De Anima (On the Soul)
92. Summa I q.77 a.5: Are All the Powers of the Soul in the Soul as Their Subject? Soul and Spirit, and the Meanings of 'Of'
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/4-de-anima/092-summa-i-q-77-a-5-are-all-the-powers-of-the-soul-in-the-soul/

[0:01] So that would be what five and six, right? And this is going to get a little more concrete here when we get into the particulars, right? Next one, but

[0:17] last but not least here now, okay? Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illuminate our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand all that you have written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. So look at the fifth and the sixth articles here in question seventy-seven today, and take a little break between the two articles.

[0:52] That's a logical place to break. The fifth article: whether all the powers of the soul are in the soul as in a subject, right?

[1:09] To the fifth, one proceeds thus: it seems that all the powers of the soul are in the soul as in a subject. The first argument here is based upon a proportion. In the words, at least, for just as the powers of the body are to the body, so the powers of the soul are to the soul. But the body is the subject of the bodily powers; therefore, the soul is the subject of the powers of the soul.

[1:45] That's based, in excuse me, it's based in part upon upon how you understand that phrase, powers of the what soul, right, and powers of the body, right. That powers of the body might refer to powers that are in the body, right, as in a subject. While powers of the soul might be a broader phrase and include not only powers that are in the soul as in a subject, but powers of which the soul is the what origin, even though they're in the what body, okay.

[2:23] But anyway, we'll see that when we get to the reply to the objection. Moreover. The operations of the powers of the soul are attributed to the body because of the soul. Because, as is said in the second book about the soul, the soul is that by which we first sense and understand. As you bring there, I guess, to the what demonstration there about the soul, right? The soul is that by which we first live, sense, move, and understand, right?

[3:01] And that by which we first live, sense, move, and understand is the form of the body. Remember that demonstration, huh? Okay. But the proper principles of the operations of the soul are its what powers, huh? Therefore, the powers are in the soul before in the body.

[3:32] Now, the third objection there with our friend Augustine, now, right? Moreover, Augustine says in the twelfth book on Genesis to the letter. that was, supposed to be what? he wrote something on Genesis that Jerome didn't think was what close enough to the text or something, right? So then he wrote these many books on Genesis to the letter, right? Right down to the letter, right? Augustine says in the twelfth book of Genesis to the letter that some soul senses not through the body, rather without the body,

[4:20] or senses some things, right, not through the body, but rather without the body, as, for example, fear and things of this sort. And some thing senses through the body, but if the sensing power was not in the soul alone, as in the subject, nothing could what it could sense nothing without the body. Therefore, the soul is the subject of the sensing power, and by like argument of all the other powers, huh?

[4:56] Now, Thomas doesn't like to go against Augustine, right? So we'll see what he does when he gets to that objection. But against this is what the philosopher says in the book on sleep and being awake. Huh? See how concrete Aristotle was. He wrote a book on what? Yeah. Sleep and waking, huh?

[5:22] That to sense is not proper or private to the soul nor to the body, but it's of the what two together, right? The sensing power, therefore, is in the conjoined soul and body, as in a subject. Therefore, the soul alone, or by itself, is not the subject of all its what powers.

[5:52] Now, Thomas says in the body of the article, "I answer that it ought to be said that that is the subject of some operative power." Now, that's why he says "operative potencia." huh." What kind of potencia is there that's not operativa? What would be the passive, passive power? Yeah, I don't know if he's thinking of that contrast so much, but he's thinking of when you say that matter is in potency to form, right?

[6:25] Okay. Okay. And even accidental form, right? Okay. So you can see the wood here is able to be what? To be a chair. To be a chair or a table, right? And that's an ability for form. Yeah. But the powers of the soul are not abilities for form so much, but the abilities to do something. Okay. Okay. Or to undergo too, right? Yeah. Operation is necessarily taken in the active sense, huh?

[6:55] Because sensing, as you know, is uh undergoing, right? And love is an undergoing too. Yeah. Okay. If you ever teach the course on love and friendship here, you'll find out that love is an undergoing,

[7:12] as Shakespeare tells us too. What does it be to say to Benedict? For which of my good qualities did you first suffer love for me? And and Benedict says, "You're a very good word there, you know, because I loved you against my will, right?" There, you had original meaning there. The word "what" undergo, right, to suffer, huh?

[7:40] So he says that is the subject of a operating power, right? A power that has some kind of activity, operation that is able to operate.

