Prima Secundae
Lecture 92: Pleasure, Contrariety, and the Proper Enjoyment of Goods

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

To the eighth one goes forward thus, it seems that pleasure is not contrary to pleasure. For the passions of the soul receive their species and their contrariety according to the objects. But the object of pleasure is the good, since therefore the good is not contrary to the good, but rather the good is what? Contrary to the bad, and the bad to the bad. Again, I can see in the two vices, right? The two extremes. As I said in the book on the categories, it seems that pleasure is not contrary to what? Pleasure, huh? Moreover, one thing is contrary to one thing, as is proved in the twelfth book of Metaphysics. So they talk about contraries are the opposites that are what? Furthest apart in the same genus. Well, they compare that to a line. It can be many points the same distance from each other in a line, but only two points that are what? The furthest apart. So when I divide Shakespeare's plays, you take tragedy and comedy, which are the contraries. So there's two parts, and there's two kinds of plays in between, right? One closer to comedy and one closer to what? Tragedy, right? The two kinds of romances that they have, right? The Greek romance and the medieval romance. The love and friendship plays, the six of those, and the six of the mercy and forgiveness plays, right? Mercy and forgiveness romance and so on. But just two contraries, right? So delight is contrary to joy, or pleasure is contrary to sadness, right? Or pain. Moreover, if pleasure is contrary to pleasure, this is not except an account of the contrariety of those things in which someone delights. But this difference is what? Material. And the contrariety is a difference according to form, as is said in the 10th Book of the Metaphysics. Therefore, contrariety is not, there's no contrariety of pleasure to pleasure. But against this is that those things which impede each other, existing in the same genus, according to the philosopher, are contrary. But some pleasures impede one another, right? Therefore, some pleasures are what? Contrary, right? So should I have a music of Mozart on doing philosophy or theology? I've heard the Lebanese come here and they talk about, they comment on how the monks read while they're eating. They say, how can you do that? If I'm eating, I'm eating. If I'm reading, I'm reading. I can't do them both. I can't enjoy them both. I can't enjoy them both. The answer, it should be said, that pleasure in the affections of the soul, as has been said, is proportional to rest in natural what? Bodies. But two rests are said to be contrary, which are in contrary terms. Just as at rest in what is above, to being at rest in what is below, as is said in the fifth book of the physics. Whence it happens that in the affections of the soul, two pleasures can be what? Contrary, yeah? Now, he says, to the first, it should be said that that word of the philosopher should be understood according to how good and bad are taken in the virtues and vices, right? For there are found two contrary vices, right? But not, as they're found, the virtue contrary to virtue. So, the first virtue we talk about in ethics is, what, courage, right? And there's, what, foolhardiness on the one hand, which is closer to courage, and then cowardice, right? So, you've got two contrary vices, right? You also speak of the contrariety of virtue and vice, huh? The man in the middle gets hit from both sides, right? So, you read Shakespeare's Coriolanus, he talks about that. Coriolanus is really very courageous, right? But, to other people, he seems almost foolhardy, right? Okay. But, in other things, nothing prevents two goods to be, what, contrary to each other, just as hot and cold, right? Of which the one is good for fire, the other for water, right? And, in this way, pleasure can be contrary to pleasure. But, this, in the good of virtue, is not able to be. Because, the good of virtue is not taken except by, what, agreement to something, one, to it, what, reason, huh? You put ice cream on your steak? You put chocolate cake with a good glass of Cabernet Sauvignon. But, they have these things, you know, this wine tasting with chocolate, so they have these wine tasting, but that's a more disputed question. But, I think, you know, that, if I put ice cream on my steak, I would get neither the pleasure of eating ice cream, nor the pleasure of eating steak. I mean, it's, they're incompatible, right? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. The sad thing is you're pugnant to the animal, what, appetite, just as place of what, violent one, like the stone up in the sky, right, to the natural appetite of the stone which wants to go down, right, for to the natural rest of a body's opposed, right, the violent rest of the same body, so the top of the pillar, right, where the stone can't go down, it's a violent rest. