Prima Secundae
Lecture 117: Fear, Love, and the Causes of Fear

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

What with the fear itself is able to be feared, right? What do we have this in there for? This is inspired by FDR. Nothing is fear, but fear itself, huh? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that fear is not able to be, what? Feared, huh? For anything that is feared, by fearing is, what? Guarded. Lest it be lost, right? Just as one who fears to lose health, and by fearing, he guards it, right? If therefore fear were feared, by fearing one would, what? Keep himself. Must be fearful. Yeah. Which seems to be, what? Unfearable. Yeah. Fear fearing. Moreover, fear is a certain flight, but nothing flees itself. Therefore, fear does not fear fear. We have fun. It goes along with this, huh? The question. Moreover, fear is about the future, but the one who fears already has fear. Therefore, he cannot fear fear. And against this is that a man is able to love love, right? That's true. And to, what? To pay about pay. Yeah. Therefore, also, for a like reason, he can fear fear, right? I answer it should be said, that it has been said, that alone has an aspect of something terrible or fearful that arises from a, what? Extrinsic cause. Not over what arises from our own, what? Will. Will. Now, fear partly arises from an extrinsic cause and is partly subject to, what? A will. A will. Now, it is arising from an extrinsic cause insofar as it's a passion that follows upon the imagining of a imminent evil, right? And on account of this, one is able to, what? Fear. Fear. Blessed, what? A cessive, bring upon you the cessive theory. Yeah. On account of the congruousness. In, really, maybe coming in or something? The, uh... Some excelling evil, right, huh? But it's subject to the will insofar as the lower appetite obeys reason. Once a man is able to, what? Repel fear, right? And, according to this, fear cannot be feared, as Augustine says in the book of 83 Questions. But because the arguments, which are induced, right, someone could use to show that fear is in no way feared, therefore, why not do what? On to them, right, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that not every fear is what? One. Yeah. But according to diverse things which are feared, there are diverse what? Fears. Fears. Nothing, therefore, prevents, but that by one fear, someone preserves himself from what? Other fears. And thus guards himself. Yeah. So by the one fear, he... Yeah, the man who's afraid of being considered a coward, you mean, so he goes into battle, you mean, or what? What does that mean? The other one who's afraid of looking like a stingy old jerk that gives some alms to somebody or something. In great school, everybody's like, I don't forget a shot, you know, and there's always some coward in there, you know. It wasn't me, but... There's always some guy. And yeah, you couldn't face up to that. Yeah. Yeah. I always say, ouch! They poke you. Yo, that one, I hate that one. Yeah. That one really hurts. Yeah. I'd rather get the thing of the arm in it than... Yeah. That's the most sensitive party, right? Your hand's raising it. Yeah. That's what I was... My nose, my... You know, I asked for the cross during red, and God sent me to his problem with my nose, and I just complained about it. Yeah. What a wimp. Are you afraid to show fear, right? No, that'd keep you from fearing, maybe? Not all together. You know, people talk kind of rapidly because they're afraid, you know. Whistled past the graveyard. Right. The second should be said that it is a different fear by which one fears the, what? Imminent evil, right? And another fear, right? By which one fears the fear itself of the imminent evil, right? Mm-hmm. It does not follow, then, that the same thing, what? Please. Is itself. Or the same as a flight from itself. Yeah, because there's different things there. Yeah, yeah. It's like the old thing, you know, I know what a circle is, and I know that I know what a circle is, right? I know that I know that I know what a circle is, right? With all different knowings, right? Mm-hmm. Because some of them say, you know, are in love with love, right? Mm-hmm. But then it's the same love. And therefore, he says to the third objection, on account of diversity of fears, by a present fear, a man can fear a future fear. Yeah. Yeah. Now, whether there's sudden things or more fear, right? Do they translate repentinas by sudden, or how do they translate it? Sudden. Yeah. To the fifth, then, one goes forward thus. It seems, then, insulita, I guess, they'd be uncustomary things, right? Initial things and sudden things are not more terrible, right? Well, you know, you read about the army, they're, you know, surprised, you know, right? You tend to panic more, right? And you're surprised, and you're surprised. For just as hope is about the good, so fear is about the bad. But experience makes for a, what? Increase. Of hope in the good. Therefore, it also makes for an increase of fear in the bad. Moreover, the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, that those, what? More fear? More fear. But are mild and, what? Is it a student, no? What do you have for astute? What is astute? Cunning. Cunning, okay. So Shakespeare's a lot. Okay, he says, Shakespeare is saying, I mean, Aristotle is saying