Prima Secundae
Lecture 236: The Eternal Law as Divine Wisdom and Governance

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

But anyway, some acts are bad from their what? Genus, right? And these are the acts of the what? Vices that are opposed to the what? Virtue, right? So cowardly act, right, is opposed to the virtue of what? Justice, right? And it's based upon a vice called cowardice, right? Okay? Or intemperate act, right? Intemperance is a form of vice, right? So the acts that are acts of virtue are commanded by the law, right? The acts of the vices are what? Prohibited, right? Okay? Okay. So he says some acts are bad from their genus, right? As the acts that are vicious, right? The acts of some vice. When you study the vices, it's only the moral vices. There's always two opposed to one virtue, right? So, say, take courage, which is the most known virtue, the one Aristotle begins with. One exceeds courage, and that's called foolhardiness, right? And then the other one is what? Cowardness, right? Okay? Okay? Aristotle says in the case of temperance, you know, the one that's in defect is so rare we don't have a name for it. But for want of a lack of a name, I'd call him a Puritan or something, right? Okay? So, they don't drink or something, you know? They don't kiss or something, right? Okay. They go with kind of a defect, right? They don't enjoy these things as much as they should, right? But the main problem is the intemperance, right? The one who goes more, right? Okay? So, when we speak of intemperance, we're thinking of the, what? Excess, right? Not of the defect, right? So, there's more bad acts than good acts. Possible, right? Okay? Okay? Now, some from their genus, right? Are in difference, right? And with respect to these, the law has what is called, what? Permittere, right? Okay? So, does the law command me to do this? Does it command me to do this? Is this an act of justice or an act of courage? Or is it indifferent, right? Is it really good or bad, this act? So, the law doesn't command this, doesn't prohibit it. You shall not do this. You'll be punished if you do this, right? But it, what? Permits, right? By paying my debts, it commands me to do that, right? Right? And driving under the influence, right? It prohibits that, right? Okay? You see? Robbing, right? Prohibits robbing, right? It's against justice, right? Okay? Unless it's the government doing it. Oh, yeah, yeah. Okay. But that to which the law leads us in, right? That's going back to what he said about reason, right? Reason wants to lead you into this, to something else, right? Okay. Okay. That to which the law leads us into, that which it, what? That it be obeyed is the fear of what? Punishment, right? And as regards this, it was laid down the effect of the law, which is to what? Punish, right? Okay. So how many acts does he have here in this body, this article? What? No, he had command, right? An act that is good in kind is commanded, right? The acts of all the riches are commanded, right? Then some ones are what? Prohibited, yeah. Prohibited is not the same as punishment, right? Okay. And then some are permitted, right? Okay. But now, this fourth thing, right? We should be divided against the first three, right? Because the first three are saying, what? You must do this act, or you can't do this act, or you're allowed to do this act, right? Yeah. While this punishment is something else, right? This is the something else in which you're going to lead them to obey the what? Law. Where the law gets its strength, right? Because if you didn't have this fear of punishment, right? Then you wouldn't, and especially if you're not too good, right? Or you're too young to know why it's good to obey the law, right? Okay. So, you know, I drove down the other day there, 12 hours from, I think about, 12 hours of the night to get from Williamsburg to Worcester to Shrewsburg, right? And 12 hours going down, right? But you have a lot of experience to be on the highway at that time, right? You know? You're going five miles over the speed limit, and other people are passing you. So they must be going 10 miles over the speed limit. I was driving down one time from Quebec, you know. I used to go up there, an eight-hour drive from Quebec down to Worcester, you know. So I was going about five miles over the speed limit, and the state trooper stopped me, right? And it was only five miles over, so he was not going to give me a ticket like that. And then he was just walking away, and the other guy said, you've been drinking? And I said, no, sir. I drove down from Quebec, and, you know, well, that's why I'm tired, you know. I said, okay, there's a mechanic, there's a mechanic around the corner there. Yes, sir. It was kind of funny, you know, when he looked, you know, because I suppose when you're driving, you know, it's nighttime, it's nighttime, it's coming down from Quebec, you're getting all the light in the cars, you know, your eyes get kind of, you know. And I suppose he just looked at me, and he says, you know, it looks a little bit like, you know, the guy's been drinking, right? And so on. And I remember, you know, I'd be downtown Worcester there, waiting to cross the street, you know. And I'd see the cop there, there was kind of a streetcar like that. So I met me following somebody walking across the street, you know. And I was kind of watching the police and the way he worked, you know. You could see there was something kind of bulging, like somebody had a gun or something, you know. But he just picked it up like that, you know, huh? And my wife had, one of her friends was married to a cop, you know. You could tell a prostitute was just like that, you know. Just on the street, you know. And, but there is there. You get all these things, you know. Of course, my wife worked a lot of