Prima Secundae
Lecture 285: Interior Acts and the New Law: Precepts and Counsels

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

Article 3. Truth with Article 3. No. Okay, to the third one proceeds thus. It seems that about the inward acts, the new law insufficiently orders man. That's really a serious statement. For there are ten precepts of the Decalogue ordering man to God and to his neighbor. But the Lord, only about three of them, adds something. To wit, about the prohibition of homicide and about the prohibition of adultery and about the prohibition of perjury, right? Therefore it seems that insufficiently he orders man omitting the fulfillment of the other precepts. This is serious matters. Moreover, the Lord orders nothing in the Gospel about the judicial precepts except about the repudiation of the wife and about the punishment of retaliation and about the persecution of enemies. But there are many other judicial precepts of the old law, says and said above. Therefore, as he guards this, insufficiently does it order the life of men. Moreover, in the old law, apart from the moral and judicial precepts, there is some ceremonial ones about which the Lord ordered nothing. Therefore, he seems insufficiently to have ordered things. Moreover, it pertains to the good inward disposition of the mind and that no good work a man would do on account of a temporal what? But there are other temporal goods besides what? Human favor. There are many other good who operate in fasting and prayer. Therefore, it is unsubliable, as the Lord teaches only about these three works and nothing, what, earthly goods. More naturally, man is endowed, right, that he might be solicitous about those things which are necessary for living, in which solicitude other animals come together with man. Once it is said, Proverbs 6, go to the ant, I guess. Yeah, consider his ways. Prepare in the summer food for yourself and congregate in the harvest what you can eat. But every precept that is given against inclination in nature is iniquitous as against the actual law. Therefore, it unsuitably seems that the Lord to permit its solicitude about food. Moreover, no act of virtue should be what? Prohibited. But judgment is an act of justice, according to that of Psalm 93, until justice be converted into what? Judgment. Therefore, unsuitably, does the Lord prohibit judgment. And thus it seems insufficiently that the new law orders to an ordered man about interior acts. But against this is what Augustine says in the book on the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount. It should be considered that since he said, here is my words, he sufficiently signifies the Lord that his speech is formed by all the precepts by which Christian life is formed. To be perfect. Thomas says, the answer should be said that as from the foregoing authority of Augustine appears, the sermon which the Lord proposed in the mountain, I guess that's most fully in Matthew, right? Contains the whole informing of Christian life in which perfectly the inward motions of man are ordered. For after having declared the end of Beatitude and having commended an apostolic entity being commended, through whom the evangelical teaching was to be promulgated, he ordered the interior motions of man. First as regards what? First as regards oneself, right? Not Christ. And then as regards one's neighbor, huh? As regards himself, oneself, in two ways. According as there are two inward motions of man about things to be done, which are the will about things to be done and the intention about the end. So first, whence first he orders the will of man according to the diverse precepts of the law, that he abstain not only from the exterior works, which are in themselves bad, but also from interior ones and from the occasions of what have been bad. Then he orders the intention of man teaching that in the goods which we do that we neither seek human glory nor earthly wealth, which is to be taken to a tradition in the earth. Consequently, however, he orders the inward motion of man towards his neighbor that we judge him not rashly, or unjustly, right, huh? Or presumptuously, right, huh? But nevertheless, we are not thus, what, remiss about our neighbor that we, what, commit good things to him if they are unworthy, right? Last, he shows the way of fulfilling the gospel doctrine to it by employing the divine aid and by adding a, what, attempt to enter through the narrow gate of prairie virtue and the warning about lest one be corrupted by seducers and that the observation of the commands is necessary to virtue and does not suffice alone the confession of faith, but only the, what, or only the earring, only the earring, yeah. Hmm. Now, it's going back to the first objection, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Lord added about those precepts of the law a fulfillment, added a completion to them in which the scribes and the Pharisees did not have a right understanding, right? And this happened especially about three precepts of the law for about the prohibition of adultery and homicide, huh? That's, what, the fifth and the sixth? They estimated only the exterior act to be prohibited, right? But not the interior desire, right? Which they believed more about homicide and adultery than about theft or false testimony. Because the motion of anger tending in homicide and the motion of concupiscence tending in adultery seem in some way to be in us by nature, huh? But not the desire... You deserve it. You deserve it. You deserve it. You