Prima Secundae
Lecture 125: Anger and Its Causes: Contempt as the Universal Motive

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

Your imagination, but not the reason. It's more your imagination, right? Not the reason. So what's the anger of Coriolanus? Is that from reason? He's been injured by the rabble, the democratic rabble of the city of Rome. We're denying him his honors, right? That he deserves for being the greatest soldier and defender of the whole city of Rome. Just because he won't sit there with his, showing his wounds to get his award. That's what they want him to do, right? You've got to go down and humble yourself for the crowd down there and show your wounds. Oh, look what I suffered, you know, and vote me in dishonor. So I was like, good, do that big greeting thing, right? Isn't that Shakespeare's on Coriolanus? You did it now with great pleasure after you treat us on anger here. You can go and read Coriolanus. But whether it arises from reason or from imagination, that the movement, so if it arises from imagination, isn't that movement still anger? It is anger, right? Yeah, it's like in the animals, right? But it's still the passion of anger. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What Thomas is saying, if it arises from reason, then it's only towards those to whom there is what? Oh, I see. When it arises, but it's not like he's just saying that that one's anger. Yeah, yeah. So when I throw my pen, that's kind of punishing the pen, in a sense. Yeah, I have to kind of laugh at myself. But, you know... That'll teach you. Yeah, yeah. But I imagine that it's harming in some way, that pen, right? Unless you're an animist. Yeah, yeah. I think it's kind of interesting there, the distinction there between imagination and one reason, right? So how is Thomas seeing all these distinctions show that he's using his reason? How does Thomas seeing all these distinctions show that he's using his reason? Yeah, yeah. So then the ability to look before and after is included. The ability to see a distinction, right? You know this from the axiom of before and after, that nothing is before or after itself. So before you can see that this is before or after that, you have to see that this is not that, right? And that's to see a distinction, right? So the fact that Thomas is seeing one distinction after another shows us that he's using his reason, right? I was reading about the end there, Thomas' life there in Weissapua, you know. And he was just doing this too much, he said. A man can't keep up, you know. All day long, right, huh? So that's a beautiful distinction there. Primum, right? In the body article, it doesn't touch on it at all, right? But it's important to see that distinction, huh? Christian Lin's dying for the distinction there when he sees the argument, right? And reflects upon the fact that he has gotten angry at his, you know, his instamart tool, whatever it is, right? Or you can, like, ever kick in the car or something, you know? So those are completely irrational? You leave the light on something and the power battery goes down, that one's dark? You know? Kick the car. Like it's done you. But if there's something that seems just about getting angry in those situations. It seems right. I mean, it's not always here. The same thing that rises in imagination doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational, right? No. I mean, well. But you're pretty rational. It's funny, my mother used to tell about when she and my father are going out, right? And they get in a little fight or something. My father's angry with my mother, right? Well, he'd get out and kick the car. She can't laugh about it. She said, I'm glad he kicked the car instead of me. It's not entirely irrational. Or when you've got a nice piece of wood, you don't have any other blanket to cut it wrong. Or something you want to just throw that thing up on the floor. I was about to joke about where the hired boss would get in with this guy and he could sit with the guy below him all the way down. Take it to the last guy that knows from the ring. Nothing for him to do. He walks out and he sees a dog. He gives the dog a good kick, you know. It's a certain imagination that you've done what everybody else has done, you know, up above. To the second one now, right? What about to oneself, huh? To the second should be said that as the philosopher says in the fifth book of the ethics, there is a certain metaphorica, right? That's interesting. Justice and injustice of a man to himself, insofar as reason rules the, what, irascible and concubiscible. It's just that reason should rule them, right? And according to this, also a man is said to make, what, things of himself. Contemporary to be angry with himself. But properly and as such, it does not happen that someone is angry with himself. That's kind of interesting though, right? This is above all to that own self be true, right? That being just. Sometimes people say, you know, you're not being just to yourself. Don't you hear people say that? So there's kind of a, you're closer to justice here than you are with the rational thing, right? You owe it to yourself. You owe penance to yourself for your sins. Yeah. So you're talking about vacations. You owe it to yourself, right? Yeah. You know? Or you owe yourself some sleep, right? You get to get some rest, huh? Mm-hmm. You owe yourself on vacation. Ice cream. People talk to themselves too, huh? I'm just trying to think of this in terms of, like, penance for your sins. Do you owe yourself penance? Do you owe it to yourself? Or is that justice? You really owe God. Yeah. Kind of with the tool of God's justice there, right? Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking where Thomas was speaking there, he was speaking of, if you inflict punishment upon yourself, then this is satisfaction, right? If God inflicts it upon you like purgatory, that's purgative. Satisfaction. It's purgation, he says, all right? Purgation. If you do it yourself, then you're satis. That's what St. Bonamantra says, that we do satisfaction, purgatory is satis-passion. You undergo that rather than doing it yourself. But perjury is the word that Thomas uses there in the Suva Kahn Jantilas. What's the difference there, then? That term metaphorica, right? There's a much greater likeness there, right? Justice. There's a ball player, you know, and he makes a bad mistake or something, you know, or I shouldn't have done that, you know? I could have won the game. I could have. If I'd only done onto the right or to the left or something, if I had threw the wrong pitch. There's a lot of talk about that now, about forgiving yourself. Yeah, I don't know about that. That's what we should be doing. Yeah, that's it. I refer to it, it's not really forgiving yourself, it's accepting the humiliation of your sin, that's what it is. That's what you need. When people won't accept the evaluation of it, that's the problem. But they talk about this for doing it, so I can scratch my head and I forget what that is. Now to the third it should be said that the philosopher in the second book of the rhetoric assigns one difference between hate and anger. That hate can be to some class, right? To some genus. Just as we have in hate the whole genus of thieves, right? But anger is not accepted to something singular, right? The reason for this is because hate is caused from the quality of something when that is grasped as being dissonant to our disposition, right? And this can be either in the universal or in the what? Particular, right? But anger is caused from this, that someone injures us by their own act. But actions are of the singularism. And therefore anger is always about something singular, right? When over the whole city injures us, the whole city is computed, right? As one singular. And that's Coriolanus there, right? He's going to punish Rome and join with the enemies of Rome now to destroy Rome, right? Until his mother comes out to beg him, right? And all the other citizens go out, you know, but he turns them down, you know, it's cold, right? And his mother comes out, you know, and it's quite a scene. It's Shakespeare there. It goes back and forth, and he kind of collapses his mother, because that would be the end of him, too. So, suppose men, people loathe themselves, and they don't like themselves, to the point where they want to be part of themselves. Yeah. What is that? It's not hatred or anger. It's not hatred or anger. Maybe something like sloth or something. Yeah, I see a woman hates herself, and doesn't like her looks or something. It's kind of metaphorical, though, in a sense, isn't it? Maybe it's kind of, I think it was colored by sloth or something like that. Yeah, but the person looking at himself in the mirror and saying, you know, he's a little too matung, right? Hates his looks, you know, right? And he starts to go on a die or something. Takes it out of himself. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It sounds like a natural thing to say, well, I'm really angry with myself for letting myself be so fat. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He calls that metaphorical justice, right, there in the book of the ethics, right? There's a real likeness there. When you're being a so-called objective about yourself, it's like another person judging yourself, right? Mm-hmm. No, I didn't know there was a species of anger, did you? Mm-hmm. To the eighth, one goes for a dust. It seems that Damascene unsuitably assigns three species to anger, right? To which, what? Manium is like madness, isn't it? Manium, that's what I would think, yeah. Yeah, and furor, I guess. Tensity of it. Gall, bot, poise, bitterness. It's what fell is. It seems to be mixed, you're almost an eight, you know? Yeah. And then manium, it's kind of like craze. It's crazy. Well, he says, the species of no genus are diversified according to