Prima Secundae
Lecture 120: Boldness and Drunkenness: Causes and False Estimation

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, Deo Grazius. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you have written, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. By the way, did you hear about the appearance of the angel down there in Florida? It was on the news, you know, huh? And so I was on the computer there and saw a picture, you know. It looks like an angel up there in the sky here, you know, red, you know, huh? And so they're associated with the new Pope and so on, you know. But it looked a little bit like an angel, you know. It was very, very, you know, it's dinged down like that. And the rose swing in the sky. So, in the afternoon or the evening? Evening, I guess, sunset or something, you know. Okay, now, there's a little bit of amusement here. Recall the question 44, which is on the effects of fear, right? And the first article was whether fear makes for contraction, right, huh? I think that means, you know, not only the contraction of the emotions, but the contraction of the, what? Body kind of, right? Okay. And the second article was whether fear makes us take, what? Consul, right, huh? And the third article was whether fear causes trembling, right? Then the fourth article was whether fear impedes, what? Operation, right? Now, you know Shakespeare's two narrative poems, huh? In addition to his plays, he's got two narrative poems. And one is Venus and Adonis, right? Based on the mythological story of Venus, the goddess of love, falling in love with the mortal Adonis, right, huh? And then the rape of Lucrece, from the history of Rome, huh? Anyway, in Venus and Adonis, huh? At the time which he appears that he's planning to go boar hunting with his friends, sees what, no fear, isn't it, that he's going to be hurt by the boar, right? Okay? Let me just read you about a few little verses here. Oh, let him, meaning the boar, keep his loathsome cabin still, right? Cabin means stile, stile there. Beauty hath not to do with such foul feet. She's afraid the boar will do that, right? Come not within his danger by thy will. They that thrive well take counsel of their friends. It's referenced to what? Counsel, right? When thou didst name the boar not to dissemble, right? I feared thy fortune, and my joints did tremble. Didst thou not mark my face? Was it not white? Contraction. Yeah. In the weakness of it, yeah. Sawst thou not signs of fear lurked in mine eye? Grew I not faint? And fell I not downright? So, in, just in, in, uh, six, seven lines there, huh? He, uh, touched upon almost all the causes, or fear, effects, rather, of fear, right, huh? Okay? So, you can read this and that is better for having known this, right? Or, you know, these things are illustrated in, beautifully, huh? It's kind of concise as a Shakespeare, and he packs so much into a few words. So, he's got all the effects of fear there, and almost, in the primus equidna here, he has them in those few lines there. So, you can find another example of that Shakespeare, too, but it just kind of struck me that, you know, it's so concise and packed in there, right, huh? Yeah. Okay. Where did it go into? I also was going to bring you in the account of the death of Fernando the Saint, huh? Fernando was a great, what, Spanish king, right, huh? And he's got his cameras in some sense, right? Mm-hmm. And, uh, he finally conquered, I think, Seville, right, you know? So, he kind of extended it as far as it went before Ferdinand Isabella, right? It's a beautiful thing, huh? Okay? I'll just read you from the Chronicle of Fernando the Saint, right, huh? At least after his last conquest, which I won't go into, right, huh? In the midst of his preparations, which spread consternation throughout Mauritania, the pious king fell dangerously ill at Seville, right? Of a dropsy, right? When he found his dying hour approaching, he made his deathbed confession, and requested the Holy Sacrament to give minister to him. A train of bishops and other clergy, among whom was his son Philip, Archbishop of Seville, brought the sacrament into his presence. The king rose from his bed, threw himself on his knees, with a rope around his neck, and a crucifix in his hand, and poured forth his soul in penitence and prayer. Having received the viatica and the Holy Sacrament, he commanded all ornaments of royalty to be taken from his chamber. He assembled his children around his bedside, and blessed his son, the Prince Alfonso, as his firstborn in the era of his throne, giving him excellent advice to the government of his kingdom, and charging him to protect the interests of his brethren. The pious king afterwards fell into an ecstasy, or trance, in which he beheld angels watching around his bed to bear his soul to heaven. He awoke from this in a state of heavenly rapture, and asking for a candle, he took it in his hand and made his ultimate profession of the faith. He then requested the clergy present to repeat the litanies, and to chant the Te Deum Laudamus. In chanting the first verse of the hymn, the king gently inclined his head with perfect serenity of countenance, and rendered up his