the time with brain-injured people, too, you know. And these brain-injured people, you know, sometimes the cops make a mistake because they kind of act kind of, what, a little bit like they're tipsy, you know, because their brain isn't functioning, you know. They act a little like they're drunk or something, you know. And they're not drunk at all, you know. But most part, I mean, the cops, you know, pick up on things, you know. Signs that people have been drinking or that they've been on drugs or something else that they've been doing, they're carrying a gun or carrying a concealed weapon, you know, and so on. So, notice, huh, that fourth one is really given fourth because it stands against the other three, doesn't it, in a distinction, right? Because the first three are saying, this is an act that you must do, you know. This is an act you must not do, right? This is one that's the third. And that's all the possibilities, isn't there, right? But then there's another thing that the law does, which is to what? To punish, which is what? To make you obey the law, right? Yeah. So it kind of stands out by itself, right? It's a separate, what, thing, right? When Thomas, you know, divides logic up and takes logic in the broad sense of rational philosophy, as he calls it, right? And how the mind is led, you know, sometimes from something that is certain, you know. You see something else to be certain, and that's demonstration. Sometimes it's led, you know, from an opinion, right? To something that is only probable. You see something else to be certain, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, from an opinion, you know, right and sometimes it's even weaker it's led to suspect something right okay when thomas talks about dialectic and rhetoric dialectic leads one to what kind of believes something but not to be certain about it right and uh rhetoric rhetoric argument is weaker it gives you a suspicion right and then he finally gets down to poetry right where one is led to uh conclude something by the way it's what represented right you know which almost seems what illogical right because someone might say you know are young lovers this way because shakes has represented them that way Romeo and Juliet or do we say you know the reverse that shakes has represented young lovers well because of what we know about young lovers in in real life you know the people are led by a likeness people you know see a movie you know presenting something historical and that's the way the things were you know during the war you know the hollywood was cooperating with the government there and they'd give a movie you know about how nice things are in russia you know and people going to church and everything hot see you know and people think oh it's wonderful over there you know it's it's not so at all right you know but it's always something of reason though to lead somebody from this thing to so that's pretty good we did though isn't it though three acts right and the three things that the law does for these three acts right but then the law also has to have what power to coerce you to obey it right and it does that by what punishing right so you see somebody else being punished right you start obeying yeah when i was a little boy there i was visiting my grandmother and my aunt helen and i don't take over the old family store and i was down there you know had these little toadstools you sit on you know what they have a little counter with things and i was spitting them you wouldn't find my my aunt crazy well the little town of of uh watertown minnesota had one cop in town right so the cop walks into the store and sits down or it's a coke right he's thirsty my aunt had had it with me you know so she says look at this little boy who's been you know running these tools oh he says i guess we didn't put him in jail for a day he says boy did i sober up right just just just the the we kind of joke about it because i guess my my aunt didn't realize really scared the wits out of me you know i didn't know what to expect you know but i was just being a little rascal you know but that's that fourth thing that he says here right huh you know i was inclined to obey my aunt right let alone the covered right what about the reply to the first objection here right there's some more words here right every law is a common precept right huh okay the first therefore should be said that just as to seize from the bad has the aspect of something good right so also prohibition has a certain what of a command right okay and according to this taking precept large a thomas often will say that right now universally law is said to be a what precept right so what do you have when you got the the ten commandments right you know some of them are to do good like honor your father and mother right and some are what commands to not so in the in the broad sense you know you can call a prohibition a command right but in a strict sense command is more something you're supposed to do right so we're more apt to say anything is that i command you to do something than i command you not to do something right and you might use the other word prohibit you know for that i was reading thomas there in the uh this good question that they very talked to this morning there and it's the whole question on on liberum arbitrium right and the first article is whether man has people arbitrium with the beast have it right then the third article is where the god has it right huh well the church fathers speak of liberum arbitrium like we said there with uh augusta and so on uh uh they use the word reason right of course the objection says for reason is what discourse right what discourses well god doesn't have any discourse he sees everything all at once therefore there can't be any liberum arbitrium what thomas says large right