Prima Secundae
Lecture 68: Passion in the Soul: Nature and Equivocal Meanings

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

So when I call myself a philosopher, which means a lover of wisdom, right? That love is an act of the will, right? It's not an emotion. So now we're getting down to something more known to us, right? But now it's a little, it's going to touch upon this, but again, there's a little bit of a... In the 13th chapter of the first epistle of the Christ, in the 13th verse, you can remember that, 13, 13, right? This is what St. Paul says, right? I'm going to give you this translation here just for a second. And now abideth faith, oh, charity, right? Oh, charity, they're trying to say it here. These three, but the greatest of these is what? Charity, right? So that's the faith passage, right? And Thomas quotes that in the beginning of the Compendium of Theology, right? Which he wrote for Brother Reginald, right? He didn't finish it, but he has three parts on it. A part on faith, right? A part on hope. And he didn't finish it, but these are going to be three parts in the hand, right? And in Thomas' kind of construction, you have these three parts corresponding to these three, right? And in the famous work of Augusta, the Enchiridion, faith, hope, and charity, you have these same, what, three, right? So, when you're pistis, you take up the, what, creed, right? And then the outpiece, or hope, you take up the Our Father, right? Sometimes the Hail Mary, but Our Father is the prayer of prayers, right? And then under Agrake, you take up the Two Commandments of Love and the Ten Commandments, right? That's a way of, what, a different way of dividing the sacred doctrine, right, than having Sumas, huh? In Sumas, the basic division is God in himself, God is the maker, God is the, what, in, right? So, a lot of this would come in there, God in himself, right? Or anything else, these would come up. You're talking about God in his end, right? It's a division of the three, but it's not based in faith, hope, and charity. It's more God in himself, God is the maker of the things he's made to some extent. And then, God is the end, right? In the order of things, too, the end of God, as a divine province, and so on. But this is much more proportioned to people, right? Okay. Now, the last sentence is, The grace of Jesus' charity. The grace of Jesus is Agape, right, then? Then he should have given Agape first in this order, right, then? And instead he's placed it last, right? I know the last shall be first, and the first shall be last. You've got to be careful. I know you understand the use of that quote, right? So, how would you explain this confusion in St. Paul's? Or is it confusion? The order of variance? Yeah. There's a different order involved here, right? Okay. Now, those of you who have studied the twelfth chapter of the categories, right, then? You may recall that Aristotle takes up the word before, which is a word equivocal by what? Reason, right, then? And it's equivocal by reason of a likeness of ratios among these meanings, right? But he gives the four chief senses of the word before in order, right? And the first sense of before is before in time, right? So, today is before tomorrow. That's the first sense he gives of before. The second sense we might speak of as before in being. If this can be without that, but that can't be without this, then this is before that in being. Aristotle gives the example of one is before what? Two. One can be without two, but two cannot be without what? One. But I give out examples from the sensible world, and they say, bricks can be without a brick wall. You can have bricks without having a brick wall. You can't have a brick wall without bricks. Or a very overwhelming example, you can have the letter C without the word cat. You can't have the word cat without the letter C, right? Okay? There's all kinds of examples of this, right? Now, the third sentence that Aristotle gives, you can say, is before in the discourse of reason. Okay? I can read my script. Before the discourse of reason. Or more generally in what? Knowledge, right? Okay? And then Aristotle gives finally a fourth meaning, right? And very moat, he says. You know? But yet, people say, you know, you come first with me, right? And so what is better or more loved is also put before, right? Okay? I'd put carbonate solenoid before. Zinfandel, right? Zinfandel, right? I'd put steak before salmon. So, you could say, before in goodness, right? Or, in one word, better, right? Aristotle says that's before the sentence, right? And if you look in the metaphysics, huh? When he takes up the word before there, right? He takes up kind of these three sentences, right? And kind of uses one out, if that's a little more remote, right? Okay? But nevertheless, huh? I always think that the categories of the query should begin again, huh? Okay? But these three sentences are much closer, right, huh? Now, you can see that, huh? When I write the word cat, maybe C might be before what? A and T, even in time, huh? Not necessarily, but... And generally, you'd have bricks in time before you have a brick wall in time, right, huh? Okay? Now, that ain't necessarily so. So, if I have a little stamp, you know, and bam, like that, the letter