deserve it. You deserve it. You deserve it. of stealing or giving what testimony because they thought these emotions were more natural that therefore they were not wrong yeah yeah so they're neglecting the about perjury they had a false understanding believing perjury to be a what and therefore the lord shows that the what should not be desired as a good but is it better to speak without swearing an oath right unless necessity what now we come to the question of judicial precepts to second should be said that concerning the judicial precepts in two ways the scribes and the pharisees erred are mistaken because first because some things which in the law of moses retweeted as it were what permissions they estimated to be per se what trust as the repudiation of the wife foreigners and therefore the lord prohibited the repudiation of the wife and acceptance of usury usuries saying give your loan nothing expecting there another way they erred believing some things from the which the old law instituted to be done in account of justice to be carried out from the desire of what revenge or from the cupidity temporal things or from the hatred of enemies and this in three precepts huh for the desire for revenge they believed to be what illicit on account of the precept given about the punishment of the eye for an eye which was given that justice might be observed not that man should seek what revenge and therefore the lord removing this teaches the soul of man that it ought to be prepared if it be necessary to what sustaining even more things huh the emotional however of cupidity estimated to be illicit on account of the judicial precepts which was commanded to make restitution of the thing taken with some addition as has been said above and this law was commanded an account of justice not that there might be given place to keep cleanliness and therefore the lord teaches that from our cupidity we ought not to be but to be prepared if necessary to give more the motion of hate they believed to be elicited on account of the precepts of the law given about the killing of one's enemies which the law established established an account of justice not an account of satisfying hatred and therefore the lord teaches that we ought to have love for enemies be prepared if necessary to do well to them but these precepts are should be taken according to the preparation of the soul as augustine says the third objection is to the third it should be said that the moral precepts all together in the new law ought to remain right because in themselves or by themselves per se they pertain to the notion of virtue but the judicial precepts do not remain of necessity according to the way in which the law has determined but they are left to the judgment of men whether thus or in some other way they should be what determined and therefore suitably the lord about these two general precepts orders us the precept of this the observation of the ceremonial precepts totally yeah the fulfillment of the thing right is and therefore about these precepts in that common teaching nothing is ordered right he shows otherwise or the place that the whole bodily what cult which was determined in the law should be turned into something spiritual it comes now he says to the woman which neither in the mountain here nor in jerusalem will be the during of the father but the true adorers will adore the father in spirit and in truth now the fourth one is about the um thing fasting and yeah to the fourth it should be said that all earthly things are reduced to three to honors to wealth and pleasures according to that of one john chapter 2 verse 16 everything that is in the world is the concubiscence of the flesh which pertains to the delightful flesh and the concubiscence of the eyes which pertains to well and the pride of life which retains to the ambition of glory and honor and the superfluous delights of the flesh the law does not what but more prohibits but it first said new army twenty eight if you hear the voice of your lord your god he will make you higher than all the good yeah two guards the first and and afterwards he adds about the no good things two guards the second which promises thus badly did the jews understand and an account of this that we're not to serve god this is an account of an end right and therefore the lord removing this says that the works of virtue should not be done in account of human glory and he lays down three works to which all others are reduced for all things which someone does to uh restrain himself in his concubiscences he reduces to what fasting whichever things are on account of the love of one's neighbor he reduces to and those on account of the worship of god he reduces to prayer he lays down these three specially precepts and those things which men are most accustomed to what precious yeah second he teaches that we're not not to constitute one's in wealth he says do not for yourself on earth fifth that's when are you supposed to you should have a natural care about food and clothing yeah yeah yeah yeah what am i going to eat today what am i going to put on to that to the fifth it should be said that the lord does not prohibit necessary solicitude right but a disordered solicitude eh but a disordered solicitude eh Now, there is a four-fold disorder of solicitude to be avoided about temporal things. Now, that would be a nice study for a sermon. First, that we do not constitute in them our end, right? Nor that we serve God in account of the necessities of food and clothing, whence