Love & Friendship
10. Mutual Indwelling, Ecstasy and Zeal: Aquinas and Shakespeare on the Effects of Love
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/6-love-friendship/010-mutual-indwelling-ecstasy-and-zeal-aquinas-and-shakespeare/

[0:00] So let's look at the second. Effect of love here, right? So I say these first three effects of love are fairly closely related, but the second brings out some things the first doesn't, right? About this union. So the second effect of love is the mutual adhesio, as he says in the Latin, right? Adhesio is like adhesive, right? Gluing together, right? Very smart. A mutual staying within.

[0:28] Now Anthony is being summoned back to Rome, right? Politics, right? Cleopatra's a bit upset. Come, he says, our separation so abides, remains, right? And flies that thou residing here goes yet with me to Rome, right? And I, hence fleeing to Rome, here remain with thee, right?

[0:59] The sonnet one of those loves here, and happy I that love an unbeloved, where I may not be moved or be absent from, right? Nor be removed, right? So I'm within you, and you're within me, because we love each other, right? Okay.

[1:17] Hermione, why get you gone? Who is it that hinders you? A foolish heart to leave here behind. I left my heart in San Francisco, right? See, so sometimes your heart is left with the thing you love, right? Dwells there within.

[1:37] Oliver and Cecilia, those ones who were so much in love that we read about earlier, huh? You and you are what? Heart in heart. That's the conciseness of Shakespeare to express himself. You know, Washington Irving said to his nephew there at the end of his life, "It's idle for the rest of us to claim any merit for our writings." Shakespeare. And maybe one or two others he said said it all, That's it.

[2:01] Isn't it kind of marvelous. that. He said that, you know but they named that period of English American literature, you know, the age of Washington Irving, right? He's really marvelous, right? You know, but you know, he said that Pierre Irving was his nephew. He's helping him, you know, in there in this writing this biography of like of Washington. Title for me, you know, He made me merit for writing Shakespeare said it all.

[2:24] Shakespeare, one or two others. You know, he didn't mention the one or two others are to be overhead. That's that's marvelous, you know, marvelous. De Koninck's saying to me, and I asked him this question about my doctoral thesis. You know, He said, what are you asking me for Dr. Connick? What's he asking me. You know, it's not going to ask anybody. It's kind of marvelous. I mean, it's humility, you know, but Saint Teresa of Avila says humility is the truth, right?

[2:59] There's nothing false about this, you know. And you know my inwardness, inwardness. We have another word sometimes. another word, intimacy, right? But inwardness, right? I'm within you, and you're within me, right? There's a staying within of us. And you know my inwardness in love, right? Well, love is the cause, and inwardness is the what effect of the love, right? It's very much unto the Prince and Claudio, within each other.

[3:41] I would I had not known him, it was the death of the most virtuous gentlewoman that every nature had praised for creating. If she had partaken of my flesh, and cost me the dearest groans of mother, I could not have owed her a more rooted love, right?

[4:02] Myself have often heard him say and swear that this his love was an eternal plant, whereof the root was fixed in virtue's ground. The leaves and fruit remain maintained with beauty's sun. That's the idea, you know, of being what dwelling within. The Latin word has got the idea of what almost a glue, inhaesio all right? adhaesio right? I think Thomas's text is mutual inhaesio all right.

[4:28] The idea of being rooted within the other person, right? But your love, right? But this exceeding posting day and night must wear your spirits low. We cannot help it. But since you have made the days and nights as one to wear your gentle limbs in my affairs, be bold. You do so grow in my requital as nothing can unroot you. right So you've grown into me, right?

[4:56] You know, like a transplant almost right, you know, the plant draws and so on I think it's a very nice metaphor that Shakespeare has there in these two or three passages here. Duncan, the great king, to Macbeth and Banquo, who have done great service in the war there, welcome hither. I have begun to plant thee right in my own heart, right. Again, that same metaphor, plant right, and will labor to make thee full of growing.

[5:30] Noble Banquo, thou hast no less deserved nor must be known, no less to have done so. So let me enfold thee and hold thee to my heart, right? So the idea of staying within me, right? Being enclosed in my heart. All's Well. That Ends Well. I grow to you, right? That same metaphor, and our parting is a tortured body, right? You know, tortured bodies being torn apart on the rack, right?

[5:58] So in a sense our being separated is like being what physically torn apart, right? There's some kind of likeness there, right? But you've become a part of me, right? So it's like being torn apart when you are separate from me.

[6:18] I would she had bestowed this dotage on me," says Don Pedro. "I would have daffed all the respects and made her half myself, made her my wife, right? Okay, But again, that's you're part of me if you're half of myself, right? Now.

[6:36] On Anthony, and Cleopatra. of course, Anthony goes back and marries what Octavia, Caesar's sister, right? Who's a very uninteresting woman, but Anthony will use his affection where it is. it's back in Egypt, with Cleopatra, He married but his occasion here, right? Okay, but his affection, his heart is still back in Egypt with. Cleopatra right

[7:03] Hence ever then my heart is in thy breast. Your heart is where your treasure is, right? It is my soul that calls upon my name. Well, we saw Portia referring to her husband as his soul, right? And now Romans referring to his wife as his soul, right? It is my soul that calls upon my name. It's usually the way, he says those things, right?

[7:35] Can I go forward when my heart is here? Huh? See, our Lord says, "Where your treasure is, there your heart shall be." Right? Can I go forward when my heart is here? Turn back, thou dull earth, and find thee send her out. Of course, you see, the gutter is that same idea. The weight of being your love, right? You tend for it wherever it is, right?

