the comic man is often what laughable because of his fear, huh?

[13:33] This like Falstaff, right? In the Merry Ways of Windsor, huh? Where he's you know the Merry Ways of Windsor are playing tricks on him, right? And he's making assignations with them and so on, and and he almost gets caught, and of course he's terribly scared of getting caught by by the husband, and so on, see, and

[13:54] so you have that kind of fear that makes somebody what laughable, right? huh? Can, you take a little break here, I'm going to take a break here pretty soon though here pretty soon, though. Okay. More slowly. Um,

[14:18] there is an order among the powers of soul. To the fourth, he proceeds thus: It seems that in the powers of the soul there is no order. In those things which come under one division, there is no before and after, huh? But they are naturally what together, right? Simo. So if you divide number into what odd and even, right? They seem to be together, right? But the powers of the soul are divided against each other, huh?

[14:55] Therefore, among them there is no what order, right? Well, Thomas is going to admit that in one sense they are together, but another sense there is a what order among them because order, as you know, has more than one sense, huh? Moreover, the powers of the soul are compared to their objects and to the soul itself, but from the part of the soul among them there is no order because the soul is one.

[15:24] Likewise, neither from the part of the objects. Since they are diverse and wholly disparate, as is clear about color and sound, they seem to be what, totally different things. Therefore, in the powers of the soul, there is no order.

[15:43] Moreover, in ordered powers, this is found that the operation of one depends upon the operation of another, but the act of one power of the soul does not depend upon the act of another, for the sight can go into act without hearing, and vice versa. Therefore, there is no order among the powers of the soul.

[16:08] that with let's say reason and will, right, or the senses and the emotions, that there's obviously an order among the acts, because I have to taste the food before I want it, let's say, right, and I have to understand what wisdom is before I desire wisdom. So there, they could give counter objections.

[16:34] But against this is what the philosopher says. In the second book about the soul, he compares the parts or the powers of the soul to what figures, right? But figures have an order among themselves, like the what two triangles inside of a what parallelogram, right?

[17:03] Therefore, the powers of the soul. I answer it ought to be said that since the soul is one and its powers are many, and one proceeds from one to multitude in a certain what order,

[17:24] and especially if you're talking about something natural, right? Okay, is necessary that among the powers of the soul there be some order, huh? He says there is a threefold order to be noted among them, of which two are considered by the dependence of one power upon another, and the third is taken according to the order of objects.

[17:57] Now, the first, he says, he's going to divide into two. The dependence of one power upon another can be taken in two ways. In one way, according to the order of nature. Now that phrase you'll see in Aristotle a lot, and in Thomas, according to the order of nature, when we talk about nature, huh, in the

[18:21] philosophy of nature, and Aristotle will point out there that both. Matter and form are nature, both matter and form. But Aristotle reasons that form is more nature than matter, and the reason why he does is because by matter you have a natural thing only in ability. By through the form you have actually this or that natural thing. Well, nature is obviously that by which something is said to be natural, so it's actually a natural thing through form that's more nature than matter.

[19:14] Just like in human art, right? Is art more tied up with the wood or the shape of the wood? Shape. See? Yeah. Because the wood is only a work of art in potency until it's been shaped into that statue over. there Mm You see Where the crucifix is right So because of that, now sometimes they form is before matter. secundum ordinem naturae, according to the order of nature, I mean it's more nature, it's more perfect form than matter.

[19:52] So sometimes you see that phrase used for what is what before in perfection or in excellence. So you have to understand a little bit about the word nature to see why it uses in that way.

[20:12] So he says the dependence of one power upon another can be taken in two ways. In one way, according to the order of nature, in so far as perfect things are naturally before what imperfect things. In another way, according to the order of generation and time, that's the first sense of before in the in the what categories, if you recall. In so far as the what from the imperfect one comes to the what perfect.

[20:46] Thus, according to the first order of powers, the understanding or intellectual powers are before the sense powers, huh? Whence they direct them and what command them? Huh?

[21:01] You see that when you want to think about something, you at the command of reason, really, you imagine something, right, in order to consider what you want to think about. And likewise, the sense of powers in this order are before the powers of the what feeding soul, right? You can see that, huh? You know, you give the cat sometimes milk, and the milk's been in the refrigerator too long; it's spoiled, right?

