Introduction to Philosophy & Logic (1999)
Lecture 10: Five Reasons to Use Reason: Philosophy and Human Flourishing

Transcript
================================================================================

for any reason, huh? What are the two reasons that he gives in the exhortation? God doesn't give anything uselessly. Okay. So in a sense we'll be, what, obeying God, right? With his purpose, right? Sure, he that made us with such large discourse looking before and after gave us not the capability and godlike reason to fuss in us and use, right? So he'd be, you can say obeying God, right? Obeying God's plan for us. Okay. What's the other reference to God? That reference is through the pronoun, right? Sure, he that made us because we're afraid to God, right? Sure, he that made us with this reason given to us to what? Not fuss, but even rusty, moldy, right? Like the use. What's the other reference to God? Godlike reason as God. Yeah, yeah. Now, you're saying you're going to become in a way like God if you use your reason or use it well, right? Now, in what way is reason godlike? Because when you study God's knowledge, God doesn't have any discourse. God knows all things by knowing himself. He understands everything. It was. He naturally understands everything. So reason is godlike insofar as it's what? Able to understand, right? And it becomes more godlike as it actually understands, right? Now, it never understands everything the way God does, but as it becomes more actual, right? It understands more, right? Okay. Thomas is always quoting St. Paul. Things which are from God or by God are order, right? He's always quoting that text in Judith, right? The text is the word before and after, right? It doesn't mean to anything. So insofar as reason can, what? A little before and after, right? It resembles God and it's what? Ordering things, right? And we saw when Aristotle talked about wisdom there in the metaphysics, that he spoke of it as being what? Godlike knowledge, right? In the same way when he gets into practical philosophy and he says, he's talking about achieving happiness for one man. He says, it's lovable, he says, right? To help one man be happy, right? So if I help my friend to be a happy man or help my son to be a happy man or my spouse, right? That's lovable, he says, right? But it's more Godlike, he says, to help a whole city be happy, right? And Thomas says, well, God, what? Works for the good of the whole universe, right? He intends to be the whole universe, right? We can't do that, right? But it's more Godlike to aim at the good of the whole city than just the good of what? One individual, right? Okay. So in both practical philosophy and in looking philosophy, we're trying to be like God so far as possible, right? And that's the definition that Plato gives of philosophy in the attainments, right? Philosophy is becoming like God so far as possible for man. So that's a very good reason then for using a reason, right? So there are two reasons in reference to God, right? And using your reason, using it well, you become in some way like God and you obey God's plan, right? For you, His intentions for you in giving you reason, right? Okay. Now, in reference to man, there's many two reasons but one's more explicit here than the other. But there's two reasons in reference to man, right? What is, if you compare the two parts of the agitation there, what is? It's like something within us for a corrupt but only is it to flesh. Yeah, that's kind of the reason up here, right? You know, He didn't give us reason to the whole, that's right. He gave us reason to you, right? So we're obeying, right? The chief good. Yeah, yeah. The chief good of man is something more than the chief good of the beast. We saw that in the first part of the premium and therefore the chief good of man must involve something that the beast doesn't have, right? And that's reason as we learned in the second part, right? Okay. So you can see the chief good being the greatest good of man, the chief good and the end of purpose of man requires the use of reason, right? Now, there are many uses of reason and of course in ethics we'll be more precise as to what use of reason, right? Especially as the end of man, huh? But at least we know this in the exhortation that man's greatest good his chief good, right? His very end of purpose must involve the use of reason, huh? Okay. That's an awfully good reason, right? Now, the last reason is suggested by the words what is a man, right? But I sometimes bring in the words from the colonists. This above all to thine own self be true, right? It must follow as a night today that canst not that it be false to any man, huh? So a man is true to himself only if he would use his roots, right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Thine own self be true, and it must follow the nights of the day that canst not then be false. Amen. Shakespeare's an awful lot to say about being true to yourself, right? And when somebody really is true to himself, and when he's not, do you know the two gentlemen of Verona? In the two gentlemen of Verona, one of the gentlemen of Verona is betrothed, right, to Julia. His name is Proteus, well-named, you know, mythology. And, you know, a betrothal in those days was, what, a much more serious thing than, you know, being engaged, we say, is today, right? I mean, it was like, you know, a solemn promise to marry, right? Right. And he's confirmed that tension of marrying her with 20 soul-confirming oaths, as he learned in the play, right? Okay. And Valentine, of course, is his best friend, right? Now, Valentine had gone off to the court to kind of finish his education, get some