[8:08] But be contented when that fellow rests without all bail, shall carry me away. My life hath in this line some interest, which for memorial still with thee shall stay. When thou reviewest this, thou dost review the very part which consecrate to thee. The earth can have but earth, which is as due. My spirit is thine, the better part of me.

[8:36] So then thou hast but lost the dregs of life when I die, right? The prey of worms, my body being dead. The coward conquest of a wretch's knife, too base of thee to be remembered. The worth of that is that which it contains, and that is this: this of thee remains. The mutual staying within. So now we come to the article of Thomas. Whether mutual staying within is an effect of love,

[9:12] one goes forward thus to the second. It seems that love does not cause a mutual staying within. That is to say that the lover is in the loved and the reverse.

[9:26] For what is in another is contained in it. But the same cannot be contained or contained. So if the water is in the what glass, the glass can't be in the water, right? So how could I be in you and you in me, right?

[9:44] That shows the difference between the spiritual staying within and the material staying within, right? Thomas says one of the articles there for the immaterial to the mind that I can be in your mind and you can be in my mind, right? But one body. could not be another body, and that body being it, right, shows the difference between the mind and the body.

[10:07] Love is like the mind. huh? Material. Moreover, nothing can penetrate into the inside of some whole without division. But to divide what are joined, the thing does not pertain to the desiring power in which love is, but to reason. Now you notice what Shakespeare to find reason, right? It's the ability for a large discourse, right? Looking before and after, right. But nothing is before or after itself, right?

[10:40] So reason also includes the ability to distinguish, right? And therefore, Hamlet says, "Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice, and could have been distinguished, right, Well it's a reason that could distinguish reason that could distinguish. Therefore, he can divide and get inside things, right? So how can you say that love makes you get inside of the love, right? Well, it's a reason that divides and distinguishes, right?

[11:08] Of course, we know that knowledge is the cause of love, right? So if the mind can get inside of things and divide them, then love can follow. What? Just like the needle, right? If that can penetrate, then the thread goes along with the needle, right?

[11:29] Moreover, if the lover through love is in the loved and vice versa, it follows that the loved is in this way joined to the lover, just as the lover to the loved. But this union is itself love, as has been said. Therefore, it follows that always the lover is loved by the loved, which is clearly false. Therefore, mutual staying within is not an effect on love. Now, Thomas is going to defend mutual staying within, even if I love something, it doesn't love me in return. Right, but even more so if I love someone and they love me in return, there's even more of this mutual staying within, right?

[12:09] But on the other side is what is said in the first epistle of John. Of course, John's epistles are very much about love, right? Who remains in charity, agape, remains in God and God in him, right? So that's a mutual staying within, right? Of the one who loves God in God, Charity over is the love of God. Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the love to be the lover and vice versa.

[12:46] I answer, Thomas says, that this effect of mutual staying within can be understood as regards the knowing power, and as regards the desiring power, right? And both of them is going to be mutual staying within, right?

[13:03] For as regards the knowing power, the loved is said to be in the lover, insofar as the loved remains within the knowledge of the lover. So I keep you in mind if I love you, right?

[13:17] According to that in the Epistle to the Philippians, in that I have you in mind, right? So if I love you, you're in my mind. I keep you in my mind, right? I don't forget you, right?

[13:31] But then vice versa, he says, the lover is said to be in the loved by knowledge, in so far as the lover is not satisfied the superficial knowledge of thee. that should be thought. He loves. but strives to search into everything which pertains to the loved, okay? Just as it is said about the Holy Spirit who is the love of God in the first epistle of Corinthians, he searches even at the depths of God, right?

[14:07] So if I love the plays of Shakespeare, right, I enter into all the details of the play, right? You see? If I love the music of Mozart, right, I enter into the particular parts, right? If I love the cell dressing. you know what do you use in your cell-dressing? You know, I want to get inside the cell-dressing, right? So in terms of knowing, if I love something, I keep it in mind, right?

[14:36] And I seek also by my mind to get inside of it, into its parts and the details of it, right? Do you see that? You know, the division of two and three, right? So I get the details. of each other. But as regards the desiring power, the heart, the loved is said to be in the lover. According as it is in his affection through a certain agreement, certain conformity of his heart to the object, right?

[15:10] So that he delights in it or in its good when present, or when absent he tends towards the loved itself, the love of wanting, or to the goods he wills, the love, the love of friendship, and not from some cause when someone desires something for another thing, or when someone wishes good to another because of something else, but because the agreement of the lover of the loved is rooted within.

[15:37] And that's the same word that Shakespeare was using in, four or five of those things we saw, right? Interesting the way the greatest of the poets, there's Shakespeare, and the greatest of the theologians here, Thomas, you know, He's got an," idea rooted within, right?

[15:56] Once love is said to be intimate, which is the Latin word for inward, right? And the bowels, of charity I mentioned, right? Very concrete way of talking about the inwardness.

[16:08] Conversely, the lover is in the love, but in one way by the love of wanting, another by the love of friendship. For the love of wanting does not rest in the extrinsic or superficial attaining or enjoying the loved, but seeks to have perfectly the love by arriving at intimate parts of it. So, if you like some food, you really what? savory, right? Trying to get inside of it, right?

[16:36] In the love of friendship, the lover is in the loved, in so far as he considers the good or bad things of the friend as his own. So, when something bad happens to my friends, like I got hurt myself, right? I feel it a little bit like I was him, right? So I'm in the one I love by the love of what? Friendship, right? If something happens to my children or something, right?