spirit. The hymn, says the ancient chronicle, which was begun on earth by men, was continued by the voices of angels, which were heard by all present. These doubtless were the angels which the king, in his ecstasy, had beheld around his couch, and which now accompanied him, in his glorious ascent to heaven, with songs of holy triumph. Nor was it in his chamber alone that these voices were heard, but in all the royal Alcazars of Seville. The sweetest voices were heard in the air, and seraphic music, as of angelic choirs, at the moment that the saintly king expired. He died on the 30th of May, the vespers of the Holy Trinity, near the incarnation 1,242. It would be during, what, Thomas' life, right? Aged 73, years. Having reigned 35 years over Castile, and 20 over Dion. Two days after his death, he was interred in his royal chapel, in the Holy Church, in the sepulchre of Alabaster, which still remains. It's asserted by grave authors that at the time of putting his body in the sepulchre, the choir of angels again was heard, chanting his eulogy, and filling the air with sweet melody in praise of his virtues. When Al-Hamart, the Moorish king of Granada, heard of his death, he caused great demonstrations of mourning to be made throughout his dominions. During his life, he yearly sent a number of Moors with 100 wax tapers to assist to his executes, which ceremonies observed by his successes until the time of the conquest of Granada by Fernando. That's beautiful, huh? That's the end of the Chronicle of Fernando the Saint, one of the Spanish papers, as they call him, of Washington Irving, right? And interesting, the effect, you know, of these Spanish things upon Washington Irving, I just, as one figure of the, sending things into Knickerbock, you know, the New York magazine, right? down that he suggested the title of the hymn, but it's sitting one of these things in here, and he says, talking about the influence of the Spanish thing, he says, in the present day, when popular literature is running into the low levels of life, and luxuriating on the vices and follies of mankind, and when the universe is running into the middle of life, and when the universe is running into the middle of life, and when the universe is running into the middle of life, and when the universe is running into the middle of life, and when the universe is running into the middle of life, and when the universe is running into the middle of life, Universal pursuit of gain is trampling down the early growth of poetic feeling and wearing out the verdure of the soul. I question whether it would not be of service for the reader occasionally to turn to these records of prouder times and loftier modes of thinking and to steep himself to the very lips in old Spanish romance, right? For my own part, I have a shelf or two of venerable parchment-bound tomes picked up here and there about the peninsula and filled with chronicles, plays, and ballads about Moors and Christians, which I keep by me as mental tonics in the same way that a provident housewife has her cupboard of cordials. Whenever I find my mind brought below par by the commonplace of everyday life, or jarred by the sordid collisions of the world, or put out of tune by the shrewd selfishness of modern utilitarianism, I resort to these venerable tomes, as did the worthy hero La Mancha to his books of showery, and refresh and tone up by spirit by a deep draft of their contents. They have some such effect upon me as Falstaff ascribes to a good sheriff's sack, quoting it now, warming the blood and filling the brain with fiery and electable shapes. I here subjoined, Mr. Editor, a small specimen of the cordials I have mentioned, just drawn from my Spanish cupboard, which I recommend to your palate. If you find it to your taste, you may pass it on to your readers. Your correspondent in Welwisher, Jeffrey Cran, this is soon and right, you know, opinion of my friend, Washington Irving. If you go to his house there on the Hudson there, you can still visit it on his tours of the house, and so you see these big dusty volumes, you know, I think they must be the ones from Spain, you know. He was, you know, Oregon Spain twice, you know, when he went back as an ambassador, right, he was an ambassador to Spain. So he's greatly, greatly loved by the Spaniards because they wrote so well about the Humber, you know. That's the thing. I didn't know he was an ambassador. I didn't know he was an ambassador. Yeah, yeah. Daniel Webster recommended him to be the ambassador to Spain. I didn't know he had a house in Spain. No problem. The area where he lived, it's a cherry town in Sleepy Hollow, and it's got some strange weather, and it's, it can be, there's a certain wound there at times where you can really imagine that headless horsemen and stuff like that, which may have been an inspiration to someone who's writing. What happens here is where it kind of spans out, like, almost like a lake, you know, that's, a beautiful sunset, you know, that's data, you know. Okay, now we left off here in question 45. What article was it here? Article 2. Article 2 we'll look at, okay. We looked a little bit in Article 2, didn't we? We did that? We could