you can take reason large for what this immaterial knowing power right understanding right although strictly speaking reason is but the ability for discourse right but the ability for discourse right and therefore it's something that man alone has the beast doesn't have it too high for the beast is too low even for the angels let alone for god right huh but he says even in in his divine names there dionysius has the word reason as one of the divine names right then you're taking it in the what large sense right huh okay well the same thing here right you might say yeah we might uh distinguish command from what yeah but in a broader use of the word command we might say you're commanded to do some things and you're commanded not to do other things right okay would be more strictly we'd say you're commanded to do good things and prohibited from doing what bad things right to the ten commandments they command us to what honor your father and mother right do they command us to not murder or would you say more that they prohibit you from murder and from theft and so on right that's the question now in the word right there's always a problem in these arguments because the words are what sometimes taken strictly and sometimes taking in a looser way right okay okay sometimes people use the word knowledge in the strict sense where you're certain of what you're saying right do you know that to be so or just saying it so you know but sometimes you use knowledge in a looser sense right the precision with which uh uh well as aristotle will look at uh language the use of language and then you look at uh what world was so the concern about uh polarization if that's the right word of the english language and language in general but um how language was twisted yeah misuse of words is very common you know yeah which has gotten you know it's very much entrenched now within yeah um the cultures of the west yeah even someone said you know uh the ancients thought the sun went around the earth right today we all know the earth turns on its axis well in the strict sense of knowing do we all know that it's not obvious right and even even today we still speak of the sunrise and the sun setting as if it's more natural to speak that way you know but even if we accept that the uh earth is turning on its axis is we don't most people don't have the evidence for this right they're just taking it as a common opinion now right nice to say you know it says in the declaration dependence we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal now if i had gotten up and slave owning rome or a slave athens and said we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal what are you talking about some men are born free some are born slaves some are born intelligent some are born you know nitwits and so on now born equal possibly you know There are all kinds of things, you know, we all know nowadays, you know. I don't know, earth warming is, you know, a problem, right? The greatest problem Godbaba tells us, you know, that we face, you know. Now, according to the weather underground, is that even though there was freakishly cold weather in the northern hemisphere, all around, this is one of the warmest years we've ever had, planetarily speaking. And if it's true, you know, does it really mean that there's real dangerous human-caused warming? Or is it just one of these trends that you see throughout the history naturally? Now to the second objection about counsel, right? The second should be said that to consult is not the, what, the private act of law, but it can pertain also to a private, what, person to take counsel, right? Of whom it does not belong to, what, establish the law or to establish the law, right? Whence also the apostle, meaning St. Paul, in the first epistle of the Corinthians, when he gives a certain, what, counsel, right? He says, ego dico non dominus, right? I say not the, what, the Lord, right, huh? And therefore it is not laid down among the, what, effects of, what, law. So should I go to this college? You take counsel, right, huh? Kids kind of, you know, sometimes they go and visit more than one college before they beat up in one place, right, huh? Then marry this person you know her. You better take some counsel about that. My mother used to say, you know, you're of age, you can make up your mind, she says, but my mother's got a right to say whether she thinks this girl is right for you or not. Right, to tell you what she thinks. Okay, we all need counsel, right, huh? Okay, we're looking at what they can do in life, you know, huh? That's not a question of law, right, when you take counsel. Okay. To the third, what about reward, right, huh? Okay. To the third, it should be said that also to reward can pertain to anyone, right? Okay. So the school has a reward for somebody there at the prize, right, huh? Okay. But to punishment does not pertain except to the minister or the servant of the, what, law. Right, huh? By whose authority punishment is inferred, huh? And therefore to reward is not laid down an act of the law, but only to punish, right? So we think of that, right, huh? That there's all kinds of punishments, you know, for, you know, if I park or I shouldn't park, it won't be punished as much as if I have a moving violation, right? Right, because it's more dangerous than moving violation, right? I go over the speed limit or something of this sort, right? And there's all kinds of punishments attached to the laws, but there are rewards attached to obeying the law. If you're driving on the left side of the street, you're going to be punished, right? On a two-way street. But now if I go on the right side, well, I'd be rewarded. If I go on the right side of the street, well, we will reward you, of course. But no, see, you can see the reward is not really so much