C and the word cat come to be together, right? Yeah. But nevertheless, you could say, you know, these tend to go together, right? What is before in time? Well, but not necessarily, right? I'm before some of you guys in time, right? But could you be without me? Of course. Of course. So, they are really distinct meanings, right? But there's a certain affinity between the two, right? Now, there's a real likeness between the second and the third meaning, right? Because just as this can be without that, right? But not vice versa, so sometimes this can be known without that, but not vice versa, right? And so there's a real similarity there, right? But they don't always go together, right? Because, for example, it might be that hydrogen can be without water, if water is H2O, right? But, in our knowledge, water is before... four, but, yeah. That's why we name hydrogen from water. Hydrogenic generates water. Nevertheless, this is very much in knowing, like before and being, right? This is a little more unusual, right? This fourth sense. So he says that these three, in what order is he giving these three? Okay, before he states it, before he says it, mezzo, two-told, zagape. What order is he giving these three in? Yeah, and probably in time too, right? Okay. So Thomas says that if you believe that there is a God, right? If you don't believe there's a God, you're not going to hope in God, are you? But if you believe that there's a God, and you believe that he loves us, right, and so on, then you have some reason to hope, right? Okay. It doesn't necessarily result in hope, but it kind of disposes us from hope, right? And then if you hope to get good things from God, you turn them in prayer, and so on, and he hears your prayers, and then you start to what? To love him, right, huh? Okay. You've heard the stages of love there that St. Bernard Clairvaux talks about. We first tend to tend towards God when we are, what, in some, what, some trouble, some need, right? And then we, what, are loving God really for our needs, not for his own sake, right, huh? But as we continue to turn towards him, we get to know him, right? He's not a bad guy when you get to know him. And he starts to like him, right, huh? Okay. Now you're starting to love God for his own sake, right, huh? And then he says, eventually, you're going to be loving yourself just for the sake of God, right? He says, that's hardly ever fully achieved in this life, you know? But that's what we're kind of striving for. So Christus comes in for Elpis, right, huh? And Elpis, or hope, disposes for Agape, right, huh? So it's before in time, and it's also before in what? In being, yes. In being more important, right? But now if you take the two masters, the two greatest minds maybe of the church, St. Augustine, right? And Thomas Aquinas, and you see the ingredient on faith, hope, and charity, this is also the order in, what? Owls, right? And when Thomas gives the catechetical instructions there, and Naples there, towards the end of his life, you do these three, right? Okay. Even the common people like this, right? This seems to be the order in which you, what? In our owls, right? Yeah. Talk about peace, these words, right? And then hope, and then finally, what? Love, right? You see how these three can sometimes go together, right? But then, having given that order, because of this, then he, what? Points out that in this fourth order of Aristotle, right? Agape is better than, what? Yeah. And now it has that to evolve there. It says, well, now, everybody knows this text is the same fault, you know? But now, which is greater, Elpis or Pisces, huh? And some people are saying, you know, I don't know, it's sort of a good thing, Pisces, something. Huh? Okay. Yeah. And I think Thomas brings us out in the disputed questions on hope, right? Okay. But nobody ever asked a question, as, you know, man looks before and after I ask the question. And then my friend, Warren Murray, pointed out this text in the disputed questions on hope, you know? So, in goodness, Agape paid for Elpis, and Elpis before what? Pisces, right? And perhaps you can understand it a little bit by the simple explanation that Thomas gives, is that Pisces, or faith, like Pisces, we know where our end is, right? What our goal is, right? But by Elpis, we are now, what, tending towards that, what? Yeah. Elpis is like a kind of, what, desire, what desire for a, what, good, difficult to achieve, right? But by Agape, Thomas says, we in a way already joined him to our end, huh? And so, I remember this, this quote there from St. Therese of the Sue, right? I don't know what more I can have in heaven, you know? Our union is already complete now, she says, you know? She was, she was very close to God, right? You know, you know, you know, Pisces, in fact, she was the greatest saint, right? In the modern times, right? That's kind of weird, I don't know, I said. How could, how could Augustine and Thomas say that to them, you know? Or they say, you know, the vision is the Holy Rory, right? What more to hell, what do you mean? But because of this, you know, this superiority in Agape, right, huh? She says, Agape is already complete, right? So in a way, you're already joined. So you can see the reason why this is the best, right? You