that they are more feared, right? Not those who are, what? Quick to anger. Anger. But those who are mild and, what? Cunning, right? Yeah. What did Caesar say about fearing? Fearing cash, you say, right? Lean and... But it stands that those who are of great anger, right? Acute anger. More have sudden, what? Motions, right, huh? Therefore, those things which are sudden are less, what? Terrible, right? More of those things which are subita, that's sudden, I guess. Are able less to be, what? Considered, right? Considered, right? But some things are, what? More feared. The more, what? They are considered. Once a philosopher says in the third book of ethics, that some seem to be a brave on account of ignorance, right, huh? Which if they... If they knew. Yeah. If they knew what something was. They would flee, right? Therefore, repentina, our mind is less feared, right? Mm-hmm. But against this is what Augustine says in the second book of the Confessions, that fear... What? Unaccustomed. Yeah, insulita and the sudden exhortation, it abhors them, I guess. Things that are, what? Opposed to what they are loved, right, huh? Mm-hmm. And do when... What may endanger security. Yeah. Their safety or something. They are startled at things out of custom and sudden, which endanger things to love and takes for thought for their safety. Thomas says, The answer should be said, that this has been said above, that the object of fear is something bad, imminent, that is not easily, what? Repelled. Repelled, huh? Now, this could happen from two things. One, from the magnitude of the evil, right? And from the, what? Weakness in one period. Yeah. Now, towards both of these, operates or acts something that is... Unaccustomed and sudden. And sudden, right? Because it makes for this that the imminent evil appears, what? Great. Greater, right, huh? For all bodily things, both good and bad, the more they are considered, the less they, what? Appear. Huh. Tell that to your friend. And therefore, on account of the, what? Long, length. Length, yeah. The pain of the present evil is mitigated, as is clear to Tullius, in the spirit of the Tuscalian questions, huh? Mm-hmm. So, also from premeditation, you might say, is lessened the fear of the future, what? Evil. Secondly, because something unaccustomed and sudden makes for the, what? Weakness of the one fearing, right, huh? Because, insofar as it subtracts remedies, which a man is able to prepare to repel the future evil, right, huh? Mm-hmm. Which cannot be, when unprovided or unforeseen, the evil occurs, right? It says, both causes there, right? The magnitude of the evil, right, seems to be greater, Mm-hmm. And the, what? Yeah. More fair. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the object of hope is the good which someone is able to obtain, right, huh? And therefore, those things which increase the power of man are apt to, what? Increase hope. Hope. And for the same reason, to diminish, what? Fear. Fear. Because fear is about an evil to which one is not easily able to resist, right? Because, therefore, experience makes a man more potent to operating, therefore it increases hope, so also it diminishes, what, the fear? The second should be said that those who have acute anger do not, what, hide it, right, huh? And, therefore, the harms that are bestowed from them are not so sudden, but that they are foreseen, yeah. But men who are, what, mild and cunning, who said this, hide their anger, huh? Why does this make me think of the president? And, therefore, the harm which is imminent from them cannot be foreseen, huh? And it happens without being foreseen, right? And on account of this, the foster says, that such share more. Well, didn't Caesar say something like that in Julius Caesar there, right, huh? He kind of warned Frank Anthony about Cassius, right? No, you know, I don't, you know, I don't have any fear, right, Caesar says, of course, but if I could feel fear, you know, that would be the man to fear, right? Of course, a lot of times, the kind of fear a man has got a sense of anger, though, don't we? Yeah. To theory, it should be said that per se loquendo, I'm speaking per se, bodily goods or evils, right, in the beginning appear, what? Greater. Greater. The reason for which is that each thing appears greater, set alongside its contrary. Hence, when someone at once transits from poverty to wealth, right, huh? On account of the pre-existing poverty, he more estimates... It's what? Riches. Their wealth, yes. They're more attached to their wealth, right? And a contrary, right? The rich, at once devolving into poverty, they more, what? Fear it, right? I don't know if I could. On account of this, a sudden evil is more feared because it more seems to be, what? It more seems to be evil. Yeah. But it can be an account of some, what, accident that the magnitude of something bad is hidden, as when the enemy hides themselves insidiously, right? And then it is true that the bad from a diligent consideration becomes more, what? Terrible, right? We're going through some texts there on Wednesday night, these two guys. Texts on the phallus in the accident, right? You have, you know, great people, Plato and the Veroes and the modern philosophers, you know, who are all falling into these things, right? So the more you consider this fallacy, the more you realize