something accidental, right? Accidental. That's what Porphy would say, right? It's a goge. So red, white, and blue are not species of triangle, right? Because they're accidents, huh? But these three are diversified according to something accidental. For the beginning of the motion of anger is called what? God. Yeah. But anger that is permanent, persisting, is called menia, right? Furor is anger observing what? Time. Time. You're going to wait to strengthen. Therefore, they are not diverse species of anger, huh? Moreover, Tilly, in the Ex Cicero, in the fourth book of the Tuscalian Questions, says that what? Excondescencia. Burning up, huh? Bunker. Yeah. Burning out. Yeah. Plaining out. In Greek, it's called thumosis. It sounds like the word thumos, thumos, which is used for the rational appetite, right? But it's named from anger. And is in anger, what? Just now rising and now stopping, yeah. But thumosis, according to Damascene, is the same thing as, what? Furor, huh? Therefore, furor does not seek time to avenge, but it, what? Fails or goes down in time, right? Okay. So some question about the naming here for us, huh? Moreover, Gregory, in the 21st book of the Morals, lays down three grades of anger, right? Anger without voice, and anger with voice, huh? And anger with word expressed, huh? According to those three things which the Lord lays down in Matthew chapter 5, huh? Who is angry with his brother, who is angry with his brother, where he touches upon anger without voice. And afterwards, then, who says to his brother, raka, you know, you fool, or something like that. Or one touches upon anger with voice, and not yet fully, what, formed by word, huh? But who says to his brother, fachue, huh? You fool, or there is explained a voice in the perfection of speech. Therefore, insufficiently, does Damascene divide, what, anger, laying down nothing on the side of voice, huh? Not only Thomas can clear up all this commotion here with the words, right, huh? Not to rely upon Thomas, huh, to clear up the muddy thoughts, huh? But against this is the authority of Damascene, right, and of Gregory and Nyssa, huh, okay? And they'd say down in the Messias, right, whoever he is, okay? So Thomas is deceived by the fallacy of equivocation, right? Even the great Thomas. That may be a lesson to all of you. The most frequently kind of fallacy, right? It's kind of deceit from words, right? The fallacy of equivocation. I answer it should be said that the three species of anger, which Damascene lays down, and also Gregory something other, right? Are taken according to those things which give to anger some, what, growth, huh? Which happens in three ways, huh? In one way, from the facility of the motion itself, and such anger is called fell, which quickly is, what, kindled, huh? Okay. In another way, on the side of, what, sadness causing, what, anger, right? Which long remains in the, what, memory, right, huh? What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what And this pertains to mania, which is from an endo, I guess, which means remains, is said, right? It doesn't mean necessarily madness, but third, on the side of what the man angry desires, to wit, revenge, right? And to this pertains, what, furor, right? Which never rests until it, what, punishes, huh? So there's been some famous movies there where he was going to revenge, you know? Maybe somebody's killed his parents or something, or killed his wife or something, you know? And even Batman is after, you know, those who killed his parents, right? So. And Batman could be illuminated here with the... Prima Secundi. Prima Secundi and Batman. Prima Secundi. Once the philosopher says in the fourth book of the Ethics, huh? Now, in the fourth book of the Ethics, he talks about the virtue concerned with, what, anger, doesn't he? In the third book, you have just, what, the first two, fortitude and temperance, the two cardinal virtues there in the emotions, right? Then anger is taken up after, what, the one's concerned with money, right? An honor, right, then you take up, one's concerned with anger, appropriate way to take him up, right? Okay. So that if those who are angry, he calls, what, akutos, right? Who are chitos, quickly, right? Angry, right, huh? Some he calls bitter, amaros, because they long retain, what, angry, right? Some difficult, because they never rest until, unless they're punished, right, huh? So, to the first thereof, it should be said, huh, that all those things to which anger receives some perfection, right, do not have themselves entirely protruding to anger, right? It's not like red, white, and blue to triangle, right? And therefore, nothing prevents, according to them, for the species of anger to be assigned, right? So they're maybe not a perfect example of the species, right? But they are things to which the anger itself receives somewhat perfection, right? While green triangle is not a special way of being a triangle in any way. To