polishing, right? And he falls in love with the daughter of the duke there at the court, Sylvia, right? Well, finally, the father of Proteus says, I think, you know, I'll give the Proteus to go to the court and spend some time there and do some things. So Proteus goes to the court, and Valentine tells him about his love for Sylvia. And, wow, he sees Sylvia, wow! And so Shakespeare has these wonderful soliloquies, right? Where Proteus is, you know, undergoing the temptation, right, of being false to Julia, these betrothed to, and false to his best friend, Valentine, by pursuing what? But Sylvia, right? And Valentine has a plan to elope with Sylvia, right? Because the father is not going to allow this marriage. And Proteus reveals this to the duke, right? It's included there, right? And Valentine is banished and so on, right? But anyway, in that soliloquy, one of them, Proteus says, I can't be true to myself without being false to what? Julia and false to Valentine, right? Okay. So I sometimes give, you know, students that part of the, of the, of the, of the two gentlemen of Rona. Yeah. And then the words of Polonius, right? This is above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night of the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. Right? Proteus is saying, I can't be true to myself without being false to his betrothed and his best friend, right? I say, who's right? Polonius, or, you know, is, is Proteus really being true to himself, right? Well, he's got this, this emotional surge, right? Lost, we don't call it, for Sylvia, but he had, what, chosen, right? Julia is his bride, he had chosen Valentine as his friend, right? So when is a man true to himself, when he's true to his emotion or to his choice? Choice. I take the example sometimes, an alcoholic, right? And sometimes an alcoholic realizes that he's making a mess of his life, like the other people's life, and so on. And so he joins, you know, I'll call it synonymous, something like that, right? After due deliberation, he considers that he has to give up drinking, right? Okay? So he's chosen to give up drinking, right? He sees a harness doing to himself and his family. But I think they'd be tempted sometimes to have a drink, right? They'd have an urge to have a drink sometime, huh? And when is he true to himself? Well, when he gets into that urge to have a drink and goes into the bar, or when he adheres to that choice he made and calls his buddy, he's going to hold his hand until he gets over the temptation, right? When is he true to himself? Well, I ask the student the question, which is more me, my emotion or my choice? Yeah, yeah. And I take an example or a sign of that from the courtroom, right? Other things being equal, which do we judge more severely? A crime of passion or a premeditated murder? Premeditated. Yeah. Because a man seems to have more chosen to do this, right? Then the man comes home suddenly and finds his wife in bed with somebody and, you know, kills him as they do in Italy, very often. The judge's assistant, right? There was a case in California that's kind of funny. The guy was in the cement business, right? You know, with the trucks, you know, that didn't. And one day it just happened by chance that he was near his home, so he thought he'd drop in and have lunch with his wife and kind of surprise her. And when he drove up, he saw this real nice convertible in front of the house. I wonder who that is. And he started going in the house. He could hear the voices from the bedroom, right? So he's embarrassed, so he kind of backed out and was getting back into his truck and going to go away. And then he had a second found, and he backed up the truck and emptied the cement and the guy's convertible. Well, I remember the count. It came to the courts fine, you know, but the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that it was justified. But actually, he justified. He'd come home and, you know, kill the guy, right? It's a really good decision to judge the parts, you know. But the point is, we hold you more responsible for the what? The choice, right? You know? And that's why, you know, we say, I think it's kind of a common observation that, you know, people have made, that if you get angry with somebody, right, and you say some hot words to that person, and you want to see them again or something like that, you're more able to go back on that than if you write them a letter, you see. And that really finishes it to write a letter. You see, and you're stopping and taking the time, and you seem to be, what, really, you know, more choosing, right, to break off of this person rather than just expressing your momentary frustration with this person, what they've done, right? So, but no, it's choice is tied up with reason, right? So, which is more me, my reason and my choice or my emotions? It's interesting when you ask students, you know, which is more me, reason or emotion, they'll sometimes identify at first with their emotions, right? See? But then they don't really start to think about it, right? They'll get to see, well, maybe that isn't true, right? And that's why, as I say, the premeditated murder, right, you thought about it, you chose it, right, is even more responsible than you are for the murder or crime of passion, right? Or you. But also the simple thing, you know, when you're in the bar, and your friend is about to get into a fight with somebody, and you see all kinds of trouble coming, if he has a fight with this guy, you say, Joe, get control of yourself, right? Well, something's in control of Joe. But when anger is in control of Joe, Joe is not in control of himself, right? But when his reason is in control, then