the danger of it, right? The more it's to be feared, huh? You have to consider, you know, how many have been deceived by it, huh? And I got thinking about the fallacy of the equivocation, right? Which Aristotle says is the most common of fallacies, huh? And sometimes, you know, the Greek commentators, you know, they'll give some example of a man, two men have the same name, right? They're confused. But, you know, if you keep your eyes and ears open, you realize down through history how often this has happened, that men have been confused, right? At the same time, I'd be reading The Life of Columbus there, you know, and I guess there were a lot of people with the same name, right? And to give you examples of all the confusion that people had gotten, because Columbus had an uncle maybe with the same name, or, you know, and a cousin with the same name, and so on. And so there's an abundant reason, you know, to confuse these people and attribute it to a great historical Columbus, you know, it belonged to his uncle or to his cousin or something, you know? So, apparently, it's quite common, you know, that historians have been put astray by these. Not only historians, I remember there was a commercial a bunch of years ago, it was for American Express credit card. I don't remember, I'm going to make up a name, I'll say, of Frank Sinatra, some famous, famous name, you know? And there's some guy out there doing that, you know, usually American Express person has something to recognize, I don't even know who they are, they advertise it. There's this guy, you don't recognize him at all, I don't know who he is. It's just, hi, I'm Frank Sinatra, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, it's the guy's real name. People mix me up with him all my life. I think I'm joking. No, it's my real name. For those things against which there is no remedy are more feared. That's a kind of strange issue. Take this aside. To the sixth, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that those things that do not have a remedy are not more, what? Feared, right? Because for fear is required that there remains some hope of what? Salvation. Salvation. But in bad things which have no remedy, there remains no hope of salvation. Therefore, such bad things in no way are what? Feared. Feared, right? No remedy. You can't fear it, something that's hurt? No, but I'm not in hell right now. Can I fear it now? Sure. There's no future. I can't. Well, I can't avoid it now, but if I get it, I think of myself as being in hell. Well, we'll wait. I don't know. I just need to pick it up. So wait until we get there. Moreover, to the evil of death, right, no remedy can be what? Yes. For there is not, according to nature, some return from death to what? Life. But nevertheless, death is not most of all feared, as the philosopher says in the second book of the Rhetoric of that. He said it was. Okay. Therefore, those things are not more feared, which have no remedy, right? Where the philosopher says in the first book of the Ethics, that that is not more good, which is longer in existence, right, than that which is of one day. Nor is that, what? Which is perpetual, than that which is not perpetual. Therefore, for the same reason, neither is there a, what? Good or evil. But those things that should not have any remedy, do not seem to differ from other things, except on account of their length, their perpetuity. Therefore, on account of this, they are not worse or more feared. But again, this is what the philosopher says in the second book of the Rhetoric, that all things that are, what? Or terrible, excuse me. That if they fail, right, they cannot be corrected, right, or of which there is no, what? Not easy, right? Well, I answered, Thomas says, that the object of fear is the bad. Whence that which makes for the increase of bad, makes for the increase of what? Fear. Fear. But bad is increased not only according to what? The kind of evil it is, right? But also according to circumstances. As he said above, we talked about circumstances, right? But among other circumstances, length or perpetuity, more seem to make for the increase of what? Evil, right, right? For those things which are in time, according to the duration of time, are in some way what? Measured. Measured, right? Whence to suffer something in such a length of time is bad. To suffer the same in twice a time is apprehended as what? Double ease. Yeah. It's different. I'm sure. Three years or three months or three days. And according to this reason, to undergo something for an infinite time, right, huh? Which is perpetual to suffer, has in some way an infinite what? Increase. Increase, huh? But bad things, after they come, are not able to what? Have remedy or not easily, right? They are taken then as being perpetual or what? And therefore they are most of all what? Fear. Fear, right, huh? Now to the first there about the need for hope, right? For fear. The first there, for it should be said, that the remedy is something bad is twofold. One through which is impeded the future evil, lest it what? Come. Out, yeah. And such a remedy taken away, takes away hope and consequently what? Fear. Takes away what? Fear. Fear, huh? Whence about such a remedy, now we do not speak, right, huh? The other remedy of the bad is, by which the bad that is already present is