do that. To the second one goes forward thus, it seems that audacity does not follow upon what? Hope, huh? For audacity is with respect to bad things, and what? Terrible things, as is said in the third book of the Ethics. But hope regards the good, right? Right. I think we saw some of this before, but we'll look at it again. Pedicly says the thing worth saying is worth saying twice. Therefore, they have diverse objects, right? One has this object, the good, right? And the other, what, the bad, right? And they're not, therefore, of one order, right? Therefore, audacity does not follow upon what? Hope, huh? Moreover, just as audacity, or we could translate it as boldness, right, huh? Is contrary to fear, so desperation is contrary to what? Hope, huh? So we spoke of this before, right? Out of desire or wanting, right? For something good, right? If there's a difficulty in getting it right, then there can arise either hope, if you think you can overcome those difficulties, right? Or despair, if you think you can overcome these difficulties, huh? And likewise, for the opposite of desire, which is sometimes called aversion, where you're trying to avoid something that's bad, right? If there's difficulty avoiding it, right? There can arise fear, if you think you might not be able to avoid it, right? Or they can require boldness, right? If you think you can overcome it, right? Okay. So it says, just as audacity or boldness is contrary to fear, so desperation is contrary to hope. But fear does not follow upon what? Desperation. Nay, rather, desperation excludes what? Fear, right? Nothing to lose now. That's so our lives dearly, as they say, right? As the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, therefore, audacity does not follow upon hope, right? Now, you know, in reply to these objections, you have to understand kind of how hope and fear are the chief, what, passions in the irascible, right? In two of the four principal passions. Moreover, boldness intends some good, which is, what, victory, huh? But to tend to a, what, difficult good pertains to hope. Therefore, audacity is the same thing as hope. Therefore, it is not, what, follow upon hope, huh? But against this is what the philosopher says in the third book of the ethics, that those who are of good hope are, what, bold, right? So it seems, therefore, that boldness does follow hope. Now, Thomas says, I answer it should be said, as has been said many times, all these passions of the soul, or we call them emotions also in English, right, pertain to the desiring power, right? But every emotion of the desiring power is reduced to the pursuit, I guess, or the flight, or fleeing, right? But pursuit or flight of something can be either, what, per se or paracidensa, this famous distinction, huh? How universal is that distinction between per se and paracidensa? Yeah. And so Aristotle takes up in the fifth book of wisdom, the fifth book of metaphysics, the names that are used, what, most of all in wisdom and used in the axioms, and because of their commonness, to some extent everywhere, right, takes up, among other words, of course, the words being and one, right, which are the subject of wisdom, and these are most universal, right? Being and say something, right, in English too, are most universal, right? So everything that is in any way whatsoever can be said to be a being, right? Well, of course, Aristotle points out many distinctions of being, but what's the first distinction that he gives of being? Per se and paracidense, yeah. He does that with the one and two, right? So you see how universal it is, right? It's like the first kind of distinction that we see in being, huh? So, and then he takes being a per se, and he gives three divisions of it, right? Being according to the figures of predication, substance, quantity, quality, and so on, and then being as true or false, and then being as act in, what, ability, right? And those are very universal divisions too, but not as universal as per se and paracidense, right? So my being a man, that's an example of being per se, right? Okay. But my being a Christian a geometer, right? Example of what? Yeah. Because it's... Hard to use being at all, right? Because by what are you a Christian geometer? Well, if there was such a thing as Christian geometry, then there'd be something by which you are a Christian geometer. But there's no such animal, right? And it wasn't always a Christian geometer, right? When I was born, I was neither a geometer nor a Christian. And is there a way of becoming a Christian? Yeah. My mother and father took me to be baptized, right? And so I became a Christian. And there's a way to become a geometer, right? And my teacher at the Surrey said, get Euclid. I said, why? Get Euclid. But it's just some way to become a Christian geometer. It's just a way to become a Christian. And a way to become a geometer, right? But there's no way to become a Christian geometer. So if I was not always a Christian geometer, and there's no way to become one, how can I even be one today, right? And yet, if the Christian academy wants to hire a Christian geometer, here's one right here. Pope Francis there, they have him stuck in