[16:56] See, and I feel. as if it, happened to myself, right? What the parents say when they beat the kid? It hurts me more than it hurts you, right? But in a sense it does, right? See, and the will of the friend as his own, so he seems to undergo and to be affected as if in his own, as if in his friend.

[17:20] And because of this, it is a property of friends to wish the same things and to sorrow and rejoice in the same. According to the philosopher, in the ninth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, and the second book of the Rhetoric. Thomas was the most faithful and the most humble student of Aristotle. One question about this. The Tonic says, "in his introductory essay, right, most faithful and most humble, right, student of Aristotle."

[17:53] Thus, the lover, insofar as he regards what belongs to the loved as his own, seems to be in the loved is made the same as the loved, right? However, in so far as conversely he wills and acts of the friend as for himself, as considering the friend the same as himself, thus the loved is in the loved.

[18:20] All of this is not dependent upon the one you love being able to or actually loving you in return, right? But then he adds in the last paragraph: mutual staying within can be understood in a third way in the love of friendship, according to the way of returning love. Insofar as friends mutually love one another and will do good for each other, right? Okay.

[18:51] Now the first objection was saying, "How can both be in each other?" Right. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the loved is contained in the lover, in so far as is pressed upon his emotions by certain agreement. Conversely, the lover is contained in the loved, insofar as the lover pursues what is intimate in the loved. Nothing ever prevents something from being container and contained in diverse ways, as the genus is contained in the species and vice versa.

[19:22] Just going back to Aristotle's famous text in the fourth book of the Physics, right? Aristotle distinguishes eight senses of in and out. And one sense of in that Thomas refers to is the genus is in the species, right? So animal is a man, right? In another sense, the species is in the genus, where man is in animal. So it's possible two things to be inside of each other, but in different ways of being inside of each other, right?

[19:51] So Thomas is going back to Aristotle's being the most faithful. And humble student of Aristotle, right? Goes back to that famous text. Aristotle refers that again in the fifth book of wisdom when he says, "Two things can be parts of each other, a different kind of part. So animal is a part of the definition of man, right? Because man is an animal that has reason, right? But man is a part of the genus animal, right, which contains dog and cat and horse.

[20:26] So in one sense, man is a part of animal, a particular kind of animal, right? In another sense, animal is a part of the definition of man, right? So animal can be a part of man and man a part of animal, but not by the same meaning of part, right? You see, man can't be a part of the definition of animal, and

[20:52] animal can't be a part or particular kind of man, except metaphorically. You see the idea? But man can be a part of the genus animal, right? Particular kind of animal. An animal can be a part of the definition of man, right? You see the idea? The same with the word "in," right? One thing can be in one thing in one sense, right, and vice versa. The other be in it.

[21:26] So man is in the genus animal. An animal is in the definition of man. You see, but different senses of being in. So you got to go back to the book of Natural Hearing. You've got to go to eight books of Natural Hearing like that, so you can pull these things out, right? Otherwise, Thomas would be lost, right, without his teacher Aristotle.

[21:51] I told you that famous dinner there where they were honoring Charles De Koninck and Jacques de Molion at the ball there, you know, for their. I know 25 years where was it the ball you know, and of course they praised him, and so they kept and say a few words afterwards, right? So Jacques de Mollion spoke first, and he thanked him, you know, for all these nice things they said about him.

[22:10] He said, "But you shouldn't have been praising me; you should have been praising Thomas and White But then he kind of gets up there, you know, and he says, "Well, he says, I agree with what I said. He said, 'But you shouldn't have been praising Thomas; You shouldn't have been praising Aristotle. '"

[22:28] But it's kind of, you know, you frame my comparison there, you know. One reason in divine providence for the non-conversion of many of Jews, right, and one good that God brought out even of the violent opposition of many Jews to the early church, right. Like you read about in the Acts of Apostles now. Every day we almost see in the Acts of Apostles, you have this. Well, the Jews who were violently opposed to the new church were witnesses to the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament, whose prophecies, right, refer to Christ, right.

[23:11] So when the Christian preachers referred to the books of the Old Testament in confirmation of their faith, right, people might say, "Well, anyway, you invented those books, and then you know." But here, you're the the violent enemies, of, the unconverted Jews, were witnesses to the authenticity of the very books in which the Christians reason, right? You know. The same way now, the fact that Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle thought out many of these things, right, without the faith, right, is a sign, right, that these things are naturally knowable, right.

[23:55] Without the faith, right, you know, and I tell the students there, you know, Plato in his last work, the Laws, the Athenian Strangers, he's called right dialogue, he proposes a law against homosexuality, right. And the reason he gives is that it's against nature. I say, "well, now Plato lives in a society where this vice was quite prevalent and quite tolerated, and and so on, huh? " But here he can follow nature, right, in opposition even to the customs of his time, right.

[24:29] So if I say I'm opposed to homosexuality, it's not just not just because I happen to be a Catholic, right, huh? But I can say, "Hey, with Plato, and see, it's against contra naturam, as he says, against nature, right? " But if these Greek philosophers had not done these things at a time when Christianity was not around, you might say, "Well, they just, you know, try to support.

[24:55] Their Christian faith, right? I think it's kind of interesting to see that, you know. I always mentioned, you know, my my my cousin there, one of my cousins who was in, you know, I've never gotten to college like that, you know, but just kind of a interesting things and so on. And she got involved with these, you know, minor great books programs, you know, and little excerpts from the Great books and so on.

