Prima Secundae
Lecture 28: The Immortality of the Human Soul and Beatitude

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

There's a reason why it has a beginning and a different reason why it doesn't have an end. That's a question you raise of the human soul right now. If the human soul, you know, didn't always exist, well then it must not have an end, right? It's kind of interesting there in the, what is it, in the, yeah, in the 11th book, right, of the wisdom there. Where Aristotle says, you know, that these forms in matter, they all, what, have a beginning, right, huh? But then the, and then the, it excludes when they're having an end, the human soul, right, huh? That's kind of interesting, you know, if you read the Greek text, you know, of course the, the Greek scholars, they can't say, you couldn't possibly have thought, that must be a later edition, you know. Well, you see, the idea, you know, if the soul had a beginning, right, huh, then it must have an end, right? That's kind of a, you know, you know, power of argument, right, it would seem to people, right? Kind of amazing that the soul should have a beginning, and, but not an end, existence, huh? So I was born in January 18th, 1936, I suppose I was, in existence in 1935, too, but, as you think of 1936, but sitting in 1934, I wasn't around, you know, and, and yet my soul would go on forever, right, huh? Yeah. One place or the other, right? And, uh, it's kind of an amazing thing to think of, right? Mm-hmm. It's kind of, you know, at first sight, it seems kind of, like, doubtful, right, huh? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Of course, you know, in, in the, uh, in Plato, the soul existed both before and after the body, right? Mm-hmm. See? So the, the, the two main opinions is, would be that the soul did not exist before the body, and it won't exist after the body, and then, or else, it must have existed before the body, and it's going to exist after the body, right, huh? And, uh, Aristotle comes in and says, well, there's a bit of truth in both of you. And he says, well, it didn't exist before the body, but the human so exists after the body, right? And yet, yet that seems at first sight, you know, not as probable, right? Mm-hmm. As to say, it neither existed before the body nor after, or existed both before and after, right? The truth is this other one, right? Now, there's, you could also, there's maybe a fourth opinion there because, because, uh, you could say that, uh, this is before the body, but then it wears out, you know? That's, that's a problem, right? It's, yeah, the two, right? And there was one guy in, in the, in the dialogue there about the mortality of the soul, he argues that Socrates' argument is, is unnecessary because Socrates argues that the, that the soul is more apt to survive death than the body, right? And then, he says, if the body doesn't always survive death, especially the bones, right? Well, then, therefore, it's already the soul will survive death, right? And he says, you know, and then sometimes, you know, the mummy's down, he's even, you know, more than the bones, maybe, preserved, I guess. But, um, the, uh, Sebas comes in and says, well, suppose you argue that, um, um, man is, uh, wears out many pairs of shoes in his life, right? And, therefore, you argue that, uh, his shoes still exist, so he must still exist, right? But you forget that, you know, he's slowly wearing out, though, as he goes into another pair of shoes, right? And, finally, he carries a pair of shoes and says, well, what? Outlast him. Outlast him, right, yeah? Okay? And then, he's, he's found a defect in Socrates, right? That's a very, very interesting dialogue, right? Just stop here so I can make my dinner, huh? Good. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Dios, gracias. God, our enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, gorge and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Amen. Help us to understand all that you are today. Father, the Son of the Holy Spirit, Amen. So, whether man, through his own natural powers, is able to acquire Beatituda. To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that man, through his own natural powers, I guess you would say, is able to achieve Beatituda. For nature does not fail in necessary things. But nothing is more necessary to man than that to which, or by which he achieves his last end. Therefore, this cannot be lacking to human nature. Therefore, man is able, through his, what, natural powers, to achieve Beatituda. Pretty good argument. Moreover, man, since he is more noble than the unreasonable creatures, would seem to be more, what, sufficient. But the irrational creatures, through their natural powers, are able to achieve their ends. Therefore, much more is man, through his natural powers, able to achieve, what? Beatitude, huh? Now, he always quotes Aristotle from De Cielo, we'll say, when that projection comes up. A Beatitude is a, what, perfect operation, according to the philosopher. But it belongs to the same one to begin a thing, and to, what? Perfect it. Since, therefore, an imperfect operation, which is the beginning of human operations, is