Joe is what? In control of himself, right? That's a sign, right? That we think that reason is more me than the emotion. Because if reason is in control, I am in control. When anger is in control, I wasn't quite in control of myself, right? You see, I mean, it's not just the crazy philosophers who think they're more reason than emotion, right? But even the man himself, right? So I think Polonius is right, right? If you're really true to yourself, you'll be true to your friend, right? It's a little bit like, you know, you get the example sometimes of temptation to adultery, right? So here's a man who's chosen this woman, or a woman who's chosen this man as their spouse, right? And then later in life, they meet somebody who's physically attracted to them, right? And they feel an emotional drawing to this. Now, are you true to yourself when you follow your emotion, with this person you've met somewhere? Or when you follow your choice as so-and-so as your spouse? Which is more me? That emotion I'm feeling, or that choice I made, right? The thing I've chosen is more me, right? It comes up in the discussion, you know, of the, you know, taking the vows, right? You know, that something done out of the vows is even more meritorious, right? That something done spontaneously, right? Because you, in a sense, more chosenness, right? It's more you. You're more in it, in the case. So this is above all to the known self to be true, right? If you're not true to yourself, you can't be true to your, what, spouse or your friend. Proteus is not really being true to himself. So that's... What play is Polonius in? Is that Hamlet? Hamlet, yeah. You've got to realize that Shakespeare does. He sometimes puts words of wisdom in the mouth of someone who does not exemplify them, right? Polonius, for example, says that brevity is a soul of wit. Meaning brevity is a soul of wisdom. It's very true. Aristotle said that, and Scripture says that, and so on. But as Hamlet says, Polonius is a tedious old fool, right? So you have people, you know, who exemplify the opposite of what they say, right? I think he does it part because of the musing to see that, right? But also because he wants to avoid being too damped like a peach, right? So I see him do that a number of times, you know, with extremely wise words in the mouth of someone who doesn't exemplify it. So I think these are five, you know, most excellent reasons. Any one is sufficient, right? But if you take all five of them together, if you understand them, then they're kind of overwhelming, right? Okay. Now we have one more question, right? Let's recall where we are now. We're talking about the best way of coming into philosophy, right? And the answer we gave was, one should come into philosophy from its natural beginnings, right? Through the use of reason, right? And that's why we asked, what are the natural beginnings, right? And we gave about ten reasons there why we should come into the natural beginnings. And then we had two questions about through the use of reason. And one is, what is reason, right? And here we've seen what it is, what reason is, what it is to use reason. And in general, why a man should use reason, right? And the philosopher being a man should use reason, obviously, right? But now, why in particular must one come into philosophy through the use of, what, reason, right? Well, let's recall that here. We saw before that philosophy is knowledge over a rope, right? Anything to do with looking before and after there, right? Yeah, a road is a before and after, right? If you don't know the road, you can't follow it, right? So how can one come into philosophy without looking before and after, right? Well, we saw before that philosophy is reasoned-out knowledge, right? Well, how can you acquire reasoned-out knowledge without using your reason? Or we saw that the end was what? Well, let's take a little bit more fun on that. We saw that philosophy begins in what? Wonder, right? Wonder is the beginning of philosophy. What is wonder? To know the cause, right? So you obviously want to look before and after in the crowning sense, right? Say it least. Right? Okay. The end has to be there for wisdom, right? And wisdom is a knowledge of the, what? First causes, right? Well, cause is before the effect, right? You know, you've already seen that. And first is defined by before, right? So obviously you've got to look at before and after, right? We also saw that the discourse of the wise man is the, what? Largest discourse, right? In at least five or six senses, right? It's the most universal. It's about the most universal, right? If it covers a large stereo, you might say. It's about the greatest things, about God himself, right? Cosmos, in a sense, that God himself. It's, in terms of the limits, right? It's from the largest, and the highest to the largest, and it goes from things that are the furthest apart, right? But to some extent, every part of philosophy has larger discourses than the other parts of our knowledge. How could you study logic without looking before and after in the discourse of reason, right? How could you do ethics without looking before and after in the sense of better, right? How could you study emotions, you do a natural philosophy without looking at the before and after in motion? So it's pretty clear there's no way to come into philosophy without using a reason, right? But we also said you have to come into philosophy from the natural beginnings, right, to the use of reason, right? But could you recognize the natural beginnings as beginnings without looking before and after? Because beginning means what? Before everything else, yeah. You can't recognize the beginning