[25:18] But she ran across some of these texts from Aristotle on God, and she was just absolutely amazed by them, right? That this pagan, you know, could know this much about God enough that she would know as a Catholic, you know. And that's good to see, I think, you know, because it shows, huh? You know, we would say Saint Paul says in Romans chapter one, verse twenty, you know, that invisible things of God are made known by things are made.

[25:42] He's talking about the pagan philosophers, right? And it's good to know that these things are are knowable by natural reason, right? So I make kind of an analogy there, right? You know, that something in divine providence of men like Plato and Aristotle, although it would have been better for them to be exposed maybe to Catholic faith, right? But the fact that they philosophized without the Catholic faith and arrived at some understanding of what was naturally good and naturally bad and so on is a sign that these things can be known without the what faith, right?

[26:18] And therefore, are not simply imposing our faith as we're accused of doing all the time these days when we say we're opposed to homosexuality or whatever it might be, you know.

[26:30] Opposed to things, also, and maybe, and first of all, because they're unnaturally, okay. Now to the second, which is an objection there? But isn't this idea of getting inside a thing and so on? involved dividing and distinguishing, and isn't that the work of reason? Thomas doesn't deny that, but he says, "To the second, it should be said that the knowledge of reason receives the affection of love. That's one of the causes of love, right?

[27:13] And therefore, as reason inquires within, so the affection of love enters deeply into the loved, as is clear from what has been said, right? Okay. So it's the thread that penetrates the cloth with the needle.

[27:29] Does the thread get inside the cloth, or the thread can't penetrate the cloth? It's an needle, like it's you know, see. But but the thread follows the needle, right? You go in there, right? And so, because reason can get inside of things, and love, which is an effect of knowledge, can get inside of things, right? Okay. We speak, you know, of a good student as being diligent, right?

[27:55] Which means that he penetrates the subject, right? Interesting. We use the word diligent, which comes from the word for what? Love, right? Okay. The third objection was talking about that sometimes love without mutual love, right? But even without mutual love, there's still mutual staying within, right? So if I love the girl and she doesn't love me in return, I keep her in my mind, right? And I observe her and try to get inside and and know the details of her, right?

[28:29] But there'd be even more mutual staying within, if she doesn't love me to return, right? Okay. Shall we take a little break here before we have ecstasy here? huh Okay. He's guessing the right casket, you know. You know the the story, don't you? Goes way back in English European literature, right? You have to choose one of these three caskets. If you choose the right one, you get the girl, right?

[28:57] Choose the wrong one, you can't never marry anybody. You have to swear you'll never marry anybody if you don't choose right. But Sonia chooses right. She's the man she wants too, right? So she's saying she sees him making the right choice. Oh, love, be moderate. huh? Allay the ecstasy, right? The love is so strong that she's going to ecstasy. In measure, reign thy joy, like the great wise men of Greece said, right?

[29:27] Know thyself. Didn't say what? Love yourself. He said, "Know thyself, and nothing too much. " Kind of reminds you a lot, right? Especially love yourself. In measure, reign thy joy, right? Scant the success. I feel too much thy blessing, make it less for fear I surfeit, right?

[29:52] Now Polonius has concluded that Hamlet. Mad because he's in love with Ophelia, right? And of course, being a prudent father, he told Ophelia don't, you know, give in to this prince because princes don't marry, you know, commoners, right? They they marry princesses. And so he's gone mad because he's in love with her, right? And she's not returning his love. This is the very ecstasy of love, right?

[30:20] He seems to be what beside himself. We say sometimes, right? Well, if you're beside yourself, you're out of yourself, right? You, ecstasy means what to stand outside of, out from yourself, right? So he says this is the very ecstasy of love, whose violent property foredoes itself and leads the will to desperate undertakings, as oft as any passion under heaven that does afflict our natures, right?

[30:52] So does love make you better or afflict you? And again, talking about now the same thing But now woman's love here, and the ecstasy hath so much overborne her that my daughter is sometimes affir'd or afraid, right? She would do a desperate outrage to herself, right?

[31:13] And Proteus, the words you saw before, he's talking about his friend Valentine. He after honor hunts, I after love. He leaves his friends to dignify them more. I leave my friends, myself, my friends, and all for love, right? So he's left himself, right? He's gone out of himself, right? Effect of love, right? Out of yourself.

[31:42] Romeo says, "I have lost myself. I am not here. This is not Romeo. He's some other word Yeah Ferdinand wants you know love at first sight. when He sees Miranda on the island there in Tempest. Oh, if a virgin, that's condition number one, right? And your affection not gone forth. I'll make you the queen of Naples, right? So if you're not in love with somebody else, your affection has not gone forth, right?

[32:16] Out of yourself, huh? Now, Leonato is the father of Hero, right? And Hero's been falsely accused in this love and friendship play. But mine, and mine, I loved, and mine, I praised. Notice the connection between love and praise there, right? That's what heaven would be like: be loving God and what praising God, right? And mine that I was proud on, mine so much. This little what daughter, only daughter that he loved, right?

[32:51] That I myself was to myself not mine. Value of her, right? And sometimes you see this in parents, right? They're so attached to the child, right? They seem to you know forget themselves, right? To go out of themselves, identify themselves with the good of that what child, right? And everything's blasted on the false accusations against her. Now, Capulet again is another father with his daughter there, and Juliet is found apparently dead on her wedding day.

