Prima Pars
Lecture 128: Exclusive Diction and the Trinity: Solus in Divine Things

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

Pretty progress here, three articles. Whether the Dixio Exclusiva Solus, how should you translate solus? Alone, yeah. Should be added to an essential term in divine things. And then the next article will be a personal term, but we don't get that far today. To the third, therefore, it should be said, one proceeds thus, it seems that the exclusive way of speaking solus should not be added to an essential term in divine things. Because according to the philosopher in the second book of the Sistema Refutations, incidentally, that always puzzled me, you know, because I'm used to have a word, a link was there in Aristotle, where the name of the book is Sistema Refutations. Well, then you get to the definition of faith, right? In St. Paul there, in the Hebrews, it says the hypostasis, you know, the hypostasis of things hoped for, and then the elenkas of things not seen. I said it the way it is in Aristotle's book, the refutation of things not seen, you see? But I think it's more the sense of the elenka, the refutation is, you know, is when I refute, I overcome you. And so here, your mind is being overcome by the unseen, right? Okay? You don't see it, but it's unseen, right? But it still overcomes your mind, right? Because you assent to it, huh? Yeah. I see the translation of conviction. Conviction is not a bad way of translating it, I think, you know? Yeah. Compared to the other translations they have, you know? The assurance of things, you know? Or the evidence of things, yeah, they say the assurance of things hoped for. That's not correct. And then the evidence of things not seen, you know? Oh, you know, that's really mixing up the image of the Latin for evidence of things seen, yeah. So I think conviction is a much better translation than that. Because according to the philosopher in the second book of such refutations, that is alone, which is not with a, what? Another. Therefore, but God is with the angels and the, what? Souls. Therefore, we cannot say that God is, what? Alone, right? So what do you think, is God alone? Moreover, whatever is joined to an essential term in divine things can be said of each person per se, yeah? As such. And about all together. Because we can say suitably, the wise God, right? We can say the Father is the wise God, right? And the Trinity is the wise God. But Augustine says in the sixth book about the Trinity, we are not to consider that sentence, of which it is said, what? The Father is not the only true God, huh? Therefore, one cannot say God alone, right? Think about that. So we can say God alone, and then we can say the Father is God alone. Now you're in trouble, right? Aren't you? Now you're mixed up between alone and only, you know? But they're saying the same thing. I'm only human. What do people say? Yeah. But when you say I'm only human, do you mean I alone am human? No. Merely. Yeah. Yeah. Now, if this wording alone is joined to an essential term, either this is with respect to a personal predicate, or with respect to an essential predicate, but not with respect to a personal predicate, because this is false. God alone is the Father, since man also is the Father. It's kind of strange. Not with respect to an essential predicate, because if this were true that God alone creates, it would follow that this is true that the Father alone creates, because whatever is said of God can be said of the what? Father. But this is false, because the Son is also a creator, right? So we were talking about that when we were speaking before. Therefore, this wording, solus, alone, cannot be joined in divine things to a, essential name, right? That's kind of a funny way of speaking, it's crept into us. Terminal, in logic, originally meant what? No. Yeah. And it was used in term of syllogism, right? So you divide the syllogism into two statements, and a statement into three terms, eventually, right? And then people started saying, you know, well, define your terms. And then the term almost meant what? Words or names, right? And this terminal would be used here more for a name, right? How about the word terminus? Is that completely different? Like, I mean that... Well, terminus means a limit, huh? Limit. Are they different words, then? No, limit is one word. Okay. Okay. So even a definition could be called a terminus. There's still a chapter on the word limit there, huh? You know, it's a kind of interesting article, an argument in the fourth book of natural hearing today, or excuse me, the sixth book. And the question was, whether no line can be composed of points and so on, right? And whether points can be continuous. Of course, one argument is that things are continuous when they have a common, what? Limit, right? Well, can you distinguish between a point and its limit? See? Can the point have a limit? Yeah. Now, I'm thinking about it, because there's an axiom that I talk about a lot, and