Wisdom (Metaphysics 2005)
5. Metaphysics I, Proemium: Wisdom Is About the First Causes; Philosophy Begins in Wonder
Class of 2005-01-13
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/7a-wisdom-2005/005-metaphysics-i-proemium-wisdom-is-about-the-first-causes-philosophy/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Pray, pray us, and help us to understand how much you have written of the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

[0:29] So Aristotle worked out a six-part outline of what the wise man is, what wisdom is, huh? That the wise man knows all things in some way, huh? In so far as it's possible for man to know all things, he knows things that are what difficult for men to know. He's more sure about what he's saying, huh? He's more able to teach, huh? He has the knowledge that's most desirable for its own sake, and he orders everybody else around, huh?

[1:11] And is not ordered by anyone else, huh? He's the most architectonic, huh? Okay. Now, from the first three of those things, as we saw last time, he reasons to wisdom being about what is said of all, what is most universal in the sense of

[1:40] said of all, right? Okay. And now, from the second three, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth, he's going to reason to its being about the first causes. Now, we saw before that the man who knows the cause is more able to teach, right? So, if the wise man is most able to to know, he must most of all know the cause, right? Now, as you know, sometimes the cause has a cause, right?

[2:15] So, if I hit you, why did I hit you? Maybe the cause of my hitting you was I'm angry with you. So anger is, in some sense, the cause of my hitting you. But anger is a kind of cause that has a cause, right? So we might ask not only why did I hit you because I'm angry would be the answer, but why am I angry, right?

[2:39] And then I'd be looking for the cause of the cause, and so on, right, until you come to the what first cause? Okay. Now, incidentally, Aristotle in the second book would show that. Within each kind of cause, there are, in fact, first causes, right? So he's kind of assuming, right, here that there are first causes, right? What he's trying to show is that the wise man would be the man who goes as far as you can go in knowing causes, and therefore he's most able to what teach, right?

[3:24] Okay. So if I was trying to teach about the terrorists, you say, well, why are they blowing us up? Maybe the answer is because they hate us, and that's the cause. I suppose that they're blowing us up, right? But then the question might ask, right, well, why are they angry with us? Why do they hate us, right? And then you'd be asking for the cause of the cause, and you'd be more able to what teach about these things, huh?

[3:53] So the man who knows the first cause, right, or first causes if there's more than one, he would seem would be in this sense most able to what teach, right? Because he most of all knows the causes.

[4:10] Now, in the third paragraph on page four, he's going to reason that he has the knowledge most desirable for its own sake. Now, how does he reason out from this that he's knowing most of all the causes, and therefore knowing the first causes? Well, if you're seeking knowledge for its own sake, if you're pursuing knowing things, you're obviously looking for what most of all makes you to know, right?

[4:55] Now, what most of all makes us know? We most of all know something when we know why it is the way it is, right? When we know its causes. So he says, understanding and knowledge for the sake of themselves,

[5:15] especially belong to the knowledge of the most knowable. For the man who desires to know for itself will most desire what is most knowledge, and such is that of the most knowable. In most knowable, it does mean now to us, right? But in themselves, are the first things and the causes. For other things are known through these and from them, but not these through what comes under them.

[5:45] So it's the cause that really what clarifies the effect, right? It's the cause that really explains the what effect. You could say the effect is fully knowable only in the light of its cause. So nothing is more enlightening than the cause, and the cause of the cause is more enlightening than the cause. And so the man who knows the first cause knows what enlightens everything else.

[6:19] Fits in with the first cause being called light, as we say in Scripture, right? Lux vera as Thomas says in the after communion prayer, right? Seeing God is to see the true light.

[6:36] Okay, it's the light of the world. So it's the cause that enlightens the effect, and therefore it's the cause that most enlightens our mind. So if I'm seeking knowledge just for the sake of knowing, right? I most of all want to be what enlightened, right? Yeah. And therefore I most of all am seeking what the cause, and therefore most of all seeking the very first cause.

[7:15] Now the sixth thing he says will become more clear when we understand when we take up the causes that end or purpose is one of the four kinds of cause, and in fact the end is sometimes said to be the cause of all the other causes.

[7:37] See why did wood get to be in some way responsible for this table here? This is a wooden table, I guess, huh? Well, the wood got to be the wood of the table, got to be the matter of the table because the carpenter what shaped the wood and so on.