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Sisyphus. Miss out on the pleasure that you can get from Macbeth, right? And you could say that, right? I always tell the story of my home newspaper there, St. Paul. Pioneer dispatch there. Used to have an advice call, right? For high school kids like they have for, you know, adults, you know? And we used to read it because it's kind of funny to read. And the girl was writing in. And saying that her boyfriend wanted her to wear this candy lipstick. And she wanted to wear adult lipstick, right? And that was her problem, right? How do I handle this? Well, the answer is very short. Buy him a lollipop. That is kind of a funny example because he's seeking in a kiss, right? The pleasure of a lollipop, right? So, as a good example, you know, a person seeking the wrong, you know, the pleasure is appropriate to something else, right? In the same way, you know, in the example there, putting the ice cream on the steak, right, huh? You know, you're not seeking the pleasure of the profit of the steak, right, huh? You're taking away that, right, huh? All right. And I used to sometimes, you know, to disarm people, but, you know, apart from the obvious moral defect of pornography, right, huh? You know? Which you may seem, you know, to be kind of critanical, you know, to object to it because it has a bad moral effect upon people, you know? But I said, you're seeking the pleasure that's not proper to fiction when you seek pornography, right? You're seeking the pleasure that's proper to bedroom or something, right? But it's not the pleasure that's proper to fiction, right, huh? Each, you know? So there's a great deal in life there of realizing that different kinds of, what, fiction, right? Different kinds of music, right, huh? Have their own, what, pleasure, right, huh? But it all starts with the observation of Aristotle in the poetics there, right? That you ought not to seek. And tragedy, this happy ending, huh? And in the 18th century, you know, they used to find Kimura too tragic, and so Cordelia doesn't really die, and she ends up, you know, restoring her throne or something, you know? And so they used to, there are these kind of desecrations in Shakespeare, you know, and they talk about when people finally realize it's not going to be the thing to do, you know? And finally, Shakespeare's restored by somebody, you know? You know, the way it should be played, you know, King Lear, you know, the proper tragedy ending, right? But you're seeking a pleasure of comedy or something, right? A happy ending is not really the pleasure of tragedy, right? The pleasure of tragedy comes from this catharsis of pity and fear, right? Antigone, right? It's Crayon, right? He was a tragic character, right? He loses everything, right? How could everything go so wrong, right? He's only, you know, insisting that this traitor to his own country should not be buried, you know? Antigone's insisting upon burying him. So she's put under the ground there in the tomb, right? He says, you're putting the living down under the ground and keeping the dead up above the ground. What's wrong with you, you know? And then his son kills himself. Oh, it is terrible. It is tragic. I think we have played Antigone in that play. I think we have played Antigone in that play. In finding the proper pleasure in the proper mode of drama, if it's a tragedy or comedy or in fiction, you contrast that with curriculums of English departments today. I looked at my alma mater's English curriculum recently, and nothing was really about literature as I had been taught about it. It was all about ethnicity, gender, power. If you take advantage of these things like C.S. Lewis, right, you have, for example, I don't know if you've ever seen his little work there called Preface to Paradise Lost, right? He's in a sense telling you how to read this thing, right, so that you will enjoy reading it, right? Which is what Aristotle would be talking about, you know? And in the famous work, which is one of his greatest works, The Allegory of Love, right, he's introducing you to a kind of fiction, he says, right, that had a longer life than our modern novel, right? And it was enjoyed for centuries by people, right, huh? But a form of fiction that's hard for us to, what, appreciate now, right, huh? So he's writing the book, you know, so we can, you know, learn how to approach these things, right? But a sense you're learning how to, what? Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I think, you know, if you, you know, take the pleasure of drinking some root beer, you know? Now, if you try to drink wine away, you're not going to enjoy it, right? You see? So, when you start to drink wine, you have to drink it differently than you drink soda pop. And if you drink it the way you drink soda pop, you're not going to get the pleasure proper to wine, right? You've got to take just the right amount in your mouth, and you've got to read over it, you know, you know? You let the, you know? And sniff it, you know, huh? I used to say you've got to sniff it three times before you sip, you know? But that's the way to enjoy a glass of wine, right, huh? See? And, but it was not the way to enjoy, what? You know, Coke or something like that, right? You go, boom, boom, you know? You might be bad, you see? But the same principle there are styles talking about, right, huh? You see? So, but as I mentioned with my friend there, I mean, just give up trying to get them to appreciate Big Beth. That's the way you should appreciate a tragedy, huh? Not to be morose to appreciate a tragedy. The Greeks used to have, I guess, used to play, what, two tragedies and then you have a comedy or something, you know? That's the way they did it, you know? So, I remember this, the Christian Brothers was playing in some chorus