the characteristic of the law, is it? And we do it in private, right? Parents often, you know, promise to kids if they get an A in their course or a B in their course, whatever it is, you know, shows they've worked hard, right? Then they can get this reward, right? Yeah, you were a reward that way when you were a kid. Parents? Parents, huh? Yeah, champagne. Yeah. I got a name, Matt. Because I didn't get to drink all the champagne because I was so young. That was my joking sort of request. Yeah, yeah. I could have gone to town with my mother there when I was, you know, before I started going to kindergarten. And if I behaved myself, then we could stop at the candy con and I could pick something out, right? That's a reward, you know, for not driving her crazy, you know, like most little boys that drive their mothers crazy when they're shopping, right? Now, what about this punishment idea? Is this making people good, you know? To the fourth it should be said, that through this that someone begins to be accustomed to avoiding evils and to, what, to fulfilling the good on account of the fear of punishment, he is sometimes led to this point that he, what, enjoys, right? And does it from his own, what, will, right? Because he gets accustomed to doing these things, right? And then sometimes he will, what, continue, because he enjoys doing this now, right? Okay. Yeah, yeah. And according to this, law also, by punishing, leads us to this that men become what? Good, right, huh? Okay. So it's not entirely a dead end, right? Like the argument I was trying to say. Okay. Now we come to the laws and you can take them up one by one now in particular, right, huh? I'll do a little break here before we go on to the next one there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Then we're not to consider about what? Each one of the laws, right? The singularis legibus, right? This is the premium now, the beginning of question 93. And first we'll talk about the eternal law, right? Secondly, about the natural law, which is our partaking in some way the eternal law, right? Third, about the human law that man is in his sense. And then fourth, about the old law, I suppose in the Old Testament, right? Fifth, about the new law, which is the law of the what? Gospel, right, huh? And then the strange, you use the word law, which is the lex fumitis, right, huh? That's because of that famous text in St. Paul. He sees another law in his memories, right? That's opposed to the law of his reason, huh? But about the sixth law, which is the lex fumitis, it suffices what has been said about it when one tweeted about original sin, right? So we can forget about that. Thank God. Now about the first, which is the eternal law, which is in this question 93, six things are asked, right? First, what is the eternal law? Quit sit, right? Secondly, whether it's known to all. Third, whether every law is derived from it in some way. Fourth, whether necessary things are subject to the eternal law. You can see a problem there, right, huh? Whether contingent natural things are subject to the eternal law. You can see a problem there, right? And finally, the sixth one, whether all human things are subject to it, huh? Well, that's a very thorough six questions, right, huh? Notice the first thing is what is the eternal law, right? And the second one is about it's what? Who knows it, right, huh? And then the remaining ones are about what is derived from it, or subject to it, right, huh? Kind of divides into three if you wanted to do that, but Thomas is not so pedantic that he always does that explicitly, right? Just like in the beginning of the commentary on the ethics there. Thomas wants to divide human knowledge, right? And, of course, it goes back to Shakespeare's definition of reason, right? He wants to divide the knowledge of reason. Where reason looks before and after, which is a definition of order, and therefore you ought to distinguish the knowledge of reason by the order it considers, right? Well, then Thomas says order is compared to reason in four ways, right? Because four, not three, right? And he says first there is the order which reason does not make, but only considers, right? And this is the natural order of things, right? It's an order which reason can know, but reason itself did not make, right? Okay? Then there is the order which reason makes in its own acts. And this is considered in logic, huh? And then there is the order which reason makes in the acts of the will. And then our actions follow upon those. And this belongs to ethics and practical philosophy. And finally, there is the order which reason makes in exterior matter, like it makes in wood, right? Or it makes in marble. Or it makes in some other exterior matter, right? And I see there he's got a division of order in comparison to reason into four, right? But who does not see, right, that the first order can be distinguished against the last three? Because the last three are orders made by reason in its own acts, in the acts of the will, which is next to reason, and then in exterior matter, right? And that's divided against the first order, right? Which is the order that reason does not make, right? The natural order, right? But Thames doesn't bother to divide into two and then subdivide one into two, into three. But it's obvious, right? But he is, he has in mind that difference there, right? And that's why he begins from the natural order, right? Because that's most fundamental, too. The order which reason did not make, huh? So if my head's above this part and my feet below, right, that's the natural order, right? Okay. So, to the first end one goes forward thus. It seems that the eternal law is not a, what, highest ratio, huh? It's always a question of how to translate ratio from the Latin, right? It's the highest, what, thought