under the natural power of man, by which he is, what, lord of his own acts, it seems that through his natural power, he is able to attain to a perfect operation, which is Beatitude, huh? I think about something before I understand it, right? So, thinking about something and understanding must be my power, right? But against this, man is the beginning, naturally, of his acts through understanding and will. But the last Beatitude prepared for the saints, exceeds both the understanding of man and the will of man. For the apostle says, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 2, that eye is not seen, and ear has not heard, nor has it gone up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love him. Therefore, man, through his own natural powers, is not able to, what, achieve Beatitude. This encounter is worth more than the three arguments, huh? Because the argument by faith is stronger than the argument from reason, in theology, huh? Not in geometry. They got to be teaching the grandchildren their geometry, you know? So I had the two oldest, you know. Kate seemed to pick it up pretty quick, but Sarah was kind of frustrated. So you got to about the, you know, sixth theorem, you know? So, got a little bit. I answer, Thomas says, that it should be said that the imperfect Beatitude, which is able to be had in this life, can be, what, is able to be acquired by man through his, what, natural powers. In that way in which, what, the virtue, huh? Also, right? In whose operation or doing that consists. About which one was below, right? That's the happiness that Aristotle spoke of, right? But the perfect Beatitude of man, as has been said above, consists in the very division, vision, in the very sight of the divine essence, the divine nature, huh? But to see God through his very nature is above the nature not only of man, but of every creature, huh? As has been shown in the first part of the Summa. For the natural knowledge of each creature is according to the way of its substance. As is said about the, you know, understanding substance, right? In the book De Causis, huh? Now, what is the book De Causis? Do you know that? We have an answer or a commentary on it somewhere. Yeah. And Thomas has a commentary on it, huh? And at first they thought it was a book by Aristotle, huh? And then later on they realized it was a contractional book by one of the Herod philosophers, huh? Following Aristotle. But there's a few, you know, mistakes in the book, but it's a pretty good book, huh? It's kind of, you know, the completion of wisdom, huh? You're talking about the immaterial substances. This is a famous quote there from the book De Causis. It's kind of like, you know, epigrams in each sentence, you know, and Thomas's, you know, unfolding that brevity is a soul of wit, huh? And then Yahoo there spoke before the U.S. Senate and House, you know, together. And he spoke very well, right? But very short and brief and to the point, you know, it was marvelous. Well, even Rush Kimball was talking about how good it was. And he says, you know, brevity is a soul of wit. And this is what, he had a Netanyahu, you know, so. This is what you have, what? Who is this? Netanyahu, the Prime Minister. Prime Minister. Israel. Oh, wow, yeah. Because I guess, brother, brother, don't know about that. Obama kind of insulted the Israelis recently. Yeah. Yeah, correct to them. To their face. Basically saying, oh, you guys should just go back to the borders of 1967. Yeah, that would resolve all the conflicts. And Netanyahu just on the Internet of Television said, no. Indefensible, yeah? Yeah. So in De Cautis you have these, you know, kind of very, brevity is a soul, but these famous statements that are common. For it is said about the intelligentsia, and that's more of the understanding substance, that it knows the things which are above itself and the things which are below itself, but according to the mode of its substance, right? Yeah. So it knows the things below it better than those things below it know themselves, huh? But it knows the things above it in a lesser way than the things above it know it. But all knowledge which is according to the mode of the created substance falls short from the vision of the divine essence, which infinitely exceeds every created, what, substance. Whence neither man nor any creature, not even my guardian angel, huh? As he tells me. He is able to achieve, what, the last beatitude through his, what, natural powers. As you saw before, you can see God as he is only when your mind is formed by God himself as the form of which you see him. So you see God in himself through God. It's a very amazing thing. It says in the Psalms, in your light we shall see light, huh? By creating a created form, it's inadequate to express God as he is. One reason Thomas gives is that the created form is not its own existence. So how can he represent the one who says, I am who am, without what? Not itself being its own existence, huh? Now, what about the first objection, that nature doesn't fail in necessary things? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that just as nature does not fail man in necessary things, although he doesn't give him what? Weapons and clothing as, what, to the other animals, huh? Why, in the place of this, he gives him reason and, what, and hands, huh? By which he's able to, what, acquire these things for himself, huh? That's why they call it a category that, you know, habitus there, huh? It's man's category, huh? Therefore, neither is there failing to man in necessary things, although it does not give to him, although it does not give to him, some beginning by which he is able to, what? Achieve beatitude, huh? Why? Because that would have been impossible. But he does give him something, namely free judgment, free will, right? By which he is able to turn towards God will make him, what? Blessed, huh? And then he quotes a beautiful thing there, huh? The things that we are able to do through our friends, huh? Through us in some way where possible or able to do, right? As is said in the third book of the Ethics, huh? So what I'm able to understand through the help of my guardian angel, I'm able to understand, right? But not without his help, right? Therefore it's you're able to understand through God. Now what about man being more noble than the other irrational creatures, huh? To the second should be said that of a more noble condition is that nature which is able to achieve a perfect good although it needs some exterior aid to doing this, huh? Then the nature which is not able to achieve a perfect good but achieves some, what? Imperfect good. Even though to the achievement of that it does not need an exterior, what? Aid. And this is the famous distinction the philosopher gives in the second book about the universe, huh? Just as he is better disposed for health who can achieve perfect health although he does achieve this through the aid of, what? Medicine, right? Then the one who is able only to achieve a certain imperfect health but without the, what? Aid of medicine, huh? So I'm better off if I can take my pills morning and evening and have a better health than the man who doesn't take any medicine but has inferior health to mine, right? That was Aristotle's example there. And therefore the reasonable creature who is able to achieve the perfect good of the attitude needing for this the divine help, right? He is more perfect than the irrational creature who is not capable of this, what? Good, huh? But he achieves a certain imperfect good by virtue of his, what? Nature. So I'm better off than the guy down there making hamburgers in McDonald's, right, huh? Who doesn't need, you know any help to make these hamburgers because I can learn about arithmetic from Euclid, right? Maybe he can't. So, I'm better off, aren't I? But he will serve billions and billions. Well, I want his grandchildren to teach that. We're taking geometry too, huh? When he says, you'll get hungry after a while and you'll see. It's interesting, I mean, some people can, you know, have a very simple job in life, right? They don't need anybody to really, what, instruct them, right, huh? How people can, you know, achieve something higher but they need the help of Thomas Aquinas or Euclid or Aristotle or... In what sense is it higher? I'd say more spiritual good, right? Well... Good of the mind, yeah. So the fear of Euclid is better than the hamburger, huh? Either the hamburger is more necessary. Yeah. Then, what about some of, like, the really simple, humble saints that they did not acquire anywhere in? Yeah, yeah. They acquired the happiness? Yeah, but they might have had, what, the love of God, right? Oh, okay. Okay. And what's in Scripture? Ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia. Where there's humility, there is, what, wisdom, right? And it's interesting, you know, how humility would dispose of wisdom, among other things, because you're kind of disposed to think that God is the source of everything, right? You're not relying upon yourself. You're relying upon God as the first cause of things, and that's to know God as the first cause. So you're disposed to think of God. There's a quote now going around, because I was, I was looking at a, I don't have any news to be there at the house there with the grandchildren, but my son-in-law comes back on the weekends, he brings a stack of, you know, the USA Today, and the, you know, anyway, there's a quote there from Hawkins, the atheist there, the mathematician there, and so on, and he's saying, you know, well, human mind is just like the computer, right? The computer eventually wears out and doesn't have any afterlife. Same way with us, right? So then I, I had to take the car in to get the oil changed and, you know, fixed, you know, and when it came back, it fixed me and put it down and, so I'm sitting there and they have a little kind of a lounge there where you can wait for your car being fixed and I picked up the, I have this Time magazine there, you know, and I think it's quotes, here's that same quote again from Hawkins, you know. Propaganda. Yeah. But I mean, just, you know, computer, right? So he has no idea, you know, of the immortality of man, soul. He has no idea obviously of God therefore, right? And, there's some pride there. Oh, Steve, it's Steve. Yeah, yeah. I