there where you had to read all these hearty novels, you know, and they're all kind of depressing, you know? You see, you read about 10 of these novels, and this is too much, you know? I mean, but you might get tired of eating the same food every meal, too, you know? I mean, of course, I've seen some place, they said that they asked the great chefs, you know, what did they want for their last meal, right? Roast chicken. For me, that's... That's kind of surprising. They say, you know, roast chicken, you know? Yeah. That's the way to do it, I guess, to keep it moist and so on, you know? I don't know. So we better stop now. But now, Thomas is going to look before and after, right? The cause of pleasure. He's going to read articles, right? The last one is, whether wonder is a cause of pleasure, huh? That's for me, philosophers, right? And then he's going to have another one on the effects of pleasure, right, huh? Hey, interesting, this Thomas guy, huh? He uses his reason, right? He looks before and after, Shakespeare says, huh? Whether pleasure impedes use of reason. Look at that. Whether pleasure perfects separation. Whether pleasure causes thirst of itself or desire. Whether it belongs to pleasure to dilate the soul. Hmm. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo Grazias. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, orden the luminary images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Thank you, God. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. I'll come back a little bit to the society that I had where I was comparing the words of Peter, right? The profession of faith in the 16th chapter of Matthew there where Christ says, Peter, the promised rock, I'll go to the church. And then these words of our Lord in the, what, Gospel of St. John, right? And the question of where are you going, how did we get there, and so on. And in Greek he says, I am the hodos, right? It's a word for row, we use the translation as a way, but row is meaning very concrete. The truth and the life, right? Now, to compare in this profession of faith in Peter and these words of our Lord, they are in some ways alike and in some ways, what, different, right? Now, they are alike in that, in both of them, you begin with something which is said of him by reason of his human nature, right? Because as man, he's anointed, right? The anointed one by the 20th Messiah. The divinity is not in right to them. And as man, he's the road to eternal life, right? And therefore, as I mentioned before, Thomas says at the beginning of the third part of Summa, De Cristo, about Christ, who as man is the road, right? The via, you know, to be in their goal. So, something is said of him by reason of his human nature here, right? Before, something is said of him by reason of his divine nature, right? Now, obviously, the difference between Christ and road is pretty clear, right? The meaning, huh? They bring out two different things, right? So, priests and prophets and kings, yeah? Were anointed, and Christ has those three, the whole kind of church documents on that subject. And as a man, he's also, what, the road to heaven, huh? Now, over here, what is the difference between these two ways of speaking about it as it carries his divinity? Well, the son of the living God, and this is naming him, what, properly, right? Why, is the truth and the life naming him properly? What is that? Yeah. He's talking about the eternity, right? So, Thomas said some articles of appropriation, and he gave some appropriations that Hillary gave, and some more than Augustine gave, and so on. One that's very much given is where they speak of power, wisdom, and goodness, and goodness is what? Appropriated to the Holy Spirit, wisdom to the Son, and power, right? To the Father, right? Now, what is the purpose of appropriation, right? What need of our mind, what common need of our mind is the reason for appropriation? Why do we appropriate something? Well, we do, yeah. But, you know, in the treatise on God, say, the Summa Theologiae, you have first the treatise on the unity of God, right? And then you have the treatise on the Trinity, right? The Unma Trina, right? And you take something from the treatise on the unity of God, and you're appropriated to this or that member of the Trinity, right? Mm-hmm. It's appropriate, it's spoken out of one of them to help understand what is proper, even though what you're saying is common at all. That's right. Yeah, yeah. Because it's taken by reason, it's an enlightenment, right? Of that common attribute to this particular person, right? But it goes back to something very fundamental in our mind, and that is, the more known is used to understand the lesson, right? And so the things that we learn about God in the treatise on the unity of God, right, are ones that even the philosophers, like our scholar, already knew, right? It's more known to us than the things of opportunity, which you know only by faith, right? So it goes back to something fundamental in our mind, right? When we define the reason, we use what is known or more known to know what is less known or unknown, right? Okay? So, there's a good reason for appropriation, right? Okay? So, truth here is being appropriated to the sun, right? Just like you appropriate to the sun, wisdom, right? Which is the knowledge of truth, as you hear a style of them, and as you appropriate to