can assume it's already joined again. Here, you're not joined to it, but you're tending towards it, right? Here, you just kind of know what it is, right? So you see, it's perfectly ordered by him. But notice, he does give it in this order first, right? And then he brings a bit of beautiful order in the text. He's saying, quite, he's pretty smart, you know? It's like he stated 12 chapters in categories, huh? Or else he didn't have to say 12 chapters in categories, and all the more equipped to him, right? But it's pretty remarkable text. Now, what does it have to do with the treatise on the emotions now, right? Okay? There's a nice excursion here, right? For many reasons, huh? Well, Piscis is not going to be there. But, if you look up these in the Greek dictionary, right? Elpis and Agripe, right, huh? Well, in Agripe has come to mean, you know, charity, right, huh? But in the Greek dictionary, it can have some of the idea of what? Love, right, huh? And if you take the word love, as it's sometimes translated, right? Because charity is separate degradation, meaning, right? And the word love is originally the name of a, what? Emotion, or what is it called here? Asio, I mean, right? And Elpis is the name of a, what? Emotion, emotions, right? Yeah, yeah. So we'll meet these in the treatise on emotions, right? Under the names love and, what? Hope, right? And, well, I'll go back to Aristotle, right? In the Greek, when they spoke of the emotions in Plato and Aristotle, they would distinguish the two kinds of emotions, and one would be called epithumia, right? And Agripe would be found in epithumia, and Elpis would be found in, what? Thumos, huh? Okay? And we'll be getting these, huh? Now, the latter names will be the cubist of appetite, right? And the erasowactite, right? But name from, you know, just one emotion in that group that stands out, right? So it's time to emotion, we're going to be learning the names that we're going to pick up and carry over one day and place on, what? The theological virtue of hope and place this other name on the, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so it's a little bit, you know? It was interesting, I was, you know how, you probably heard of C.S. Lewis's work on the Four Loves and so on, right? And of course, use the word Agripe, you know, which has come to be, because the New Testament, especially, to mean church, right? Parietas, you know? But I don't appreciate it because they had that sense, huh? You know, if you look at the Greek word, like, Agripeima, what's an Agripeima? Well, the translation would be Daryl. You're my Agripeima. I mean, it's kind of funny to think of God being my Agripeima. So if I have a little grandchild, grandchild or something, you know, you know, you're a little Daryl. But you had that, you know, meaning, right? And C.D. used to deal with the text of Dionysius, the Apagite, you know? The one where he applies the word eros, even to God, right? In terms of the intensity of the love, right? And it's being more known to us, even though eros, very much like in the sea. I suppose their name is more amor, you know, that they're sensual about, right? So we're going to be picking up these words and carrying more, right? When I looked at the word elpis, it's kind of interesting. The first meaning they give elpis is really hope, right? But another meaning they give elpis is fear. I said, that's kind of interesting because although hope, and you see, hope and fear are quite different, but in terms, of course, of the theological virtue of hope, right, it has to be to some extent balanced with the fear of the Lord, right? And you know the beautiful text there where Thomas is expounding in Psalms, huh? And there are some times, but, mention both hope and fear, right? So Thomas says in the commentary of the Psalms that hope without fear of the divine justice, right, could become presumptuous, right? And fear of the divine justice without hope would lead to despair, right? And so you have to balance these two, right, and I often, you know, would expand upon that in philosophy because we're taught by the great Socrates, right, in the, like, the Havala, the Theta, the last day of his life, right, and that the philosopher needs the hope of, what, overcoming the difficulties and knowing what is true, right? And at one point, you know, the men he's talking to start to despair of finding the truth about, what, the immortality of the soul, whether it is or it is not. An argument that he first presents and seemed quite good, now seem not to be so good, right? They're kind of in despair. And then Socrates, you know, leads them out of this despair, right? And then they get kind of cocky, you know, and it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, you know? It's not going to be as easy to answer C-biz as it was C-biz, right? But, you know, this is something that we've learned a lot from on C&D on. You know, in order to be a good philosopher, you have to have the hope that you can overcome the difficulties that there are knowing the truth. If you despair of knowing the truth, like what you find in, what, most universities, right? They didn't despair of knowing the truth. They just, what is it, what is it, what is it, Whitaker Chambers said, remember? I brought