used to work down with my father's doctor, you know, in a christian. One guy, a truck driver, and he says, it doesn't take any brains to be a truck driver, he said. No, he built, you know. So we're not self-sufficient, but a humble man is more, quick to recognize he's not self-sufficient. He's not masterful of his fate as the poem says. But I was just trying to say, as you're as human beings are concerned, right? Some people can reach something higher in life than others, right? But they might need, what? More exterior help. And it's better to be able to reach something higher, even if you need exterior help, than to not be able to achieve something higher, even though you can achieve the lower things just by your own, what? Hours, yeah. Yeah. And I can breathe without anybody's help, I guess, at least so far. Yeah. So far. So far. Yeah, at last. I mean, you know. But that's the best thing I can achieve, you know, breathing. You know, it's not as good, right? I can know some theology, right? But I need the help of Thomas to know some theology, maybe. I don't need Thomas's help to breathe. Might need machines to help to breathe. You might need his intercession. Yeah. I always, you know, think now when I get in the car, I think of saying to my guardian angel, you know, a little prayer to the guardian angel, angel of God, my guardian dear, you know. And because you all drive on the highway, you know, people make mistakes and so on. You need your angel there to tell you when to. Yeah. Now, what about this imperfect and perfect, right? To the third, it should be said that when the imperfect and the perfect are of the same species, right? The same form or kind, they're able to be caused by the same power, right? So it's through by the same reason that I'm able to think about things, right? And to think them out and understand them, right? But then you're dealing with things of the same what? Species, right? But this is, however, not necessary if they are of a what? Different species of kind. For not whatever is able to cause the disposition of matter is able to induce the ultimate what? Perfection. But the imperfect operation, which is under the natural power of man, is not of the same what? Kind with the operation, with that perfect operation, which is the beatitude of man, which is seeing God as he is, huh? Face to face. Since the species of the operation depends upon the what? Object, right? Whence the argument does not follow. Paratio non secretor. Paratio. Okay, I'm going to look at Article 6 here now. Where the man can achieve beatitude through the action of some, what, higher creature. Right, huh? Can my guardian angel or one of the seraphim, huh? Give me this. To the 6th, one precedes us. It seems that man is able to become blessed through the action of some higher creature. To it of some, what, angel. I like what my angel says, but he's warning me. I can't do this for you. First objection. Since there is a two-fold order, it is found in things. One of the parts of the universe to each other, and the other of the whole universe to the good which is outside the universe, namely God. That the first order is ordered to the second, as to an end, as is said in the 12th book of wisdom, the metaphysics. So Thomas is always quoting that from Aristotle. There's an order of the parts of the universe to each other, and then the order of the whole universe to something outside the universe, which is God. And you can make the same distinction about the chair, right, that the parts of the chair have a certain order to each other. With my fast analogy geometry, I notice it's a slightly, what, obtuse angle here at which this part comes down to the seat, right? So there's an order of the parts of the chair to each other. The legs are not all in the front or all in the back, but one at each corner, and so on. But all of that order of the parts of the chair to each other is an account of the order of the whole chair to something outside the chair, which is your sitting or my sitting, right? And so my sitting or your sitting or someone's sitting is, what, the reason why the parts of the chair have the order they do to, what, each other, right? Okay. So Aristotle sees this as being in the universe as a whole, right, huh? In the 12th book of wisdom there he's talking about. God, I'm going to get there. In this comparison, just as the order of the parts of the army, huh, to each other is an account of the order of the whole army to the leader, but it's kind of an attraction to the end of the leader, right, huh? Which is victory, right, huh? But the order of the parts of the universe to each other should be noted according as the higher creatures act upon the, what, lowers, huh? As has been said in the first part of the summa. Now the beatitude, however, consists in the order of man to the good which is outside the universe, which is God, huh? And therefore through the action of the higher creature, the angel, in man, man will be rendered, what, blessed, huh? So the order of the angels to us, huh, is an account of the order of all of us to God, right? So we get to God through the fact that the angels help us, huh? Well, there's some