Prima Secundae
Lecture 186: The Distinction of Sins: Object, Species, and Order

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

It's beginning, more or less, all the time, huh? Now, Article 4, where the sin is suitably distinguished by sin in God, in oneself, and in one's neighbor, right? More suspicious of these titles. I hope you go back to Thomas, that little utrum, you know? I don't know if they do go back to Thomas, huh? I'm suspicious, huh? I can assume a kind of gentile is, you know, they have a kind of a little title, you know, each chapter, you know what it's about. The same way I was reading in this Compendial Theology, right? They have a little, in the text, you know, but I hope this goes back to Thomas, in fact. One of them seemed to be contradicting what's in the thing, so I don't think it goes back to Thomas. Yeah, watch those things, you know, huh? But that's the word of wisdom, you know, over to the wise is sufficient, huh? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that unsuitably sin is distinguished by sin which is in God, in one's, what, neighbor? And in oneself, right? So this is the way of distinguishing sins. I can sin against myself, or against my neighbor, or against God. Well, that which is common to every sin ought not to be laid down as a word, part in a division of sin. That sounds like a good, solid, logical principle, wouldn't you say, Joshua, huh? Yeah, that sounds like a pretty good one, huh? But it's common to every sin that's been against God, right? For it's laid down in the very definition of sin that's against the law of God. And therefore, the sin in God ought not to be laid down as a word, part in a division of sins. Okay, Abelard, I can see your point, huh? Moreover, every division ought to be through opposites, huh? It's in comedy, right? Distinguished by opposites, huh? Virtue and vice. But these three generous sins are not opposed, huh? For whoever sins in his neighbor, sins also in himself and in what? God, huh? It's above all to their own self be true, right? And if all of us are the night of the day, though, it can't not then be false to any man. Therefore, sin is not still to be divided according to these three, huh? I give up, Thomas. I give up. How are you going to get out of these? Moreover, those things which are extrinsic do not confer a species. But God and neighbor are outside of us, huh? Therefore, through them, one does not distinguish, sins are not distinguished according to species. And so it will be therefore according to these three, sin is what? Divided, huh? But against this is what Isidore says, right? In the book on the highest good. Distribution of sin says that a man is said to sin in himself, in God, and in his way. It's kind of funny, though, the word in there, isn't it? It's sometimes used, when they use it, with the accusation. Yeah, yeah. Sin upon oneself. Upon God. Into oneself. Well, I answer, Thomas said this, that it has been said above, sin is a disordered what? Act. But threefold, however, is out the order in man to be, huh? It's threefold order that ought to be in man, huh? I didn't know that. Did you know that? I hadn't adverted to it. It's three, though, right? Okay. It's a great rule of two or three, right, huh? He's reading a book on Venetian art, right? He says, there are basically three periods of Venetian art, and each of them, there's two painters that dominate, huh? In the first period, it's, in time, it's the Bellinis, huh? Bellinis. In the second one, it's, what, Titian, huh? And, uh, Chorjone, huh? Chorjone. And then, in the last part, it's Tintoretto and, uh, Veranesi, right? I have a painting of Veranesi in my dining room, you know? Oh, you know, so. I said, this makes it very clear to me now. Three, three, and each divided into two, right, huh? I mean, you can get a few lesser bodies in there, but I said, uh, I'm very happy with that, huh? Oh, Venetian. I said, Venetian. Venetian. Gee, I didn't know they knew them. No, no. I guess his Tintoretto, he was named because he worked at his father's shop, and he did, he was a little guy, and he did the tinting of the materials, right? Yeah. And I guess his real name was Robusty or something like that. Horrible name. And Tintoretto always sounds like a name of a painting, doesn't it? Yeah, yeah. Tintoretto. Sounds so. So here he's got a, what, three-fold order, right? That's beautiful, though, right, isn't it? He says, sin is a disordered act, and disorder, of course, has got to be understood by the order you're violating, right? One, he says, is by comparison to the rule of what? Reason, insofar as all acts and all of our actions and passions ought to be measured according to the rule of what? Reason. Reason, right? I drunk enough wine, huh? What would reason say, right? Yeah. Reason as by autonomously of any of Thomas. Another is by order in comparison to the rule of the divine law, by which man ought to be, what, directed in all his, what, acts. And those times he's admitting here, in omnibus, right, he says, right? We talked about, huh? Omnis acciones, right? We've got to take into account, because that's what projections were. And if man was naturally a