the sun, wisdom, and so on, and enlightenness, right? Okay? Notice how I attach a life following upon truth, right? You know, in the idea of there, we're distinguishing the grades of life. You know, you have the vegetative life, and then you have the, what, animal life, and then you have what man has, in addition. And you distinguish them, man and animals, from the plants, by sensing and by knowledge, right? Not by love and emotion. We're talking about emotions now, right? But we don't distinguish the animal from the plant. And speak of this category of life, because he has emotions, but fundamentally, because he has a sense, and an emotional follow-up on that sense, right? But fundamentally, this is a new grade of life above that of the tree out there, because the tree, when you cut off the thing, I don't feel sorry for the tree. Sometimes a little bit, but I don't think the tree has any pain when I saw off a branch or something, right? By the kind of, you know, upset that kind of saw on the leg of a man or a cat in a war. And then you distinguish man from the beast, you do it by having, what, reason. So you define man as an animal that has reason, not as an animal that has will, because that is not fundamental. It follows upon the fact that he has reason, right? So it's interesting that you put here, the truth and the life, right? Okay? That's why true and God says what eternal life is there in the 17th chapter there in John. Again, ghost, huh? It ain't that ghostly season now. He defines in terms of knowing, right, God, right? So that's interesting, right? But now, we were pointing out last time something else about this, and that is, we have two or three names, actually three names. And Thomas takes up the second person of the Blessed Trinity. He's called the Son of God, right? And he's called the, what, Word of God. And then he's called the Image, right? And in terms of this appropriation, which name is best for seeing this? That truth should be appropriated to the second person of the Blessed Trinity, because he's the Son of God, or because he's the Word of God. You see that kind of in the beginning of John's Gospel, really. This is the life that life is every man in Jesus' world, and those things, right? Now, what is this down here? Well, this is one of the quatrains, right? There are, what, seven quatrains in this famous prayer of Thomas Aquinas, which they call sometimes in the Latin text the Rhythmus, in St. Thomas, because there seems to be a, what, a meter, right? And, what is the meter here? What are these four? Four lines. These, of course, are writing, right? But what is the meter in these? What's this foot that's being used there? You told me before it's trocadic. Yeah, yeah. Now, I think I've given you before maybe my mnemonic device. Agate, right? Agate. Okay. Now, the word agate has got three letters, right? And the word it has got two letters, right? And the iambic and the trocadic have two feet. I mean, two syllables, rather. And the anapestic, right? And the dactylic have, what? Three syllables and a foot. Okay? Now, if you can remember what the iambic is, the accent or the length is on the second syllable, right? In the trocadic, which is reverse, the accent will be on the, what? Second. First syllable, I'm sorry. Yeah. And it's the same word over here. The dactylic would be like the trocadic, except it has three feet, and the accent will be on the first syllable, right? And the anapestic will be the, what? Reverse of that, right? Okay. Okay. So what is the meter here that we have in this particular quatrain? Pieces, taqtis, justus. On the first or second syllable. Yeah. So, it's trocadic, right, huh? Okay. Now, Aristotle points out, you know, how the iambic meter is the closest to daily speech, and how people will fall into the iambic sometimes without realizing that they're speaking this way, right? And they point out how, in Shakespeare, right, when they have some unearthly character, you know, like a fairy or a witch or something like that, right, you often put them into a cave, right, to kind of get a sense of being kind of foreign, you know, rather than the iambic, huh? And you also, for very solemn moments, you know, when you're going to be kind of formal, you'll put it maybe into a cave, or just to give it a little, what, dignity, you know, that doesn't seem to be familiar, you know, like Arcadia's feature, right, I think, huh? So perhaps Thomas, you know, understanding that same thing, right, sees the importance of what? Yeah, yeah. Now, with the trocadic, though, and the dactylic, they kind of go against the certain tendency of our voice, we want to end on the, what, accented syllable. So what happens in trocadic meter, and in dactylic meter, is that the very last, what, foot, will have just the, what, the accented syllable, and drop off the one, or the other case, the two, unacced, unacceded ones, huh? Now, here are two examples of the shapes that I kind of remember. One is the witchy, right? Fair is foul, and foul is fair. Hover through the fog, and filthy air. Fair is foul, and, right, it's in trocadic, but it ends on an accent, right? Fair is foul, and foul is fair, and then it stops, right? Hover through the, filthy, filthy air, right? Okay, and he does it here, see? There's one foot here, two foot, three feet, four feet, five feet, and then the sixth foot is cut short. I think they