it is said, do not. Secondly, that we do not thus be solicitous about temporal things with the desperation of divine aid. Whence the Lord says, your Father knows that you need these things, right? Third, that there not be a, what, presumptuous solicitude, that to it that a man, what, yeah, that his own solicitude he can procure them, right, without the divine aid, which the Lord removes through this that he says that a man cannot add anything to his own stature. Fourth, through this that, yeah, that's not to be solicited about the future, right, huh? Okay, no judgment, huh? To the sick, it should be said that the Lord does not prohibit the judgment of justice, without which they are not able to take away holy things from the unworthy. But he prohibits a, what, disorder judgment, huh? Time for the last one, I'm not kidding, it'll start to increase this time. A granddaughter named Grace, you know. I call her the graceful one. To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems unsuitably in the new law are certain what consuls determine, which I propose, right? This is what you guys are. It's for you guys now. Free us up. I've got some reasons from St. Thomas. When consuls are given about things, they're expedient for the end. As it's said above when one tweeted of the consul. But the same things are not expedient for all. Therefore, there should not be some determinate consuls proposed to everybody. Let's look at the reply to that first objection. That's the marvelous thing. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the foregoing or the foresaid consuls as considered, they say, in themselves, right, are expedient for all, right, huh? But from the indisposition of some, it happens that they're not expedient to someone, right, huh? Because there are affections, right? Yeah, affections. And therefore, the Lord, proposing the consul, the evangelical or gospel consuls, always makes mention about the suitability of men for observing the consuls, for giving the consul perpetual poverty, Matthew 19. He says, if you wish to be perfect, right, huh? Afterwards, he adds, go and sell everything that you have. Similarly, giving consul perpetual chastity, he said, there are eunuchs who castrate themselves, huh? On account of the kingdom of God, right, huh? But then, he adds, immediately, who can hold this? Let him do so, right, huh? And similarly, the apostle, having sent forth the consul virginity, says, I say this for your usefulness, that's useful, right, huh? Not as a, what? Yeah, yeah. And also, he said there, he said, these foregoing consuls, of themselves, are expedient for all, but from the disposition of some, it happens that they are not expedient to this one, right, huh? Moreover, the consuls are given about the greater good, but there are not any determined grades of greater good. Therefore, there ought not to be some determined, what, consuls given. These are more removing the impediments, aren't they, than saying? Impediments in terms of options. I mean, Thomas doesn't say that the state of perfection consists in obeying these consuls, but this removes the impediments to pursuing the perfection of the soul, which could have different grades of riches. Okay, the second should be said, huh? That the greater goods, in particular, are undetermined in, what, individuals? But those which are simply and absolutely greater goods, in general, are determined, to which also all these particulars are reduced, huh? That's a strange answer. Okay, moreover, the consuls pertains to the perfection of life, but obedience pertains to the perfection of life. Therefore, unsuitably about it, a consul is not given in the gospel. To the third, it should be said that also a consul of obedience, the Lord is understood to have given in this that he said, and follow me, which we follow not only by imitating his works, but also by obeying his commands, right? According to that of John 10, I sheep, was it? Hear my voice and follow me, huh? The word for obedience comes from Syriac, in many languages. Listen, hear my voice and follow me. Moreover, many things pertaining to the perfection of life are placed among the precepts, as this, love your enemies, and the precepts also which the Lord gave to the apostles. Therefore, unsuitably are treated consuls as a new law, because not all are proposed, also because they are not distinguished from the precepts. To the fourth, it should be said that those things which, about the true love of enemies and similar things, the Lord speaks in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, if they are referred to preparation of the soul, they are of the necessity of salvation, that a man be prepared to do well or do good to his enemies and other things of the sort to do. Necessity requires this, and therefore among precepts they are laid down. But that someone showed this to enemies, promptly an act, where some special necessity does not occur, pertains to particular consuls, as it's said. Those are which are laid down in Matthew 10 and Luke 9 and 10, who were some precepts of discipline for that time, or concessions, as had been said above, and therefore they are not induced, as it were, what? Consuls, huh? But against all this, huh? The consuls of a wise friend, huh? Bring much, what? Usefulness. According to that of Proverbs 27, by oil, it's said, or anointing, and various, and the, what? So? Yeah, so is suited by the good consuls of the friend. But Christ is most of all wise and a friend. Therefor his consuls contain the greatest