solitary animal, this two-fold order would, what, suffice. But because man is naturally a political and a social animal, as is proven by Aristotle, right, in the first book of the, what, politics, right? Therefore, it's necessary that there be a third order, by which man is ordered to other men, with whom he ought to, what, live together, right? Now, of these, huh, orders, the first contains, the second, and exceeds it, right, huh? For whatever are contained under the order of reason are contained under the order of God himself, right? For whatever are contained under the order of God himself, but some things are contained under the order of God, which exceed human reason, just as those things which pertain to faith, and which are owed to God, what, alone, right? Whence the man who sins in them is said to sin in God, right? Just as the heretic, right? And the sacrilegious man, and the blasphemer, right? Similarly, also, the second order includes the third and exceeds it, right? Okay. Is there a confusion in the text there, or not? Because you mentioned first the order of reason, but, you know, I guess we can't attend comments on this as a little footnote in my edition, I don't know if it was in yours. But first, second, and third here refer not to the numbering made in the letter, but to the enumeration according to the nature of order, right? Order of nature. So that the obeying the divine, what, law would be most universal, right? And then obeying, what, three beasts and so on, okay? So he said, you know, at the beginning of this paragraph, of this order, the first contains the second. He's talking not about the first one mentioned, but the first in the order of nature, right? Well, there are Kajetans doing a good job, didn't they? So don't get confused, right? Yeah, it's a little bit, you know, strange, didn't they? In some way, the second order, that's the order now of reason, right? And exceeds it, right? Yeah. Because in all those things in which we are ordered to our neighbor, it's necessary for us to be directed according to the rule of, what, reason. But in some things, you are directed according to reason, as regards to ourselves only, not regard to our what? Neighbor, right? And when a man sins in these things, he said to sin himself, as is clear of the man who is gluttonous, right? Luxurious, that means, you know, sexual excess, right? And even the prodigious man, right? But when a man sins in those things by which he is ordered to his neighbor, he said to sin in his neighbor, right? It is clear about theft and what? Homicide, right, huh? Now, it's diverse things by which man is ordered to God and to his neighbor and to himself, huh? Whence this distinction of sins is according to what? Objects by which species of sin are what? Diversified of sin, said in the earlier article. Whence this distinction of sins properly is according to diverse species of what? Sins, huh? Not according to what causes, right? According to species. I think it's a sign for the virtues to which the sins are opposed are distinguished according to this difference in species. By theological virtues, man is ordered to God by temperance informed to himself and justice to his what? Neighbor. Neighbor, huh? So the distinction then which he solves the first objection, he says, that to sin in God, according as the order which is to God includes every what? Human order is common to every sin, right? But as regards that which in which the order of God exceeds the other two orders, thus the sin in God is a special genus of what? Sin, huh? And he makes this principle underlying this distinction there in the second reply to the second objection. To the second should be said that when what? Some of these, one includes another, are distinguished from each other. Distinction is understood to be not according to that one contained in the other, but according to that one that what? Exceeds the other. And just as is clear in the division of numbers and figures and figures. For triangle, when triangle, for triangle is not divided against square or quadrat, the quadrilato, according to that it's contained in it, right? So Euclid is always dividing quadrilatos into two triangles, right? And you say, well, square includes, yeah, therefore, you don't divide it against the triangle that makes up it, right? But when it's separated by itself and not part of it, quadrilato. And you divide four against three, right? To make the example here, you're not dividing four against the three that's in it, but the three that is just what? Three, right? Whom which is the only taken, as Thomas says, sometimes. It touches upon the distinction elsewhere, right? Well, you divide man against animal, right? Well, not so far animal includes man, right? But something that is just an animal, right? Animal whom which is the only taken, right? It's just an animal, right? So when I said to my mother, you know that man is an animal? She said, I don't like that. That's right. Well, he's not just an animal, mama. He's an animal that has reason. Okay, well, that's better, she said, right? She wanted me to distinguish between animal and man. Yeah, but man is an animal, right? Yeah, so