[7:58] How did the form get into the wood? Well, because they're carpenter, right? But why did the carpenter put this form into the table? So we could have something to write on, or to eat on, or something, right? So the end is the cause of what the carpenter did, right? Sitting is why the carpenter made the chair the way he did.

[8:24] So in that sense, the end is the cause of all the other causes being causes. Okay. Now, who or what does it mean to direct others, right? You always direct people towards some end or goal, right? So he says that is the chief science, and we saw this already in our study there in the Nicomachean Ethics, right? That because health is the end of medicine, right? That's why the medical doctor commands the pharmacist.

[9:00] Okay. So if the wise man in the fullest sense is the most architectonic, right? He must be aiming at the end to which every other end is subordinated. And that would be the end of the whole what universe, right? And that he says is the chief science, of the and more ruling than the subordinate science, which knows that for the sake of which each thing ought to be done.

[9:27] This sovereign is the good of each, and as a whole, is going to be the best in all nature, in all reality, right? The end of the whole universe. What does God say in the Scripture? I am the Alpha and the what? Omega, right? He's not only the first maker, the first mover, right? But he's also the end and the goal of everything. I am the Alpha and the Omega, in the end. From all the aforesaid, then he says, the name Sot, namely wisdom, falls in the same science or knowledge, for it is necessary that this looks at the first beginnings and what causes, huh?

[10:14] For one of the causes is the good, right? And that for the sake of which, which is the definition of the cause. cause called good or end, that for the sake of which. Do

[10:27] you see what he's done then? From the first, second, and third thing in the drawing a line around wisdom of the wise man, right? The description, so to speak, of the wise man or wisdom. From the first three elements of that, he reasons to wisdom being about what is said of all, what is most universal in the sense of being said of all things, what is common to all things in being said of them, right?

[10:56] And then from the last three, he reasons to wisdom being about the first causes, right? Which in another sense are common to all things, right? Okay. Now we saw something like that on a lesser scale in our study of ethics a bit, because we talked about the division of human goods into goods of the body, goods of the soul, exterior goods. We talked about the order among those goods and so on.

[11:27] So in a general way, we're talking about all the goods in human life, right? But when he talked about happiness or the end or purpose of man, we're talking about what was common in another sense, right? To all the what

[11:48] the goods in human life, right? Because they're all for the sake of the end of man and purpose of man. Do you see that? Yeah. Yeah.

[11:59] Just like we said in an army, right? Soldier is common to everyone in the army, in the sense that it's said of everyone in the army, right? But the general who commands the army, in some sense, he's common to everybody too, right? In a different sense. By power. Yeah, by his power, by his command, right? Okay.

[12:27] So I put on the board there those words I quoted before from the central thinker, in human thought, who's Heraclitus, the teacher of the teacher of Plato, right? He says, "Those who speak with understanding must be strong in what is common to all."

[12:45] So Aristotle, in the fourteen books of wisdom, is going to try to become strong in what is common to all. But in two senses, it's common to all, right?

[13:03] Two senses here: what is said of all, and what is a cause of all. Okay. So he's going to try to become strong in these very universal things that are said of all. He's going to try to become strong, so far as we can, in the knowledge of the very first causes, the causes of all things, right? But part of becoming strong is not to confuse these two.

[13:37] Okay. I mentioned how Hegel there in his so-called logic, whatever he means by his logic, he identifies the being which is said of all things. Because everything that is in any way whatsoever can be said to be a being, right? Okay. He identifies the being which is said of all with the one who, in sacred scripture, says, "I am who am," right? The one who is the what cause of all, right?

[14:13] And therefore, you have in Hegel and very much in modern thought this pantheism, right? Of confusing what is said of all with what is a cause of all.

[14:32] Happen to be reading the Summa Contra Gentiles. They're my favorite book, right? And the chapter twenty-six, I think it is, where Thomas does a whole chapter in order to show that God is not the formaliter esse omnium, the to be that is said of all things, right? That's not the being that is God. See the whole chapter in the Summa. Contra Gentiles, the first book, they're devoted to showing that they're not the same, right?