his friends there at Columbia University, he says. You know, they required ideas as ping-pong balls. You know, take them seriously and knock them back and forth in a conversation, you know. But, you know, they never resolve anything or so. He said, they're communists, they believe, but they're saying it. And so I found it kind of interesting, just because I was thinking of how the theological virtue of hope has to be balanced by that kind of fear. Maybe the fear of the Lord or the fear of God's justice, right? We don't have that same balance, you know, balance agape or pistis, you know, so much. But it's kind of curious when we put out these, you know, in my Greek dictionary, it has the first meaning of hope, but then it also has the meaning of this fear later on, you know. It's kind of interesting, you know, that they're kind of enjoying it in the work. Those hope and fear are different emotions, right? And the acts of the will that are a result of carrying us over, right? You know, Thomas will speak in the Latin about the transloxio nominis, right? And transloxio means, what, a carrying over, right, for the name. And then he used the term imposizio nominis, which means a placing upon, right, you know. We say put a label upon, right, but to place a name upon, right? So we pick up a name and we carry it over and we lay it down, right, on top of something else. But we change the meaning, right, but there's some connection between the first one, right? So we'll be studying the emotions, but that's a foundation for later on naming the acts of the will, right, and to name these things here in, like, theology, right? It gives them the order of time and being and even knowledge, right? First, St. Paul does it, right? Thirdly ordered it. And then he touches upon the fourth meaning of the forehand. Because in evidence, he's studying Aristotle, right? But it's just, what a mind he had, huh? The mind of Christ. Yeah, oh yeah, it's amazing. Amazing. Okay, should we take our break before we begin this? Let's take a little break between texts, you know, because thinking is like, what, number is not like lines. 22 here and after this we're not to consider about the passions of the soul right and first in general and secondly in what special right now notice this treatment of the passions enables one to understand better those virtues that are concerned about the passions like fortitude or courage and temperance right and magnanimity and so on right but it also helps you to understand better what fiction right both because you know the characters that are represented in these things are undergoing certain emotions right but also the effect say of tragedy the emotional effect of tragedy and emotional effect let's say of comedy is different right so you have to understand the emotions you can understand better what is the emotional effect of these two forms right and if you listen to you know the music of the 18th century and you're going to see representation of the emotions and so it helps you to understand better the music itself right okay okay and as you said it's the names of the emotions are carried over to the you know acts of the will right and it's important for rhetoric right because the second means of persuasion right the the uh rhetorician is the way he moves your emotions into some things right so there's a consideration of the emotions in what the rhetoric of aristotle huh and uh so if i can get you know the jury here angry at you you're going to be more apt to be found guilty or more severely punished right if i can make you feel pity for my client you know you might even let him off or let him off with less than he should get you know and so on and aristotle says you know it's like warping the ruler before you measure yeah this is a ruler you know a court that should not be allowed but because it is you know that this is how you do it and uh so cicero said you know aristotle's rhetoric is a golden river you know so for poetics and rhetoric and for ethics right and for music i suppose for yourself even for your will right you know this treatise is what kind of a central thing how many emotions are there you know to be able to do basically what eleven emotions right six are in the incubusable and five in the irascible right and uh in music you can see how certain keys especially in a master like Mozart are used for certain emotions difference between the major and the minor and then difference between c major right once i use a c major to represent magnanimity d major is much closer to courage right huh but b flat or g major you know more for it could give us more emotions and so on not to influence part of the thing besides the key but you begin to appreciate these things time war and i were making a collection of said melodies just illustrate this to one of our friends you know okay so we're going to talk about them in general and then in what special which begins i guess around question 26 but in general four things occur to be considered about them so that must be 22 23 24 and 25 i assume uh first about the subject of them right secondly about the what difference of them third about the comparison of them to what each other each other fourth about the malice or goodness of them right it's just might