[33:19] Terrible! You can't imagine that dead wedding day. Oh me, oh me, my child, my only life. And of course, the wife says, "Revive! Look up, or I will die with thee." Oh child, oh child, my soul and not my child. That's the same thing that the husband and wife's son is saying. my soul, not my child, right? So he's identifying himself. He's gone out love to her.

[33:48] Dead art thou, like my child, is dead, and with my child, my joys are buried. So Thomas here, whether ecstasy is an effect of love, one goes forward to the third. Thus, it seems that ecstasy is not an effect of love, for ecstasy seems to bring in some alienation of mind. Now we saw that, right? An example there of Hamlet being mad, right? And

[34:20] he went from much ado about nothing, right? Which would make suicide someone. For ecstasy seems to bring in some alienation of mind, but love does not always make alienation. So lovers are sometimes, once in a while, in full possession of their mental powers. Therefore, love does not make ecstasy.

[34:54] Moreover, the lover wants the love to be united to himself. Therefore, he draws the love to himself. More than he goes forward to the love, going outside of himself. Now Thomas is going to distinguish between the two kinds of love, right? If I have the love of wanting, then I'm more trying to draw the object into myself, right? But if I have the love of wishing well, then I'm going to undergo ecstasy, haplos, simpliciter without qualification, right?

[35:25] Why my love of candy is only ecstasy in a very what qualified sense, right? Because I go out of myself for candy to bring it back to myself, right? But if I really wish well to somebody for their own sake and not for the good I get of it, right? Then I seem to go entirely outside of myself, right? Okay, and this is where the saints are in respect to the love of God, right?

[35:52] Now the third objection: Moreover, love joins the loved to the lover, as has been said. If therefore the lover tends outside himself so that he may go into the loved,

[36:08] it follows that he always loves the loved more than himself, which is clearly false. Therefore, ecstasy is not an effect of love. So one undergoes ecstasy, and especially in the full way, one seems to be loving the beloved more than oneself, right? Okay, and can one love the loved more than oneself, right? That's a question, right?

[36:39] But the other side is what Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names, that divine love makes what ecstasy, right? And that God Himself undergoes ecstasy because of love, right? So when He became man, but this is going outside of Himself, isn't it, right? Taking on the form of a slave, right? As Saint Paul says, since then every love is some participating likeness of the divine love, as is said there and by Dionysius.

[37:11] It seems that any love causes some kind of what ecstasy, right? I answer that someone is said to undergo ecstasy when he is placed outside himself, right? That's what the very etymology of the word extasis, to stand outside of oneself, right? Which happens, he says, both according to the grasping power, the knowing power, right, and according to the heart, the desiring power, right. Now, according to the knowing power, someone is said to be placed outside himself when he is placed outside the knowledge proper to him, either because he is lifted up to a higher one, as man when he is raised up to comprehending some things which are above sense and reason is said to undergo ecstasy.

[38:08] So, when Saint Paul was carried up to the third heaven, as he describes in the Corinthians, there, right? He seems to undergo ecstasy on the side of the knowing powers, right? Whether the senses or not, I don't know, right? I was outside of myself, right? Okay, in heaven, right? Seeing God.

[38:28] Insofar as he is placed outside the natural knowledge of reason and sense, or because he is pressed down, right? This is the bad sense of ecstasy, right? As when someone who falls into fury or madness is said to undergo ecstasy, right? And then he's mad, right? He's gone outside his reason, right? He's acting out of his imagination, right? Okay, that's ecstasy, but now what? In the bad sense, right?

[38:56] Okay, so ecstasy above your natural way of knowing, right? Or ecstasy falling out of your natural way of knowing below, right? By the desiring power, by the heart, someone is said to undergo ecstasy when his desire is carried into another, going forth in some way outside himself.

[39:25] Now he says love is the cause of these two kinds of ecstasy in a different way, right? Love makes the first ecstasy by way of what disposition?

[39:37] In so far as it makes one meditate on the loved, as has been said, intense meditation on one thing withdraws from what other things.

[39:51] So if you love God, that disposes you for ecstasy on the side of your knowing powers, right? For being carried out of your natural way of knowing, huh? But now love makes the second ecstasy directly. But now he distinguishes, as we're saying, between the two kinds of love, right? The love of friendship, simply, and the love of wanting, not simply, but in some respect. Now we've talked about that kind of distinction before, haven't we?

[40:19] And in Greek, they'll say, you know, Aristotle say between haplos and and not haplos, right? Or in some way, in Latin, Thomas will you should say simpliciter in secundum quid, right? Okay.

[40:37] But simpliciter means fully and completely, right, and without qualification, right? And secundum quid means in some very qualified, limited, and perfect way, right? And this is the kind of distinction we make, what? In every part of philosophy, right? We've talked about that before, haven't we? Okay. Um. So, I take the example from ethics there. I think before, right? You annoy me, so I murder you, right? Is it good to murder you?

[41:14] Yeah, I mean, if my my little boy or little girl asked me, you know, I'd say no, not good, right? Okay, it's only a very qualified way. It doesn't move an annoyance in my life, right? That's in a very qualified way.

[41:28] It's good, right? Okay. People commit abortion, or you know, which is form of murder, but saving a career, or it can avoid, you know, something, are they, right? So it's good, secundum quid, right, in a very limited, imperfect way, right?