as a beginning without looking before and after. You wouldn't know the natural beginnings or the first beginnings unless you know that nature is what's first in the thing, right? That's before and after again, right? There's no way to avoid that, right? So before we do anything else, should we understand the word before? You can't even understand the words we're using, right? Like the word looking, we wouldn't see without seeing the order of meaning, right? You can't understand the word before. That's sufficient, huh? Now, just to make sure you didn't overlook anything, let's look at the questions here. Do you all have the questions? What words in the exhortation define order? We've got a text of Thomas that, right? How do these same words define beginning, middle, and end? Beginning, after is the end, and what's between before and after is the middle. Yeah. But you'd make one of these, you know, crisscrossing chart, right? Before something, not before something. Oh, yeah. After something, not after something, right? Okay. And the middle is what? Neither before nor after. No, the middle is both. It's before something and after something. Okay. The end is after something, but not before. Okay. The beginning is before, but not what? After, right? But there can't be a fourth part that's neither before nor after anything, because we don't have any connection with the rest, right? Okay. That's one of those divisions where you have, what? You crisscross two contradictory things, right? But you end up with only three real possibilities, right? You mentioned how that happens before, other cases, right? When you divide it, the looking philosophy, yeah? Did you ever see that in the Trinity? That's the way they crisscross two divisions, to give the Trinity? You ever see that? It's the only number three. See what's that? The way, this is the way they do it. They say that you proceed from someone and does not proceed from someone. Two possibilities, right? And then has someone proceeding from, and does not have someone proceeding from. Who proceeds from someone, and has someone proceeding from him. Who's that? The son. Yeah. Who has someone proceeding from him, but doesn't proceed from him? someone the father yeah who proceeds from someone but doesn't have one proceeding from the holy spirit yeah now why isn't there a fourth member if one did not proceed from anyone right and had no one proceeding from him there'd be no basis to distinguish that person from anybody else right okay so it can only be you only have three right well it's the same thing here with the word before and after right it can't be in a plot let's say you know the part that's neither before anything or after anything but have no connection with the other parts right yeah so how do these same words define first second third and so on how do you define first which has no uh no before it's before all the rest yeah before all the rest yeah and second would be what before all yeah and third and so on that's the way we go right right last would mean that it's what after all right now okay so notice now that if you understand the different meanings of before and after you can understand order beginning middle and end and first second last and so on right okay um now notice first and last are something like beginning and end right but second and middle now is actually the same are they distinguish and order the sent to and chief senses of before well we just did that right before in time right before in being before in the discourse of reason and before in goodness or better right and what sense of before does one meaning of a word come before another why do order beginning middle and end first second last etc have many meanings yeah and they're all defined by before right okay now what is the definition of a thing that something that's something we'll be taking up in logic but do you have any idea what the definition of a thing is it's a genus that's part of it yeah but definition is never just one word right it's always a combination of words which in logic they call speech right so it's speech signifying what a thing is right we get the logic we'll define what you mean by speech there what word is the first part of the definition of reason that's the genus okay so what word tells us in general what reason is yeah what is the genus of reason same thing ability right what words complete the definition of reason yeah now why in general are these used to complete the definition because yeah and they also state was utmost of that right what is the origin of the word discourse running yeah yeah yeah so what is the discourse of reason huh it's running from statement to statement yeah okay a little more broader than that and more than that yeah it's coming to know one thing through knowing other things right okay reasoning is the most characteristic one right it's coming to know or guess a statement from other statements and because of them why is discourse the act of reason most known to us yeah things in motion when you catch the eye and whatnot stirs and so discourse being a like a motion right is what captures our attention first huh okay distinguish the discourses of reason well we did some of those defining and reasoning right and counting and calculating right those are some of the main ones what is what is meant by large in the phrase large discourse what we distinguished what yeah about the large right about the great or about the universal um its limit is large right it's from many to something one or from something one to many right or then it's what long through many steps or between things that are far apart right why does shakespeare define reason by large