see it first i wonder what experience about the first three things are asked first whether there is some passio in the what soul right now you know there's a problem here in how you translate the word what passion in latin you speak of the passion of our lord right how would you translate the word passion suffering yeah yeah but when aristotle says you know or let me say in the latin that understanding is a passion right does it mean a suffering you know in a certain sense okay or does um even he speaks even before the reason he talks about sensing is a what yeah the translate the greek right there does that mean it's a kind of suffering right well you gotta be careful to see because we said before um our reason takes a word that has been placed upon something well known stands out and sometimes for a new thing we carry one of these words over and apply it right but we kind of what change the meaning right yeah but um because we learned things from the greeks and the romans and so on in europe uh what we did often was to interrupt this carrying over in our own native what language and then the word in english that translates the original word in greek or latin uh was never carried over to the later meanings of the word in greek or latin and now you've got a what problem right then okay yeah so if you see in english now for example today you say what you speak of the nature of a thing what do you mean by the nature of a thing yeah yeah but now in in this is the latin word carried over into english right i mean transliterate as i say not translated but do you see in the word nature there at first maybe not very clearly that it goes back the word for birth no no see so when i try to explain to students the word nature there i'll say well the root there n-a-t it goes back to birth in latin and you can see that in the words prenatal and postnatal right when they speak of that in medicine they mean before and after birth and they kind of know that right then we speak of the nativity of our lord but you can speak of my nativity too that we don't maybe use the word that that much i came from my home parish in nativity parish there in st paul minnesota but nativity means what birthday yeah so the english word for nativity is really birthday right so i said nativity of our lord that's what our parish was i guess um we just call nativity is um it's the birthday of our lord right okay and then um i had to ask you know is anybody a native here of worcester what does it mean to be a native of worcester you know why did we when he came over from europe why do we call these indians the natives you know well try to get them idea that the first meaning is is what birth right okay but has the the english word birth been carried over to what the thing is you know you've heard me quoted the lines from fire lawrence there right for not so vile that on the earth doth live but to the earth some special good doth give nor rock so good but strained from that fair use revolts from true birth stumbling on abuse that's well said right but what does shakespeare mean when he says revolts from true birth stumbling on abuse yeah what you are right see and there you can see shakespeare has moved the word birth right you know but people might not see that at first right so you got a problem here right and this is a problem you have to put pastio right now you see um now the way this word in in uh in greek or in latin has been carried over this is one way the word is carried over by reason and that is by dropping out part of its what meaning right is by dropping out part of its what meaning right so um so um so um so so In English, I mean in the word passio, the first meaning of it is suffering. Now when you suffer, you're receiving something, you're undergoing something. But it includes the idea that what you're undergoing is opposed to you in some way. It's causing pain, it's maybe destructive of you. It continued, right? And when you carry that over and apply it to the senses, right? Well, I was listening to the music of Mozart and my ear is suffering. Well, if you carry the word suffering over to my hearing the music of Mozart, you'd say my ears are being acted upon by the music, right? So my ears are undergoing something from the music of Mozart, from the sound of his music, right? The music is sounding, you know? But it's undergoing something that is not, what, opposed, right, to me. So I dropped out part of the original meaning of the word, what, suffering, right? But in English, in daily speech, the word suffering is, you might say, stuck on the first, what, meaning, right? Now, in English, I sometimes translate passio by undergoing, right? And it seems to me, you know, not perfect as a translation, but it has something of the original, right? Because even now, to some extent, the word undergoing, although not as limited as the word suffering, right, it does maybe, first of all, have the sense of something, what, bad, right? As seen in phrases like, you're under the weather, right? Or if you say about somebody, you know, he's undergone a lot. Well, it's all nice things that happen to him in his life. No, no, see? But yet the word undergoing is not maybe as, what, stuck on the first meaning, like the word suffering is, right? Right, okay? So, when