[41:50] Okay. So he's saying the love of friendship, the love of wishing well, right? The love of wanting, they both create ecstasy, but. The first simply, and the other only in a very what limited way, right? For the love of wanting, the lover is in some way carried outside himself, in so far as not content to rejoice in the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside of himself, right?

[42:17] I have a bottle. I gotta have some candy. I gotta have a steak. I gotta have some chips. I gotta. But because he seeks to have that extrinsic good for himself, right? He does not go outside himself simply, but such an affection in the end is enclosed within himself, right? Okay. But in the love of friendship, the affection of someone goes outside himself simply, because he wills good to his friend as having care and foresight over him for the sake of the friend himself, right?

[42:52] Okay. And so on those examples there of the parents there, right? You see, they will good to the child, their child, right? Not because they're going to get some good out of themselves, right? So they've gotten, you might say, simply out of themselves, right? Okay.

[43:20] Okay, let's go back and look at the first objection. Making a nation of mind, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that reason proceeds that that reason proceeds in regard to the first ecstasy, where you go out to something less than a man, right? So Nebuchadnezzar, right? He went mad, didn't he? He was down the ground eating the grass, wasn't he? Isn't that what he described?

[43:50] Yeah, he's undergone ecstasy, but in the bad sense, right? Okay. Now not every love produces that kind of ecstasy, right? The second objection was taken from what the love of wanting, really, right? Thomas says to the second, it should be said that that reason proceeds about the love of wanting, which does not make ecstasy simply, as has been said, right?

[44:22] So am I in ecstasy in regard to the candy? Only a very qualified sense, but I really, you know, go outside myself, seeking candy, you know, stopping at the stores on the way to find some candy, but it's all to bring it back to my stomach and my mouth, right? Okay. Okay. So notice that Thomas has a distinction there, right, between the two kinds of love and the kind of ecstasy that they what produce, right?

[44:52] You see that? They're nicely tied there together, right? Now, does this mean, though, in the third objection, if you have this love of friendship, that you love your friend more than yourself? When Christ says, "Greater love than this hath no man, until he lays down his life for his friends," right? It might appear that laying my life down for my friend, I'm loving him more than myself, right?

[45:24] Is that in fact true? See, because what I'm choosing for him is the continuation of his mortal life, right? What I'm choosing for me is this most noble deed, right? Which is the greater good? See, this noble deed of dying for my friend, right, or the continuation of his mortal life, which is a greater good. We have to be a materialist to think that the continuation of mortal life is a greater good, right?

[45:57] So even Christ, in choosing to die for us, right, and to die a most painful, right, and a most shameful, he might say, death, right, he's choosing the better thing for himself, right? Okay, and even even in in the off quoted lines of Dickens' novel, there the tale of two cities, right, where the one man gives his life for the other man, right, and that's a far, far better thing that I've done than I ever done before, right?

[46:29] You know, they all quote those words, right? And he sees in some way that he has chosen the what, the better part, right? huh? Okay, so Thomas could expand more on this, but to the third, it should be said that the one who loves goes outside himself to the extent that he wishes and does what is good for his friend. He might say for his own sake, right?

[46:57] Nevertheless, he does not wish. The goods of his friend more than his own, whence it does not follow that he loves the other more than himself, right? So that's a kind of subtle point there, right? You know, but the average man would see the man who dies for another as what, apparently loving the other man more than himself, right? Maybe that's not really true, unless you think that the good of the body is the greatest good, right?

[47:26] But it ain't. Okay, the good of the soul and the good of the what, virtue of courage or whatever it might be, right? It's a greater good.

[47:46] Now the last three effects of love here. We're just beginning to look at this a little bit here, you know. Now, as I mentioned before, on the article more, but I didn't divide this into this because the first three effects go together, and then the last three is together. The first four effects go together, right? Okay,

[48:38] because the first four effects are reference in some way to the what, the loved, okay. But the difference between the first three effects and fourth effect, that the first three effects are talking about the loved itself, and the fourth effect is about what either threatens to harm the beloved, right, or what impedes one from getting or enjoying the beloved, right? Okay. So if I love someone or something, if I love someone by the love of friendship, of wishing well, then I will move against what threatens to harm the one that I wish well to, right?

[49:27] If I have the love of wanting for someone or something, right, then I'll move against what prevents or impedes me from getting or enjoying what I want, right? Do you see? So still on the side of the loved in a way, right? That fourth article, but it's different than the first three because you're talking about now something in addition to the loved, right? Namely, what impedes one from the loved, right?

[49:56] Or what threatens to harm the loved, right? And then one is going to move against that thing, right? Okay. You see that? Now, there's a problem in the translation because in the Latin you have the same word for jealousy or zeal, right? And you maybe see etymologically, she first part jealousy, there, in, zeal, they're really kind of etymologically the same. But in English now, zeal is more the sense of what moving against what threatens to harm the one you love but the love of wishing well, right?

[50:38] and jealousy is more one's moving against what impedes you from getting or enjoying what you what love, right? Okay. But I use both words because the English you don't have one word that captures both, right? Okay. When our Lord, you know, casts the money changers out of the temple, right? And it says, "Zeal for my father's house," right? Okay. Well, that's that effect he's talking about here, right?

[51:12] Okay. Because he loves his father and his father's house, and he knows his father's house is foreign, and, so on. Then he moves against those who are what harming the father's house, right? Are degrading the father's house and so on, right? Okay. So if I love my children and wish well to them, then when you're using my children for target practice or whatever it may be, I move against you, right?