usefulness and suitable, right? Okay, let's see how he treats this thing in the body of the article. Answer, it should be said that this is the difference between a consul and a precept. That a precept or command implies necessity, right? A consul in the choice, you might say, huh? Option. Is later the one to whom it is given, right? And therefore, suitably in the new law, which is the law of liberty, above the precepts are added the, what? Consuls. Not, however, in the old law, which is the law of... It's necessary, therefore, that the precepts of the new law be understood to be given about those things which are necessary to achieving the end of eternal beatitude, into which the new law immediately, what? Introduces. The consuls are necessary to be about those things to which better, huh? And more expeditiously, huh? A man is able to, what, achieve the foresaid end, huh? Now, man is constituted between the things of this world and spiritual goods in which eternal beatitude consists. And therefore, the more he adheres to one of them, the more he recedes from the other. In a converso. Who therefore wholly adheres to the things of this world... and the more he adheres to the other world... and the more he adheres to the other world... and the more he adheres to the other world... and the more he adheres to the other world... so that in them he constitutes his end, having them, as it were, the reasons and the rules of his deeds, right? He totally is cut off from spiritual goods. Now, that's Hillary, right? I could have sticked that in. And therefore, a sword of this sort is taken by the what? Precepts. Taken away by the precepts, yeah. But a man totally takes away or gives up those things which are the world, they do that, is not necessary for arriving at the foresaid what? End. Because a man can, using the things of this world, so long as he does not constitute or put his end in them, right? He can nevertheless arrive at eternal impetitude. But it's expedient, yeah, goods of this world. And therefore, about this are given the, what, counsels of the gospel. Now, the goods of this world, which pertain to the use of human life, consist in three things. In the, what, wealth of exterior goods, which pertains to the concupiscence of the eyes. In the delights of the flesh, which pertain to the concupiscence of the flesh. And in the honors, which pertains to, yeah. Somebody's suing the presidency, right? Okay. These three, to totally, what, set apart these three, or to get them up, according to what it's possible, pertains to the gospel councils, right? In which, three things, every religion is, what, founded. I mean, it's a religion. I mean, it's a, it's a, it's a religion. Yeah. Which professes the state of perfection, right, huh? For wealth is abdicated through poverty, huh? And the Dominican said to me, he's, he's now legally dead, or something. The delicious delights of the flesh, through perpetual, what, chastity. The pride of life, through the servitude of, what, obedience. And these simply observe, pertain to the council simply proposed, right? But the observation of each of these, in some special case, pertains to the council, what? She couldn't have quit in some way, yeah. Like, that is in that case, right, huh? As, for example, if a man gives some, what, poor, which, yeah. The council follows, regards, thing done, huh? Likewise, when, for some time, determined time, he abstains from the delights of the flesh, that he might, can suffer with a prayer, he follows the council for that time, right? Similarly, similarly, when someone does not follow the, his will in some, that is, illicit to do, he follows the council in that case. For example, he benefits enemies when he's not held to do so. Or if he remits a offense, which he can justly command revenge, yeah. And thus, all particular councils are reduced to those three, general and perfect. Three is the first number about which we say all. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. So up to 109 here, let's look at the premium again here, just to see where we are. Consequently, we're not to consider about the exterior source of human acts, to it God, insofar as we are aided by him through grace, to acting well. And first, we ought to consider about the grace of God. Secondly, about its cause, which would be down 112. And third, about his effects, which would be down in 1, what, 13, I guess. So that's a nice distinction of three, right? Reminds a little bit of the treatise on love, right? We have the love in itself, and then the cause of love, effects of love. So it looks to be before and after, right? The first consideration will be threefold, again. For first, we will consider about the necessity of grace. Second, about grace itself as regards what it is, its essence. I'll teach you kind of get kind of a prejudice against the word of sensium, right? Especially in French, you know, where it can be gasoline. And then third, about its, what, division. So that's 109, 110, and 111, right? These three questions. This question about the necessity is kind of like the question, whether something is, right, huh? It's distinguished with what it is, huh? Now, about the first, he asks 10 things, or 10 things are asked. First, whether without grace, man is able to know something true. Second, whether without the grace of God, is man able to do or to will something good, huh? Third, whether man, without grace, is able to love God above all things. Fourth, whether without grace, he's able to observe the precepts of