high school there teaching mathematics, right? Okay? You don't get rid of that, you know? So, be the one, a Christian mathematician, right? So, here you find the same distinction, you know? Of the paracet and paracet ends, huh? But what is paracet ends, right? Oh, excuse me, let's go back a little bit there. The pursuit or flight from something is both paracet and paracet ends, huh? Paracet is the pursuit of the good. Because the good as such is worthy of being pursued, right? And flight, paracet, is from something that is bad, right? But it's paracet ends that one is going to pursue something, what? Bad, right? Like David going out there against a monstrous man there, right? You pursue the bad on account of some good, what? Joined to it, right? And you flee the good on account of something bad, in a way joined to it, right? But what is paracet ends follows upon that which is what? Here's say, right? Can you see a little bit just in that why we might think of fear as being a principle of passion, a beginning of passion, right? And hope, right? Rather than despair and what? Boldness, right? Because despair, in a sense, is going to lead you away from the good. But why would you run away from the good? So you're not as such, right? There must be paracet ends, right? And the same way, why would you want to go towards something bad, you know? What's his name, Goliath? What's that? Goliath. Yeah. Why would you want to go towards Goliath, right? Okay. Not per se, right, huh? Okay. I know it's even in the distinction between being per se and being paracet ends. Being per se is before being paracet ends, right? So I could be a geometry without being a Christian. It's maybe my friend, you could, if Alexander was, right? As far as I know, he was not a Christian, right? And you could be a Christian without being a geometry like maybe my wife is. So being per se is before, right? It's the second sense of before, right? If this can be without that, but not vice versa, then this is before that in the second sense. I told you that influence it had upon me, you know, I'm trying to understand tragedy and comedy, right? And I was taking, you know, the contrary of what? Fear as being what? Boldness, right? So I was thinking comedy being the contrary of tragedy would move us to boldness, right? If tragedy moves us to fear, as Aristotle says, right? But I was not, at that point, understanding yet, what? The chief passions, right? As you study comedy more, you see it's more concerned with hope than with, what? Boldness, right? And it makes sense that the two principal forms of fiction, which are tragedy and, what? Comedy, right? That they should be concerned with sadness and fear and joy and, what? Hope, right? Which are the four principal, what? Passion, right? And therefore, since the piratidus falls upon the, what? Per se. Then the pursuit of something bad, pursuing Goliath, right? Going towards him instead of away from him, follows the pursuit of something, what? Good. And the fleeing from something, what? Bad. Bad, huh? So these four things pertain to four passions. For the pursuit of the good pertains to hope, and the flight from evil to, what? Fear. And the, what? Pursuit of a terrible evil pertains to, what? Boldness. The flight from something good, giving up as we're, right? Turning away from the pursuit of it pertains to, what? Desperation, right? Whence it follows that boldness follows upon, what? Hope. For from this that someone hopes to overcome something terrible that is imminent, from this he boldly, what? Pursues it, right? Because he has a hope for something good, which is victory over Goliath, right? Then he boldly, what? Approached him, right? Isn't that statue of David there that's in Florence, isn't that preparatory to finishing off Goliath, huh? Doesn't he have his sling there in his hand or something? So, yeah. Okay. And to fear, there follows, what? Desperation, right? For there, someone despairs because he fears a difficulty, which is about the good, what? That he hopes to have, right? Or should he hope for it? But when it comes to boldness, wouldn't the parasite cause be the victory that you're seeking? Well, the victory is something good, right? Right, huh? Wouldn't it be that piercing cause of the pension? Of the hope, yeah. No, oh, I'm sorry, but I'm talking about the boldness. In other words... Well, I see, in the boldness, you're pursuing something that is bad, and as such, that is not something to do. You shouldn't seek something that is, what, bad, right, huh? I see. You know, these famous battle scenes there, you know, where sometimes the king that won, you know, he was fighting by hand, too, as well as his troops, right? He wants to get the other king, right? And he goes through the field, right? Because he knows if he slays the other king, you know, that that's going to change the whole battle, right? And so he has hope of, what, victory, right? That gives him the boldness to pursue the camp, you know, and there he is, you know. But so boldness doesn't have as its object the victory. No, it has something bad as its object. I see. I see. Yeah. So it's not as a principle of passion as hope is, right? But everything