we distinguish man against the animal that is just an animal and not a man, right? And so we distinguish the sin against God, right? Not from what's common to all sin and against the law of God, but one that's directed against God in particular, like I don't believe him, right? He's disbelief there that God, you know, he didn't even know what he said, right? You don't really lose your, you don't die, you know, you'll be like the gods, right? You eat that fruit. Well, that's more like my, poor Eve and Adam, they're going to have a hard time. The jokes, you know, about them. Living that down, yeah. Yeah, you're responsible for a lot of mess in the human race. They're going to have a hard time living it down, yeah. That's why they say, that's why there has to be a particular judgment, or there's a general judgment, a particular judgment. Yeah. There's a general judgment that we're going to see the consequences of all. Yeah. It's not enough just my sins, but all the consequences. Karl Marx, huh? Yeah. To the third, it should be said that God and neighbor, although they are outside with respect to the one sinning, right? Nevertheless, they're not extraneous with respect to the act of sin, but they are compared to it as its proper, what? Objects, yeah. So if I kill you, murder you, you're the object of mine. Yeah. Article 5. To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that the division of sins, which is according to what? Guilt, did you translate that as? The death of punishment. Punishment? The death of punishment. The death of punishment. Okay. Diversifies the species. But it's divided according to venial and what? Mortal, right? For those things that differ in infinitum, right? It cannot be of one species, nor even of one genus, right? But venial and mortal sin differ in infinitum, right? For to the venial, there is owed temporal punishment. To mortal, eternal punishment, right? Now the measure of punishment corresponds to the quantity of what? Guilt, huh? According to that in Deuteronomy chapter 25. For the measure of the, what? It would be the mode of what? Stripes. Stripes, yeah. Thomas is always playing moduses tied up with what? You know, measure determines, yeah. Shakespeare has a play called, what? Measure for Measure, right? And a man does, what? The same thing for which he's condemned another man to death, right? So measure for measure would require that he, yeah, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Yeah. That's what we say to our Father, forgive us as we forgive. Yeah. Of course, the man who's guilty, that is Angelo. He's like what, how everybody thought he was, he was. Measure for Measure. Great play, yeah. You are familiar with that play, I assume. You're an educated man, huh? You know, some of the reasons. Moreover, some sins are mortal from their, what? Genius. As, what? Homicide. Homicide and adultery, huh? Some from their genus are, what? Veneal sins, as an idle word, huh? It's a perforous laughter, huh? He's a superfluous. Therefore, mortal and venial sin differ in, what? Species. However, just as a virtuous act is to reward, so is sin to, what? Punishment. But reward is the end of a, what? Virtuous act. Therefore, punishment is the end of sin. But sins are distinguished in species according to the ends, as has been said. Therefore, also, they're distinguished in species according to the, yeah. I'm going to be a person and gratitude in the distinction coming in some way, I bet you. But against this, huh? Those things which constitute a species are, what? The four. Yeah. Just as specific, what? Differences, huh? But punishment follows upon, what? The guilt act. Has its effect. Therefore, sins do not differ in species according to the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the following upon the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end the end of the end of the end I was talking to other people and they got nothing to say it's just all gibberish it's pretty good saying there's no doubt that one can talk it is verbatim you can tell them to say that well that's why Christ appeared to a woman first if you want to get the word I say therefore it should be said therefore that the difference of venial and mortal sin right or any other difference that is taken according to what being a wholesome punishment is it it's not able to be a difference constituting a diversity of what species huh for never that which is parachidens constitutes what a species but that which is outside the intention of the agent is parachidens as is clear in the second book of the physics huh so you gotta know the physics second time reference to that theology right let's go back and study the physics again sometime yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah that kind of shows that the human mind is not understanding in what way God is infinite right he's seen the beginning of things as being what infinite huh they all thought the that the infinite is the beginning of things huh that it was something divine right so that's a confused way right depending towards God right when Thomas takes up the substance of God in both Sumas right and in the compendium too you