that is that nothing is a beginning of itself. So there's always a distinction between the beginning and that of which it is a beginning. But what about limit and that of which it is a limit? Is anything a limit of itself? So it seemed to me almost like the other axiom, that nothing is a beginning of itself. Like the other axiom I have, nothing is before or after itself. Nothing is a limit of itself. Nothing is the end of itself. So, if the point had a limit, that limit would have to be the limit of something other than itself, and of course, then you have some multiplicity there in the point that you don't have. It's all pretty simple. So, can the point have a limit? Well, then, can points be continuous? Because things are continuous that have a... Gee whiz, that's kind of interesting argument that Aristotle has there. But in the Greek there, they use the word eschaton, which is last, right? Rather than the word limit. But it seems to me, you can, you know, carry it over to the word limit. Because the limit is what is lasting. Now, against all this nonsense is what is said in the first epistle of Timothy. To the, what? Immortal, invisible, the only, what? Solely deal. Now, there, grammatically, how do you translate it? Alone or only? Only God. Now, I've got a little tough words here. I answer you, it should be said that this word, solus, can be taken categorimatica or sincategorimatica. Now, what's the difference between those two? One is sinless. Well, that's... Yeah, yeah, you go on to explain what this means. For that is said to be a diccio categorimatica. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah which absolutely places a thing signified about some what? Subject, huh? As elbus about man, when we say that man is what? White. If therefore one thus takes this saying solace, in no way can it be joined to some what? Term in divine things, huh? Because he would lay down solitude about the term to which it is joined. And thus it would foul that God is solitary, right? Which is against what we said before, you know, in the text. Thorough to his text. But a diction sin categoria matica, he said, what imports the order of the predicate to the subject, just as this wording all or every and none, right? Okay? So when I say that every man is an animal, right? Animal is something being said, what? Categoria matica, right? But every is talking about the relation of that, what? Predicate to the subject, right? It's not saying something about the subject, right? But the fact that what's being said of the subject is distributed to all the members that come under that. And likewise, this diction alone, because it excludes every other suppositum or every other subject from a consortium of the predicate, huh? Just as when it said, Socrates alone writes, huh? Well, what does that mean? Are you saying that Socrates is alone? See, I think what he's saying here, you say Socrates is alone, that's categoria matica, that terrible word, right? Okay? But when you say Socrates alone writes, what do you mean? Well, the writing, instead of Socrates, but no one else, right? Okay? It's talking about the order of the predicate to the, what? Subject, right? And that it's kind of exclusive to that subject, and you exclude anything else, right? So if Socrates is writing at the desk there, and everybody else is sitting around reading or something, right? Or doing something else, then Socrates is not alone, because you've got other people with him, right? But Socrates alone is, what? Writing, right? You see the difference there? I kind of get an idea of that myself. Okay? Because that no one else, no one is consors, is, yeah, in writing, is a consort with him, right, in writing. Although he is with, although it is with him, many other, what? People are just staying, right? And in this way, nothing prevents this wording or saying being joined to some essential term in divine things, insofar as I excluded all other things from God in the, what? Sharing of that predicate, huh? As if we say God alone is, what? You know, or God alone creates, we say, huh? Okay? Because nothing beside God is, what? Eternal, right? So what would you say? Two alone is half of four. You get that? Is two alone? Four wouldn't exist then. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, the numbers are right besides two, right? And that would be kind of the same, we'd say, absolutely, right? But if I say two alone is half of four, can that be joined to two? What does that say? If I say two is half of four, I'm merely saying half of four of two, right? When I say two alone is half of four, what am I adding to? Yeah, and nothing else in being half of four, right? There's nothing else besides two that is half of four. But if I say two is less than ten, that's true, isn't it? Two is less than ten, but would it be true to say two alone is half of, is less than ten? That forms a pride, right? I alone understand this. So there we have some, yeah. And Hegel's saying it's bad, no one else has