has a perissue clause, right? So I'm trying to, so the perissue clause of boldness? No, he's saying, no, not everything has a perissue clause. And he's distinguishing the perissue and the perotidance, right, huh, here, and how it's perotidance that you pursue something bad, right? Because the bad is such as something that is, as such, repulsive, right, huh? And so, but the perissue is always before the perotidance. So, I mean, like being a Christian geometer, is there something like that involved? Well, yeah, yeah, to be a Christian is an example of perissue being. To be a geometer, right, is an example of perissue being. to be a christian geometry is an example of accidental being but obviously you can be a christian without being a christian geometry and you can be a geometry without being a christian right so uh a christian geometry in some way depends or follows upon your being a christian and you're being a geometry right it followed upon to such a thing as christian geometry then would be you know being per se right but there ain't such an animal there ain't no such thing as christian geometry you should be very careful when the posts talk about christian philosophy right you know you gotta you gotta explain that right it's like it's explaining certain texts of augustine so you don't misunderstand it right there's a way to become a christian right and there's a way to become a what philosopher right you see and they're not the same way right and there's something by which you are a christian and there's something which you're a philosopher right but there's nothing which you are a christian philosopher right i think in fact you know one can what contribute something to the what to the other right okay just like if i'm a christian you know and i might read uh saint augustine because he's one of the greatest minds of the church right and uh augustine might insist you know you you better learn the liberal arts you better learn the trivium and quadrivium right right and uh and uh as once the indian was pointing out there you know um augustine he when he was being deceived by the uh manichaeans right now and one of the great teachers manichaeans was coming to town you know and so on and augustine was not yet able to really judge whether what the great teacher of the manichaeans was saying was true or false right now but then he realized he didn't know the what liberal arts right well how are you gonna trust a man who doesn't have the fundamental things right he talks about these things that are what above you right and just like if i had never uh studied you know solid geometry right and some guy was spouting off about theorems and solid geometry that i was not able to judge whether they're false right but then i got talking to him i realized he didn't really understand plane geometry but i said i don't know what with what he's saying about solid geometry is true or false but how can you do solid geometry without having plane geometry first right so once he and john said if if a customer had his training with the words he would not see it through the manichaeans you know that emphasized the importance of of the liberal arts right huh you know my kids went to school called what trivium right huh and of course uh at tc you get the trivium and the quadrivium right so so can you say that um boldness and despair have those passions have pair action and causes now yeah you have a per se thing that comes before right the hope yeah yeah yeah and it's more clear perhaps in case even here of audacity falling upon hope right but thomas points out that uh to fear follows what desperation right okay so if the guy's you know you're suing a beautiful girl right huh and he wants to marry her he's afraid to ask the case is afraid she might say what no right okay okay he's not in despair yet right but if the fear becomes too great then he can what despair right his fear the fear can fall into a despair of ever getting it right okay shakespeare has these two narrative poems on venus and adonis which is really comic although it's not coming for venus and then what the grape of lucris which is tragic right and so on it's kind of like tragedy and comedy right the two main forms you know the the great homer by the way you know we have only his iliad and his odyssey right but uh the both plato and aristotle know he's margites right and aristotle says that the margites is to comedy as the iliad is to what tragedy right so if the margites was to comedy as the iliad is to tragedy then uh homer was the master of both what tragedy and comedy and uh you can see that's that in shakespeare right he's the master of both tragedy and comedy most people are more familiar with shakespeare's tragedies like hamlet and macbeth and juliet and so on you know remember my brother richard there you know seeing some one of shakespeare's comedies and he says to me i didn't realize you're so funny you know and so but i mean you can go read that right you see it's the master of both right and uh actually you know most of the comedies come earlier right you know and so it's unfortunately lost the margins of play-doh but i mean of uh homer but we can take you know