you get to the senses, right, you can use, you know, the two corresponding terms, acting upon, and instead of saying being acted upon, undergoing, right, huh? Okay? So the object, you know, kind of fundamental distinction in powers of the soul, by their objects is, does the object act upon the power, or does the power act upon the object, right? You know, when I put food in my mouth, I act upon the food, right? And I guess there's chemicals in there that break the food down, and I absorb it and so on, and they finally turn it into something quite different. I don't look like a carrot when I get to eating a carrot. Carrot looks like the human flesh or something that resembles me. I think so, anyway. And so, the digestive power acts upon its object, which is, what, food, right? But in the case of the senses, the object acts upon, what? The senses, right, huh? And, of course, sound acts upon the ear, right, huh? And, of course, the sound is too loud. It can harm the ear, right? So, it has some connection with the earlier meaning, too, right? But, basically, it's more perfecting of the ear. You know, hearing Mozart, that is the same. These are the things you can hear. It's like, use the torch you win. You heard the story of Father Boulay there, you know. He was in the restaurant there, and he had these guys playing this crazy up there. So, he sent some money up to them for them to shut up. Well, they were especially insulted that they stopped playing. He could go out eating his meal, you know. He was a great friend of the conductor of the symphony orchestra there in Quebec, you know. And so, he had various courage there. Take a break. Take a long break. Go home. The rest of the night, go home. So. So, see, sometimes I translate the word passio by undergoing, right? But now, as Thomas would point out, eventually, huh? It seems that in the case of the emotions there, one undergoes even, what? More, right, huh? So that, you know, you insult me, and then, what? You've acted upon me, right? And this gets rise to anger or something, right? Or your misery, you know, strikes me and, you know, makes me sad, right? You know, I see you're suffering or something. Right? Okay. So, you've got to realize then that this word passio, or its equivalent in Greek there, is, what? A word equivocal by reason, right? And it's a one kind of equivocal by reason, where the word is carried over, and you drop part of the, what? Meaning, right? You've heard me talk about the roads in our knowledge, huh? I hope Tommy's going to talk about it again. But the word road has been carried over from the, what? When you ride or walk on, right? And you keep the idea of that order that there is in the road, huh? Before and after, in other words, right? Which is itself equivocal by reason. But you keep the idea of order, and you drop the idea of cement or asphalt or whatever, stones or pebbles or whatever it's made out of, right? So, you're taking a word that's placed upon something sensible that stands out, right? And you're carrying it over to something in the mind, to the order in the mind, huh? Dropping out that physical aspect, right? And, you know, as Father Bodeo is always pointing out, and you see it over and over again in Thomas, is, you know, when you carry over something from the creature to God, we often drop out the, what, genus, right? And keep the, what, difference, right? So, you know, Aristotle speaks of, you know, epistemia being basically the demonstration, huh? And what's a demonstration? What's a syllogism making us know the cause, and that of which it is a cause, and it can't be otherwise, right? So, is there epistemia in God? Well, there's no syllogism there, right? In God. But he does know the cause, and it is the cause, right? So, we keep the difference in, what, drop out the genus, right? Whereas Bodeoist and Aristotle point out, the genus is taken from matter, and the difference from form, and God is pure act, pure form, huh? Divina substantia forma est, as Bodeoist says, right? So, you can carry over the word episteme, dropping out the genus, but keeping the, what, difference, right? Or the emotions, as we mentioned before, you can carry them over to the actual will, dropping out the material, you know, fervor on the heart, whatever it is, the pumping of the heart, and so on, and keep the formal aspect of the emotion, right? So, to the first, then, one goes forward thus. Okay. Well, we didn't finish the preem, did we, huh? About the first three things I asked. First, whether there is some osseo in the soul, right? Well, you can't prepare it for the problem with the word there. Secondly, whether it is more in the desiring part, right? Than in the grasping part, the knowing part, right? And that's the choice of words, the appetitiva, right? Than in the apprehensiva, the knowing. And, of course, Thompson's going to answer, it's more in the appetitive part, right? And third, whether it is more in the sense-desire than in the, what? Understandable, right? Yeah. Which is called the, what? Volentas, the will, right? Right, right? To... At first, then, one goes for it thus. It seems that no passion, no undergoing, right, is in the soul. For to undergo is proper to what? Matter. So in the agent, we speak of the agent as