[51:38] You see, out of zeal for my children, right? Huh? You insult my wife, and I move against you, right? Because I wish well to her, right? Huh? Okay. But then you have this jealousy, you know, where a person

[51:56] pursuing the woman or something, and he. Or someone is pursuing his wife, or something like that, and then he moves against them, right? Because they're impeding him, right, from getting or enjoying this particular thing.

[52:09] Okay, do you see that? So it's well ordered, Thomas says here, right? Belongs to the wise to order, as Aristotle said, right? Troilus and Cressida, more vindictive, right, than jealous love.

[52:35] Interestingly, Shakespeare writes, you know, he'll put sometimes the cause, and sometimes the effect. Is an adjective modifying something? So you have to stop and think, right? So he speaks of jealous love, right? Love is grammatically speaking the noun, and jealous is the what adjective, right? And the adjective here means what? The cause and effect of love.

[53:12] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But now, sometimes Shakespeare does the reverse, right? And he'll put the cause, right? Proud contempt, right? Well, is proud or pride referring to the cause or the effect of contempt?

[53:45] Yeah, yeah. So the interesting way of writing, yeah, where either the the cause or the effect of something can be put in the form of an adjective modifying it, right? What question we had earlier there from Romeo? There, loving hate was it?

[54:27] Is love the cause of hate, or hate the cause of love? What? Love is the cause of hate. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So because I love the house of the Capulets, right, or I love the house of the Montagues, right, and I hate the the opposite house, right?

[54:54] So he has to have more to do with love or hate. You know, this fight. Between the captains of Montague right? I might say, well, they fight each other because they hate each other, right? Why they hate each other? Because they love their house. They want their house to be preeminent, right? You see. So, I want my house to be the supreme house in Verona, right? And I hate your house that also aspires to be the chief house.

[55:20] You see, so it's loving hate, right? Well, then, then the the adjective is the cause, or refers to the cause of the noun, right? But here it's the what effect? Jealous love. But it gives a pre. I mean, a brevity is the soul of wit, right? Because of brevity, Shakespeare's way of speaking, huh?

[55:52] Two gentlemen of Verona. My foolish rival, Valentine, of course, is in love with the daughter of the duke there. And of course, the duke has got in mind to marry his daughter off, maybe to rich old moneybags, huh? My foolish rival that her father likes, huh? Only for his possessions are so huge, right? Is gone with her along, and I must after, for love thou knowest is full of jealousy.

[56:26] Just when we're speaking, love is full of jealousy, right? But jealousy is actually what? Now it makes up love, but it's a what effect, right? But that's the way Shakespeare speaks. For love thou knowest is full of jealousy.

[56:49] Shakespeare has three plays in which the woman is falsely accused or falsely believed to be unfaithful, right? And one is a tragedy, Othello, right? Huh? Where Othello actually kills his wife, thinking she's unfaithful, but he's been deceived by Iago, right? Huh? And then you have two of the love and the mercy and forgiveness plays, huh? Cymbeline, right? Where the man thinks his wife has been unfaithful and he gives orders to a servant to have her killed, right?

[57:28] The servant realizes his, you know, insane jealousy, doesn't do it. Eventually, they reconcile, right? And then the same way in Winter's Tale, right? Huh? Sad tales, best winter, right? So three very interesting plays, but there's other examples of jealousy in Shakespeare, but here's a principal thing in these three plays, huh? You know, tragic or near tragic consequences in all three.

[57:57] But Scripture uses that, you know, with reference to God, right? God is said to be what? Jealous of our what? Loving something more than Him, right? And you know, actually uses the metaphor, you know, in the sense of, you know, just as the jealous husband, you know, well, God is jealous and is going to be something like that, right? If we don't love Him more than other things, right?

[58:22] So metaphorically, I can understand this jealousy of the husband to understand God's jealousy, right? For where love reigns, disturbing jealousy doth call himself affection sentinel. Well, there you see the connection between the jealousy and and love, right? That it's what? Why is it called affection sentinel? Something other than affection or love, right? But it does what? Support love in getting what it wants, or in what defending the what one that you love, wish well to, right?

[59:10] Okay. Now the Brothers Karamazov Grushenka says, "I am not offended to be as jealous of a girl like me. Did you ever see the movie or read the book? You know, Kuschenka drives him crazy. you know.

[59:33] But it's kind of, she says, "I would be offended if you were not jealous. I am like that. I am not offended at jealousy. I have a fierce heart too. I can be jealous myself, right? That's kind of funny, huh? But why would she be offended if you were not jealous? What? Yeah, yeah. See, so in other words, she's reasoning from the effect. Back to the what?

[1:00:02] Cause, right? See, just like in that previous reading we had from Portia, right, where she reasoned from the great love she saw between Bassanio and the Merchant of Venice, the Merchant of Venice must be something like her husband, right? She's reasoning from love, which is an effect of what likeness, right? Well, no, she's reasoning from what an effect of love to the love, right?

[1:00:29] So she would be offended if you said that. Stuff, right? Isn't that? When Thomas distinguishes the way our reason goes from one thing to another, right?

[1:00:46] He speaks of four things, right? Four four discourses: from cause to effect, from effect to cause, from like to like, and from opposite to opposite.

[1:00:59] And you know, there is no other way, really, or by knowing one thing would lead you to knowing another thing. If there is no dependence of one upon the other, which is cause and effect, or going the way, right, or no likeness between the two, or no opposition between the two, why would you go from one to the other, right? Seems to be a complete division of the discourse of reason from one thing to another thing, right?