the law. Fifth, whether without grace, he's able to merit eternal life. I kind of doubt that. Six, whether man is able to prepare himself for grace without grace. That seems like you've got to have an infinite regress there, right? Seven, whether man without grace is able to rise from sin. Eight, whether without grace, man is able to avoid sin. Nine, whether man is able to what? Grace without divine aid, to do good and to avoid sin. That's kind of, you know, redundant there, Thomas, a little bit. And then 10, whether he can, what, persevere in the good by himself, huh? That's kind of a thorough discussion of the necessity of grace, huh? So let's look at the first article now. Maybe we'll look at the objections and one by one in their answers, you know, before we look at the body of the article. The first one goes forward thus. It seems that man without grace is able to know, know what? The thing that is true. For it is said upon that of 1 Corinthians 12, no one is able to say the Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit, says the gloss of Ambrose, huh? And the gloss of Ambrose is about to say yes. Everything true by whomever it is said is from the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit dwells in us by grace. Therefore, we're not able to know the truth without grace. Now, how's he going to answer that, huh? Let's look at the reply to that. To the first, therefore, it should be said that everything true by whomever it is said is from the Holy Spirit as one pouring in our natural, what, light and moving us to understand, to speak the truth, huh? But not, however, as every truth, right, by the Holy Spirit indwelling or inhabiting, right, by grace making us, what, acceptable, or as from one giving some habitual gift added above, what, nature, right? But this is only in some truths being known and spoken of and most of all in those which pertain to the faith about which the Apostle, what, speaks, huh? So he's got to say we depend upon the Holy Spirit for every truth, at least as far as having our, what, our mind and the light of our mind, right? And as far as, what, being moved by him to do whatever we do, right? That goes back to a more general proposition, right? That no creature does anything without being in some way moved by the first, what, mover, huh? Which is a hard thing to understand. It's not really taken up. The proof of that here in this part of the, this, take it up in the third book of the Summa God Gentiles, right, or you take up God as the mover of things and maker. Okay. Moreover, Augustine says in the first book of the Soliloquies, I haven't read those for a long time, I read them a long time ago, the Soliloquies. It's around his early, early time, around the time he's... That the most, Augustine says in the Soliloquies, that the most, what, certain of the disciplines or sciences are such that are, what, illustrated by the sun, that they can be seen, but God, however, is the one who, what, enlightens. The reason thus is in, what, minds, as in, what, eyes? Look, yeah. For the eyes of the mind are the senses of the soul, right? It's always a discussion, you know, of the mind's seeing and hearing, right, the mind itself, kind of carry over from the senses. But the senses of the body, no matter how pure they are, is not able to see something visible without the illustration of the, what, sun. Therefore, the human mind, no matter how perfect, is not able by reasoning to know some truth without the, what, divine illustration, which pertains to the aid of, what, grace, huh? Thomas says, to the second it should be said that the bodily sun, huh, enlightens an exterior way, right? But the understandable light, which is God, enlightens within, huh? Whence the natural light of the human soul is put into there, right, is the illustration or the enlightenment of what? God. By which we illustrated by him to knowing those things which pertain to natural knowledge, huh? But to this is not required another illustration, but only to that which exceeds natural knowledge, huh? The articles of faith and things of that. sort so he's saying that even in our natural now is right enlightened by what god yeah yeah we don't need the light of grace to know everything moreover the human mind is not able to understand the truth this is the third objection now except by what cogitating thinking about it yeah this is clear to augustine in the 14th book about the trinity but the apostle meaning saint paul says in the second episode of corinthians chapter 3 we are not sufficient to think something by ourselves as we're from ourselves therefore man is not able to know truth to himself without the aid of what grace to the third it should be said that always we need the divine aid for thinking anything insofar as he moves our understanding to acting this is something that's said about all creatures right that they can't do what they do without in some way being moved by god right but to understand and act is what to think as is clear through augustine the 14th book of the trinity that doesn't mean you don't say need grace right the guy's not giving grace when he moves plants to be produced right now here we've got confession of augustine here and he said contra right but against this is what augustine says in the first book of the retractions right it's to say you know in the academic world you know that this should be a requirement of all professors yeah you write a book of retractions yeah your tenure must be conditioned upon you writing a book of