Tertia Pars
Lecture 45: Word, Logos, and the Problem of Translation

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

Then you're using the word in the latest sense without knowing the real sense. You know, I was mentioning earlier the Gospel of St. John. And I think it's interesting that we've kept the English word there, word, right? So we say in the beginning was the word, right? But in English, has the word word been moved to mean thought? But the Greek word, that word is translation of logos. Logos means first in Greek word too, right? The spoken word, first of all, and then the written word. But then later on, logos means the thought that the word signifies. So rather than translate it and say in the beginning was the thought, we've kept the English word that corresponds to the original meaning of the word logos, right? And now you have to what? carry it over, right? Okay. I think I mentioned how Shakespeare there in Roman and Juliet, he carries the word birth over to mean what a thing is. But normally speaking, we say the birth of a thing, we don't mean what it is. So the English word is kind of stuck on the first meaning of birth. So I think it's kind of interesting in the translation of the Gospel of St. John that we kind of kept the original meaning of the Greek word logos, which is not the meaning of the word there. See? In the beginning it was a word, it's not a word, it's a thought. A most unusual thought, it's a good one to say, you know? But if you want to translate it, right? You have to say a thought because the English word word is not moved. So we have to kind of move it or else go back to the original Greek, you know? Because of the Latin and the Latin and they didn't transcode variable. Yeah, so it brought a lot of it. So that would be in the beginning instead of the axiom. Yeah. Verbum, yeah. I don't know how much the Latin verbum is not as much moved to me in a thought as the Greek word logos. So the Latin translation is also kind of fun. I mean, he could have said we're out there, right? I don't know if that's the Greek. Yeah. Anyway, word there means it. That's what John thought. Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in one of the books somewhere on living, it's in a spirit of belief. It's related to this anyway. The idea that the English word that we transliterate from the Latin word, the verbum, verb, means action. And then he speaks that way of what's the action of the liturgy. Oh, yeah. It's when the word comes to dwell in the open. That's the action. That's what happens in the liturgy. That's the action. That's actually a liturgy. You see that in the old Missal. It was talked about axial. Infra-axial. Yeah. But he's pointing out that it's related to the verbum. God's word is not just like ours is not just something. It's just sort of static. Yeah. Yeah. Actions. And that's reflected actually in the Old Testament. One of the few things I remember from writing is in Hebrew. When it often in the prophets it says the word of the Lord came to the prophets. In Hebrew it literally means the word of the Lord happened to the prophets. It's like he underwent this word of the Lord. That's what it really means. And remember in Shakespeare's definition of reason you see he uses the Latin transliterated that is discourse, right? But in that other passage I use a lot of times in explaining it you know where Romeo or where Friar Lawrence says to Romeo wisely and slow they stumble they'd run fast. Well the first meaning of that statement is running with your legs, right? But already Friar Lawrence is not using it in that sense. He's using run in the case of what? Action, right? And then finally running is applied to the act of reason itself. And sometimes you'll find people say you know let me run through this once more the professor will say the guy's explaining something, right? And run down a course of figures in my head. And there you're using the run in kind of a third sentence, right? But in the definition of reason Shakespeare uses the word running. I mean the Latin word discourse which comes out the word to run but it would have seemed kind of strange in English to say the ability for a large run again because the word running has not been moved so much in English, right? You can kind of see the beginning of that in the words of Friar Lawrence wise then slow they stumble and run fast, right? And so we just speak of people who jump to conclusions. Well instead you don't put your legs you don't jump to conclusions. And so it's being applied out of the act of the mind, right? So you've got to be kind of sensitive to those things. So as Kami said you either have to move the English word or else you have to go back to the Greek word and see how that was moved, right? Because otherwise you're going to take a word in its later sense without going through the earlier senses and your mind doesn't know what it's talking about anymore. On a sort of contemporary related note there's a lot of movement within language as far as redefining words to mean something other than they have traditionally meant in a way that's not moving something over and defining something more clearly but actually to muddy the water in a certain way. It's interesting. We find this as a computer you know like I was vocabulary you know and what's a domain meaning? What's your domain? And my son he picked up all these words and he said what's your domain? I don't know what domain is right Well who's your server? Yeah what's your server? I don't know I don't know Nobody's here as me Yeah I have a domain wherever your server is that's where you domain it You can say that your home is your castle that's your domain and your name is your server So Thomas here is referring to what Aristotle was very clear there in the third second and third books on the soul right that this word for undergoing right is being used in a different sense okay You see back in natural philosophy he's talking about motion he has acting upon and undergoing right and that's the first sense of it really and then later on he applies it to sensing and then finally to understanding okay so he's referring back to this and although according to understanding and sensing right the soul is said in some way to pati to suffer right to undergo right nevertheless as has been said in the second part here of the summa most properly are called passions or undergoings the affections of the what soul right the affections excuse me of the sensitive appetite okay you see what in the use of the English word if I say somebody's passionate