truth to that, right? The angels do help us to get to God, but can they help us to see God as he is face to face? Well, we'll see. We don't know now yet, right? We're just, we're just, we're just, yeah. Morever, second objection, what is in potency or ability such is able to be, what, reduced or led back to act to what is in act such, huh? Just as what is able to be hot becomes hot in act to that which is hot in act. So the fire, which is actually hot, makes the water, which is able to be hot, actually hot, right? But man is in potency or in ability blessed, huh? Therefore he's able to be, what, rendered blessed in act to the angel who is in act blessed, huh? That's good. That's pretty good, yeah. I like that. Yeah. A little slight hand there, but it's... No, no, no, that's a fundamental book, book nine of wisdom, right, huh? Where he shows that act is what's simply before ability, because what is an ability goes to act to something already in act. That's the principle from here. Yeah. So Euclid's already a blessed mathematician, right? And I read him and then I become a blessed mathematician too, right? I'm just looking at the theorem this morning here of between any two cube numbers, huh? There's how many mean proportionals? Two, yeah? Between two square numbers, there's what? One. And the two square numbers are in the, what? Duplicate ratio of their sides. I was going to say that. Yes, sir. But how is it that I am in act and you're only in ability? Some of you. Because I come in contact with this Euclid who's an act. He's really something, this guy. Moreover, the attitude consists in the operation of the understanding, as has been said above. But the angel is able to enlighten the understanding of man. That's why I pray every time before we study that the angel of God, you know, the angel will enlighten us, huh? But the angel is able to enlighten the understanding of man, as has been said in the first part. Therefore, the angel is able to make man blessed. My guardian angel is too humble to make such a claim, right? Now, against this, however, is what is said in Psalm 83. The Lord gives both grace and glory. Now, which is strong in the first three arguments, so that's a counter. What do you think? Three is strong in one, isn't it? Three is better than one, isn't it? No, but Thomas said back in the premium that in theology, the argument from authority is the strongest in theology, right? It's the weakest in philosophy, right? If I say between two numbers, there's what? Between two Q numbers is two mean proportionals because Euclid said so. That's the weakest argument I could give you, right? And it would not be accepted by other mathematicians. But here, you've got the scripture, right? And the Psalms, which contain the whole theology in the form of a prayer. And that's why Thomas says they use so much in the liturgy, right? It was one of the criticisms of the sons of Beth Johnson, right? They didn't see the divine revelation as the foundation of theology. That was a clear thing that was brought out in these texts there according. And this, the, yeah, the, what do they call it? Not the doctrinal committee of the bishops? Yeah. They have, like, a 12-page document. They said, I haven't seen the document itself. I saw quotes from here in the Captain Miller Report. But they were, you know, condemning her book, you know, you might say. Her theology book. Which is printed without an ink from honor. I guess, once you're in theology, since sort of ignore him for a while there, he came back, you know, and he was pretty strict. He says, nothing here has got to be printed, he says. Pain, pain. I answer, it should be said, that since every creature of nature is subject to, what, laws, that is, as having a limited power and also a limited, what, action, that which excels the created nature is not able to come about. By the power of any what? Creature. And therefore, if something is ought to come about that is above nature, right? This must immediately come about, my God. Just as the raising up of the dead, right? The lightening of the one blind and other things of what? This sort, huh? But it has been shown, however, that beatitude is a good, exceeding, created, what? Nature. Does that mean we don't deserve it? If God says we deserve it, then we deserve it. That's why he's saying so, right? He gives us the right to you. Yeah. He gives us the name. He's got to give us gratia, huh? Yeah. Whence it is impossible that through the action of any creature it be conferred, huh? But man is blessed, or comes to be blessed, God alone acting, right? If you're going to speak now of that perfect beatitude that we defined before. If our one speaks of imperfect beatitude, thus there's the same reason about it and the virtue in whose act it consists, right? And there you can be helped by a superior creature, right? Like Euclid or my guardian angel or your guardian angel. Now to the first, it should be said, huh? That many times it happens in active powers that are ordered, right, huh? That lead to some last end. Then what leads to the last end itself belongs to the, what, highest power, right, huh? But the lower powers aid for the