[21:29] And the cat won't drink it, huh? Or if the meat is, you know, sometimes people actually have used animals, right, to see whether the thing is still good, right? Because the animal, will okay, so he's not going to eat it, right? You see, and the cat sniffs these things, huh? Okay, and so the cat comes around the table during dinner time. You know, wants a little handout, and as I take the wine glass and go like this, you know, catches money in the wine.

[21:58] Say, well, how about a bean? But a green bean, now I want a little piece of my steak. You touch your fingers. See, by mean their feeding is what being directed by their nose, isn't it? You see the sensing powers, huh? And you know, we ourselves, our feeding is fed up with. I mean, is tied up with our. You know, does it look attractive? The food does it smell good?

[22:25] Does it taste good? Right, and then we might eat it, huh? Or it smells bad, you know. You know it smells bad. Pour it out, you know.

[22:37] So the higher powers, in that sense, what are before, in the sense of a ruler directing, right? But according to the second order, the order of generation and time, it's just the reverse. For the feeding powers of the soul,

[22:55] the nutritive powers, the power to feed and grow and so on, are before, in the way of generation, the powers of the what sensing soul. So when you have what we call the fertilized eggs, for example, what do you see first after that? We see cell division, and you see growth, right? Which is what we have in common with the what plants, right? And then gradually you start to see the sense organs being formed, right?

[23:22] And then finally you begin to see a little bit the action of what reason itself, right? So in the order of generation, the powers we have in common with the plants come before the powers we have in common with the animals, and finally the powers that are unique to man come into play.

[23:46] Now, according to the third order, the order of objects, the sense powers are ordered among each other. And that's kind of subtle what he's saying here. For the visible is what before naturally because it is common to what the superior bodies like the sun and the moon and the stars that they thought were immortal, and the inferior bodies, huh? Okay. In some way, the eye seems to be more universal in its knowledge than the what other senses, huh?

[24:23] If I had only hearing and smell and taste and touch, I'd know nothing beyond this earth, right? But with my eyes, I can what explore the universe to some extent, and all the knowledge the sun, the moon, the stars would be lacking in someone who lacked the sense of sight, huh?

[24:46] And likewise, audible sound, which comes in the air, which is naturally before the what mixture of elements which odor what follows, huh? That's kind of a strange order there, but let that stand.

[25:11] Okay. He's saying that air, being a simple body, right, or what they thought was a simple body, is before odor, which involves kind of a mixture of air with something else, doesn't it? As you know, when you're cooking, right? And there's air there before you cook. But after you cook, the air is kind of permeated with something else, right? Right. So it's it's something composite that is posterior to just air.

[25:34] Yeah. But sound just requires the air, right? Yeah, directly. Yeah. Your vision is picking up. Yeah. Because it's it's light as opposed to smell, which is carried on something slower.

[25:51] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Interesting on the the use of waves there in science, where it first was used with the water, and then used with sound, and finding they saw light as being wave like in some way. Now the first objection was saying that when you divide a genus into species, aren't they all the same time? So you divide number into odd and even, right? You divide triangle and quadrilateral, and so on, and so on.

[26:18] He says, to the first, it should be said that the species of some genus can be to each other according to before and after as numbers and figures, huh? So we could say that two is before three, right? And three is before what? Four, right? And Aristotle gave the example there in the second sense of before in the categories: the two is before what, or one is before two?

[26:44] He said, right? Right. Okay. As regards their being, he says, right? Although they could be said to be together, right? In so far as they receive the predication of the common genus, huh? Okay. Now notice what he's saying there. He's thinking of of logic there, right? Huh? Okay. So you might say you descend from a genus to species, right? rectilineal figure, But instead of triangle, instead of quadrilateral,

[27:28] can't be said two sides. You can't have a figure with just two sides, right? Instead of pentagon and so on, right? So these are all in one sense together, right? But I might divide quadrilateral like Euclid does into square and rhombus, huh?