[7:53] For every accident, denominates its proper what subject? What was that word? Denominare, mean? To take its name from. Yeah, that's the idea. He had that word in the categories, you may recall. So, if if I, a man, am said to be healthy, right? Well, it's not as man that I'm healthy, right? But healthy is being said of me because of what the health is in my body.

[8:33] Okay, now what does this mean? The same thing is what is able to operate, right, and what operates. That's kind of common sense, isn't it? Right. Okay.

[8:48] Obviously, what does something is what is able to do it. Right. Okay. So whatever does something is the one that has the ability to do it. Right. Whence of that thing?

[9:11] When something is the power or ability of something as a subject, of which is the operation of that power. Right. Okay. Okay, now you can put that in a more elegant English, right? Whence, right? Whatever has the operation is the one that has the power as the subject of that power. As also the philosopher says in the beginning of the book about sleep and being awake. Okay.

[9:46] Aristotle is probably investigating there. What is what? Sleeping awake? Huh? What part of us do they belong to? Are they tied up with with sensation, or what are they tied up with?

[10:01] Is is falling asleep, losing your senses temporarily, or is it something else that the loss of the use of the senses follows upon? Aristotle's interested in those. Yeah, that is interesting. Those questions, right? What is it to fall asleep? Because we all kind of fall asleep eventually. Yeah. This is this is anecdote about Aristotle that he's supposed to have have had a metal vase in a metal ball, and he sat there studying like that.

[10:33] When he started falling asleep, it falls and thinking, bang, wake them up again. That'll be even as stupid as that, you know. Yeah. They attribute Aristotle's death, you know, to chronic indigestion brought on by overwork. Oh. But you can't believe half these stories, You know what? You know what? What they died from, or anything like that? You know, no, no sufficient diagnosis that we could trust at this point in time.

[11:01] And there's all kinds of anecdotes floating around about these people, huh? Plutarch, you know, in his life of Alexander, has a excerpt from a letter between Aristotle and Alexander, where Alexander writing Aristotle saying, "Don't publish the metaphysics. I want it all for myself." Oh. And Aristotle actually kind of published as well as publishing meant in those days. Ah. And Alexander wanted all to himself, and Aristotle writes back Don't worry," it says, "only those who already know the subject will understand the book."

[11:37] This is probably apocryphal, right? But sometimes these these stories illustrate a point, though even though they're not what may not be actually true, huh? But they're good enough to be true. They certainly make a point, nevertheless.

[12:00] Now he says it is clear from the things that have been said above that some operations of the soul that there are some operations of the soul which are exercised without a bodily organ, and the two that stand out, of course, are to understand and to will. Of course, we saw that in our study of what the third book about the soul. But when he comes to study understanding and willing here in particular later on. In this treatise, right.

[12:32] We'll get some of the arguments again for the immateriality of them. So understanding is an activity that is not in the body. Did you know that?

[12:46] Okay. And one way that they show that is because what we understand directly is something universal. And universal differs from the singular by the fact that what it's separated from what makes something individual or singular. Now any circle, let's say, huh, that you put on the board here will be what here or there, and therefore it will be what singular. But what a circle is is neither here nor there, is it?

[13:27] No. It's removed from what makes something what singular, individual. Okay. But whatever is received in the body is received here or there, right? So what's received in the body is received always a singular. And therefore, you never sense the universal. You always sense a individual or singular. So if the if circle was received in a bodily organ, it would be singular and not universal. But reason understands the what universal.

[14:03] Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thing is singular in sense, but universal and understood. Yeah. Now another way you can show it here, and we're showing it just to recall for a brief thing here. When I understand what a circle is, or understand what a square is, or something of that sort, I understand it in the form of a definition. So I understand distinctly what a square is that it's a equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral.

[14:43] Now, are those parts the definition? Are they continuous? Does equilateral and right-angled meet at a point, like the parts of a line meet at a point? Do they? Huh? If that was so, then equilateral and right-angled would be a straight line, wouldn't they? They're not though. Do they meet at a line? No. Do they meet at a surface? No. So the parts of the definition are not continuous.

[15:24] That's very curious because the square is something continuous. So I'm understanding a square, something continuous, by a definition which is not continuous. I'm understanding the continuous in an uncontinuous way. Now, why do I understand what is continuous by a definition that is not continuous? Is that due to the nature of the square that's understood in that way? No, because the nature of the square is to be continuous.