the second, it should be said that ex condescencia, how do they translate that anyway? Just your acidity. Okay. I think it has a sense of it's cleaning out. Yeah. Which Tully lays down, more seems to pertain to the first species of anger, right? Which is perfected according to the quickness or swiftness of the anger, right? Than it seems to pertain to, what, furor, right, huh? But nothing prevents that thomosis in Greek, which in Latin is called furor, implies, what, both, right? Either swiftness to becoming angry, or the firmness of the proposal to, what, punishment, right? I will get even, right? I get angry very easily, so don't be afraid, see? I remember when I lived up at the fall there, and I was working on my doctoral thesis there, and a guy I'd gone to high school with came up there to pursue some philosophical studies, right? And so, so we hadn't seen each other for years, you know, so we went out to dinner, you know, and we're sitting there and having dinner, so I could talk about what my thesis was, you know. His remark, first remark goes, that's a back-asset way of proceeding, he said. So I just kind of laughed, you know, and we wanted to discuss it, you know. Some people would have got, you know, me, the chito, you know. What do you mean by that? Of course, you mean this every now and a day, sometimes, they do get kind of, you know, sort of anger. What's going on? So there's certain leeway there at the words, right? So we'll get too upset about that, huh? So is Iago angry with Othello? What do you think? Othello. Now as he's passed me by, you know, he's given this to Casio, you know, just a playboy, you know. Giving me that, rather than to me, you know, in the battles and know how to really conduct myself in a war or a fight. But it's not like he's, what, chito, right, quickly getting angry, right? But he's going to get even with, he thinks there might have been something with Othello and his wife, too, you know, that comes out and plays a little bit. It's kind of a cool, you know, but he's going to persist, right, until he gets this thing, right? So you hinge. Which, that's a much more subtle example of his anger there, right? Does Othello, you know, does he hate, does Iago hate Othello or does he, is he angry with him in some way, right? It's kind of a cool anger in a sense, but he's that guy, you know, kind of afraid of anything, right? So which is it? Well, it's really not, the guy gets angry, it seems to me it's a little bit like anger, right, huh? You know, because he's been passed over, right? He thinks I should have got the promotion, right? He shouldn't give this Cascio Cascio, doesn't know nothing. He's just a ladies' man or something. Right. Yeah, yeah. And this thing about, you know, that Iago, that Othello, maybe he fooled around a little bit with Iago's wife, you know? And he just, you know, suspicion he says enough to make him... Seal the deal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's not getting angry, you know, suddenly flaring up or something like that, right? But it is about a perceived injury. Yeah, yeah. But he never rests until he punishes, right? Go back to Shakespeare and this in mind, let's see. To the third, it should be said that those grades of anger are distinguished according to the effect of anger, right, huh? Not over according to the diverse, what? Perfection of the motion of anger itself, right? Well, he's saying in the Bible, the article, the different ways that anger is perfected, right? All right. Yeah. We'll take our little break now here. Sure. Before we go on to question 47. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I mentioned how this consideration of anger is more extended like the consideration of love was, right? You consider it in itself, and then you look before at the cause, and then you look after in the effect. But he joins to cause the remedies of it. So Tom is supposed to have grabbed, what, the piece of burning thing from the fire there and chased the woman out, right? I was sent there to reconsider his vocation, right? Then we're not to consider about the effective cause, that's the mover or maker, right, of anger, and about its remedies. And about this, four things are asked, right? First, what moves us to anger is something done against the one who is what? Angered. Angered, right? Second, whether only thinking little of, parvipensia, one word there, I imagine. Or the, what, despising is a motive of, what, anger. Now, there's something to do with that, right? I'll mention, I think, from our writing now, in the fourth book of the Ethics, right, he takes up the virtues concerned with money, right, like liberality and, what, magnificence. And then he takes up the words, the two virtues concerned with honor, right, philotemia and, what, magnanimity. He takes up, actually, magnanimity before philotemia, right? And Mozart represents, what, magnanimity in the 36th and the 41st symphonies, the two C major