[27:49] Oblong and rhomboid and so on, right? So you say rectilineal figures set the quadrilateral, and then quadrilateral instead of square, right? So quadrilateral and square are not together, are they? But quadrilateral is before square, right? But quadrilateral and triangle are together on the rectilineal figure, right? So in some sense, you could say these things are together, right? But in another sense, you might say the triangle is before quadrilateral.

[28:22] Because in a quadrilateral you have what two triangles, right? So in some sense the triangle is before the quadrilateral as far as their what being is concerned. But as far as receiving the predication,

[28:40] triangle is not before quadrilateral, right? But triangle would be before right-angled triangle, right? Like quadrilateral before square, and square would be before what pentagon, right? In being, but as far as being having rectilinear figures out of it, it said simultaneously you might say of all three of these, right? You see that? But it's not said as the word simultaneously of quadrilateral and rhombus, right? But we say rectilineal figure of quadrilateral and quadrilateral rhombus, and therefore we could say rectilinear figure of what rhombus, right?

[29:22] But it said first of quadrilateral and quadrilateral instead of it, right? Okay. The second base said, "You're an animal because you're a man, right? Okay.

[29:41] So because animal is said of man, and man is said of you, then consequently we can say animal of you, right? But we wouldn't say animal instead of dog because it's said of cat. In that sense, they're together, right? But now you're thinking of the logical what relation of genus to species, huh? But if you're thinking of their being, right? Well, two could be what without three.

[30:12] I could have two children without having three, but I couldn't have three without having two. I could have two dollars in my pocket without having three dollars there, right? But I couldn't have three dollars in my pocket without having two there, too, could I? Huh? You see? But if you're talking from the point of view of genus and species there logically, you wouldn't say that is is

[30:40] is two more a number than three? Is three more a number than two? No, no, they're one's just as much number as the other, right? Yeah. So Thomas is not denying that in some sense, two and three are together, right? But in some other sense, two is before what? Three, right? Because two can be without three, but not vice versa. But they are kind of what immediately or equally under what number?

[31:15] Okay. While quadrilateral and square are not equally under rectilineal plane figure, are they? But quadrilateral is first, and then under quadrilateral comes this, huh? You see? Okay.

[31:44] You had that in the army, couldn't you? Right? Suppose suppose I have the captain. You two guys are lieutenants, right? But you're both immediately under me, and you're kind of together there, right? Under me, right? Okay. But the sergeants are below you, right? You see? So you're before the sergeants, but you're not before him because he's a lieutenant, and you're both lieutenants under me, the captain. Okay.

[32:10] But now it's the time for the war, right? And I know you're the better commander than he is, right? So I said we're going to have you lead the what attack, right? And I want you to follow and back him up, right? He's going to burst through the enemy, and I want you to follow through the opening that he's got because I know he can do it, right?

[32:30] He's packing with somebody, right? He's gonna burst through there and then make room for the for the the you see. So, in some sense, I'm putting him before you, right? But another sense, you might say that you guys are both lieutenants, so you're together, right? Right under me, right? You see, see what I mean? So, nothing prevents two things from being together in the same way, but in another way, one being before the other, because as you know, there are more than one sense of before and what after, right?

[33:07] Okay. When I first, was teaching in Saint Mary's, I had a 20 year army man in my class. Oh wow! So he was, they get you know at twenty years, you get enough pension, right? Sure. And it's maybe not entirely enough to live on, but you know, but he was still you know young enough to go back to college and and prepare himself for a second what career career you might say, right?

[33:33] So I used to tell him, you know, he's older than me, much older than me. I was just you know young at a graduate school. So I said, you know, Socrates was a soldier before he's a philosopher.

[33:45] He alludes to his military service there And apologies, I'd say things like this, you know. So notice this guy was before me in what time, right? But as teacher and student, there's a there's a different order there. Interesting you say that about the commander thing because when we had it all for about what nine years ago, over 10 years ago, the strategy was if we were to attack in force, they would send the reserves in to attack because they wouldn't last that long.

[34:18] They would be shot down and killed, and then once the main conflict is over, they bring in the more experienced guys who would be flying around longer and have obviously their experience. Would would would be would would would be better for them to be in the rear because you know they wouldn't know what to do, you know. But but you know, you just send the reserves in and they just fly in, try and drop these bonds, and if you make it back out, hey, great.