what? Acting upon the matter, right? Carpenter acting upon the wood, right? And giving it a form, right? So the matter undergoes, right? Or the soul is not material for. But the soul is not put together from matter and form, as was had in the first part of the Summa. Therefore, there's no undergoing in the soul, right? Moreover, passio, or undergoing, is a motion, as is said in the third book of the Physics. In the third book of the Physics, Aristotle defines motion, right? And then he takes up how motion, in a way, is the same as acting upon and what? Undergoing, right, huh? But there's, you know, promised how this is, okay? So, by pushing the glass, and it's being pushed, are kind of like, what? The same thing as the, what? Motion of the cup, right? Okay? The movement of the cup is being pushed, right? Or it's by pushing it, you know? See? So you're talking about the connection of those things, right? Okay? But the soul is not moved, huh? As is proved in the first book of the Soul, the first sense of motion. Therefore, undergoing is not in the, what? Soul, right? More, passion or suffering, huh? Is the road to, what? Corruption, right? Oh, it's a road to corruption. For every passion, being made stronger, right? Beads away from one's, what? Very substance, huh? As is said in the Book of Places. But the soul is, what? Incorruptible. It's our souls. Therefore, no undergoing is in the, what? Soul. So I think, if we did the summa, we should start with the passions and then go to the soul. Yeah. That's true. But again, this is what the Apostle says to the Romans 7, 5. When we were, what? In the flesh. The passions of, what? Sins. Which, with the law, right? They were at work in our memories, huh? But the kata, properly in the soul, right? And therefore, passions, which are said to be, what? The sins are in the soul. Now, look up the text here, because we've got Romans 7, 5. When we were in the flesh, right? We were living in the flesh, right? That's the Greek word there for passions, right? So in this particular text there, they translate ta pathemata, the passions, right? Okay? Okay? Ton ha martion, right? Of sins, right? I won't go to the whole text there, but just the word they used to translate, that is translated by passions, right? So in the Greek, it's pathe, and they tell that, right? Pathe. When they translate the names, the categories, right? The two of them are called axio and what? Pasio, right? Axio and pasio, but I translate them, you know, acting upon and undergoing, right? But Perkowitz has his own translations of some of these things. It irritates some people, and other people like Perkowitz think they're brilliant, but anyway. Now, Thomas, right away, I answer you, it should be said that pathe is said, what? Tripiciter, right, huh? In one way, what? Communiter, in a very general way, huh? According as every, what? Receiving is, what? Underground. Send to go on. Even if nothing is taken away from the, what? Thing, huh? Just as the air is said to undergo, but it is enlightened, huh? And this is more, properly speaking, to be perfected, huh? Than to what? Than to suffer, right, huh? Okay? So my ear is being perfected when I hear Mozart, when I see Da Vinci or somebody, Titian. Then my eye is being, what? Perfected, right, huh? Okay? Beautiful sunset, right? That's the perfection of my eye, seeing that, huh? That's not suffering to see a beautiful sunset. I was down in Virginia there, I think, you have more brilliant sunsets than you go south, I don't know, but my wife and I were kind of like a restaurant outside, you know, and the sky was like, like, like crickets all the way up, like the rail all the way up there. I said, here, how often do you have this? I said to the waitress, you know, I said, oh, he's like, this is what I've known. So I'm like, that was gorgeous. I said, incredible, you know? So this is suffering, this is beautiful, you know? You had your dinner there, you had your beautiful, you had your dinner, you know? The old Spanish main movie, you know, the old glorious sunset they have down there. Another way, Patti is said properly, when one receives something with the, what? Lost to something, right, huh? Okay? And then he distinguishes. But this happens in two ways, right? In one way, when that is taken away that is not suitable to the thing. As when the body of the animal is healed, right? So the doctor acts upon me, expelling the sickness from me, right, huh? Okay? That's good, right? That's not suffering right now. I might suffer a lot. Can we use that too? We say that somebody's undergoing treatment for. Yeah. We say that all the time. Yeah, yeah. Okay. He is said to undergo, because he receives health, with the sickness being cast out, right? You see the difference between that in the first one, right? For hearing the music, right? In another way, when the, what? Reverse takes place, as this man who becomes sick is said to, what? Undergo. Suffer. Because he receives sickness, health being rejected. And this is propriusimus modus passionis. So this third meaning is actually the one that is the first one, right? Okay? The way we name things. I used to take the example of you and I sitting together and having a conversation, and you're actually seeing me. My face or my color