symphonies, right? There's a tension of magnanimity, huh? Which does great things in all the virtues, huh? That's how it says. And then he takes up the one concern with anger, right, huh? But there's a connection there, right? Because the virtue is concerned with, what, honor, right? And anger is kind of concerned with, what, dishonor me in some way, right, huh? They could all be, right, huh? They despise me, right? That's kind of a dishonor, right, huh? Third, about the cause of anger on the side of the one getting, what, angry, right, huh? So the first two articles are about something someone else is responsible for, right, huh? The first one is a little more general, but the second one signals in on Parvipensio, right? We despise him, right, huh? He despises me, right? Thinks little of me. Well, he's thinking of me, right? Okay. Third, on the cause of anger. Anger on the side of the one against whom one is, what, angry. That seems like, hmm. Needless repetition of looking at that side, right, huh? We need it in the end. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that one is not always, what, angry, an account of something done against oneself, right? For man, in sinning, huh, is not able to do anything against, what, what, yeah? For it is said in the book of Job, huh, chapter 35, verse 6, if your iniquities are, what, multiplied, right, huh? What do you do against him, right, huh? The infonible one, right? Just got offended with our sins, or what? We're speaking there, huh? Examined. But nevertheless, God is said to be angry against men on account of their sins. According to that is Psalm 105. But the God is angry with furore, right, in his people, right? So God can be angry with us, but we can't harm him, right? Therefore, not always is someone angry on account of something done against him, right? Moreover, anger is a desire for revenge, right? But someone's desire is revenge also against, what, about those things which are done against, what, others, right, huh? Therefore, not always is the motive of anger something done against us, right? So if someone's beating up a little kid there, you might get kind of angry about this, right, huh? Okay? The judge sometimes, you know, huh, huh, huh. It's the anger, but you're done it to someone other than him, right? Moreover, as the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, huh? Men get angry especially against those who despise those things about which they themselves are most of all studious, right? Just as those who are students in philosophy, I come angry against those who despise philosophy. Is that so? You see that philosophy students down there at DC? If they get enough beer in them on a Friday night, they can probably get angry against it. My brother Mark and I used to go to this little shopping by a Chinese lady, and by a present for my mother, because they had nice little dishes there and things, you know. She'd, you know, make a conversation with us, because, you know, we were college students, you know. What are you studying? We'd say philosophy. You know, she'd kind of laugh. It's like, so impractical, you know what I mean? What are you doing? We didn't mind it, you know, because that was kind of funny in the fact, but it was kind of interesting to see her reaction to what we were studying. Moreover, as the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, right? Yeah. So I thought this was funny there. Yeah. But to despise philosophy is not to harm the one. The students. Yeah. Therefore, we are not always angry in account of those things which are done against us, right? I wonder if I stopped that angry people who are. I guess this example here in the rhetoric, yeah? That's his example there, the philosophy, right? You know what Socrates says there in the Phaedo there, right, in the last day of his life, right? He's philosophizing about whether the soul is a mortal or not, right? He says, we're always being accused of talking about irrelevant things, but how can you say this is irrelevant? Yeah, I'm going to die. To be investigating whether the soul is a mortal or not, right? So you're kind of getting back at them, you know? And they say, you know, but the flots are talking about stuff, you know, concerning to our situation, right? Where we are, right? But we're all going to die, so we really want to know that, right? You're going to die, and you don't know when. Yeah. So Aristotle says in the beginning of the Deanima, right, you know, that's what we want to know, whether the soul is a mortal or not, right? Worried the one who is, what, silent, I guess, right? Against the one who is insulting him? He more provokes him to anger, right, as Christendom says, right? But in this, he does what? No harm. Against him, that he's silent, huh? Therefore, not always does anger be provoked in kind of something that was done against him, right? Like Thomas More. Yeah. Furious. When my son went to West Point, you know, and of