[15:58] So it must be due to the nature of the reason itself that it understands continuous things in an uncontinuous way. Now, of course, bodies are continuous, aren't they? So it understands the continuous. It understands bodies in a non-continuous way, an unbody way. It can't be due to the thing being understood because that is continuous. It is bodily. Therefore, it must be the nature of the mind, right?

[16:27] It's not a body. It's not continuous. And that's what has to understand the continuous in an uncontinuous way. Okay. There's a lot of arguments you can give to show that understanding is not what

[16:47] in a body, right? And of course, the will can also what you can also love and hate the universal, right? See, like I hate all terrorists or something like that, right? I can't stand those people, but as a class of people, right? See, hate all feminists. It's a class, right? You

[17:14] see the idea. My daughter one time's got a a job, you know, just little summer job there, being a waitress, right? Yeah. First of all, the question says, "You one of these feminists she says? " "Heck no, no, nothing at all," that she says. Okay,

[17:38] we'll come back to that when we take up these powers again, in particular. whence, he says the powers which are the principles, the sources of these operations that are not in the body, they are in the soul as in a what subject, right? Okay.

[18:00] But there are some operations of the soul which are exercised, or or well that may not be, the best way to translate there. Which act? You just say which. Yeah, which are performed, yeah, which are performed yeah through through bodily organs, right? As seeing is through the eye, right? And hearing is through the what ear. You know the sign that Aristotle gives there of the bodily character of the senses as opposed to reason, that if something is too bright, then one is kind of temporarily what Blind blinded.

[18:42] Yeah, like when you come out of a dark theater in a summer afternoon, can't see right away, right? Or you can be kind of what deafened by a very loud sound, right? When you think about something very understandable like God, then you turn to lesser things; they seem what easier to understand.

[19:06] So it shows the kind of the non-bodily character of understanding as opposed to sensing. The same thing is true about other operations of the feeding part, right? The nutritive part and the sensitive part, and therefore the powers which are the sources of such operations are in the conjunction, right, of body and soul, as in a subject, and not in the soul what alone, right? Okay. So Thomas is making a distinction, right?

[19:43] He's saying there are some powers, like the ability to understand and the ability to choose, right, the will, that are not in the what body as in a subject; they're only in the soul as a subject. Other powers, like the powers of sensing, and even more clearly the power of feeding itself or growing, reproducing, and so on, that are clearly in the what body as in a subject.

[20:13] Now you might recall, you know, the way of speaking that we have in the scripture there, where sometimes we have the word soul and the word spirit. Okay.

[20:33] Mary says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Saviour." Well, the soul and spirit are the same thing in us, but it's called a soul in so far as it animates the body, huh?

[20:50] But it's called a spirit in so far as it transcends the body. So the soul, you could say, in so far as it has certain powers or abilities, not in the body, like the power or ability to understand and the power or ability to what to choose to will, is called a spirit. And of course, we have that in common with the angels, right? Who are called spirits for another reason, but for similar reason, huh?

[21:29] And God Himself is said to be a spirit in Scripture, right? Okay. But the the angel is in no way a form of a body, right? So you never call an angel really a soul, unless you want to speak metaphorically, right? And we wouldn't call God a soul, unless you want to speak kind of metaphorically, right? But we call God and the angels a spirit, right? But we even call our soul in Scripture a soul, in so far as it has some abilities or powers that are not in the body, but in the soul alone.

[22:02] Where does our Lord say in one place there the spirit is willing, huh? But the flesh is weak, huh? Well, of course, it's a higher the kind of conflict there between the body sometimes.

[22:18] The powers that in the body and the reason and the will, which are resisting the inclinations of the what body, huh? Would the word uh that you said men's. Be the same as spirit, Somewhat somewhat like that, yeah, yeah, yeah. And so you know, Augustine will say, especially it's true when Thomas is discussing the image of the Trinity in us. And I think he quotes Augustine that it's in the mens, right?

[22:48] M B N S. But that means what? The intellectual part of us, but that includes the what will as well as the reason. And so Aristotle sometimes speaks that way too, and says that the the will is in the what is in reason, right? Being in that part of man that is not in the body.

[23:11] Think I mentioned you know the the Canadian brain student right who was trying to map the brain like they try to do. It's very confusing, I guess, to see what the brain what what's done where in the brain, right? But among things, they were you know stimulating different parts of the brain, right? And you know, he's doing this and he say, "What do you experience now when I when I stimulate that?