understood me, right? I alone have understood the cosmos, or whatever it is, the system. So you agree then that you can add the word alone, right? But Thomas makes a distinction, right? He seems to hesitate to say that you can say God is alone. Let's see what he says in response to this first argument, huh? Because according to the philosopher in the second book of the Sinistical Refutations, that is solus, alone, which is not with another, right? But God is with the angels and the holy souls. Therefore we cannot say God alone. That seems to be taking it in the other sense, doesn't it? Categori Madica. Let's see what Thomas says to this, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that although angels and holy souls are always with God, right? Nevertheless, if there was not a plurality of persons in God, right? It would follow that God was what? Yeah. So it doesn't seem to be, what? Denying that you can say God is alone. Because of the angels and the holy souls, right? But because that would seem to be negating, what? Plurality of persons, huh? It's basically. It's kind of a difficult thing to see, but you can kind of see. But he's going to explain why the one, not the other. For that, for solitude is not taken away through the association of something which is of an extraneous nature. For one is said to be alone in the garden, although there are many plants and animals, huh? So if you're home with your cat or your dog or whatever it is you've got, but no other human being is there, are you alone? Yeah. I don't know about this. Animal rights people are saying, you know? The nature of the critter increases, though. It's hard to say it, you know? Yeah, yeah. I mean, people say, you know, cat or dog is company or something, right? And if, for some reason, there's a horse in your house, some people do. Yeah, it's very interesting. You know, it's hard to say that you're alone. And likewise, God would be said to be alone or solitary, the angels and men existing with them, right? If there were not in God many, what? Persons. For the consociation, the association of angels and souls does not exclude absolute solitude from God, and much less this respect of solitude through comparison to some predicate. And there he's talking about that second, that's in category, right? Sin means what? Actually, the word kategorimatica comes from the Greek word, what? For predicate, really. To be said of, right? So Aristotle's book is called The Categories, and in Latin they translate that to the predicamenta. But it has the idea that something is said of something, right? So, why sin is something what? Not said of something, but the way it's being said of it you might say, right? That's why it's said to be with the predicate. It's not what's being said of it, but how it's being said of it. Like every or none or alone, right? When I say every man is an animal, is every being said of man? No. It's really animals being said of man. So that's kategorimatica. But every is saying something about how it's being said of man, said of man universally or something. If I say no man is a stone, right? Is no being said of man? No. Or being denied of him, but it's stone, right? How is it being denied? When you say two alone is half of four, is alone being said of two? No, half of four is being said of two, right? But it's being said of two and nothing else you might say, right? So I don't know. I'm going to have company in there like the alone if... If you were with God? Yeah. Or with my guardian or something, right? It's a lot of the shape of your nose. Huh? You were able to shake your nose. Oh, yeah. So that's interesting. Thomas says you shouldn't say God is alone, right? Because of the Trinity, right? That's what comes in. This whole thing is about those things that follow upon the Trinity and the plurality of persons, right? One thing that follows upon there being a plurality of persons in God, namely three, is that you shouldn't say God is alone. But you should say God alone is wise, right? Even Aristotle says that, you know, you either say God alone is wise or God fully is wise, right? If you're taking wisdom in the strict, full sense, knowing everything, simply, then God alone is wise, huh? Not even Lucifer is wise. Right. That's what comes up in the other objections, I think. You know, why can you say God alone creates the Father is God, therefore, right? Get some very, very subtle things here. The second objection is really that, isn't it? He says, this dixio, this word, solus, right? This thing said, this dixio, this thing said, solus, properly speaking, is not placed on the side of the predicate, right? Which is taken formally, because the predicate is to the subject, a little bit like, what? Form to what? Matter, yeah. That's why he called the other thing, the subject, right? The subject is like the matter, right? Subject and predicate. So it's not placed on the side of the predicate, which is taken formally, but it regards the, what? Supposi to him, right? The