course, they tried to really, you know, insult you, right, you know? And of course, he knew he had his hair cut short, so he went and had the barber cut him real short, you know, but it wasn't short enough for them. And the guy says, you know, this is the first time he hit the air. What's the matter with you, he says, you know, hit the air or something, he said. My son said, he was so insulted in my life, you know. Well, there's one guy who's actually, I don't know if he's Chinese or something, but he's Oriental anyway, you know, and he just kind of, he kind of laughed at the officers, I mean, he just kind of smiled, you know, and they, they couldn't insult him, you know, he just, he just didn't roll off his back, you know, he smiled, that was all game, you know, which he wasn't in a sense, a game, you know, to. My two brothers, my two brothers, a priest, he was a missionary, the culture over there was such that when he got angry with someone, the natural reaction is to smile. Yeah. And if you get, the angrier you get, the more you get a bigger smile from the person. He said, that's just eerie. Against this is what the philosopher says in the second book of rhetoric, that anger comes to be always from those things which are towards oneself, right, huh? Lack of friendship, or, you know, without those things which are to oneself, right, huh? For if we regard him as being such, we, what, hate him, right? We think he's a thief, right? Okay. I answer, it should be said, as has been said above, anger is the desire of, what, harming another under the aspect of something just, right? Vindicating this injury. But vindicta, vengeance, or, you know, does not have place except where injury has, what, we see it, we see it, but not all, every, not every injury, right, provokes to, what, revenge, right, huh? But those only which pertain to the one who, what, desires revenge. For just as each one naturally desires his own good, right, huh? So also he naturally repels his own, what, yeah. For the injury done by, what, someone, does not pertain to someone unless he does something that in some way is, what, against him, right, huh? Once it follows it, the mode of anger is always something against, what, done one against himself, right? Okay. What about this anger of God, right, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that anger is not said to be in God according to the passion, the emotion of the soul, right, huh? But according to the judgment of, what, justice, huh? Insofar as he wills, right, revenge, right, indication, over what, sin, right? For the sinner, in sinning, right, harms God in no way, right? In no way can he effectively harm God, right, huh? Nevertheless, from his own side, he acts in two ways against God, right, huh? First, insofar as he has contempt for him in his commands, right, huh? And second, insofar as he infers some, what, harm to someone, either to himself, right, or to another, right, huh? Which pertains to, what, God, insofar as the one to whom he infers harm is contained under the providence and guardianship of God, huh? Okay. So God has his providence, care for his creatures, yeah. So when you harm those creatures, you're opposing, yeah, yeah. Not God himself, but what is under his care, right? Yeah. And then you contempt him, right, or contempt for him in his commands, huh? God and Eve there in the garden, right, huh? Don't eat of that tree, right? The second, it should be said, huh, that we become angry against those who, what, harm others, right? And we desire, what, revenge, insofar as those to whom they, what, harm, in some way pertain to us, right? Either through some, what, affinity, or through friendship, or at least through the communion of our, what, nature, right, huh? So he's saying, what, huh? You regard them as yourself in some way, right? A friend is another self. A friend is a second self, as Shakespeare says sometimes. Okay? So the closer they are to you, the more you get angry, right? Because you're your own family, you say, right? Yeah, yeah. Or your own fellow citizens, right, you know? More than citizens of another country, right? But even then, there's a communion of nature there, right? Yeah. Okay. You see tyrants in another country or something, like in North Korea, you know? If you pity the people or something, you get angry with them, you get angry with them, yeah, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. When they blow up to, building there in New York, you know, you feel. Yeah. Getting too close for comfort. To third, and this is now the one about the philosophers, right, huh? To third, therefore, it should be said that that in which we, what, most of all, strivers, studious, we regard as our good, right, huh? And therefore, when that is despised, we regard ourselves also as being despised, huh? We regard ourselves as what? Armed women. Yeah. Okay? Love me, love my dog, the old saying. Kick my dog, you kick me. So love me, love