[1:01:30] There are discourses of reason that don't go from one thing to another thing, right? Stay within the same thing in a way, but from one thing to another thing, those four are the only ones, right? But you see here again the discourse from effect to cause, right? Okay,

[1:01:52] but a lot of times the reason goes two from the cause to the effect, sometimes from like to like. And sometimes from opposite to opposite, right? When I first started out in philosophy there. I read Aristotle's Poetics, right?

[1:02:10] And the part of Aristotle's Poetics in comedy has been lost, right? So I would reason from tragedy to comedy, right? Tragedy moves us to pity and fear. Then comedy, which is the opposite of tragedy, should move us to the opposite of pity and fear, right? So I was trying to reason from opposite to what? Opposite, right?

[1:02:40] So Tobias Smollett, the famous novelist of the 18th century, there, "The Adventures of Roderick Random." The ball night being arrived, I dressed myself in a suit I had reserved for some grand occasion, and having drunk tea with Narcissa, that's the girl he loves, and her brother, conducted my angel to the scene, where she in a moment eclipsed all her female competitors' beauty, and attracted the admiration of the whole assembly.

[1:03:08] My heart dilated with pride on this occasion, and my triumph rejected all bounds. When after we had danced together, a certain nobleman, remarkable for his figure and influence in the ball room, came up and, in the hearing of all present, honored us with a very particular compliment upon our accomplishments and appearances. But this transport was soon checked, when I perceived his lordship attach himself with great assiduity to my mistress, and say some warm things which I thought savored too much of passion.

[1:03:45] It was then I began to feel the pangs of jealousy. I dreaded the power and address of my rival. I sickened at his discourse. When she opened her lips to answer, my heart died within me. When she smiled, I felt the pains of the damned. I was enraged at his presumption. I cursed her complaisance. At length he quitted her and went to the other side of the room.

[1:04:12] My sister, suspecting nothing of the rage, that did find me, put some questions to me as soon as he was gone, to which I made no reply but assumed a grim look, which too well denoted the agitation of my heart, and surprised her little. She no sooner observed my emotion than she changed color and asked what ailed me.

[1:04:39] Francis and James Fenimore Cooper were the first novelists here in this country. Francis had, with the keen eye of jealous love, easily detected the attachment of Isabella's singleton to Dunwoody. It was the keen eye of jealous love? Now. can you borrow that from Shakespeare, there, right? Because we had that on the previous page, right? Exact words, jealous love, right? Read some of these guys, and I know when you read Smollett, you know he always uses Shakespearean phrases all the time, you know.

[1:05:26] That's well said, though the keen eye of jealous love. What? That's the center. Yeah. Now, Antonio Sebastian, this is now one man who has what? wishes well to the other man, right? Huh?

[1:05:50] So Antonio says, "I could not stay behind you. My desire more sharp than filed steel did spur me forth, and not all love to see you, though so much as might have drawn one to a longer voyage. But jealousy, what might befall your travel? Right? You're in a strange town, being skilless in these parts, which to a stranger, unguided and unfriendled, often prove rough and inhospitable. My willing love, the rather by these arguments of fear set set forth in your pursuit.

[1:06:23] Now, this is the other sense of jealousy, right? You know, as I say in Shakespeare, jealousy can still have this sense of what moving against what would threaten the one to whom you wish well, right? Okay. But I think now the word jealousy is much more used exclusively for what the love of wanting, right? Okay. But it's the same effect in one word in Thomas, right? Okay.

[1:06:52] In other words, he he loves Sebastian, right? Sebastian is wandering around this town There's all kinds of sharpsters that take advantage of you, and so on, right? And he's concerned what might happen to him, right? Although it's dangerous for Antonio to be in this town because he had fought in wars against this town, and he's a persona non grata to say the least. But he's going out because he wants to what?

[1:07:18] Protect him from those who might harm him in the city. You see that? Okay. Like my brother-in-law, he's he's kind of a big guy, you know. Huh? He had some kind of a dance, and some guy was bothering his sister, right? Huh? And so, Kimon he said, "beat it beat it.

[1:07:47] Well, that's the sort of thing, right? You know, when you wish well to somebody, like you wish well to your sister, right? So, some guy's bothering your sister, so you you're beating up and going down to beat it. So this guy's, you know, so this is the love of wishing well, right? But these earlier examples, like with their sister and so on, is the love of what?

[1:08:05] Wanting, right? Huh? Okay, and it's you know, or with what's your name? Grushenka, right? You know, it's the love of wanting there, right? Okay. And the other kind is jealousy, as they say in the Latin. There's one word, there's zealous or something

[1:08:25] like. Now, King John again. This act so evilly born, King John, you know, imprisons a little prince, right? And the little prince, you know, thinks that his life is in danger, which it is really. But the little prince tries to escape, and he jumps off the battlements of the castle and dies that way, right? But they think that King John has put him to death, right? So this act so evilly born shall cool the hearts of the world.

[1:09:00] Of all his people, and frees up their what? Zeal, right now. That none so small advantage shall step forth to check his reign, but they shall cherish it. So the zeal of defending the king, right, has been what? Lost because of the evil that he's apparently done, right? So one is not so much loving the king anymore, right, when one sees his his evilness of him, right?

[1:09:27] And that's an important play, it's anyone that when they get into these speculation as to Shakespeare's Catholicism, right? Because the way he handles King John is different from their other Elizabethan dramatists. There's conflict between King John and Rome, right, and so. So Shakespeare tones down these things, you know.

[1:09:54] So.