aristotle word for it i think right but now if you have moliere right you know where they try to get something you know what tragedy one of those plays but i don't think he works you know moliere is kind of limited to what yeah yeah yeah so he doesn't have that universality you know that uh homer has in shakespeare right now tragedy and comedy and he has both you know because otherwise you can speak of the universality in a man too you know he's plot character and what diction right he excels in all those things homer right in the same way shakespeare right now now aristotle says that homer taught all the other greeks how to write a good plot and of course he praises you know homer for his characters but they're beautiful things in hagel about homer's characters you know and how superior they are to the characters in french tragedy you know they're multi-faceted multi like a diamond with many beautiful sides to it you know that's the way homer's characters are right why the the role the french tragedy and you know they're kind of you know one passion personified you know and kind of narrow as opposed to this you know homeric character you know and then of course you know the way that aristotle and uh and hagel praised the diction of homer you know magnificent similes and everything else that he has in there so he excels in everything right i remember in college there you know the freshman i was taking a course there and we're doing section on shakespeare you know he said you know shakespeare is one of everything he said that's true right you know as irving said you know i don't want me to take any credit for what i wrote you know shakespeare said it all you know who am i who am i i said there's an old age wonderful wonderful writer it's our best writer in america right compared to shakespeare he didn't see himself what was that my friend washington irving oh washington he signed his name in gold for me you know how friendly we are how much he thought of me right now he said the first objection right that's saying well one is about the good the other is about the bad how can one influence the other right the first therefore ought to be said that that argument would follow if good and bad were objects having no order right not having order to each other right but because the bad has some order to the good it is posterior to the good right just as a privation or lack is what posterior or after the habit the having something right and therefore audacity or boldness which what follows or pursues the bad is after hope which follows the good as the per se is before the gratitude now the second one here right to the second should be said that although the good is simply Before the bad, right? If you didn't love life, you wouldn't hate death, right? Nevertheless, flight is before owed to the bad, then to the good. Just as what? Not fouling, or fouling is what? Before owed to the good, then to the bad. The good is what all want, right? The bad is what no one wants. So watch as you pursue the bad. And therefore, just as hope is before boldness, so fear is before desperation. And just as from fear, there does not always follow what? Desperation. But when it was what? Intense, right? So also from hope does not always follow boldness, but when it is what? Me and me are strong, right? So this helps you to kind of see what the chief passions are, right? And vice versa, understanding chief passions helps you to see why there's this order, right? Now, you know, what are the culmination of Mozart's symphonies, right? Well, it's the last, what? Five symphonies, right? Okay? Which are 36, 38, 39, 40, and 41, right? There is no 37th symphony. Although there is a 36th and a 38th, right? Okay? So you all know that story, right? Okay. Well, Mozart wrote a, what, symphonic introduction to a symphony of Michael Hayden, you know, the brother of Joseph Hayden, right? And they thought the symphony, the whole symphony, is by Mozart. And so that was called his 37th symphony. Well, then when they discovered that it wasn't, they held on to the custom of calling the 37th symphony the 38th, in fact, right? And rather confuse people, right? And change all the numbers, right? There's always confusion there, I notice, on the people. Should they call him Pope Francis or Pope Francis I, right? I think they corrected him to say Pope Francis, and not say Francis I, but I see people falling into it, so, well, you know. But we never called the first pope, Pope Peter I, not only because, you know, there's no fun coming after him, right? That's a name, but you don't call him Peter I, right? Now, John Paul, when John Paul was like, wasn't there some story about his calling himself John Paul the First? Yes. And they said, you know, even though you don't get called the first until the second, you know, he said something about, you know, let it be, because he prophesied, John Paul the Second or something. At least I heard a story about it. Yeah, we heard it about it. Yeah, we heard it about it. Yeah, we heard it about it. Yeah, so then there's the question of, is this 266 or 267, something, you know? Oh, right. Yeah. Thank you, Bob. We heard about it. Yeah, yeah. To the third