[15:06] Okay. And you heard me make kind of fun of a little bit of Hegel there, that Shakespeare himself, you know, with his love of Elizabethan love of playing with words, right? He plays on those two senses of what general, right? When he says it twice in *Troilus and Cressida, you know, or as Ulysses says that she's been kissed by the general, which is Agamemnon, right? But she hasn't been kissed in general.

[15:36] Okay, so he's playing the two senses of general, right? But you have it in English, right? See, the general of the army is called general, right? But you could say soldier is general. Everybody now is a soldier, right? That's something general, right? Not everybody's a colonel, not everybody's a captain, not everybody's a sergeant, but everybody is a what soldier, right? That's general, general. But two different senses of the word what general, right?

[16:08] So you don't want to confuse what is said of all with what is a what cause of all. But notice, in a way, in ancient times, I don't know if you know much about Plato, but Plato thought that universals like man and dog and cat and so on, right, exist in the world outside of individual men and dogs and cats, right? And he called those the forms, which they kind of is translated in English as the ideas, right?

[16:42] It means the forms, but as sense, he's taking what is said of many things and making it a what cause of all, right? Okay, as if apart from individual men, there's man himself, right? And we all, in some way, partake of man himself. You see, so he's seeing, you know, what is a is said of all as in some way a cause of all, right? That's already the kind of confusion that you have later on in Hegel and people like that.

[17:16] So that's a a big mistake, huh? But to become strong in what is common to all means, first of all, to not be confused about these things, right? To have a distinct knowledge of these things, and the first distinction you better understand is that these two are distinct, right? They're not the same thing, right? You see, that soldier is not Douglas MacArthur, right? Or human good is not the same thing as what the end of man, right?

[17:58] Huh? You see, a person might confuse those a bit, though, right? Because that is the good of man, right? You see, but human good can be said—the goods of the soul, the goods of the body, exterior goods, right? Huh? Grandchildren, so these are all goods of man, right? Huh? The water—that's a good of mine, right? My clothing is a good, right? You know. Okay.

[18:29] But whatever the end of man is, at the end of man, let's say, is knowing and loving God. Well, that's not something said of everything in life, is it? This is not knowing God, loving Him, is it?

[18:44] But maybe I should eat and drink my water, or drink my water in a way that'll lead me to God eventually. Okay. You see that? So it's very important to see that distinction, right?

[19:01] So, when the great Heraclitus says, "Those who speak with understanding must be strong in what is common to all," and sometimes Thomas will say, "Well, this is common to things by predication in being said of, right? This is common in what? Cause health, right? Okay.

[19:25] Um, you can say both of those things come under the rule of Heraclitus, huh? Now, you can say also that wisdom is the highest or the greatest perfection of reason. And what is the highest or greatest perfection of reason? Is it thinking, or reasoning, or understanding? What is it? Understanding. Yeah. Yeah. So,

[19:59] because we think about things. Nor do we try to think them out, right? We try to reason out things, huh? So we're aiming at understanding. That's the result of thinking out things, reasoning out things. That's the ultimate end. So, if wisdom is the highest or greatest perfection of reason, then the wise man must most of all understand, right?

[20:25] And if those who speak with understanding are strong, in what is common to all, the wise man is most of all strong in those things that are common to all, either in being said of all or in being a what? Cause of all, right? Okay. Everything fits together there, right? Huh?

[20:47] Now, this is the end of the first of the two parts of the proemium, right? As Aristotle will recount in the epilogue, and as Thomas explains in his commentary, Aristotle does basically two things here. One is to show what wisdom is aiming at, mainly. It's aiming at knowing causes, and more precisely at knowing ultimately the first causes. And now, in the second part, which is contained in the third reading here, he's going to talk about the kind of knowledge wisdom is, right?

[21:33] Okay. Now he's going to say in this second part he's going to say four things about this kind of knowledge, basically. And you'll see that one kind of leads into the next.

[21:55] He's going to show, first of all, that wisdom is looking knowledge. It's not practical knowledge, huh? Now, practical knowledge is for the sake of doing or for the sake of making, huh? But looking is for the sake of seeing, For the sake of understanding, huh? Okay. That's the first thing he wants to show about wisdom. It's not practical knowledge; it's looking knowledge.

[22:34] And what's going to follow from that is that wisdom is liberal or free. Liberal is a Latin word, right? It's liberal or free knowledge. Now we'll see when he goes to that second thing how that follows from the first.