call it catalytic, I've got to get that word up, because I've got to get it fixed up sometimes. I see it referred to sometimes in dishes, right, this kind of meter. So, you're in the, so it's six to a cake, then catalytic, or, again, English, it's at sea, drop off that last, don't complete the last foot, right? So, get me careful now, you know, anytime you get a meter, something you want to call it a poem, but that's kind of misleading, right? Because a poem, like the Shakespearean sonnet, is a what? It's a likeness, right? Of thought or feeling, right? The Shakespearean sonnet is a likeness of thought or feeling in 14 lines of iambic pentameter, right, huh? Divided into three quatrains of ultimate rhyming, and completed by rhyming couple, right? But this is not, it's just seven of these quatrains. It's not a likeness of thought or feeling, right? But rather, it's a, what, prayer, right? And I heard it said, you know, that our Father, when our Lord gave it to them in, you know, Aramaic, I guess it would be, huh? It was in a meter, huh? You hear that? And maybe the song says something that we don't get in our English translation, right? I have translations, right? And that's, for the sake of what? I suppose, like you should memorize it, right? Okay? So, one should be shocked at how the world should have made it, right? But you shouldn't really call it a poem, right? Anyone now would call the Psalms a poem. And even if you have metaphors, it doesn't make it a poem, because, you know, the Lord is my rock, is that a poem? No, you use metaphors for a different reason in poetry and in what? Scripture, right? You know? In poetry, you use it to, what, bring something up to the level of reason, huh? And in scripture, you bring something down to the level of reason, right? It's an opposite thing or something. So don't call those things a poem. You'll be very angry for finding that. So, it's like, why do you create, you know, the number of the Psalms, you know, that gets to me, you know? It's a beautiful song, and I remember the number of the Psalms that was read in Massey or something like that. And it's always, you know, I know it's the wrong number, and I kind of guess it's one less or something, you know? Just the noises, I gotta, you know, I have a hard enough time remembering things on that, but it's two sets of numbers, right, you know? They shut gears up. Yeah. Yeah. I'm tired of saying, you know, and according to the correct number, that was nothing. I mean, the capital number, and I was a kid, it was called the capital number, I didn't remember, you know? I was called the cross number. Some kind of accommodation there, I think, it's very easy. It's extremely annoying. Especially, you realize, Augustine's, you know, divided the Psalms on the basis of the character of the 50th, the 150th Psalm. It's wrong numbering there. Yeah. Everything breaks down. But anyway. So, you have these, what, four lines, right? With, made up of two rhyming couplets, right? But then this, okay, texameter, right? I guess, caletic, I think, don't take my word for that. I like that. Some of these words you can't find. You have to go to the big Oxford Dictionary, go to the library or something. Now, this is part of the Aguote Devonti, which they say, Thomas would say right after the consecration, right? And so, this is the second quadrant. He's saying, sight, touch, and taste, right? In te, meaning you, in the Eucharist, right? Are, what? Deceived, right? But by hearing alone, safely, does one, what? Believe, right? Okay. So, we said, feed us exalted to hear that phrase a lot. Faith is from hearing, right? And who are we hearing? Well, basically Christ, right? So, the next part says, I believe whatever the Son of God, what, says, right? But now, why should he believe whatever the Son of God says, right, huh? Well, it's kind of the mixed line, he does this, and then he goes over to what? Verbum, rather than Son of God, right, huh? He didn't say nothing, then the Son of God is more true, or that's true. But he goes to the other name of him, nothing, then this word of truth is more, what? True, true. You've got a little bit of, like, alliteration, right? Three, three V's. It doesn't make a poetry, by the way. It makes it stick in your mind, kind of. And you say he's the word of truth. What does truth stand for there? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. The truth and the life, it's an appropriation regarding the second person of the Trinity? Well, if we said that he was the word of God, right, what would God stand for? So in this context, if you say he's the word of truth, truth's word, what does truth stand for there? The Father. And the fact that it stands for the Father there is a sign that up here is an appropriation, right? Is there a connection between these two? Because God the Father is truth itself just as much as God the Son. And God the Holy Spirit is truth itself just as much as what? The Son. But truth is appropriated to the Son because... That's the word. Yeah. But here, it stands for the what? Father, right? Truth itself has this word to say. And, but if nothing is more true than the word of truth, nothing is more true than truth itself. So the word of truth must be truth itself too. So it's beautiful, right? But the fact that Thomas has the Father, using the word truth to stand for Father, shows that up here it's a