removed, and about such a remedy we now what speak? Because the hope is taken away. Well, it means you could in some way have some hope that you remove it, right? Mm-hmm. And therefore there could be fear, right? You remove the remedy, hope is taken away, avoiding it, and by consequence fear, does it mean fear is taken away or fear is left? By consequence, Timot, meaning fear falls. If you take away your hope, then your fear is left. Yeah. Well, I'm not, I don't know if I understand the thought. No, but you say the evil has already happened to you, right? You can't have fear of that because you can't have hope that that evil will not be there, if it is there, right? But if you're talking about removing that evil, right, then there could be some hope of removing it, right? And therefore there could be fear, right? That you might not be able to remove it. I'm trying to understand the first one, the first example, which is because we're not talking about, but he says all this about it, but anyway, well. Now, the second thing, although death is an irremediable evil, nevertheless, because it's not imminent, it is not, what? Feared, right? After the third, Gersthal is talking about something that is per se good, right, huh? Which is good according to its, what? Species, right? And thus something does not become more good on account of, what? Length of purpose. But in account of the nature of the good itself. Can you take a break after this? Okay. The causatimores, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's merciful. Then we ought to consider about the cause of fear, right? And about this are asked two things. Whether the cause of fear is love, right? Whether the cause of fear is a defect, right? What's the difference between that and the article or question on the causes of love, right? Because there you deal with the... That's the first emotion, really, love, right? So you have the good. It's the first cause of love, right? And the object, right? Here they have the object, here they have... Another thing about cause, in some sense, other than the object, right? That's because the passions are the irascible, presupposed, or the congibsable, right? But even the passions are the congibsable, presupposed love, you know, the other ones. And so, to the first one goes forward, it does. Okay, but I didn't face the first thing. Whether the cause of love is... Fear is love, and whether the cause of fear is, what? Some defect or something or other. To the first one goes forward, thus. It seems that love is not a cause of fear. For that which introduces something is its cause. But fear introduces the love of charity, as Augustine says. Super canonicum joana. Joannis. Therefore, fear is a cause of love, and not the reverse. Moreover, the philosopher says in the second book of rhetoric, that those things are most of all feared, from which we expect to... To approach. Yeah, some evils to us, right? And through this, that from some we expect evil, right? We are more provoked to hate than to love, right? Therefore, fear is more cause of hate than from love. That's, of course, talking about a different connection there between hate and that and love, right? Because it's the love of one's own good, I guess, that makes one fear what's going to interfere with it, right? Then you might hate the one who's going to... Yeah. Sure, yeah. Moreover, this has been said above, those things which are from ourselves, right? They're in our power, I guess, right? Do not have the definition of the terrible, right? But those things which are from love, most of all come from the inward part of the heart, right? Itimo Cordis. Therefore, fear is not caused from what? Love. Love, right? But again, this is what Augustine says in the book on the 83 questions, huh? There should be no doubt that what? No other is the cause of fearing than that which we love, right? Either that what? Having attained it, we might lose it, or that we might what? Lose it when we... Not attain, but... Not attain. We hope, right? Therefore, every fear is caused from this that some is love. Love, therefore, is a cause of what? Fear. Now, in answer, it should be said that the objects of the passions of the soul have themselves to them as do forms to natural things, or artificial things. Why is that? Because the passions of the soul receive their species from their what? Object. Just as the foresaid things receive their species from their what? Forms. Okay? Just, therefore, as whatever is a cause of the form is a cause of the thing constituted through it, right? So the carpenter or something, right? So also, whatever, in whatever way, is a cause of the object is a cause of the what? Action. Now, it happens that something is a cause of the object either by way of being an efficient cause or by way of a what? Material disposition. Just as the object of pleasure is a good apparent that is suitable, right? But joined, huh? The cause of which is that which makes the what? Conjunction, right? Or what makes what? Yeah. Or the appearance of the squid, huh? But the cause by way of a material disposition is the habit, huh? Or whatever disposition according to which something, what? Comes about as being suitable to something. Or appearing, what? That good which is joined to it, right? Thus, therefore, in the thing proposed here, the object of