[23:00] Okay. Now, gotta be careful. We speak sometimes of liberal education, liberal arts, and so on, but we don't use those words very clearly, right? The liberal arts go back to what? The Greeks, huh? And it goes back to Pythagoras and Plato, and they distinguished the two groups of liberal arts. Pythagoras had introduced the four mathematical liberal arts: geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music. And later on, the Middle Ages, those four became or were named the quadrivium, huh Which comes a lot of the way for four four ways way for four, four ways, quadrivium.

[23:45] And then, with the sophists and with Plato, you have grammar and rhetoric and what? Logic, huh? And those three were called the trivium later on the Middle Ages. So those seven liberal arts

[24:04] are pursued for the good of the mind as a kind of foundation, and they were called arts because they they made something, but more a mental thing that they made. Like in geometry, you construct things, right? But in logic, you construct syllogisms and definitions and so on. That was only the beginning of liberal education. Wisdom was the what? End or the goal of liberal education. So Aristotle will say that wisdom is the most liberal knowledge, or is right?

[24:42] It's not for the sake of anything further. Now, the third thing he'll say about wisdom, and you'll see again Aristotle's not being naive about this, is that it's not a human possession. Okay. Now you got to be careful when he says that. He doesn't mean that you can't acquire wisdom to some extent in some imperfect way, right?

[25:25] But he's using as Thomas will explain in the commentary. The word possession there, in a very strict sense. If I possess, if I own, you might say, a book, right? Or if I own a ballpoint pen, I can pick up that book or that ballpoint pen any time and use it, can't I? It's mine. I can't do the library book because it says in there I got to return by a certain date, and they're going to penalize me if I don't return it, right?

[25:56] It's not my possession, right? Well, man, as Aristotle explained here, has got all kinds of needs for his body, right? And for his external possessions, right? And he can't just pursue wisdom whenever he wants to.

[26:18] He's got to be free from these other needs at least temporarily, right? Even if a man was wealthy, he'd still have to what? Sleep a little bit once in a while, right? He'd have to go eat, right? Huh? Maybe go to the doctor, or get some exercise, or something, right? So he can't pursue this knowledge that's only for its own sake very often, can he? Okay, so it's not a human possession; it's more a divine thing, right?

[26:47] Okay. And then the culminating thing he'll say is that wisdom is the what? Best knowledge and the most honorable knowledge because it's the most divine knowledge, huh? Okay. It's the best and most honorable knowledge

[27:17] because it's the most divine knowledge, huh? The most godlike knowledge, right? Okay. Now you'll see how each one of these. I mean, how the first one leads into the second, the second into the third, and the third into the fourth, kind of naturally, we'll see, right? Well, let's look at the fundamental one here first of all. Wisdom is looking knowledge.

[27:53] Now, how does Aristotle go about trying to show that wisdom is not practical knowledge? It's not concerned with making or doing. Well. He goes back to something which Plato himself had pointed out before him in the dialogue called the Theaetetus. The dialogue called the Theaetetus, named from this young geometer Theaetetus, who's a famous geometer actually in history. There's a young man who's talking to Socrates, right? And he's introduced to Socrates by his teacher Theodorus, who says that my student is a little bit of a philosopher.

[28:43] He says to Socrates, right? And during the course of their conversation, Theaetetus breaks out in wonder. And Socrates stops at that point and said, Theodorus guessed rightly about your nature, for this wonder, he says, is very much beginning of philosophy. And Socrates actually says it much stronger than I'm stating it. He says there is no other beginning of philosophy than wonder.

[29:22] So Aristotle is going to point out that men begin to philosophize out of wonder, and so he's going to reason from the desire that gave rise to philosophy—that it's knowledge pursued just for the sake of understanding. If it had begun in hunger, right? If it had begun in thirst, if it had begun in the desire to to keep or restore or recover your health, right? If it had begun the desire to be wealthy. It would have led to a practical what knowledge, right?

[30:06] Okay. But the fact that it began in wonder is a sign as being pursued just for the sake of what knowing of understanding it. Okay. So Plato had pointed this out, or Socrates had pointed out in the Theaetetus, right? And Aristotle

[30:32] states that same thing. But if you go back to the first Greek philosophers before Plato and Aristotle, you see that wonder, right? We have a beautiful fragment from Democritus, one of the early Greek philosophers, who said, "I would rather discover one cause than be master of the kingdom of the Persians." Huh?