should be said, that boldness, although it is about something bad, to which is joined the good of what? It's about victory, according to the estimate of the one who's bold, right, huh? Nevertheless, it regards something, what? Bad, right? But the good joined hope regards, right, huh? And similarly, desperation regards the good directly, which it, what? Refuses, but the evil adjoined tear regards, right? Or fear regards. Whence, properly speaking, boldness is not a part of hope, but it's, what? Effect, right? So looking before and after, Thomas does, right, huh? But as I always say, you know, what distinction is before seeing order, right? So unless you see how boldness is really distinct from hope, you can't go on to see later on that hope is before, right? Just as neither is desperation a part of fear, but it's effect. In account of this also, right, boldness cannot be able, it's not able to be a, what, chief or principle or beginning, but passion, right? I was going to say a bit about Mozart's last symphonies, right? So the 36th and the 41st are representation of, what, magnanimity, right? And magnanimity is a virtue that is concerned with, what, hope, okay? And then the 38th and the 40th symphony are representation of courage, right, huh? And courage is more concerned with the passion of, what, fear, right? So, what, the 39th symphony is more joy, right, huh? Okay. But you've got the principle about passions there, right? Hope and fear and joy, right? We had sadness, of course, also in the 40th symphony, right? So we've got the four principle passions. They kind of stand out, though, in Mozart's last five symphonies, huh? Now, Article 3, whether some defect is the cause of, what, boldness, huh? To the third, then, one proceeds thus, it seems that some defect is the cause of boldness, right? For the philosopher says in the book about problems that lovers of wine are, what, strong, brave, and audacious, or bold, right, huh? So when they get, you know, not just wine, whiskey or something else, right, then they're ready to, what, fight, right? They get off the stool, and then they realize, hey, next time it's really bigger than them. They see the muscles that are bulging, you know, and so on. But from wine, there follows the defect of, what, drunkenness, I guess, huh? Therefore, boldness is caused from some, what, defect, huh? Moreover, the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, yeah, that those who are without experience of, what, dangers are, what? Bold. Yeah. That's why these young kids, they drive their car, they're fast, right? And you read, you know, some horrible accidents the last two days, and you don't bother to read the newspapers anymore, but, you know, you seem to hear about some horrible thing, you know, where some, you know, 17-year-old, whatever it is, is going off the highway and killed herself and six other guys in the car and so on, right, you know? But they're more bold than we are, right, huh? And, you know, every time the snow comes in the winter, you know, and it's a little bit icy, you know, it's just a cropping up of accidents, right, huh? My father used to say, when winter comes, you have to learn how to drive again, right? Well, that's the man of experience talking, right, huh? But if you have no experience, right, of driving on an icy road, right, you're going to be more bold than someone else would be, right? This guy was coming behind my wife one time, Royce, a very good driver, but it was icy, you know, and she knows she couldn't go any faster than this, right? This guy was getting annoyed that she was not going any faster. So he speeds up and passes her and goes right off the road. So she stopped to see if he was, you know, hurt or something, you know, and she was going to say, and engage in a conversation with this guy, right, huh? There's only some jerk behind you, right, you know, who wants you to, you know, go across the intersection, you know, but it's not really, you know, cars are coming too fast, you've got to wait some things, and it's kind of painful to have to wait for a while, but, you know, behest of this guy back there honking his horn, you know. Oh, then. I don't know. So those inexperty, right, those without experience of dangers are what, bold, huh? That's the famous thing where Washington said when he was a young soldier there, you know, that he's writing to his brother or something, you know, and bullets, the trumpet sound goes going by, you know, and how exhilarating it is, you know. So he brought this up to Washington, he's later an older man, you know. So, well, I was young then. You know what you talk about, how excited it is, you know, and interestingly on the battlefield when you hear those bullets whizzing by you, you know. Now those, what, who have undergone unjust things are accustomed to be more, what, bold, just as beasts when they are, what, struck, huh? So should you kick a dog or not, when he's barking at you? He's a dog master. Never kick a dog. My brother Marcus was riding a bike with this other guy, you know, the dog came barking, you know, the guy stopped his bike, got off to the other guy, he went over to the dog, he gave him one good kick, the