existing in God? Or you want to be more particular than thought? Highest rule? Hmm? Yeah. But it's a question you might have to think about that to say, what is the thing? I remember in graduate school, someone asking Jacques de Molion for Paris, what does Thomas mean by ratio? Well, you can't really answer that question too directly, right? See, I mean, ratio, you might translate it in English as reason, right? And reason can be both this faculty, this ability that Shakespeare defined for us, right? Or reason can be something that that faculty knows, right? If I propose that we do something, and you might say, what's your reason for doing that? You know? That's just a different meaning of reason, isn't it? Now, what sense of reason is here? Is it, is it the, the, the, it's like the second, right? Okay. And the geometry gives a reason why, you know, the interior angles of a triangle equal to two right angles, right? I sometimes define geometry, that kind of knowledge, as a reasoned out knowledge, right? Or you know something by the reason you give for it being so, right? And Euclid gives very good, and not too hard to understand, right? Reasons for what he says, right? There's a reason for the Pythagorean theorem, right? There's a reason for, for intersecting lines, these angles equal and so on, right? Opposite ones. So, you see, the eternal law is the highest reason existing in God, right? It'd be more like the reason, in the sense that we just talked about, right? Rather than the, what, divine mind, right? Now, let's see the first objection here. For the eternal law is one only. There's only one eternal law. But the reasons of things in the divine mind are many. For Augustine says, in the book on the 83 questions, that God, does each thing by its own, what, reasons, right? So, the reason why he gave the bird wings and give me wings. The reason why he gave me, what, two legs and then give the tree two legs, right? God has a reason for everything he made or did, right? So, if there are many reasons for the things that God did, right, there's a reason why he chose a virgin for the mother of Christ, right? There's all kinds of reasons he got, right, there's a reason why he gives us sacraments, right? I was thinking about the sacraments the other day there, and the way Thomas divides them and so on, and of course he follows the rules of two or three. I got thinking of the Hail Mary, right? And what two sacraments are connected with the Hail Mary? Well, stop and think, see? The first half of the Hail Mary Christ is more praise of Mary, right? Than the asking of Mary, you know? But the second, half is saying holy mary mother of god pray for us sinners right that's the key word sinners right but pray for us both now and at the hour of our what death right what sacraments are ordered to us as sinners well yeah yeah if you talk about us about sinners right huh yeah if you talk about us as sinners you're not talking about us as having original sin so much right but it's by reason of the act that we've we committed sin right okay i didn't commit original sin but i'm subject to it right and i need baptism you know for that reason right okay but because the sins i commit i need to go to what we used to call confession reconciliation right naming it from different parts of the sacrament right and then the extra function used to call it the last anointing what do you call it now yeah yeah yeah or extreme means last right um the last anointing right you'll call it that um that's because you have sins maybe you've forgotten about right or sins that you really haven't worked off the the punishment due to you know or haven't you know uh purge yourself complete to these things and so you really need this sacrament for the last anointing before you depart right okay my teacher there because sirik now you always wanted to receive the last sacrament right now um so you say holy mary mother of god pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death right it seems to touch upon those two what sacraments right and it kind of difference between them right there's a special reason why you need um uh this last anointing because you accumulated this all this weight of sins right so which you may be forgotten or didn't confess you know fully or you know didn't to remember everything about them or just forgot about them or that you haven't really purged yourself you know sufficiently and uh this prepares the way right okay so there's a reason for those but one reason for confession another reason for the last anointing right another reason for the eucharist you know you can go on so there's many reasons god has for these things right okay but the eternal law is only one moreover it's of the definition of law whenever we're translating sometimes ratio right um that it'd be promulgated by what word right but verbum in divinis that's the capital v now here is said personally as has been had in the first book when we discovered or talked about the trinity but reason is said but essentially therefore it's not the same thing the eternal law has the divine reason moreover the great augustine says in the book on true religion that there appears above our mind right to be a law which is called what truth this is really mixing things up right but the law existing above our mind is the eternal law it's the law which the natural laws are partaking of right therefore truth is the eternal law according to that text of the great augustine right don't mess with augustine right don't mess with texas we say but don't mess with augustine i say um but it's not the same ratio not the same definition of truth right and of a what reason therefore the eternal law is not the same thing as the highest what reason right but now the same augustine now and they said contra and marvelous moreover