[30:57] Now, the kingdom of the Persians was the greatest kingdom in the world at that time that the Greeks knew about. So, if I was master of the kingdom of the Persians, I'd be the wealthiest man in the world, right? I'd be worshipped as a god. The Persian kings had a thousand chefs to prepare dinner every night. It better be good, or they'd lose their heads, right? And you have a harem, right?

[31:24] So, all these things that men want, and the pleasures of the table, of the bed, wealth, power, honor, and so on, right? All of these things, the kingdom or the master of the kingdom of the Persians would have in abundance, right? And yet Democritus says, "I would rather discover one cause than be master of the kingdom of the Persians." Of course, how much more to discover the first cause of all things, huh?

[31:53] So you see, in the Greek philosophers, the first one, this wonder is what gave rise to that. But man who wonders thinks himself ignorant, huh? And he's trying to escape his ignorance, huh? So he's pursuing knowledge not to get wealthy, not to get a good meal, not to get a good drink, not to get his health back or something, right? But just to know, to understand. Okay.

[32:24] So this is the first way he reasons here in the first paragraph here in the third reading. That is not a making science, we could say in general, practical science. Is clear also from those first philosophizing, from men both now,

[32:43] like himself or Plato, huh? And at first, like Democritus and Theaetetus and so on, they begin to philosophize to wonder. Okay. In the beginning, they wondered about the strange things close at hand, right?

[33:02] Then little by little, thus going forward, raising questions about the greater things, as about the changes of the moon and of the sun and the stars, and finally they wondered even about the origin of the universe.

[33:18] But the man in doubt and wondering thinks himself to be what? Ignorant, right? So the Philomuthas, we will come back to who the Philomuthas is. So the Philomuthas is in some way a philosopher, for the myth is put together from wonders. Hence, if men philosophize to escape ignorance, right? It is clear that they sought knowledge for the sake of understanding, and not for any use, for any making or doing.

[33:50] You see his argument. He's drawing his sign right from the desire that gave rise to philosophy, right? That it's knowledge for the sake of understanding and not doing or making, huh?

[34:08] See that? If it had begun in thirst, would have given rise to the art of digging wells or something, right? Or the art of making beer or something, you know? See, if it had begun in hunger, would have given rise to the art of hunting or fishing or farming or something, right? If it had begun in the desire to get healthy, right, it would have given rise to the medical art or something, right?

[34:33] So there are other desires that give rise to these practical kinds of knowledge, right? But philosophy begins simply in what? Wonder, right? Twinkle, twinkle, little star, how I wonder what you are, right? So wondering what things are and why they are the way they are, right? That's what gave rise to philosophy, huh? I notice he compares it to the what philomuthos, right? Okay. Let's examine the word philomuthos first.

[35:15] Philo, like these other words, derived in Greek, means a lover, right? And the second part, of course, is a lover of. Now, the first meaning of muthos in Greek probably would be what we call.

[35:38] And we don't have exactly the same myths that the Greeks had. But Maybe our fairy tales would be the nearest thing to to a myth, right? Now notice when you like the fairy tale, and you're hearing these stories about Little Red Riding Hood or something, and you wonder what's going to happen to Little Red Riding Hood when she gets to her grandmother's house and so on. But do you wonder because you want to make or do something with this knowledge?

[36:09] No, it's because your wonder has been aroused by the story. Okay. Then later on, myth takes on the broader meaning, simply of a lover of what stories, right? Okay. In Aristotle's book about the poetic art it even takes on the precise sense of the plot, right? Okay.

[36:33] You can perhaps understand this comparison in any of these senses of muthos, but the love we have of stories and so on is not in order to help us make or do something, right? Especially one of those dumb professors that makes a living giving lectures about stories. But you know, people will read a novel, let's say, or they'll watch a movie beyond their bedtime, right? And not get enough sleep to do their job the next day, right?

[37:06] And they're not going to learn from the story of the novel something to help them in their job tomorrow. So they seem to be pursuing knowledge in a way out of what wonder, right? Huh? So the philomuthas, in a way, is like the what philosopher, right? And it's interesting, huh? We're not sure the exact dates of the greatest poet there, Homer, but some estimate it at least 150 years before the first what philosopher, right?