dog goes ripping off. That sounds like a dangerous thing to do, right? Make the dog work. But to suffer in something unjust pertains to a, what, defect, right? Therefore, boldness is caused from some defect, huh? But against this is what the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, huh? That the cause of boldness is when in the, what, imagination, I guess, right? There was hope, right? Of salvation, right? As being near, right? But there are fears when, what? Either things that are not or that are, what? Far distant, right? Okay. But that which pertains to defect either pertains to the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To Because he, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To Fear has caused, boldness, through the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? To the, what? I feel like getting up and going over and talking and attacking some liberal professor, right? I remember in the faculty data room there, you know, Ron MacArthur comes in on the day of voting, you know, and one of the liberal professors says to Ron MacArthur, Hey, did you vote yet, Ron? He says, yeah, he says, and it canceled out your vote, too. Well, you can imagine you got a little bit of white of you, you know. You know, you've got to make, you know, some of these remarks even more. So you're a bit more, what, bold because the wine, because you've been warned by the wine, huh? And so there's some truth to that, right? I've got a funny argument with these guys sometimes. I've argued with a liberal historian one time, and I was quoting Roosevelt's son, right, you know? You know, it was Elliot there, where he'd been with him at the Yalta, you know, and I said to him, they're going to bed one night, he says, he can address the Russians, he says to Roosevelt, you know. And Roosevelt said, I don't see why not. So his answer to this was, you know, that one of these psychologists had met Roosevelt, and he said, you never know what he's got in his mind. He wasn't kind of a crafty guy. That was the thing. Like, maybe he didn't mean, but he would. But it seemed like he would see it to Islam, you know, when he thought of the Russians, huh? At least two of his top advisors were Stalinist agents. Yeah, yeah. White and... Well, his was there. His, I told you, his was there. You know, you can see him sitting there. Talk about an appropriate name. What does he mean? What's your name? Yeah. The liberals tried to hold out that he'd been framed, you know, and all this stuff, but then they finally got the Russian files, you know, after the fall of the Russian Empire, right, there was no question about him being a communist spy, you know. Is that the Yalta? Yeah. Yeah. That's part of it. Yeah. But anyway, so, it's said that ebrietas makes for the goodness of what? Hope, right, huh? Okay. That's why people get into fights when they've been drinking, huh? And the heat of the heart repels, what? Fear, which is tied up with the coolness, right? You come cold with your fearfulness. That's why you tremble, right? Yeah. You can tremble because the weather's cold, too, right? Mm-hmm. Shivering, you know? And I guess it's your body trying to warm itself up, right? Because of the cold, right? Mm-hmm. So, the heat of the heart repels fear and causes hope on count of the extension of the heart and its amplification, right? So, in regard to the first objection, then, he says that drunkenness, or ebrietas, causes what? Boldness, right, huh? Not insofar as it is a, what? Defect, right? Insofar as it makes for the expansion of the, what? Heart, huh? And insofar as it also makes for a, what? Estimate that something is, what? Is that some magnitude, right, huh? Okay. Now, those who are, to the second it should be said, that those who are without experience of dangers, right, are more, what? Bold. Not on account of the defect, but per-oxidance, right? Because, on account of the inexperience, neither do they know their, what? Weakness, right? Nor do they know the presence of, what? Dangers, right, huh? And thus, in the subtraction of the cause of fear, there follows, what? Boldness. Boldness, huh? To the third it should be said, that as the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, those who have undergone something unjust are rendered more bold because they estimate that God will give aid to those who have undergone something unjust, right? And thus, it is clear that no defect causes boldness except, what? Yeah. Insofar as it has joined to its own excellence, which might be either true or, what? Yes, right, huh? Either on one's part or on the part of another. Is it going to break there now? I wonder if that answer, you know, this example, drunkenness causes error, I mean, that must be the culture of, you know, it was in, everybody drank wine every single day, but I mean, because otherwise, I think otherwise, in this culture you might say, well, drunkenness is going to lower your inhibitions. Yeah, yeah. So that's, I mean, that's a different thing altogether. Yeah. But you're going to overestimate your ability there, right? I mean, I guess that... Oh, I see, okay. Yeah. Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right?