subject, insofar as it excludes another subject from that to which it is, what? Right. That's the way I would consider that subject, as I said, right? Not exactly the thing, but it's better than suppository. Yeah. Maybe you've understood that, right? Yeah. But, this adverbium tantum, see? Now, I think that's what you translate only, right? Only is an adverb, right? Only is an adverb, right? Yeah, I think that's the other thing, yeah. So what's the difference between only and alone, right? See? Well, I know what alone is, what part of speech is that? But, only is only an adverb, right? But this adverb, only, since it is exclusive, can be placed on the side of the subject and on the side of the predicate, right? For we can say, only Socrates runs, right? That is, no other one runs. And Socrates runs only. Berkowitz thinks only. That's all he does. So if you say, only Berkowitz thinks, that means what? Nobody else thinks of Berkowitz, right? If you say, Berkowitz thinks only. That's all he does. He doesn't do it, right? They don't mean that, right? Okay. Whence is not properly able to be said that the Father is God, what? Alone, right? Or the Trinity is God alone, unless, perhaps, on the side of the predicate is understood something implied as when it is said that the Trinity is the God who is alone God. And according to this, this could be true, that the Father is the God who is alone God, if the relative refers to the predicate and not the supposed term, right? Otherwise you'd be saying that the Father alone is God, right? But Augustine, when he says that the Father is not, what, God alone, but the Trinity alone, he speaks, what? Yeah. Laying it out. Now, I just wanted to say that when one says the, this is that famous text there from St. Paul, to the king of ages, invisible, the only God, right? Should not be explained about the person of the Father, but about the whole, what, Trinity. Some people are using that in text, areas, something like that, in the text of areas, saying, well, only the Father is God, right? And then, the Son is not God, right? Okay. But, that's, misunderstanding that text, right? That God is not standing there for the person of the Father, but for the, what, Trinity, right? Okay. So that's a, so you can have some fun about the word only, right? English term. If you say, only Socrates thinks, what does that mean? Now if you say, in English, Socrates only thinks. See, does only go at the predicate then? Socrates only thinks. That's all he does? Yeah, it seems like that, huh? Why would I say, in English, only Socrates thinks, nobody else? You know, Homer describes, I forget the guy's name, but, they're out in the field there, right? Achilles is about to come back into battle, right? All he's done is appeared at the, they roared, and, and, I forget the guy's name, but, he's urging them all to get back into the city and behind the walls before he comes on, and he shouted down, and, and Hector, you know, what do you mean, you know? He alone, you know, looked before and behind, right? So you see, Socrates, only Socrates thinks, only this man looks before and after, right? It means no one else did, right? Nobody else thought they should stay on the plane there and keep up their, you know, advance standing against the Greeks, right? The kids. If you say, Socrates only thinks, what does that mean? What does that mean? What does that mean? What does that mean? What does that mean? It's kind of funny in English, huh? That's why you've got to go back to the Latin, back to August and August, because you don't quite get it. But here in English, at least it seems to me, if you put the only before Socrates and after, you don't have exactly the same meaning. Only Socrates thinks. Only children play children only. Yeah. And they have to go to school for it. Who's that? Yeah. He only thinks of himself. Yeah. Than anybody else. Yeah. Only he thinks of himself. What does that mean? He's the only guy who knows himself, right? Yeah. Okay. Yes, I'm not. Now the third objection. If this Dixio Solus is joined to an essential term, either this will be with respect to a personal predicate or with respect to an essential predicate. But not with respect to a personal predicate, because this is false. That God alone is the Father is the way he translated it. How do you translate it? God alone is the Father. Since also man is the Father. That's kind of strange. Nor with respect to a predicate that's essential. Because if this were true, God alone creates, it would seem to be found that this is true, that the Father alone creates, right? Mm-hmm. Saying God alone creates, but the Father is God, therefore. Yeah. Yeah. The third, it should be said that in both ways, this wording solus can be joined to an essential term. For this proposition, again, that's another example there. Propositio originally meant, what? The premise of a, what? Syllogism, huh? And etymologically it's it. Proositio. It's placed before, right? The premise means sent before, right? Mm-hmm. But