know he divides it into these five usually right and God is simple and perfect and unchanging will be one of them right and one and infinite right so it's one of the attributes of God right God is endless huh perfection of God is endless huh it goes back all the way back to the early Greeks they were thinking this way huh but it's not infinite in the way they thought but there's some element to the truth in what they're thinking it's good to see the human mind moving in the right direction huh even if it doesn't quite arrive for never that which has brought you down the constitute of species but that which is outside the attention of the agent is parachidens, right? But it is manifest that punishment is outside the intention of the one. So I didn't think I'd get caught. So I didn't commit the crime. I never intended it, that's for sure. He asked this famous bank robber, you know, it appeared before, many times as a judge, you know, finding, why did you rob banks anyway? He says, well, that's what the money is. He didn't say that's what I'd get punished for. He didn't say that. But he is ordered to sin by something outside to wit from the justice of the one, what? Judging, right? Who, according to the diverse conditions of the sin, inflicts diverse, what? Punishments, huh? When's the difference which is from the, what? The what? From the guilt of punishment. Oh, that was a Manish translation of what, was it? It's reality painting. Yeah, it's your ode of punishment. Isn't that the sense? How do they translate that in the English text? What? No, the difference which is, it's after... Between being in the middle of the sentence. From the order of this. It's about, it's after the sentence it says, the sin is ordered nevertheless from outside. After that sentence, the next sentence. The order of sin is twofold. When's the difference which is from the, what? When's the difference which is from the dead of punishment in a sense? They call it death of punishment. Yeah, the dead of punishment. Yeah, that's a good way to translate that. When's the difference which is from the dead of punishment, is able to follow a diverse species of what sins, right? But it does not, however, constitute the right. Yeah. So for your inordinate laugh, I'm not going to cut your head off, right? But for your adultery or for your murder, we're going to do that, huh? Now, the difference of venial sin and mortal follows the diversity of the disorder, which completes the notion, definition of sin, huh? Now, twofold is disorder. One, by taking away, subtraction, of what is the beginning of the order, right? The principle of the order. Another, in which the beginning or the principle of the order being saved, there comes about a disorder about those things which are after the beginning. Hence, just as in the body of an animal, sometimes the disorder of the complexion proceeds all the way to a destruction of the vital principle. And this is what? Death. Sometime, saving the principle of life, there comes about a certain disorder in the humorous, right? And then there is, what? Sickness. Now, the beginning, the principle of the whole order in morals is the last in, which Aristoteles says has itself in things to be done, as the indemonstrable beginning or principle has itself in looking matters, right? In speculative matters. As is said in the seventh book of the, what? Ethics. Hence, when the soul is disordered by sin all the way to an aversion from the last in, to a God, to which we are united by charity, then there is a, what? Mortal sin, right? But when there comes about disorder, what? Of the version of God, then it is a, what? Yeah. Just as in body things, the disorder of death, which is by removal of the beginning of life, is irreparable, right? According to nature, that is to say. The disorder, however, of sickness, is able to be, what? Repaired. Repaired, yeah? On account of the fact that the principle of life is still saved, right? And likewise, analogy in those things which pertain to the soul. For in speculative matters, who errs about the beginnings, is, what? Not persuasible. I like that. Not too persuading. I like that. Yeah. But whoever errs with the principles of being saved, he can be called back to the beginnings themselves. And similarly in operative things, who sins by turning away from the last end, as far as is from the nature of sin, has an irreparable, what? Lapse. And therefore he is said to sin mortally, and he shouldn't be punished, what? Terribly. But whoever sins, apart from this version, from God himself, right? Is disordered by reason of the sin, but he's, what? Reparable. Yeah, disordered in the way can be repaired. Because the principle is, what? Preserved. Saved, yeah. And therefore he is said to sin venially. Because it is not so sin that he merits an endless punishment, huh? Just a really long one. Now, that was the answer to that first objection, which I thought was pretty powerful, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that mortal sin and venial differ in infinitum on the part of, what? Aversion. Not over on the part of conversion. To which they regard the, what? Object, right? Whence it