[23:35] " He said, "Oh, oh, I taste licorice. " Because there's no licorice there, right? You know, I do this here, you know, but he could never find any place to guess. Oh, I experience a choice or choosing or an act of the will, right? So it seems that there was no part of the brain corresponding to the will, and so kind of just inductively, he was concluding that the will is not something bodily, you see.

[24:04] So now you see, but the word soul is sometimes kept for the soul insofar as it has powers that are only in the body, right? In fact, the the word for animal in Latin comes from the word for soul, because the animal, as opposed to to man, has only powers that are in the body.

[24:36] So these cats walking around here, they don't have any powers that are not in their body, and that's a difference between us and them.

[24:49] And that's why you know they they say that a man is on the horizon between the material world and the immaterial world, and he has some powers that are clearly material, other powers that are immaterial. So he seems to be right between the two worlds, and so you can call man a what a microcosm. He has length and width and depth in common with the rock, and he has what ability to nourish himself and to grow and reproduce in common with the plants, and he has the ability to sense.

[25:28] And to feel the emotions with the animals, huh? And he has the ability to understand and will in common with the angels and God. So he seems to have a little bit of everything, huh? So he's called a microcosm, a little universe, huh? And that's one of the reasons, you know, not the main reason obviously, but one of the appropriatenesses of God becoming man rather than anything else, because he's taking back in a sense the whole what universe to himself, huh?

[26:01] He's taking a bit of everything. He takes on man, the whole material world in a sense, and the immaterial world, and it's very appropriate that he do that. That's not the main reason, maybe, for the incarnation, but one of the reasons we mentioned, right? That's appropriate for God to take on man, human nature, rather than nature above or below that, huh? He's taking on a microcosm.

[26:32] But this is also the reason why Thomas often says that the study of the soul, and especially in these higher powers that are immaterial, that's the gateway for our study of the angels, and eventually for our study of what of God, huh? We have to see the immateriality of those powers, even in us, huh? And then we can understand how the something about these immaterial things like the angels and God.

[27:01] I was quoting that one passage of Thomas where he says, "I studied the body, so I can study the soul, and I studied the soul, so I can study the angels, and I studied the angels, so I can study God. That's it.

[27:19] Okay. So the study of the soul, as Aristotle says in the beginning of the three books on the soul, is very desirable in itself because of the excellence of the soul among all things, the material world at least, huh? But he says it contributes to all knowledge, huh? And one thing it contributes to is to a knowledge of the things that are better than us, these immaterial things like the angels, huh?

[27:47] Remember, I was always wanting to study the angels there because Sirach says anytime he says we'll start. Anytime you're ready, do I? We'll start. I wanted to study the angels, huh? And

[28:01] but you know it's very important for ethics too because you learn in the study of the soul the different powers of the soul, and some of these powers are the subjects of this or that virtue. So foresight or prudence is in is in reason, and justice is in the will, and courage is in one kind of emotion. What the Greeks called thumos and the Latins called the irascible appetite, and temperance is in another power.

[28:34] The concupiscible appetite, as they call it in Latin, but epithumia in Greek. So, if you know the different powers of the soul, you kind of know the subject in which the virtues you are going to be studying are what found.

[28:50] And of course, when Thomas begins his proemium to logic, he calls and refers back to Aristotle's discussion of the acts of reason there, and that's the starting point, right, for the major proemium to logic there at the beginning of his commentary on the Posterior Analytics. So it contributes to almost every science: ethics, logic, study of natural world, especially, but also the study of the of wisdom, the study of the angels and God.

[29:21] So it's a very important key thing, and to study very much neglected nowadays. I have colleagues who never talk about the soul. They talk about the self, whatever that means. They don't talk about the soul, right? And

[29:44] it's a lack of wonder. Okay, so now you can understand the Bible means when it speaks of spirit and what soul, and I never seen really an explanation there of the first part of the Magnificat, but sometimes I try to understand it according to the distinction. And she says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior. " Well, it's in her immaterial powers, right?

[30:21] Her intellect and her will, which is rejoicing in God, contemplating God, keeping him in mind, right, and loving him, and so on. But insofar as she's the mother of Christ, that's in her body, right? And so my soul magnifies the Lord, right? When she gives birth to our Lord, conceives him,

[30:49] blessed art thou among women, he says, right? And blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Well, that's referring to what the powers that she has in her body, right?