the against is what augustine says in the book on what free judgment right i mentioned i was quoting earlier thomas as augustine and you know who else was it uh but they all say that the what free judgment is based upon reason right he says that the eternal law is the summa the highest what reason to which everything ought to be what tempered right or measured right okay now what's the master going to say here we're going to learn from the wit now huh we're just we're just um dimwits right i answer it should be be said that just as in any what artist right there pre-exists the reason of those things which are going to be constituted by what art is a reason for what he does right now he knows what he's doing right now he's a real artist right listen to mozart this morning his first symphony his first early one sixth symphony the first one in four movements oh beautiful things he knew what he's doing right the reason why he did what he did you know so also in anyone governing huh it is necessary that there pre-exists the what reason of the order of those things which are to be done by those who are subject to his what governance huh and just as the reason of things to be done by art is called art right or it's called the exemplar right or it's called the exemplar right of what artificial things huh an exemplar is the form that is what outside the thing that the thing outside is bottled on right okay so he's saying that just as the reason of things to be done by art is called art or the exemplar of artificial things so also the reason of the one governing the acts of those subject to him obtains the what definition of law observing other things which we said above pertain to the definition of law right okay i used to translate ratsu there by law but by definition because you frame back the definition of what of law right we had four parts in it remember it's what yeah yeah it's for the common good remember promulgated right then but one who has authority right now so okay for the common good and so on right okay now in greek you know the word greek for what uh ratio would be what logos right which is sunday's used for definition right now sometimes for a reason sometimes there's something a reason for some way something is true what oh yeah yeah well actually logos first in greek means word right yeah yeah and then it can mean thought right and then the mind that has the thought right so um it's a word that's equivocal by what reason yeah yeah you see it's interesting how that in the beginning of st john's gospel you know uh we've translated the greek word logos there by by what word right but in english has the word word been carried over and applied to thought see let's see but is the meaning of logos there in the beginning of john's gospel is that uh word the spoken written word he's talking about there no it means what thought yeah yeah now it seems to me that when john says in arcane oh logos right now you've got the article the thought right now it's involves this way of speaking we call antonomasia and you're just stopping it you know you We don't know much about this thought when it was first mentioned, right? But it's called the thought, right? And then what I have to do is to unfold why, among all thoughts that have ever been had, why is this the thought? What is so, you know, just as we call Homer the poet, or as Donald calls Homer the poet, right? The Greeks called him the poet. And the Federalist Papers call Shakespeare the poet, you know? He's a poet. Why is this called the thought, right? What is so excellent about this thought? It's not just called, you know, it doesn't say in the beginning it was a thought, but in the beginning it was the thought, you know? Why is this the thought? Like Aristotle is called the philosopher, right? What is there? Well, I think you start to gradually unfold it, right? First thing you say, why is one thought better than another thought? It's because it's about a better thing. And this thought is a thought of the best thing. That's only beginning to unfold its excellence, right? It's not only a thought of the best thing, it's the only thought of the best thing that's adequate to that thing, right? It's the only thought that expresses what the best thing is fully and completely and perfectly, right? That's quite a thought, right? There are more surprises coming, right? Because you've got to find out that this thought is not only a thought of the best thing and a thought that perfectly expresses the best thing, right? But it is also itself the best thing, you know? Because later on you say that it is God, right? Well, we probably say it's a thought of what God is, right? Then we find out that the thought is itself God, too, right? So it's a person, right? This is a very unusual thought, right? So it's the thought of the best thing, adequate to the best thing, the only thought that is a person, and the only thought that is what? God himself. God, I wonder, it's the thought, right, no? It's got all that, I mean, my gosh, you know? And so we have a little problem there in translating it by the word, word, right? Because we do have to follow how the word is carried over from word to thought, right, in Greek. But the English word has not been carried over, right? You know, so you have a little problem there, right, no? So I think it's kind of interesting that they're customarily translated by word rather than thought, right? Even though you might say thought is a better translation, right, than word, because that's the meaning of the word in Greek there, right? It's not the first meaning of the word, which is word, right? But the meaning of thought. But in English, the word thought, the word's nothing, you know? I told you, I was a little nasty guy there, a college student, you know, and my English professor