has, what? Whence the sin has its species, right? Okay? So we kind of sin by turning, what? Away from God, but towards some, what? Some creaturely thing, huh? And what we turn towards is the object, right? And the object determines the species, right? Right? The infinity comes from the fact that you're turning away from something that's infinitely good, right? That's not the object, right? Whence nothing prevents in the same species there to be found some, what? Mortal sin and a venial one. Just as the first motion, the genus of adultery is a, what? Venial sin. Or a idle word, which plurum play most of the time is, what? Venial. Can become, what? Yeah. Now we've got those idle words, aren't we? The second, it should be said, from this that there is found some sin, mortal from its genus, and some sin venial from its genus, it follows that such a difference follows the diversity of sins according to species. It does not ever, what? Cause them, right? And such a difference can be found also in those things which are of the, what? Same species, huh? They don't always differ in genus, huh? And the third objection, reward is the, of the intention of the one merit team for acting virtuously. But punishment is not of the intention of the one sitting, but more is against his will, right? Once there's not a similar reason, huh? So there's no distinction between the parents saying that Rachi dance is important. Now, to the sixth, one goes forward thus. It seems that the sin of commission and omission differ in species, huh? They're getting separate in there, don't they, in the mass now? I don't know if you can put it in our mass. No, I thought there was... No, unless... Oh, no, it's in Rancho. I'm going to see. So, delictum is divided against sin, huh? Delictum, I guess, is something... It's a crime. It's one way of sin. Then, when you were what? Dead in your sin... Oh, shoot. You were dead in your... Literally, crimes and sins. Offense. Failed. Offense, yeah. I mean, he's understanding it here as a sin of omission, isn't it? Okay. When you were dead, delictis and peccatis vestris, huh? Delictis, that is, by what? To intend on. Setting away what you were commanded. Yeah, commanded. And sins, by doing, the things are prohibited, right? Okay. Which is clear that through delictum is understood the sin of what? Omission. Omission. Per peccatum, the sin of commission. They differ, therefore, in species, since they are divided ex suppositor, right? They're opposites. As a word, they are very what? Species. Commission and commission. Were it to a sin, it belongs per se, that it be against the law of God. For that is laid down as definition. But in the law of God, other are the affirmative precepts, against which is the sin of omission, huh? Because I didn't honor my father or mother, right? And other are the, so we'd excuse for your absence from that class. Because we know that you commit the sin of omission. Omission, yeah. To honor your father and mother when they visited you. If you missed, earlier I was saying he had not been in class, and I was excursating him, but now it seems that he would have been omitting to honor his father and mother. But in the law of God, others are the affirmative precepts, huh? Against which is the sin of omission. And other are the negative precepts, against which is the sin of what? Commission, right? So I shouldn't commit robbery or adultery and so on. And I shouldn't omit to honor my father and mother, right? You know, I have to ask Father Elias, when we pray to our Father in Aramaic, we always say, forgive us our trespasses. We use two words in Aramaic, this and this. So we just translate it as one, because that's what we're used to. But I actually look up, maybe it's just me. Therefore, the sin of omission and the sin of commission differ in what? Species are different commands, right? Moreover, omission and commission differ as affirmation and negation. But affirmation and negation cannot be of one species, because negation does not have a species. For of none being, there are neither, what? Species nor differences, as the philosopher says. Therefore, omission and commission cannot be of one species, huh? The evil guys are really ahead of us, weren't they? Like years. But against this, in the same species of sin is found omission and commission. For the avaricious man, oh, what? Steals things of others, which is the sin of commission. And he does not give his own to whom he ought to give, right? Which is the sin of omission. Therefore, omission and commission do not differ in species, right? Not supporting the poor, right? Or supporting the church, or something. Let's see what Thomas says here now. The answer, it should be said, that in sins is found a two-fold difference. One material and the other, what? Formal, right? The material difference is, to be noted, according to the natural species of the acts of sin. The formal, however, according to the order, to one proper end, right? Which is the proper object, right? Once there are found some acts materially differing in species, which nevertheless formally are in the same species of sin, because they are ordered to the same. Just as the same