[34:41] Yeah. Okay, it's suspicious now. The second objection was saying, you know, that the soul is one, so how can there be order, right? I says this order of the powers of the soul is right, also in the part of the soul, which according to a certain order has an aptitude for diverse what acts, right? Although it be one in its very essence or nature,

[35:18] and on the part of the object, and on the part of the axis, has been said. So he's got to say later on, uh, you know that the. Powers of the soul come from the soul, like a property comes from its subject, but in a certain order, right? The one power falls more immediately from the soul, and another one through that, then, okay.

[35:44] Of course, that's interesting. You talk about the reason and the will, huh? Because the object of the will is the good as known by reason. So, in one sense, reason will naturally come before the will, huh? And that's very important to know when you study the Trinity later on theology, because the Son proceeds by way of what understanding, right, from the Father, and then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right?

[36:11] But you have kind of an image of that in us, where from my reason there proceeds a thought about what reason is, like when we studied Shakespeare, right? You say, "Why? What a good thing I am, huh? " And then you start to love reason, huh? Like Augustine says, "Intellectum Volo ut ames love the intellect, the reason very much, huh? " So you have that reflected in the Trinity itself, right?

[36:39] Really, I should say the reverse, right? It reflects the Trinity in the order of reason and the what will, okay? And in the order, you know, a reason thinking and forming a thought of itself, and then you are coming to love reason, right? Because of this, huh? It's a little reflection of it's a

[37:06] have an image there of the Trinity, huh? But in us, huh? We're made to his image and likeness, huh? To our image and likeness, they say, okay.

[37:22] Now the third objection was taking the what Eye and the ear there, right? We says that argument proceeds about or from those powers in which there is to be noted only an order according to the third way,

[37:40] but those powers which are ordered according to the other two ways thus have themselves that the act of one depends upon the other, right? I know, sir. In this case, you can say that there are two orders, like we spoke of before, right? And sometimes the lower act disposes for the higher act, you see. So, for example, in education, there

[38:10] the fine arts, huh? Contemplating the beautiful, let's say in painting or in music, right, or even in fiction, is disposing us for the life of the mind, huh?

[38:26] So Aristotle can say in the *proemium Wisdom* there that the *philomythos right, the lover, of fiction, right, is to some extent a philosopher, huh? Okay. And I can see myself, you know, reading all the plays of Shakespeare as a freshman in college. That was the occasion of me to first read all the plays of Shakespeare. That disposed me for the life of the philosopher.

[38:51] And there, the imperfect is disposing for the perfect in the order of time and what generation. It's easier to love the plays of Shakespeare than to love philosophy. It's easier to understand the plays of Shakespeare than understand philosophy, right? Which kind of being disposed for that, huh?

[39:12] And but vice versa now, you see. When you get the higher things now, right? Now my understanding of philosophy enables me to go back to Shakespeare and see even more in him, right? And to say, now this is what you kids should be reading instead of this trash you're reading, right? You see, and if you make the mistake of reading trash or watching some stupid thing on TV, you you have a somewhat unfulfilled sense.

[39:44] by the end of the evening, right? Someone's describing to me, you know, this weakness people have, you know, where it's very easy to turn the TV set on after dinner when you're kind of, you know, at the leggies, and then in the midst of some stupid story, right? Sure. And you're going to be frustrated either way if you watch it to the end. Right. You know, you wasted all your time in that stupid story.

[40:05] If you turn it off before it's in, you're still got a little bit of curiosity about what's going to happen. Right. Yeah. So it's better not to turn the damn thing on at all.

[40:19] So notice then that the the the lower can dispose for the higher, right? In the order of generation of something, right? And you can see, in a way, when when the senses are used simply for food and and that kind of pleasures, they're tied up with food and those lower things. Um, that's somewhat remote from the life of the mind, right? But when the senses are used to see beautiful paintings or to hear the music of Mozart or to read the plays of Homer or Sophocles or I mean, the fiction of these people, epics, then you're being what?