retractions yeah it's not allowed to retire until you write your book of retractions i think that's a beautiful example of the proper humility of a academic person like augustine was in some ways you know got in trouble today he said that that trump is not a christian oh he did yeah because christian doesn't build walls he builds bridges so everybody's talking about this now in the news and they're showing pictures you know on the tv of the people of the city with all these walls around it so it's he's opened his mouth again in a kind of a careless way i guess said tide kennedy wasn't a christian because christians so augustine says in the book retractions huh i do not approve what i said in a what prayer right god who does not what except the clean to not wish except the clean to know truth right i answered that is it possible for many even those not what clean to know many things that are what true but the grace of man is made clean according to that of psalm 52 create a clean heart in me god and innovate what yeah my visceral parts therefore without grace man is able to know what some truth okay now we can look at the body of the article the answer should be said that to know the truth is a certain use or an act of the understandable light because according to the apostle and the epistle to the ephesians everything that is what he'd manifest his light but the use um implies a certain what motion okay and also thomas says here right largely taking motion right according as aristotle says right that to understand and to will are said to be certain motions as is clear through the philosophy in the third book about the soul right let's just stop in that a little bit here and and uh go back to um some of the thomas says are about words huh of course words are very important for human beings and especially for us christians right so i'm kind of struck by the fact that um in the our father right and we say our father who art in heaven above us right and the first of the seven petitions is what hallowed be thy name huh okay that kind of runs through i'm thinking of the psalm i think is it one one twelve i think is the correct number you know praise you servants of lord praise the name of the lord and the rising to the setting of the sun is the name of the lord to be praised you know in the rabbits and lots huh high above all nations is the lord above the heavens is his glory who's like the lord our god is and thrown on high except on the heavens and the earth below right which you have kind of three times in that prayer saying that we should praise him to his name right but anyway when we talk about names there um you know i've put it to you before what thomas says that all of our names come from the continuous or what is in the continuous now a lot of times when thomas is explaining this he'll go back to the sixth book of the physics and so on and talk about how if you have a certain line right and something goes down that line right it takes some time to go down that line right you have three continuous things right the line is continuous and therefore the motion down the line is continuous and then the time it takes is continuous right and the continuous is sometimes defined as it is a logic is that whose parts meet at a common boundary like the parts of a line meet at a point to the parts of a plane meet at a line the parts of a body meet at a surface um or the other definition is in terms of it's what is divisible what forever right okay you don't have something indivisible in the continuous until you get to the point right point is neither length nor width nor depth so all of these three things here the magnitude there the length in this case and the motion down there and the time it takes they're all what continuous right now sometimes thomas will say that these give rise to a few different senses huh so you can speak of the beginning of a line the beginning of emotion beginning of the time right okay um but if you look at the the word before that we've talked about because in the definition of reason meaning before and after which continues today take the first senses what's the first sense of before the fifth book of wisdom yeah yeah yeah okay now you could say that first sense could be attached right as very close senses before in motion right before in the magnitude of the line right huh okay uh but it's an emphasis there upon before in the sense of what time yeah okay now um take the word in which we've talked about before right and the word in had eight senses, right? And what's the first sense of in? Yeah. That's one of the continuous things, right? Now Thomas, when he goes through the eight senses of in, in the fourth book of Aristotle's physics, orders them and so on, but then he says Aristotle seems to have left out a sense of in time, right? And Thomas says, well, that is another sense, but it would be what? Attached to the first sense is proximity, right? Okay. So, but nevertheless, the first sensor is said to be what? Place. I'm in this room. We're in this room, right? The water is in the glass, right? Contained by the glass. Now, what about the sense of above and below we're talking about the other day, right? Maybe it's closer to place it seems to me than time, but it's kind of curious that we have above and below as well as in, right? Because in in there, you're kind of surrounded by your place, right? So it's not above you or below you. Exactly right. It's not before you or after you, right? You know? My heart, for example, is in my body as a part in a whole, which is a second sense of in. But you wouldn't say that my heart is before or after my body, would you? Say, or above or below my body. But it's only in my body. It must be in there. It must be in there. I wouldn't be talking. Something's in the picture. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Now, what continuous thing has not been touched upon yet as a starting point? In the word in and in the word maybe above and below, you have from place, right? Extended to all kinds of other things, right? And before you have time, right? Extended to all kinds of other things, right? These are all words equivocal by reason, right? These are order in these meanings, right? What continuous thing do we devout? Yeah, yeah. Now, Aristotle says that, what? In the ninth book of wisdom, which is the book on act and ability, right? That the first meaning of act for us is what? Motion, right? Okay. You can go back to the fact that our knowledge starts with our senses. And to quote Shakespeare again, things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs, right? So if our knowledge begins with our senses and things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs, right? You can see why act would come first from what? Motion, right? Now, how is the word motion there as naming act first or meaning act, act meaning first motion? How is that extended, right? Well, of course, the motion that is most continuous is what? Yeah, yeah. And so that's kind of carried over to other motions, right? And so I was born on January 18, 1936, but I think I came to be in 1935 then. I came to be in my mother's womb there. And where does that expression come to be? Yeah, yeah. It was named originally from what? Coming and going is first. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So even among the various kinds of motion there's a movement, right? Well, now in the reference he's making to Aristotle here in the, what, third book of the Dianima, right? Aristotle is saying how we sometimes carry the word motion, right, and therefore act to, over to, what, things like sensing and understanding, right? Now, in the metaphysics here in the ninth book, he's very concrete about astonishing the two, right? And, of course, motion is always a, what, imperfect act, huh? When you define motion in the third book of the physics, it's the act of what is able to be insofar as it's still able to be. Okay, so it's an imperfect act, an act that's incomplete by its very nature, right? It's an act which, when it's completed, is no longer there, right? Okay, so Aristotle would say, when I'm walking home, have I walked home? And when I have walked home, am I walking home? No. So it's always imperfect, but, yeah. Are we there yet? You know, the kids say, are we there yet? You know, as long as you're getting there, you're not there. Let me stop, we'll be there. So, but now he says, an activity like seeing, right, huh? When I see you, have I seen you yet? Yeah. That's a perfect act, right, huh? Okay. When I understand something, have I understood it yet? I'd say to the girls, when I'm loving you, have I loved you yet? Oh, yes, yes. That's kind of a perfect act, right, huh? Now, I was kind of struck, you know, by Thomas, I was reading the, I mean, the sentences, and he's talking about, you know, whether faith survives in heaven, and why it doesn't survive, you know, in heaven, and so on. He also raised the question, does charity survive in heaven, right, huh? And of course, there's many objections that say it doesn't, right, although he's going to pretend that it does. But one argument that is there goes back to seeing charity as a kind of, what, motion towards God, right, huh, you see? Well, when a motion is, what, completed, it no longer exists, right? So, if charity is a motion, right, well, then it's not going to survive, right, in heaven, right? Yeah, yeah, and Thomas says, well, it's a motion, and he goes back to what Aristotle says here, right, huh? It's not a motion in the strict sense, is it? It's not an imperfect act. It's a perfect act, and so on, right? Okay. Large, in Latin, says, largecipiendum votum, right, huh? According as to understand, and to will, and to love, you could say, too, right? Are sometimes said to be, right? It's clear, the philosophy explains that, that equivocation in the word, right, huh? Okay? So, the word motion is carried over to these perfect acts, like to understand, to love, to will, and so on, right? To see, to hear, right? Now, it's carried over to another thing, too, though, right? Kind of in a little different way, huh? And that is, what? Form is called act, right, huh? Okay? So, what's the definition of the soul, for example? Do you remember that definition? In studying the soul? How's Aristotle defined the soul in the Dianna Medina? You know? Yeah. First act of a natural body composed of tools, right, huh? Okay? First act of a natural body furnished with tools, you've got to say, okay? And that's what the meaning of organic, right, huh? It's an organic Greek word for tool, the common word, huh? But notice, that's not the first meaning of act, is it, right? And you'd never call the soul itself an activity, would you? Or an action. And act is more meaning activity or action, right, than form. But yet it's been carried over from, what, activity or action to, what, form, right, huh? Okay? So that's another thing, right? The act which is most known to us, right, is motion. And then that word act is carried over from motion and placed upon what?