species of homicide, pertains choking, stoning, and perforating with all the things, although the acts are in species different according to the species of what? Nature. Nature, huh? Thus, therefore, if we speak of the species of the sin of omission and commission materially, they differ in what? Species, huh? Speaking nevertheless in a large way, right? Loose way of species, according as negation or privation, are you able to have a species, right? In a secondary sense. If, however, we speak of the species of sin and omission and commission formally, thus they do not differ in what? Species. Because they are ordered to the same thing, and they proceed from the same what? Motive, huh? For the avaricious man, in order to congregate money, both what? Steals, and does not give those in future attitude what? To give. And similarly, the gluttonous man, to satisfying his gluttony, both eats too much, right? Mm-hmm. And omits the suitable what? The fast that they should. They should, yeah. And the same can be seen in other things, right? For always in things, negation is founded upon some affirmation, which is, in a way, it's what? God's, huh? Mm-hmm. It's even logic, you can't drive a conclusion from two negatives, right? You can have an affirmative narrative to run a conclusion, so. I don't know. I just, I just, I mean, it's easier for in things, negation is always found upon affirmations. Yeah. It's always found. Well, you could use some examples right here. Okay. Yeah. But you could stop and think about that a little bit, huh? Mm-hmm. Examples of that? Maybe, like, when St. Peter denying, oh, our Lord, because he feared to lose his life or something. Mm-hmm. That's kind of a positive or affirmative thing. Mm-hmm. If I say two is not an odd number, right? Why is that? Because it's even. Yeah. That's affirmative, right? Right. Because it's an even number. It can't be an odd number. Would you say that? Yeah. You're the mathematician here, Joshua, you had the training of famous ecologist St. Thomas out there. What did you say? Hmm? You said, why can't two be odd? Yeah. Because it's even then, right? So isn't that negative based upon the even and the affirmative? Why can't I be a woman? You've got to know this in this crazy world. I know. You can always deny reality. But it's because I'm a man, right? I can't be a woman, right? Why can't I be a dog or a cat or a horse? Because I'm a rational animal, right? I'm a rational animal. Can I be a dog, a cat, or a horse? Because they're rational, right? So the negative is based upon something affirmative. Isn't it? It's from sins now. The fun is to sins. We gave the example there, didn't you? They cut them into a man, right? He omits the fast. He wants to eat too much. The average man doesn't pay his bills because... That's noteworthy. I mean, they said that the man himself, Ted Kennedy, the people in restaurants are never going to pay. They never got the money. Come in, have a feast to leave. It's always one example. But he likes his money too much. Rich men don't get rich by giving the money away. The secretary of the treasury there for a while, this guy didn't pay his taxes. Thomas uses this principle he's talking about with people who say we can only know God negatively, right? Can't know anything affirmative about God. But could you know anything negatively about God if you didn't know something affirmative about God? How do you know that God is unchanging, let's say, right? Unless you knew God was, let's say, pure act, right? That he wouldn't say that he's unchangeable, right? Unless you knew God was simple, right? Her style shows in the first book of the physics, right? That what changes is what? Composed, right? So if God is simple, then he's not composed, right? Of course that involves negation too, doesn't it? At least in words it involves negation. You might argue that what is composed as a what cause, right? Composed means put together, right? So what is put together has to put it together. It has something before it, right? So God is the first cause, right? It doesn't have something before it. Yeah, you could say, why is there nothing before it? This is first. So in here, I mean, we're talking about the general principle that every negation is based on an affirmation. It seems like the examples he brings up with the sins is based on an inordinate affirmation or love of a certain thing. So like, for instance, the gluttonous man loves food too much and that helps him both to do bad things and to omit good things. So like, for instance, another example would be like the envious man might sing his praises too much and withhold praises from someone else who deserves it. So the affirmation in these cases are the examples that seems to be more like the inordinate love for some. That would be... Some good. Yeah, a firm good. That goes back to the... Every sin is always some kind of turning away from God toward the creature. There's not so much turning away from God. Our principle moves us. It's the excess love of the creature. That's the affirmation. There's a love behind it. It's a disordered love. Right. Because we're not loving what we should love most. Because the avaricious