my occupation, in a sense, right? Unless I hate my occupation. Yeah. Yeah. So what are these ball pairs going to say if I say, I hate baseball? No good. It's a waste of time. Baseball. I'm attacking them, right? Warren is talking about how, you know, he had to pack his students' paper sometimes when he criticized his ideas, right? And some students react to this like, you know, you're attacking me. I guess they identified themselves with their drool that they have in their paper. Yeah. That's my thoughts. That's my, that's my work. It's like we despised the painter's, you know, painting or something, right? Some artists are very sensitive. Yeah. Yeah. Painting is like you said, yeah. That's like, that's what they say. You just wipe your hands on. Nothing, yeah, they put some chocolate pudding and you did this. That was it. So there's nothing, we're not, we're not so affected by anything quite so much as our love for ourselves. So what, we don't love the food that your wife prepares or the hostess is prepared, right? Very diplomatic. Remember Brother Richard said, I guess, when he first went to his mother-in-law's, right? He said something and he raved about how good it was, you know. So every time he came, they thought, he'd get this dish and he'd raved. He'd raved about how great it was. He'd done it, overdone it, you know. So he thought, he really likes this, you know. So he was stuck and then on. And then dish. It wasn't a wife of his mother-in-law, but I mean. But if you're proud of your work, you know, then someone else. If somebody has an opinion of your work and you know he's got no experience, then that could roll off your back, like either. I heard the story about, you know, Austin was up at Laval, you know. And his first draft was a paper of something in a deconic. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. It was very good, you know. The kind looked at it, you know, it's funny, you know. I think we should start over again. Yeah, I guess the ability to take that, you know. I think you'd better just start over entirely, you know, instead of trying to, you know, try to sort this out, you know. I was a freshman in college, and I had the distinct disadvantage of not reading the books I was supposed to be reading. I had the class in one class, the doctrine class, and for English class we were supposed to write a short essay on some topic. I chose grace, because we had just studied it in some class, but I had never read the book, Father Hardin's Canning. So I wrote my paper on grace, and I handed it in. The professor in this class, he just put at the bottom of my paper, he didn't give me a grade, he said, I'm going to let you rewrite this, because you're just plagiarizing Father Hardin's Canning. On one hand, it hurt, but on the other hand, I felt very complimented, because I told him, I said, the bad news is, I haven't even opened the cataclysm yet, I just listened in class. So this is just from listening, I'm not plagiarizing anything. And he was miffed. I was accusing him of, I was making it a false accusation. But, um, half these things. Now you go and explain Euclid's Theorem, right, that you've got the board to do it, right? You call it categorizing? I wouldn't call it categorizing. You're following him, you know, more or less, step by step, right, huh? You know? Maybe there's nothing better to say than he has to say, right? So, I was just trying to say. You know, Aristotle's a beautiful thing there. He says, we should try to say some things better than our predecessors, and other things as well as they said them, you know? Sometimes they said them so well that you can just say it as well as they said it, you know? So he says, that's submission, right? It's not the attitude of the modern philosophers towards the Middle East, all of it. If you destroy it all, throw it all away and start over. Yeah. Friend is another self, right? Can't say anything better than that, really. So you might as well say what they said, right? Yeah. You might as well say what they said. Oh, yeah. And Pettifree says what is worth saying can be said more than once. That's what Pope Pius X, Pope St. Pius X, encouraged architects, you know, church builders, he encouraged them to imitate the great masters. Don't try to reinvent the wheel, just imitate the masters. And then you can learn from them, try to do what they did. Okay. To the fourth, I guess. To the fourth, then, it should be said that someone, being silent, provokes, what? To anger, huh? Injuring. When he seems to do this, what? From contempt, to be sad, right? Yeah. As a word that he, what? Thinks little. Yeah. The anger of the other. Yeah. For this little thinking is an act, right? Sometimes somebody says something that's so absurd, you just kind of ignore it, right? And they take it seriously. This stupid thing. And are you part of a pencil then? I don't know if you are. Apparently. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.