what? Appropriation and not what? Properly set, right? I was thinking about, I'll be reading the Titus on the Operations of God in the Prima Paras, and I was thinking about this appropriation, and it seems that you see the appropriation more from the treatise on the operations of God than the treatise on the, what, substance of God. So, but in this famous appropriation of power, wisdom, goodness, right? Like, goodness is taken from the substance of God, but wisdom and power from the operations. And it's kind of a mixed thing in a way, right? Because wisdom is more like, you know, perfection. So, you know, it's a perfection of the mind, right? And by power, mourning is one of the sources of activity for God, right? In creating the world. What's appropriated to the Father, right? Now, the creed that I learned as a child was, I guess, the Apostles' Creed, right? What's the beginning of the Apostles' Creed? The creator of heaven and earth, right? So, does he alone? Is he alone Almighty? Is he alone the creator of heaven and earth? Well, Almighty is something common to all three, right? They're equal, as Athanasius says in the creed, right? In power. And they are all, what, together, through the one nature, one substance, they are the creators of the world, right? But power is appropriated to the, what? The Father, right? But the things pertaining to the understanding of God are appropriated to the Son, like wisdom or truth itself, right? And then things that belong to the will are appropriated to the, what? The Holy Spirit, like he's called goodness, which is the object of the, what? Will. And, of course, when he's called truth, the Son, that's like the object of the mind, right? The understanding. And when the Holy Spirit is said to be love, right? Again, that's getting closer to being appropriate, I mean proper, okay? But it's the way in which, you know, God is love, right? And this is not just the Holy Spirit. But it's kind of interesting, because in the treatise on the operations of God, you have the understanding, the will, and the power, right? And one's appropriated to the Father, one to the Son, one to the Holy Spirit. So I was trying to say, well, can you get appropriation from the three, from the substance of God, right? But it seems only that goodness is appropriate, right? Because truth doesn't come up in the substance of God, but because truth is primarily in the mind, right? But the good is primarily, what? In things, huh? So, but anyway, I got thinking about the basic thoughts of our mind, huh? And when Thomas orders them, he puts being first, right? Then one, and then truth, and then goodness, right? Well, goodness is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, truth to the Son. Son, and one, all things in the Trinity are one on account of the Father, as Augustine says, right? They're all equal on account of the Son, right? But they're all one. So it's interesting, one, truth, goodness, you can appropriate those to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I don't think I've seen that, but it seems to me you could, right? It's kind of beautiful, I think, to me, huh? The other thing I think that's interesting, too, is that we kind of appropriate to the Holy Spirit, be kindling our hearts with love, right? Come, Holy Spirit, for the hearts of the faithful, kindle them the fire of thy love, right? Not because he alone does this, right? But it's kind of appropriate to him, right? And then, in the beginning of John's Gospel, that the Son, what, enlightens us. So he's a type of faith, therefore, right? Well, then it leaves hope for the Holy, for the, what, Father, right? And it's very clear, in a way, that when our Lord is explaining prayer there, and today we had the one from Luke, you know? And there, instead of saying, you know, just that he's going to give good things to you, like you, to your sons, he says, you know, he'll give you the Holy Spirit, right? So it seems like the prayer is kind of addressed to God the Father, right? And you see this Christ's prayer there at the end of the Last Supper, you know? Right. It seems to be praying to the Father in distinction from himself, right, no? So it's like you appropriate this to the Father, so we say our Father, right? And because hope is what gives you the strength, right? And strength is appropriate to the Father. It's kind of beautiful to see the appropriation of the three theological virtues to the three, what, persons of the Trinity, right? It's beautiful to see that, huh? What? You see it also in the spiritual senses of Scripture. How is that? The allegory pertains to faith, and the moral pertains to charity. This is from the antagogy of the charity, and then the antagogy of the hope. That's interesting, yeah. I think that's from Augustine. I may have read it also. The three spiritual senses, you mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Interesting, yeah. Because when Augustine and Thomas give the catechetical instructions, they divide according to faith, hope, and charity, and then they do the creed and the Our Father, and then the two commandments of love and the ten commandments. Kind of interesting, huh? Because it gets very proportioned to us, you know? When it starts out as something that's in us, faith, hope, and charity, and you end up with the Trinity eventually, right? Beautiful. Okay, now Thomas is up to chapter...