[37:40] Okay. And in a way, Homer by writing these great epics that arouse the wonder of the philomuthos is preparing the way for the what philosopher, right? Um.

[37:57] Now it's easier. To be a philomuthos than a philosophos, okay. But would a man become a philosopher if he's not a philomuthos first? No, the philomuthos or the wonder, say, of the philomuthos is kind of a stepping stone to the wonder of the what philosopher.

[38:23] And so, if Homer had not come first, right? If Homer had not written these great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and so on, that aroused the wonder, right? And you see a wonder even in Plato and Aristotle, right? Plato talks about this, you know, among all the poets, Homer arouses this wonder, right? In the Republic, he talks about that, right? So the story is told, you know, that Plato would find him to be one-type of poet himself, right?

[38:56] You see, but then by Socrates, it's led to something even higher, right? You see, Aristotle's great love of Homer there in the what, Poetics, the book about the Poetic Art. Aristotle would have worked just on Homer for Alexander the Great, his student. And so, when Alexander conquered the world, he kept a copy of Homer by his bedside.

[39:25] So it's easy to see that the philomuthos is moved by what wonder, right? And so, the likeness of the philomuthos, he seems to be something of a what philosopher, right?

[39:39] Is a sign that philosophy also began wonder. And you can't really be a philosopher without being a philomuthos. You could be a philomuthos without being a philosopher, but not reverse, huh? So I'd never known a great philosopher like Plato or Aristotle, or even like you know Charles De Koninck. And Suidian, who wasn't also something of a what? Philomythos, right? Had an appreciation of Homer and Sophocles and famous poets, huh?

[40:13] That's a beautiful way Aristotle has of manifesting this, right? And Albert the Great, when he's commenting on this, he's talking about the wonder of the Philomythos and so on. And he says, poetry dat modum admirandi." It gives us the way of wondering, right? It teaches us how to what wonder, huh?

[40:40] One thing that's kind of interesting here, too, about the Philomythos and the great books of fiction. In the book about the poetic art, Aristotle asks, "Is fiction about the universal or about the singular?" Say. And he argues that fiction, great fiction, right, is more about the universal than about the singular. I take that simple example. This, let's take the famous Romeo and Juliet, right? You know, this is a story of an historical pair of lovers living in Verona in the 14th century or whatever century it was.

[41:26] Or when you see Romeo and Juliet, you think this is young lovers. Say. You're seeing something more what universal and the singular, so to speak, right? So Aristotle makes the remark in the book about the poetic art that poetry, in a sense, is more philosophic than history is, huh? In that history is about the singular, right? As such, right? And what we call a pure historian, right?

[41:59] They want to know the singular, right? Just like the biographer, right? He wants to know Winston Churchill, or he wants to know Abraham Lincoln, whoever he's writing about, right? This individual man, right? See, while the poet is more interested in the what universal.

[42:19] And you know, take the famous Sophocles, is probably the greatest poet of the Greeks after Homer. So the Greeks had a saying, you know, that Homer is what Sophocles writing epic and and vice versa. But Sophocles, now when Oedipus has his downfall, right, huh? You know, the chorus in the Greek plays comes in kind of almost like a commentary, you know. Yeah. Well, doesn't come in and say, "Oh, Oedipus!"

[42:48] Yeah. It comes in and says, "Oh, you generations of men!" Right. It's if you see something universal in the downfall of this man, right? About man and the human what condition, right? So something universal about that, huh? That's why it's kind of a mistake, you know, if you read Shakespeare's sonnets, huh? There's about 150 of them. All kinds of theories about he was involved with this woman, or he was with this man, or whatever it was, you know.

[43:13] But actually, the sonnets are something very what universal, right? And whether it was something in his life, you know, yeah, exemplify these things is kind of beside the point, huh? He's saying something in the sonnets that is what universal, huh? The thought or feeling you might have in these circumstances, right? But

[43:36] maybe Shakespeare, all we know, was was interested in some woman who turned him down or something, right? There's something universal here, you know. People have been let down, but in this way, and and in this the sonnet, you you see universality about it, huh? Now why did I mention this, right? Because philosophy is a wonder about the universal.