man loves money so much that he will... It's not for the same justice that he takes money. But he takes more because he loves money, not too much. And then people will neglect to give money back. Mostly, but it's one of the other ideas that he moves towards self-love and turns away from God. But that's about it. Yeah. But it's based on why we're telling God to love this too much. In order to agree. Well, I was thinking for the avaricious man, what's most obvious in his omission is he ought to... He doesn't give credit to another man when he ought to give credit to another man. So he omits giving credit. But he is very pivotal about his own credit. It's something of logical too, though, you know. The state of syllogism, right? In no form of the syllogism, or no figure to syllogism, can you draw a conclusion to negatives? You can draw a conclusion to affirmatives, right? And you get an affirmative conclusion. You have a negative conclusion. One of the premises is going to be negative, right? But one of them has got to be, what, affirmative, right? So any negative conclusion is based in part, based upon an affirmative statement. You can't syllogize a negative statement from two negatives. You can't give me two negative statements in which their father is a negative statement. That's the kind of way of seeing in the community's health, you know, the negative conclusion is based upon an affirmative statement. But the affirmative conclusion is based upon two affirmatives, not upon a negative. It's amazing how Thomas sees, you know, this beginning, you know, as the beginning of all these things, right? He just sees that, huh? When we're talking about Shakespeare's definition of reason, we ask, what does a large mean instead of, what, discourse? And we said, well, a discourse could be called large because it's about the large, or because its beginning or end is large, right? Or because it's what? The discourse itself is large or long, right? And there's two ways we talk about from its limit. If you arrive at something, you know, from what they call like a large induction, right? That's a large discourse, right? But from its beginning, right? But if you have a principle for which you can, what, to do as many conclusions, right? Then that's a large discourse from its, what? Its end, right? And that's what you see in a mind like Thomas, right? You can see, right, from one beginning, many, many, what, conclusions, right? And other people don't see all the consequences, right? Of course, as time goes on, of course, maybe you see more consequences of this, right? The famous showdown between Einstein and Bohr there at the Soviet Congress, right? Einstein comes in with these houses. Definitive objection, right? And there's actually a picture of him leaving the meeting when he proposed the thing, and Einstein is like, you know, kind of restraints, well, you know, and Bohr looks, you know, kind of like, you know, this is the end of, and then Bohr, of course, stayed up, you know, that night, and he realized that Einstein had failed to see one of the consequences of the theory of relativity and destroyed Einstein's, what, argument, right? So Bohr came back the next day and showed the Einstein. I didn't see one of the conclusions, one of the... I didn't see one of the conclusions, but I didn't see one of the conclusions, but I didn't see one of the conclusions, but I didn't see one of the conclusions, but I didn't see one of the conclusions, but I didn't see one of the conclusions, consequences of his own theory and it destroyed his argument right and that shut up einstein for the rest of his life you know he didn't publicly challenge the copenhagen interpretation of quantum three one accepted still but he wouldn't attack it again publicly you know it's kind of funny because i see the picture in one of the books that were you know coming out of the meeting you know just look on the two guys faces you can see war is very worried you know and and Einstein is pretty you know i forget those damn quantum uh copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory that was the first thing what that was the first thing the next day next day bohr came back and he he had figured out right but but Einstein was giving you a number of objections you know thought experience they called them and bohr was answering the first one it would take maybe all night to figure out how to answer it this was einstein's last one and boom he resounded pretty bad and then bohr figured out you know but even you know as great a mind as einstein didn't see all the consequences of his what theory right and i guess when they started to develop einstein's theory and apply it to the cosmos as a whole there came out consequences that einstein didn't even want to accept but he had to because there were consequences of his own theory right but i mean you know the greater the mind is the more it can see the consequences of these beginnings right and socrates asked you know what do you think so what follows on what you think and eventually maybe something follows even you can't accept right and uh but someone like thomas would see all these consequences that maybe