rather than smaller discourse how is looking defined by seeing trying to see trying to see yeah what is meant by seeing and hence by looking the definition well it's not understand yeah in which of the central and chief senses of before there's reason look before and after all that okay what sense perfects the others and reasons looking what is the crowning sense now this is important to point this out why does the ability to look before and after include or presuppose the ability to distinguish things something can't be before and after itself yeah yeah nothing is before or after itself that's an axiom right so there's got to be some distinction between what is before and what is after right so um now notice you can sometimes distinguish things without seeing which is before which is after right um but you can't see that this is before that you can't see any distinction between it sometimes people you know think you know that uh these judges you know and awarding you know gold prize and a silver prize and whatever it is you know for let's say wines you know it's all arbitrary you know what you'd like you know just a minute now just a minute now in the best ones in california right before you can be a judge you are given what a blind tasting right and they give you a glass red wine you don't see the bottle right okay taste it what are you drinking uh red red wine you're out you know you're not judges here right see in other words if i don't know whether this is you know carbonate sauvignon or pinot noir or is it fidel i'm not in a position to judge which is better am i now among those who know what they're drinking who can distinguish them right there may be some disagreement but not the same amount right okay um does looking before and after also pertain to what is most known to us about reason huh yeah yeah the end yeah yeah but as i say anybody who's talked about reason has seen that connection between reason and uh order you know screened that text of heisenberg you know okay you know he says you know to us the world first appears to be like infinite variety sounds in order to understand we have to do some kind of order right yeah just kind of an actual thing why is it necessary to add looking before and after to large discourse what's the reason we gave for that what you're trying to do right i mean how do you don't really understand this thing right now that's just a motion for the sake of motion right in what way is reason god-like yeah insofar as reason is able to understand and and insofar as it actually understands it becomes even more god-like right but it's not god-like in the sense that god is discourse there's no discourse in god he understands discourse but doesn't have the discourse right there's no motion in god he's unchanging huh incidentally one time when i was teaching this i had a student from saudi arabia and he's mohammedan i guess and he um he objected to reason being called god-like right and so um i thought i explained a little bit you know what the catholic doctrine is right and i showed him the text there and uh the fourth lateran council you know the one that uh paul the sixth or first of all my attention to a lot where the it's a correcting you know an error there and uh it says you can never note a likeness between the creature and god without a greater what different yeah greater unlike this yeah yeah there's got to be something like this between the cause and the effect so you can go with calm down but i mean at first it's kind of the effect so you can go with calm down but you can go with calm down but you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down you can go with calm down In terms of what? Discourse, right? In fact, you're looking, trying to see, right? You don't have anything like that in God, right? But insofar as reason, to some extent, understands, right? It becomes like God who actually understands everything, huh? So in what way is reason not like God? Well, there's no discourse in God, right? There's no search, right? Everything is open and naked to his eyes, the scripture says. And once you know what reason is, you can go on to talk about what a man and a beast is, right? What do man and a beast have in common? Yeah, they're both animals, yeah. What does man have in addition to what the beast has? Reason. Yeah, what difference separates man and the beast? Well, that's reason. What is a man? An animal with reason. What's a beast? An animal without reason. What is the chief good of a thing? It's end. It's greatest good, right? It's main good, right? What is meant by the phrase market of his time? Yeah, yeah. Now, as I mentioned, time is a metonym for our life, right? Okay. And notice there's a way in which man lives in time much more than the animals do, huh? We're always thinking about the past and the future and planning our day and so on. And so Aristotle's in the Dianima, their third book, he speaks of man as the animal who has a sense of time, right? And notice that's Tyabla, that first sense of before and after, isn't it, huh? He's always looking at before and after in time, huh? What about the use of this word market? Yeah. Like price or something? Well, it's the idea of mark, what he aims at, huh? Oh, okay. Marksman, right? Okay. So it's a different sense of... Yeah. But you've taken the other sense of, you know, go to the market to buy something, right? It's what you, what? What you're looking for, isn't it? Give your life for. What you're looking for, isn't it? But it's probably more the sense of what you aim at, right? Marksman. In our dictionary, they quoted this, you know, Shakespeare, they gave this quote. Yeah. They interpreted that as like, when