[44:04] Biography or history is a wonder about the what singular individual, right? What's kind of hard to go from wondering about the singular to wondering about the what universal? But the great work of fiction, huh? Is sort of in between, huh? Because it's closer to the singular insofar as it's kind of this sense of representation of things, right? But the sonnets describe, you know, the work of fiction as universal singularized, right?

[44:41] Or the singular universalized, right? But you see something universal in Romeo and Juliet and the other great plays and epics, huh? So what does Job say? Man's life on earth is like the warfare, right? That's what you get when you read the Iliad, right? Huh? You see the. Man's life is a struggle, huh? So I often say to students, you know, how are you doing in the great struggle of life?

[45:10] Yeah. Yeah, it's kind of amused by that, that way I open the question, right? But it's kind of appropriate, right? The human situation, huh? So you see something universal there, right? This is not the Trojan War; it's not an historical account of a battle that took place, you know. This is not D-Day, you know, and Life Magazine pictures of D-Day or something, right? Or, yeah.

[45:40] So since our knowledge starts with the senses and the senses know the singular, it's probably easier to wonder about the singular, right? So you go to the supermarket, which maybe you guys don't do, but you know, there's all these cheap things, you know, about the movie actresses and Princess Diana and the rest of them, you know. And apparently, people buy this junk, you know. But you're wondering about this movie actor or this movie actress or this princess, whoever it is, right?

[46:09] That's very far from wonder, the philosopher. It's kind of idle curiosity, right, huh? You see. But when you read Shakespeare, you seem to learn something what universal about life, right? And now you're starting to go from the singular towards the universal. And so that the wonder, of the philomythos, is more a wonder about the universal, a wonder about young lovers rather than a historical pair of, you know, unfortunate lovers in 14th century Verona, which there may or may not have been, right?

[46:42] But even if there was, right, that's not what you're seeing in the play, huh? You see that? Shakespeare, you know, it's the history plays which are called history plays, right? But you change the history a bit to make them more interesting, more dramatic, and so on, right? So you judge it as a historical document, huh? You see, It changes the ages of people and so on, and makes them, you know, no emulation.

[47:14] everything in Hotspur and Prince Hal Well, they're a different age. than two men actually, in real life. but you have this, you know, two men competing for glory there. So

[47:26] it's something universal he wants to bring out, huh? So it was kind of a stepping stone then, right? I know myself when I first read through all the plays of Shakespeare, I was like, you've seen the whole life in some general way, right? See what it's all about, right? You satisfied some of your curiosity about life, right? See, why these magazines down there with the actors? They're going to satisfy your curiosity.

[47:53] It goes on, on, on. It's like it's like those stupid. What they call soap operas, you know, and they're always in some dilemma you know, but It's. Nothing universal, right? Because on, on, on.

[48:10] So no, so the likeness of the philomythos to the philosopher, right? Resembles him a bit, right? And but also the wonder of the philomythos is a stepping stone to that of the wonder of the philosopher. So all this is kind of confirmation that philosophy began in what? Wonder, right? Okay.

[48:33] Is that clear enough? Yeah. Yeah. That's the first thing he brings out, and that's the way he brings it out. But now, in the second paragraph, he gives a second sign that it's looking knowledge, right?

[48:48] He says, "What happened? Witnesses this, huh? When almost all necessary things, right, like food and clothing, right, shelter and so on, and also those recreation, like you have a little bit of music, maybe and some fiction and so on, right? When those things existed, then such knowledge began to be what sought, right? So if a man is hungry, is he going to philosophize? No. If he's dying of thirst, is he going to philosophize?

[49:22] If he's shivering, you know, from the cold and so on, you know, well, how can get some shelter or get some heat or something, right? Huh? Okay. So long as as his bodily needs are not in some way what satisfied or assured, he's going to be seeking this what practical knowledge, right? Huh? Okay. And then you get in the day, you want a little bit of amusement, right?

[49:45] Huh? So you want some music, you know, or some fiction or something like that to kind of you know cover from the day these practical things, right? So it's only after the arts that are providing necessities of. Life right there, right, and then the what? Some of the amusements, right? Okay, that men would begin to philosophize. They don't necessarily philosophize if they have those things, right? But before they have those things, they don't what start to philosophize.