had his book, you know, and he says, words spoken or written are thoughts. And I said to him, strictly speaking, that's false, huh? They signify thoughts. I said, no, I'm not pointing to the professor. But in English, you know, but there is a connection there, right? You know, and the fact that he should do that is a sign that maybe you could, you know, but it hasn't been done there, you know, it's not customary language. Okay, so, okay, let's go back to the comparison here. And just as the reason of things to, they're going to come to be through art, is called art, or the exemplar of artificial things, so the reason of the one governing the acts of those subject to him, obtains the reason of law, right, huh? The definition of law. Observing the other things which he said above in the definition of law, right? But God, huh, through his wisdom, is the, what? Creator, you might say, of, what? All things, right, huh? To which he is compared as an artist to, what? Artifacts, huh, the things made by him, right? But he's also the governor of all actions, right? And motions which are found in individual creatures, as is said in the first, right? Okay. That's interesting. I'm going back to these words I was talking about before there. You know, mover and, what, maker, right, huh? There's two names used there in regard to the third kind of cause by Aristotle, right, huh? And he starts with mover for the reason I gave before, right? That things in motion, soon to catch the eye and what not stirs. But when you talk about God, right, when you talk about God as like an artist, huh, and you say he made the universe, right? So in talking about God's creation of things, that's maybe a more strict word, right? But in the creeds and so on, we use the word, what, maker, right? And then these things that he's made, he moves them, right? Okay. Now, he says, you know, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, right? Well, when he says I am the beginning, he means he's the, what, maker of all things, right? But because he's also the end of all things, the purpose of all things, he's also the one who moves everything in the direction of, what, himself, yeah, yeah. And there you might call God a, what? Yeah, yeah. My mother would sit at the dining table after dinner there and there are dishes out in the kitchen, you know, because we had dinner and so on, huh? And she was kind of taking her rest there a little bit at the dinner table and she'd say, I'm waiting for the spirit to move me, she says. Did your mother say that? Maybe too, I don't know. It's kind of a phrase that always stuck in my mind, you know. But we speak of the spirit as what? Moving us, right, huh? Okay. So God not only made us, but he moves us, right? And moves us towards himself. Well, insofar as he's a maker, he's like the artist, right? But insofar as he's a mover, he's more like the ruler, the prudent man, right, huh? And Aristotle distinguishes between the art and foresight, right, huh? And art is defined as right reason about making and foresight, right, reason about doing, right? And that's closer to what we mean by law, right, huh? Because law is about what you should do or shouldn't do, right? And what you're allowed to do, and so on, right? What you're not allowed to do, right? And so on. So Thomas is developing that, right, huh? He first compares it to art, but it's more compared to the doer. For also he is the governor of all the acts and motions which are found in signature creatures. And then you could speak of him as being a mover, right? Rather than a maker more, right, huh? Whence, just as the reason of the divine wisdom, insofar as by that divine wisdom all things are created, right, all things are made, has the ratio, the definition, of art, right, which is the right reason about making him, or of an exemplar, which is a form after which you, what, model things, right? Or even in Augustine's understanding of the idea, right, where you see in what particular way, right, you can model something after God, right? And everything in creation in some ways is modeled after God, right, but in different ways, ideas. So the reason of the divine wisdom moving all things to a suitable end, right, obtains a notion of what? Law. Because law is not concerned with making things, but things that are already made. Yeah, yeah. In the case of, you know, human law is going to be in terms of things that are already made by the mother and father, right? And then you're going to move these things to the end of the city, right? So it has a ratio or the reason of law. And according to this, eternal law is nothing other than a, what? Reason of the divine wisdom, not according as it is making things, right? But according as it is directive of all acts and, what? Motions, yeah. So sometimes God, as a maker, is said to be making things by his, what? Wisdom, right, huh? So insofar as his wisdom is the art for which he made all things, right? Then it's like human art, right? But in a much poor, perfect plane, right? But insofar as he's, what? His wisdom is directing all things, right? Belongs to the wise man, as Aristotle says, to direct things, right? So it belongs to God and his wisdom to direct all the things that he has made towards himself, ultimately, right, huh? As the end and purpose of the whole universe, huh? And in particular, you know, to direct the rational creature towards this end because the rational creature can obtain this end in a way that no other creature can. Because he can both, what, know and love God, right, huh? But the dog can't really know God, right? Not even in the perfect way that we know God, right, in this life, right? Let alone, you know, the beatific vision, right? And he can't love him in himself, right, in the way that we can, right, love God in himself, huh? So insofar