the numbskulls don't see right away he's capable of like a discourse yeah yeah a large discourse in the sense of what from something one you see many many things right from its end as opposed to from its beginning right but actually another you know often speak of a large induction right they're using large there in the sense that einstein that shakespeare has in mind and the planets and evil mixture wandered to disorder shakespeare says huh what potence what calamities it's a disordered act here so always in things negation is founded upon some affirmation which is in a way it's what cause what did god say when when uh when uh the great uh moses asked him well i gotta have your name who sent me because my authority right what did god say i am who am yeah yeah i am everything else is based upon that right so always in things simply that's a strong statement always in things negation is founded upon some affirmation which is in some way it's what oh so it's because of what god is which is something affirmative right that he's not composed he doesn't change and so on right at 5 a.m this morning i was thinking about god being unchanging you know when i was a little boy i used to go all the time you know these things variety is the spice of life you know you heard that huh you know unless i had the same meal you know you know you know three or four times in a row right my cousin's daughter was in the navy there you know and uh they had an overload of spam or something now and for two weeks they had nothing to eat for them except spam you know of course the sailors were so tired of it they would eat donuts rent you know off their stomachs rather than a good damn spam they say variety is the spice of life huh you know and everybody says something like that right huh you know variety in your life my wife came throughout oh no he's reading another shakespeare he's getting another edition of shakespeare what is wrong with the man but but god what's wrong with him i mean he doesn't change at all there's no change in god no variety in god's life it's you know i say i just trying to think about that it's amazing amazing and i say we tend to look at god through the wrong end of the telescope yeah you know at the end of the first book of the summa kind of gentiles there thomas shows that god is blessed right and then that his beatitude itself right now that god's beatitude sells out of what anything else could have right say well how can he have this is no variety is like you know you really really have to think hard about this guy right he's something he's something and somebody too and uh you know what's in is it isn't in the uh book revelation there right there will be like a pillar in his temple right huh and not go out anymore so no we're not gonna we're not for some other activity for diverse diversions yeah yeah but tom it seems to indicate there'll be vocal praise in heaven right simple thing better than we sang on earth that's often important what thomas says simply right always and it's also in natural things it's of the same what ratio that fire it eats and does not what chill right huh so in reply to the first objection he says therefore that that division which is by commission and omission is not according to diverse formal species as he saw this distinction in the body of the article but material only right i got to see what that distinction was go back to the beginning of the body of the article right that in sins is found a two-fold difference one material another formal material is noted according to the natural species of the acts of sin the formal according to the order to one it's one own end right once there are found some acts that differ materially in species which nevertheless are formally in the same species of sin because they are ordered to the same thing right so it's belonged to the philosopher to teach the truth it's belonged to the philosopher to eliminate error because one of those follow upon the other i want to know the truth right i don't want to be mistaken why do i want to avoid being mistaken you know that's affirmative right yeah that's kind of the cause of my opposition to that right why do i hate the ugly so i'm beautiful why do you not want to read certain authors you want to read the right ones you're saying that the negative is based on affirmative oh why do you yeah i said simple oh so you want to avoid errors you don't want ever because you love the truth you want the truth that's what he's saying yeah but you know it takes a long time to understand the beginning right because you kind of see it as in a partial way first and then go on you see it better and better you know but after a lifetime of thinking maybe we'll look up to seeing that oh yes thomas that's simple right simple i wish to think more about that huh i mean that is true in that as i was a magician you know taught logic for years and syllogism right and you can't draw any conclusion with two negatives you always got to have an affirmative premise to get an even negative conclusion before it's your way to get an affirmative conclusion you have to have two affirmatives right so a negative is not the foundation of it