then propositio came to mean, what? Statement, right? But it's very common in Thomas and other people to use the word proposition now for what? Statement. It's like the word term for a name, huh? Define your terms. Define your names you're using. But it would be more correct to say define your names. That's what you mean by your names, right? Terms. So this proposition, huh? Thomas follows the customs sometimes, huh? He's a name. He's a name. Okay. No man, no angel is what? The father, right? Only God is the father, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Or it can predicate the relation only, and thus it is false because the relation of fatherhood is also found in others, right? Okay. Although not, you know, it doesn't got me wondering about why he injected away. Okay. Similarly, this is true, that God alone creates. But nevertheless, it does not follow, therefore, what? The father alone, huh? Because as the sophists say. Now, notice, I want to say the sophiste di quinta. He's not taking the sophists here now in the pejorative sense, right? Mm-hmm. But apparently the sophists were kind of the first thinkers to work out, what? Grammar, right? Show you their kind of interest in the words more than thoughts, right? Yeah. And so I guess grammarians got to be called sophiste, huh? Wow. Okay. But anyway, they're talking about something about language, right? That a dictio exclusiva, like solace, right? Immobilitate it, what? Puts at rest the term to which it is joined. That it cannot, what? Have descent under it, right? To what's below it, right? And it gives an example. If you say man alone is a, what? More to a rational animal. But Socrates is a man, therefore, what? Socrates is alone irrational? See? So I say, the philosopher alone is a lover of wisdom. That's what philosophy means, right? So if you're not a philosopher, you're not a lover of wisdom, right? So Socrates is a philosopher, therefore Socrates alone is a lover of wisdom. Does that follow? So he says, immobilizes, right? And you can't descend from that. Suppose I say this, an even number alone is divisible into two equal parts. The even number is the only number that is divisible into two equal parts, right? Four is an even number, therefore, four is the only number divisible into two equal parts. Socrates is a writer, right? The Pomerians, huh? That's something, right? Yeah. I used to have this joke about Albert the Great, you know, we used to have a hard time, at least the Latin texts we have, you know. What the heck is the guy saying here, you know? A hard thing, you know. And, of course, the story was that Albert the Great was kind of stupid, and he went and prayed for the Blessed Virgin, and she enlightened him, right? But I said, it happened after I studied grammar, so I never got the grammar straight enough. I said, well, if I've been on, but... You've heard me make fun of the grammarians, right? I say, well, if you say to the philosopher, what do you think of these two sentences? Man am an animal, and man is a stone. Well, the magician would say that man am an animal is better than man is a stone. Man is a stone is false, right? Yeah. Or, I am a stone, or I is your professor, which is better. Well, I is your professor, isn't I? You know? And I am a stone is false, right? I think Marian would answer, I am a stone, perfect. Wonderful. 100%. I is a professor, or I is a man. Wrong, right? So he doesn't care about whether the statement is true or false, just provided it is said right, huh? But what's the story of the death of Ivan Illich? You ever seen that little thing? And, you know, why is he struck with this disease and he's going to die, right? He is thinking back of his life and so on. How he has made love in French, he says. You know? He has done a new moral life, right? He has done it in French, or whatever, the proper way of doing it, right? That is kind of the thing where it is, right? You know? Not what you say, you know, whether it is true or false, but you say it correctly, you know, with the little things, huh? Those things are going to make sure you are speaking grammatically correct. Of course, one of the things the savants do, if you can do nothing else, is to get you to say something ungrammatically, huh? And then leave you on that difficulty to try to attack this fourth article, and I don't know if I can go too far. What? Only one more. You can go through this fast. You can go through this fast. Okay, I'm tired here. I've got to go home and go to a wake, so I can't get too long here. But you want to go? Go ahead. Yeah, maybe you should go. Yeah, back home and then we've got to come back to a wake. Yeah, yeah, go. See, when I retired, I got his picture of the fire, so they put him on the Assumption magazine. Yeah, yeah, so two of the guys have died already, so he said, three more to go. He told us this last week. What? He told us this last week. Well, he was dying, yeah, but he died Sunday, so he had his wake tonight and his food tomorrow.