achievement of that last end by disposing, right, huh? Just as to the sailing art, let's say, huh, the governing art, which commands, huh, the one that makes the boat. To the governing art, huh, there pertains a use of the ship, right? On account of which the ship itself comes about, right? Thus, therefore, also in the order of the universe, man is aided by the angels at achieving his, what, last end. According to some things preceding it, huh, by which man is disposed to its, what, achievement, huh, or attainment. But the last end itself achieves only through the, what, first agent, which is, what, yeah, huh, that's a common thing said, huh? You know, to lower our preparers, huh? So, you know, I'm the great chef, huh? You're going to work in my kitchen tonight, huh? But you're going to peel potatoes, huh? You're going to tell me how. But I'm going to make the potato into something that really tastes good, you know, huh? So, I mean, or you're going to, you know, defrost the steaks, you know, something like that, right? You know, but I'm going to prepare the sauce for the steak or something, right? So, I'll tell you, get this out and that out and this out of the cupboard, right? And so on. And then now, sometimes my wife's in hurry, you know, Dwayne, get this, get this. I realize. Don't argue. I have a supportive role there, you know, huh? But I'm contributing in some way to the final, the final, final pranit, right? You're disposing. Yeah, yeah. The fraternity called Phi Beta Kappa. You know what that stands for, Phi Beta Kappa? No. Philosophia B.U. Kubernaut. Philosophy is the helms of the flyer. I don't know how many of them actually live up with that, but that's a good model, anyway. Yeah. I try to explain that to Sophia there, my grandkipper. Philosophia, huh? It's a lover of Sophia. Yeah. But no, in a way, you know, in the grade school prepares the students for, what, high school or high school for college, right? And hopefully, the college professor is willing to teach the student that the high school professor couldn't teach, right? I saw that even when I was, you know, going to graduate school, you know. I'd ask a Cirque, you know, my undergraduate teacher was the best guy there in the college and taught me a lot, right? But some things I wasn't quite sure about, right? So one Deconic comes down, he says, you're asking me these questions. So Deconic came down to the state of Cirque's house there, and then I came over, you know, and put all my questions, and Deconic very likely answered them. And I could see his superiority right there, you know? And so, I mean, but I was disposed, you know, by a Cirque, you know, and had these teachers in the right order, you know, Cirque and Deconic and then Deconic, you know, in the right order. It would have been, if I had Deconic first, I would have been, you know, for you! He's so tense, you know. I told you when I came down there, this problem that I'd had, you know, undergraduate days and became relevant to my thesis and so on. And I was reading Thomas, and I was listening to him, and I was putting two and two together and I had the answer, you know? So I came down, I wanted to talk to him, and he said, I know what you're going to say, he says. I said, what the hell do I say? Can I say it? But no, no, you can see how one is disposing for a higher level one, you know? Deconic used to say, you know, he's teaching how to read Thomas, huh? The care and so on, to read Thomas and digest what he says. Okay. So that's a common thing, huh, in the order. The lower cause, right, doesn't induce the ultimate perfection, right? The lesser perfection, huh? So those St. Joseph's sisters are talking to read and write, huh? They prepared me for something further, right? Now what about the second objection here, right? What is an act reduces what is an ability. Okay, that sounded like a pretty good argument there, huh? The second should be said that when some form exists an act in someone, according to its perfect being, huh, and its natural being, it can be a beginning of action in another. Just as the hot is heated through heat, right? But if the form exists in someone imperfectly, and not according to its natural, what? Being. It cannot be the beginning of the communication of itself to another. Just as the, what? Intention of color, which is in the, what? Pupil of the eye. Cannot make another thing, what? White. Very subtle. That was still said, right? This is what they call intentional being, rather than this natural being, right? And if I, what? Have the taste of the wine in my mouth, right? What kind of being does that have in my mouth? It's intentional being, right? And I can't use my tongue to imply that, to communicate that taste to other things, can I? Nor also are all things which are enlightened or made hot able to, what? Yeah. Because thus illumination and heating would extend forever, right? It would never be cold, right? Light of armor, the light of glory armor, by which God is seen, is in God perfectly according to its natural being. In each creature it is, what? Imperfectly. And according to a, what? Likeness, I don't know. And a, or partaking, right? Okay. Whence?