as the divine wisdom now is directing us towards the whole of creation, right, but especially the rational creature, that it has the aspect of foresight more, right, huh? Of prudence, right, huh? The kind of universe of prudence, huh? When Aristotle talks about foresight, you know, or prudencia, or in Latin, prudence, we speak sometimes of the foresight of the individual man, right? What should I do with myself today? And then the foresight of the human father or mother, right, huh? Or with the children, right, huh? And then the foresight of the king or the, you know, legislator and so on, right? And, you know, the foresight of the father is more universal than that of the individual man, right, huh? And sometimes, you know, we have problems with children, right? And it requires more foresight, right, than just over yourself, right, huh? And, you know, if you've got boys and girls, right, you don't have the same, you don't rule them in the same way. But you don't rule the, but it's even more difficult to rule the city, right, or the nation, right? But God's foresight is over the whole, what, universe, right, huh? So he moves the whole universe not only towards their immediate end, but ultimately towards, what, himself, right, huh? What the divine law is, right, huh? The reason of the, what, divine wisdom, right, huh? So far as it's moving all things to the end, right? So, in the other case, it's, what, it's like art. So notice the last sentence here in the body of the article. And thus, and according to this, the eternal law is nothing other than the reason of the divine wisdom, according as his directive of all acts and motions, right? Now, I'd have to go back to known in English there and distinguish between God as a maker and God as a, what, mover, yeah. Because maker is more showing the, what, divine wisdom as it's the art of all things and making them, right? But in so far, but the other one, the divine law, I mean, excuse me, the eternal law is the reason of the divine wisdom in so far as it's moving all these things that he's made towards their, what, toward their own ends, but also ultimately towards the end of the whole universe, right, which is himself, right? So, it's not the only ratio summa existing in God, right? To go back to this, right? The question here is, with the eternal law, is what? A ratio summa existing in God, right, eh? Well, you've got to distinguish, eh, between God as a maker and God as a mover, right? And the one would be the, more the divine art, right, eh? It should be a reason of making things, right? How they should be made, right? And then the other is, how they should be, what, moved into what they should be moved, right? What way, right? Now, what about this first objection? Augustine says there are many reasons in the divine mind, right, eh? Well, he says to the first, therefore, it should be said, that Augustine speaks there about the ideal reasons, right? Which regard the, what, private natures of singular things, right? And therefore, in them there is found distinction and plurality, according to diverse respects to things, as is had in the first book. Now, I don't know if you studied that part of the first book there about ideas, right? But what it means is that God knows in what way a tree can imitate him, in what way a dog can imitate him, right? In what way a man can imitate him, right? In what way an angel can imitate him, right? And even more particularly, in what way, you know, a seraphim can imitate him, in what way the cherubim can imitate him, right? Okay. So in that sense, these are said to be different ideas in God, not because there's any multiplicity in God's, what, mind, huh, thoughts, but because by understanding himself fully, right, he understands every way in which he can be, what, imitated, right? And he chooses to be imitated in these ways when he can choose other ways in which he can be imitated, right? Okay. You know, something more proportioned to us, you know, when you take a man like Christ, you know, we can all imitate Christ, right? Although none of us can imitate him perfectly, right? You know, but somebody wrote a book called The Imitation of Christ, right? Okay. And one of the reasons why he became man was to give us something to, what, imitate, right? You know, St. Augustine says, God should be imitated, but God cannot be seen, right? Men can be seen, but they're not. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But then if you take the different saints, right, sometimes you imitate a particular saint, right, maybe because he's, what, closer to your occupation in life, right, huh? So I might imitate Thomas Aquinas, you know, more than St. Francis of Assisi, right, huh? Because I'm kind of a philosopher, you know, kind of a theologian, right, huh? And so I could imitate maybe Thomas more than Francis, right, huh? Okay. Or Mother Teresa, right, huh? I'm probably very good at imitating Mother Teresa, right, huh? In her particular occupation, you want to put it that way, right? You know? But someone else who was into her order, right, might imitate her, right? More than Thomas Aquinas, right, huh? But Christ would be, you know, kind of a universal one to be imitated, right? And we could all find something, right? Like, I guess I was one of St. Francis of Assisi's favorite books was The Imitation of Christ, huh? And I haven't looked at it for a long time, but I remember reading things in there, you know? It seems like a very good book, but she's kind of a witness as to the goodness of that book, you know? It was kind of her guide, one of her guides in life. So, but you're learning how to act, in a sense, right, by imitating, huh? So, Aristotle and I have some very interesting things to say about imitation there in the book on the poetic art, right? He has to talk about it.