[50:20] So that shows it's not something practical. Now, I come from kind of an unusual family, you might say, in this respect, because I have two brothers, and all three of us are what philosophers, right? Okay, so how do we become philosophers, right? Well, my father was not a philosopher; he was a what? Self-made businessman, right? Okay. My grandfather was not a grandfather. Berquist was not a philosopher.

[50:50] My grandfather Berkwist came over from Sweden at the age of fifteen, and became the what blacksmith in Parkers Prairie, Minnesota. Do you think he philosophized? Didn't have time. No, you say he drank a little bit, right? But being a blacksmith is a rather hard work, huh? And you are exhausted physically at the end of the day, right? So probably don't make that much money, right? So he's not going to philosophize, right?

[51:21] He's just trying to make ends meet, huh? That's not easy to do, so right? Now, my father is the son of this man in Parkers Prairie. When my father was a boy, there wasn't even a high school in town. Is he going to philosophize? Do you think? No, he's going to try to maybe improve his circumstances a bit in life, over my grandfather, right? So my father managed to go to the larger town of Alexandria, Minnesota, which had a high school.

[51:53] But now my father had to work his way through high school because his father obviously couldn't afford to send him to Alexandria, Minnesota, a little bigger town, to go to high school. So my father got a job in some kind of a factory, and got a little bit of money, but not enough money to really be able to afford a room. So he talked to the owner and let him could he sleep in the factory at nighttime.

[52:20] The guy felt sorry for my father, so he said, "Okay, okay. Do you think my father is going to be philosophizing, pursuing this knowledge for its own sake? Huh? "

[52:31] So my father never had opportunity even to go to college, anything like that, right? But he was an intelligent man, and so he worked his way up, right? And he became a manager, right? Finally, he accumulated a little money, got his own company, right? Okay.

[52:51] Now we're never, you know, what you call wealthy, but you know, necessities of life right now. Somewhat taken care of, right? So my father ends up with three philosophers, huh? Now philosophers don't make too much money, so none of our children, probably, or very few of them, will be, you know, philosophers, right? Huh? Maybe every third generation will, right? But see, I see the truth what Aristotle's saying here, right?

[53:15] It wasn't my grandfather, the blacksmith, right, that you had any philosophers, even my father's generation, right? But once some of the necessities of life, right, my father's idea was, you know, get as much education as you can. He didn't know, exactly what it was all for, but you know, and he expected us to work in the summer and help, you know, pay for college and so on, right?

[53:36] But he wanted us to go as far as he could, you know. huh See, so you know with three philosophers, right? See, but this is the truth what Aristotle's saying here, right? When almost all necessary things and those recreation, amusement existed, then such knowledge began to be sought, right?

[53:55] So we had the necessities of life there provided, you might say, and we had a phonograph there. where I could play Mozart on, so my recreation, amusement was now satisfied, and I had a complete edition of Shakespeare. So now what? Now what do you do? And now you start to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Or else become a playboy. One of the two, right? See, that

[54:17] doesn't mean you necessarily become. You might become a playboy rather than a philosopher. But the point is, you won't become a philosopher until the necessities of life and even some of the relaxation or recreation, amusement has been provided, huh?

[54:33] So I used to joke about how you didn't do something to philosophy, right? And you'd come into be a nice room here and a nice table set out, and we'd have dinner together, and you have nice food and some wine, and learn to appreciate the wine, so on. And then there's a door to come into this room, but another door locked at the other end.

[54:58] After seeing if some people, you know, maybe ate and drank somewhat moderate. But appreciate a good wine, so that door at the far end would be open one night. You go in there, and there it is, music of Mozart, right? And then you'd spend some time after dinner, you know, in the room listening to Mozart, right? But beyond that, there was another door locked there.

[55:24] And after people appreciate Mozart one night, that door would be open. Go in there, and there's beautiful bound editions of Shakespeare and Homer and Sophocles, right? You see, some people would stop at the first place, right? They get to dinner, some with the music, Some would go on now to Shakespeare and Homer and Sophocles, right? And then the room beyond that, then you start to get into what philosophy, right?

[55:51] So you're gradually being introduced to these things, right? But you're getting further away from the necessities of life. Got to eat, they got to drink, they got to, right? Do you see that? Okay. So that clear enough?