or something is acting upon you, right? You don't really think about that, do you? See? But if you and I are sitting here and I'm sticking you with a pen or something, then you're very much aware of the fact that I'm acting upon you, right? So you might recognize my sticking you with a pen is acting upon you more than you're seeing me, right? Because of the obvious reasons, right? Because to see you is the perfection of my eye, wouldn't it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was thinking of pen in your eye you would know, yeah. There's nothing for perfection in your eye. So you can see how we tend to be named first, right? The bad undergoing, right? It's more manifest. And so Thomas says, this is appropriissimus, right? Okay? Then appropriate and then communitaire, right? You often find Thomas in this way. I mean, sometimes, you know, even though he's still it's very clear to point out that being is not a genus, right? Sometimes you're called being a genus, right? And then he's speaking, Thomas will say, communitaire, right? Anything very general that is said of many things, right? Can be called a genus, you know. Communitaire, right? Then you drop out the strict notion of genus, right? For it to undergo You know, you're... you're... said from this that something is drawn to the what agent right huh when it recedes from that which is what to it and then most of all it is said to be what drawn right and likewise it is said in the first book on the generation encryption aristotle that when from the more noble the more noble is generated right now there's generations simply incorruptio secundum quit right often way but a converso when from the more noble the ignoble is what generated right okay so is there a generation of morals in this country or a corruption of morals and in these ways there happens to be what there happens in the soul to be passion right for according to reception only one is said what that centurion and intelligible to sense and to understand is a certain what undergoing right that's like the english word to understand right so aristotle was saying you know if you translate in kind of english understanding is an undergoing beautiful right the words worked there but undergoing with what the rejection right is only in what a bodily change right then but passion property said cannot belong to the soul except what ratchet ends insofar as the composite suffers right but in this jersey diversity that when this kind of change is for the worse right it more properly has a notion of passion than when it is in the better right when sadness is more properly said to be a what passion than joy yeah it's interesting right okay well it's going to be used for all this right the passion is anime so the first objection then from matter he says to the first therefore it should be said that to undergo according as with what loss and change is properly of matter right whence it is not found except in those things put together from matter and form but pati undergo insofar as it implies receiving only right is not necessary that it be of matter but it can be of anything existing in what ability passability passability the soul although it is not put together from matter and form it has something of what yeah according as it belongs to it to receive and to undergo according as aristotle says that to understand is an undergoing as it said in the third book about the word soul right the divine understanding is not undergoing what about the potty and to move very sense of motion now if you take in that sense to undergo and to be moved although they've not belonged to the soul per se nevertheless they belong to it per accident right so my soul moved from shoesbury up here to this room well per se my body was moved right now do i have a car out there to move my soul from one place to another right but in so doing karatchitans right my soul in some ways in my body right my soul gets moved around right that's karatchitans karatchitans then you're talking more about the strict sense right you know or the earlier sense of undergoing and again now the third sense there where i was talking about places that argument proceeds for about passion which is with change to the words right and this kind of passion cannot belong to the soul except gratidans but per se it belongs to the thing put together which is corrupt of course that happened you know diane early in his career there you know he's teaching john st thomas you know but john st thomas makes what the word sign be too much what indivocal and uh much indian of course being aware of augustine's definition of sign sign is what strikes the senses and brings to mind something other than itself right and then when you start going to st thomas you know the argument would be you know well um can the angels signify to each other what they think well there's no senses there right now so the word sign is being used in a new sense right although it has you know connection with your meaning right you see right away the word sign there is what yeah good for by reason right well it's not seeing now i was teaching in sacraments you know when he's in the theology faculty there you know he'd go like probably the word sign there it's just getting in trouble there to explain