[31:07] So that's why I understand those words. My soul magnifies the Lord by giving conceiving, giving birth to him. But my soul, but my spirit, right? My intellect and my will rejoice in God Himself. This is kind of very interesting what she says. Okay. Now I was explaining in regard to the first objection, right? Or when you speak of the powers of the soul, you might think that of the soul means what powers whose subject is the soul, right?

[31:51] But powers of the soul could also mean not only the powers of which the soul is a subject, but also the powers of which the soul is the beginning or the source for the body, huh? Okay. Because the word of has a number of meanings, as you know, right? You know how I rejoice in those amphibole of of those phrases like word of God, huh?

[32:19] The knowledge of reason. Let me study Shakespeare's exhortation to use reason and get a definition of reason. What's the two meanings of knowledge of? Reason.

[32:38] Is it one, one, for instance, the knowledge that we gain from logic? Well, but when you say the knowledge of reason, you could mean a knowledge whose object is what reason, or you could mean a knowledge that is obtained by use of reason. Yeah, a knowledge which is in reason, right? Okay. So geometry is a knowledge of reason in one sense, but not in the other sense, huh?

[33:12] So the word of there can mean as an object, right? Or as a what subject, right? Now, when you have the definition of reason, if you know the definition of reason, you know that reason is ability for large discourse, looking before and after. Well, that definition of reason, if you understand it, is a knowledge of reason in both senses. It's a knowledge about reason, right? Had by reason.

[33:47] Do you see the idea? And when Aristotle speaks in the fragment of wisdom there, that wisdom is a knowledge of God in both senses.

[34:07] See, wisdom is a knowledge that God alone, or God most of all, would have, right? And wisdom is a knowledge about God. He reasons to both, right?

[34:22] See, all the great Greek philosophers thought that either we should say God alone is wise, or only God is wise in the full sense, right? That man is either not wise at all, comparison to God, or he has wisdom in some kind of imperfect way.

[34:48] But then he shows that wisdom is a knowledge of the first cause. The first cause is God. Therefore, wisdom is a knowledge of God. Now, when you study God, as maybe you will sometime here,

[35:02] God's knowledge is a knowledge of God in both senses. The knowledge God has is a knowledge about God primarily, and is by knowing himself, he knows all the things, because he's the cause in some way of all the things, huh? So the knowledge of God is a knowledge of God. Now, why am I, you know, doing that? I'm just trying to point out to you how the word of has more than one meaning, right?

[35:35] Okay, and in this, these examples I was giving, the two meanings were what the knowledge that's in this in God, or the knowledge of we're pursuing now, a knowledge of the soul, right? And this we're getting a knowledge of the soul here, which is knowledge of the soul in both senses, right? It's a knowledge about the soul, and it's a knowledge had by the soul, right? Okay.

[36:09] Now here, when he speaks of the powers of the soul, he has two different meanings, right? One would be to say that you're the subject of those powers, right? The other meaning would be to say that the soul is the origin, the source of it, huh? Okay.

[36:34] So maybe they'll call this war President Bush's war, right? Okay. But what would be the meaning of that? You know, the war of President Bush. What does it mean? What might mean the war that he what in a sense was the instigator of? He's the one who began this war to some extent, right? Okay. Well, he'd say Saddam began it, but but you see that way it's sticky, right?

[37:03] You see. So sometimes we use the word "of" referring to what not necessarily the subject, but to the one who is the beginning or the source of something. Okay.

[37:22] This is a book of Thomas Aquinas. Right. Yeah. I don't mean it's a possession of him because this belongs to Duane Berquist, I guess. You see, got my name in anyway.

[37:40] My old teacher, Casieri, used to say, you know, you put the title page. He says, when you write your name like that across there, because nobody wants to rip off the title page. See, they might want to call my name there, but I haven't followed him. Yeah. You see, some of my old books, I I I write on the title page my name. Yeah.

[38:05] So when I say this is the book of Thomas Aquinas, what do I mean? Yeah, he's the source of this book, right? Okay. So when you speak of the powers of the soul, I mean this book is in, is in Thomas that he's he's what he ate this book or something and sent him as in the subject, right? But he's the, in some sense, the author of this book, right?