you say, a market of slaves, it means the selling of... Selling price. Yeah. Just the buying and selling of slaves, so what you do with your time. Yeah. What you're aiming at, though, say, what you're exchanging it for your life. Okay. Now, why is the chief good of man and the market of his time the same thing, huh? Well, there you have to see how good and end are basically the same thing, huh? The good is defined as what all desire, and the end is defined as that for the sake of which, right? Something is or is done, huh? So if something is desired, men will aim at it, right? And if they aim at it, it's a sign that they consider it to be good, right? So the chief good of man and his greatest good in the end of his life, the end of man, are really the same thing, you know? We'll come back to that one again. Do you have things? What is the connection between the chief good of man, or the market of his time, and what a man is? There's a necessary connection between the two, right? Because of what man is, his chief good is what it is, right? But we developed that again. What proportion does Shakespeare see between man and beast and their chief goods? Chief good of man is to beast. Yes. You can alternate the proportion if you want it to, right? How does Shakespeare reason like a mathematician to some understanding of the chief good of man from this proportion? One of your examples, what is three if it's half two? Yeah. I mean, what if it's half four? Two. What is a three if it be half a four? Two no more, right? So what is a man if his chief good be let to sleep and feed? He'd be a beast no more, right? So here's two ways of reasoning. You could reason from this. You could say, if man is more than a beast, right, then the chief good of man is more than the chief good of the beast. But man is more than a beast, therefore, the chief good of man is more than the chief good of the beast. But Shakespeare reasons more by the denial of the consequence, right? He's saying, if the chief good of man is no more than the chief good of the beast, then man is no more than a beast. But man is more than a beast, therefore, it can't be true that the chief good of man is no more than the good of the beast, right? So we'll come back to that and exemplify the two if-then arguments, right? They're slogans. What does the chief good of man involve or include that the chief good of the beast does not have? Yeah, yeah, right. Well, it's reason in some way, right? What man has and the beast doesn't have, right? Okay. So without knowing exactly what the chief good of man is, that's the question we ask in ethics, you realize that it's going to have to involve reason in some way, right? So what reasons does Shakespeare touch upon why man should use his reason or use it more than he does? There's about five reasons. In comparison to what is below man, what's the reason? If you don't use your reason, you'll fall to love him of a beast. Yeah. Okay. And that's why Bwethius says, you know, we use the names of various beasts, apart from reason, right? Yeah. And so we call somebody a pig, right? But Samuel Johnson's friends would call him a bear sometimes because he was given to the angry outbursts, right? Oh, my God. Okay. In comparison to what is above man, and then becoming like God, yeah. And then in comparison to man himself, man's chief, good, reason, yeah. So he can't achieve his greatest good, right, without this. And he can't be what? True to himself. Yeah. And therefore he can't be true to his friend, right? Right? Yeah. That's just all things you can touch upon there, right? So Shakespeare has a lot there in 49 words, wouldn't you say? Of course, as he says elsewhere and puts in the mouth of Polonius, brevity, which means shortness, right, is a soul of wit, and wit is taken in the older sense there, wisdom. Brevity is a soul of wisdom, right? So I challenge sometimes as a philosopher is to come up with a, to show me a better exhortation. This is 49 words, right? 50 words or less, right? Or even 100 words, I'll give them. No one's ever come up with a thing, but, I mean, it had to be awfully good to beat this, right? I have some handouts for you today. I have some handouts for you today. For me? If you've finished with your thing. Found some interesting things in scripture on the road, relating to wisdom. Are you familiar? Is that error is a result of a disordered movement of reason. We wander into error, right? Shakespeare said, we wander into illusions, huh? And so, this idea of knowing the road, that idea he spoke about before, right? Knowledge of the road is necessary to avoid error, right? Now, Thomas will say in the major premium, right? The logic, you know, directs reason so that we can proceed in active reason, so orderly, easily, and without, what? Error, right? Okay? I think those three words are kind of well-arranged, right? Because in seeing the order you should follow, it becomes easier to do this, right? And you avoid error, right? Which is due to a disordered movement of reason, huh? Error, right? Now, our Lord is talking to Sadducees, right? Remember that? The Sadducees don't believe in resurrection. Mm-hmm. And they want to make something impossible situation by saying that Moses told us that if your brother died with no offspring, you should marry his wife. And so he gives an example of seven brothers, right, who in succession married the same woman, but none of them have any offspring, right? See, no one has a moral claim here in terms of having any offspring. Mm-hmm. Well, then at the resurrection, whose wife won't you be, right? Mm-hmm. And so they make the whole resurrection thing ridiculous, and Christ says that you have what?