[40:59] Do your senses being disposed more closely for what? Philosophy. See, I used to, you know, make a kind of joke, you know, of how you educate people there. You start with a room there where dinner is being served, and you know, nice food and and wine. You learn what wine goes with what and so on. And you watch people, and you see people who get a certain cultivation there in eating and drinking, right?

[41:27] As opposed to the slobs, right? And for some of them, there's a door at the end there that you can go through, and one night it's open and they can go in there, and there's the music of Mozart being played in there, right? And there's another door beyond that, but it's locked. And so you see those people who like to go from dinner into the thing and listen to the music of Mozart, huh?

[41:47] And they're going further now, right? Not so physical in their pleasures, right? More spiritual. And then one night that door in the further end is the music room is open. You walk in and there's beautiful editions of Homer and Sophocles and Shakespeare and Dante and so on, and see who really eats this thing up, right? But there's another door beyond that, right? Eventually get into philosophy and eventually into to theology, right?

[42:17] Now, but you have to gradually do that, huh? And so someone who's been brought up to appreciate, you know, beautiful music or beautiful. Fiction and so on, and has kind of a thoughtful approach to the beautiful, right? And they're being disposed in many ways for the life of the mind. But sometimes that's as far as they get too. You see.

[42:49] But vice versa, when you get to the higher things, you come back and judge these lower things better and say, "This really leads somewhere." You know, in terms of of moral virtue, and in terms of even the life of the mind. This doesn't lead anywhere. This is junk, you know. I remember Mark used to be, and Father Schuller used to be at our parish. you know, Did you know Father Schuller?

[43:12] Yeah. Kind of an expert in music there, but he used to direct the choir at the parish thing there. He was kind of soft. He started off with some more popular things, right? Then he graduated them into you know the really good church music. And then they realize how silly they feel, how stupid this more popular church music was, huh? You know, but you can gradually what lead them to something higher.

[43:42] But some people never get into those other things, huh? I remember the first time I heard Mozart. I mean, my brother Richard. I mean, really, the first thing they brought home the magic flute of Mozart, right? I listened, you know, I'm a fairly docile person. And I listened, you know, to the whole of the marriage of Figaro, right, one evening. I don't think I heard anything. You know, didn't hear it.

[44:10] And then all of a sudden, you know, you start to really hear the thing. You know, I mean, there's some there's some kind of you know. how to listen to it? I remember my cousin down too as a philosopher, and saying, you know, he's kind of he listens to a lot of baroque music and so on, and more than more than Mozart. And he said, all of a sudden, he realized that you really had to listen to Mozart.

[44:36] You know, you could just have background stuff, right? The baroque was fine just just for for for background music. You know, you're doing something else, you know. But Mozart, you really had to listen to the man, you see. You see, and

[44:53] of course, people who who learn good music too and they learn how to play an instrument, you know, piano or something like that, organ, they get a lot of discipline too, you know, and then they sometimes they're very good students, you know.

[45:08] One of the best students at the philosophy was a girl who played the piano and played the organ. You know, she played Bach on the organ and so on. You know, I mean, they get some discipline there, huh? But also their emotions are being disposed for the life.

[45:23] I think I think something like Shakespeare too. You know, we speak of the Shakespearean universe. There's a kind of the way in which he takes in the whole human life and kind of satisfies your your curiosity about human life and the meaning of life that the young person has, and therefore kind of settles you down, right? Then they'll study philosophy.

[45:47] A lot of people, you know, are afraid to hit the books, you know, because they think they're missing out on life. Well, maybe party life. They're missing out. But I mean, but it's more to life than partying. But even so, I mean, you could wander around the world forever, right, without ever settling down. But but Shakespeare gives you a sense that you've you've seen something about human life, really, and you know what's all about.

[46:13] huh? Just like a person who's traveled, you know, in a sense, and has seen things, and now he's ready to settle down. You know,

[46:27] but I mean, this other stuff doesn't reveal much about the meaning of life, even a poetic way. So, incompletely dissatisfied, you know, just most movies now? You know, things are going up. You know, the boy being out of how many cars and things they blow up. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't give you any insight into anything in life.

[46:54] Okay, so next time we'll go on to what the next two articles here, right?