[38:34] The source, right? So the phrase "powers of the soul," which we use to cover those five general powers that Aristotle distinguished there in the five books about the soul, which which we'll be developing again here when you get to the first article and the next question, you know, seventy-eight. You know, just look at the title of the one. I don't want to go into it now, but just okay.

[39:02] He's going to distinguish five general powers of the soul. What does that mean? Of the soul. Well, five general powers of which the soul is the what first source, huh? Okay. It doesn't mean that these are all powers of which the soul is the what soul subject. No, only some of them would be right. But many of them, if not most of them, would be what in the body.

[39:32] But the body has these things because it has a soul in it. As Aristotle says, when a man dies, his eye is no more an eye than a eye in a painting or a statue is an eye. It doesn't have the operation of an eye anymore.

[39:52] Yeah. But at the same time, it wouldn't be the same because maybe someday they build transplant that eye and use it for someone else. Yeah, but then you have to have a soul there that would inform that eye, you see? Okay. So I'm just mentioning here that Thomas is going to talk about these two senses of of, right? And as I say, there are other senses of of too, like we're talking about the object, right?

[40:19] Okay. So the word of is kind of a interesting preposition, I guess you'd call it, grammatically speaking, huh? See. So in those amphiboles, those phrases that have many meanings, like the Bible, like to call it the Word of God, huh? And word of God has two meanings, right? Okay. The knowledge of God has two meanings. Okay. So he says, very simply, to the first therefore it ought to be said, that all the powers are said to be of the soul, right?

[40:59] Not as of a subject, right? But only the ones that you know, like understanding will. But what? As a beginning or source, huh? Do you see the distinction? See, it's

[41:18] like we see that this is the war of George Bush. We don't mean that he's undergoing the war himself, right? He's not maybe on the battlefield there fighting it. So he's not fighting all by himself, right? But he's the what? The beginning, the origin, in some sense, right? He's He's pushing the button. See, okay, okay.

[41:42] We might speak of Napoleon's victory, right? Because he directed the army, right? Although he didn't maybe do all the fighting, he didn't do all the fighting, did he? Or the charging, whatever it was.

[41:57] So you got to be careful about that phrase, "powers of the soul." What does it mean? See, you might think that powers of the soul means what? Subject, yeah, yeah.

[42:19] So they're not of the soul, all of them, as a subject, but as a beginning, right? A source, because through the soul, the what compound you might say of soul and body. Has that is able to what do such operations? Okay.

[42:41] Now the second objection is similar, answered in a similar way, because it's saying that the powers are in the soul before they're in the body. And he says, "Well, that's true, as in a principle or a source, but not as in a what

[43:03] subject, right? What's the difference? Well, he's saying the sense powers are not in the soul by itself first, and then later on they're in the body, right? Okay. But that the soul is the source of that power being in the body.

[43:25] It's a result of the soul being in the body that the body has this power, huh? And you know, actually, what I meant was how was the second? You know, how was the second part different from what you just said in the first part? Well, they're both being solved in the same way, aren't they? Yeah. That in both cases you're saying that these are to be understood of the soul as a beginning, right?

[43:53] Not of the soul in the sense of a what subject, huh? And when you say that, Doctor, Roos sorry I'm slow on the uptake here, but when you say it's the soul as a subject, could one say that that means only in the soul? Yeah, yeah, that's a distinction you made in the body article, right? There are some powers that are only in the soul as a subject, right?

[44:16] Only in the soul, as a subject like the power of understanding and the power of willing, right? So those are the soul as a as a subject. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, but all of these powers of the soul, right? The five Aristotle is going to distinguish the powers we have in common with the animals, even right, and with the plants. They're all of the soul in the sense of a beginning or a source.

[44:40] All. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. So you see that distinction there. Okay. So the knowledge that is in my mind as a subject, for example, might have its source in some my teacher, right? Okay.

[45:19] So be a difference, right? My knowledge or his knowledge. What's my knowledge now in the sense that's in my mind now, right? Was not my knowledge in the sense that I was the discoverer of this knowledge? I was the origin of it, right? Okay. Do I have Aristotle's logic in my head? Yep. But I caught Aristotle's logic. What do I mean?

[45:50] Principle. Yeah, Aristotle's the father of logic, so called, right? Okay. But Aristotle's logic is in my head, or my reason, I should say, as a subject, huh?

[46:08] Yes, sir. And the geometry of Euclid is in my head to some extent too, right? In my mind, reason.