fear is a evil estimated, right? Future, near to which is what? Not needed to this. Yeah. And therefore, that which is able to what? Bring such an evil. Yeah. Is the efficient cause of the object of fear and consequently of the what? Fear. But that to which someone is so disposed that something be such to it is a cause of fear and its object by way of a material disposition. And in this way, love is a cause of fear. From this, that someone loves some good, it follows that what deprives him of such a good is for him, what? Evil. Yeah. Yeah. And consequently, that he, what? Fears is something bad, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh? That just as fear, per se, and primo, regards, what? Some evil that one flees from, right? But that is opposed to some good that is, what? Loved, yeah? And thus, per se, fear arises from, what? Yeah. Secondarily, it regards that to which such an evil comes, right, huh? And thus, progeny, and sometimes fear induces love insofar as the man who fears to be, what? Punished by God observes his, what? Commands. And thus, he begins to hope. And hope introduces, what? Love. Love, huh? That's what they see when they talk about the three cardinal, I mean, the three theological virtues, right? That faith introduces one to hope and hope to, what? Love. Love, huh? Here he's saying, fear prepares the way for hope and hope for what? Love, huh? I suppose if you believe in fear, then that you believe in your words. The old man there in the public there, you know, huh? And he's saying, you know, he's getting old and he's getting to one of those some kind of settling of things after death, right? They get to the right side of the gods, right? Yeah, yeah. And so he's going out to sacrifice to the gods, right, rather than to partake of the philosophical conversation with Socrates. the second should be said that the one from whom one expects something bad, huh, is first, what? Had in hate, right, huh? But after one, what? Begins to hope for good things from him, then he begins to be, what? Loved. Yeah. Therefore, the good to which is contrary, what? Which is feared from the beginning. Yeah, it's not good though, right? He's talking about the good that the to which is contrary to evil, and the spirit, right? Hmm. Some might have God in heat because he fears to be punished by him, right? Nasty character of God, right? He'll punish you for killing yourself, right? You know, sometimes on Saturday I turn on the CNN, you know, where they have the interview with people who have written books recently, right? And it's interesting, you know, it's an interesting book, you know. But I haven't turned on last Saturday, was it? And they had Gary Wills on. And that's how perverse he's become, you know. Really? This is the public talking about Washington politics. Is that Gary Wills? No, I don't know that, you know. I mean, I think years ago Gary Wills, he was very young. He was kind of a bright guy, you know, and he had good style and so on. I think he went to National Review, right? And then he'd have fallen out to the National Review people, you know. Did you see that he used to wear the bow tie? I don't know. No, no, no. There was some guy like that. And then he started, you know, writing different books, you know, and so on. And What Ate the Sweet Bird Sang, you know, that book there about the church. But anyway, we read the verse yesterday because he's got a book on, you know, the priesthood, you know, do we need it, you know, something like that as a title, you know. And he didn't think that the apostles were priests or anything like that. It was kind of a subsequent adventure. I don't know where it is. Okay. And he thinks, you know, and he thinks, you know, you know how Ambrose was elected by kind of the people, right? That's how we should go back to that. Yeah, and he's getting usurped by the Pope and so on, you know, and so on. And he says, you know, the Vatican should be treated with the disrespect that it deserves and so on. He went on and on and on. One thing after the other. Like, I haven't followed his career. I remember reading his books. I hear about him from time to time, you know. And he's, you know, kind of a famous. I've heard the name, but I got mixed up with this. Another guy named Wills is a political talking head. Yeah, yeah. But, no, I think it's George Wills. George Wills, that's what he is. Yeah, and this is Gary Wills. No. I've heard the name, but I don't know much about it. He'd be perverse, though, you know. Thank you. Because he says, you know, he's talking about contraception. He says, well, we're no priests, you know. He talks about getting set now, you know. They don't take that seriously anymore, you know. They never did. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I remember what Plannery O'Connor said when somebody asked her about, this was back in the late 50s, before I wanted to do that. And the church's position on the contraception was clear already. Everybody knew it. This gal wrote to Plannery O'Connor and said, well, why does the church bother with these kind of questions? Don't they have more lofty spiritual things to talk about and this kind of stuff? And she said, why don't you be more spiritual than to say, don't do this because it's wrong. What could be more spiritual? Don't do it. It's evil. Mm-mm-mm.