doesn't mean he understands a lot it means he's got it means he's got you're talking about the man's emotions right so what we call emotions in English sometimes in Latin they speak of the passion as animi right rather than the sensing or the understanding of the soul right which he says were in Christ right just as other things which pertain to what the nature of man right once Augustine says in the 14th book of the city of God that the Lord himself right when he ordained to what in the form of a slave right to lead a life there right human life he humanly right joined those things which he judged to be what should be joined right nor in the one in whom there was a true body of man right and a true soul of man right was there a false what yeah I read in the devotion to the sacred heart that you can start with the emotion of Christ and then from there ascend to the love that is in his will human will and then ascend from that to the love which is in his divine will, right? So he has this emotion and he wept there when Lazarus and so on so did Christ have any emotions? Yes and passions in that sense but Thomas says it should be known however that passions or emotions were in Christ in a different way than in us as regards three things, right? First as regards the object of those emotions because in us many times these emotions are born to illicit things which in Christ was not, right? So when you're growing up you know you hear that anger is a sin, right? Well of course Christ gets angry with the well because our anger is probably most of the time got the wrong object to get angry about secondly as regards the what? beginning because these emotions frequently, right? in us come before the judgment of what? reason but in Christ all movements of the sense desire arose according to the disposition of what? reason when Augustine says in the 14th book about the city of God that these motions by the grace of a most certain disposition thus when Christ wished, right? he took on by his human soul just as he wished to what? he made a man, right? and third it's regards in effect because in us sometimes these motions do not stop in the sense appetite, right? but they draw reason I guess after them, right? but this was not in Christ because the emotions naturally are suitable to human flesh thus from his disposition from the disposition of him in the what? they remained in the sense of their appetite that his reason from them in no way was impeded to do the things which was suitable for it to do, huh? whence Jerome now says in the Gospel of Matthew that our Lord and that he might what? prove the truth of the what? truly was what? sad and contrastatus but lest the passion in the soul of him would dominate, right? through this content of the word pro-passionum he is said that he began to what? he's sadden, right? that passion a perfect passion is understood when to the soul that is reason it dominates it, right? but pro-passionum when it is begun in sensitive appetite but does not extend but further, right? St. Thomas even makes that point the temptation again when it says he fasted 40 days and 40 nights and he was hungry he says that's because he wanted to be hungry yeah and he said the devil would not have approached him unless one he went out to the desert two and he let him approach otherwise he said the devil would not dare but that's what they say about the sadness in the garden because somebody that's the gospel says that he began to be sad because he willed to be sad so they he wasn't overwhelmed and unhinged or something they say why do they pro-passion politicians are worse than the devil himself because they dare to approach that word now the first objection said well to suffer the one who causes you to suffer has got to be more powerful right up in the speed to the first therefore it should be said that the soul of Christ was able to resist the passions that they would not come upon him especially he could do this by his what divine power but by his own will he subjected himself to the passions both those of the body and those of the what soul right now what about Cicero here to the second it should be said that Tullius there speaks according to the opinion of the Stoics right who did not call passions whatever emotions of the sense of the appetite but only the what disordered ones right for such passions is manifest or not in Christ I think there's a lot ambiguity there about what the position of the Stoics you know because sometimes they've spoken of as not having emotions at all right saying well they're going to kill my wife and children like anything about so out of my hands right you know and that's what Shakespeare speaks of them as a stock making a pun upon you know you know you get stock you can hit this chair and hit it and it just takes it you know doesn't complain at all and let's be no stocks you know Shakespeare says that but going back to what in question of our style should reason rule the emotions as a father rules his son or as a master rules a slave right and some people say you know well for the Stoics reason rule the emotion as a master rules a slave so it's not there are two differences we spoke of there that the master rules the slave for the good of the master not of the slave and his faith has nothing to say about what he does right the father rules the son for the good of the son right and the son has something to say about what he should do right then okay so when I give my emotions Mozart right I'm getting something that they want right and they have something to say right but if they want to listen to some other kind of music I say no you can't have that but there's something to say about what they do you know right you can read a Shakespeare now I've done enough theology for a while you can take a walk or something right or maybe the stoics would be ruling the emotions like a master rules his slave right and I remember my cousin down saying I was talking one time to some psychologist who talked about disorders and kind of that was for her the root of these disorders in these people that their reason was ruling their emotions tyrannically you might say right and so they snap or something happens you know they get to her there was some quote I don't remember where it was St. Thomas where he probably used in the same example that the language gives what I remember from our saying we can't rule our emotions like a tyrant who was a slave or something but rather he says diplomatically that's the way he was back to this business friend of my father's you know I mean you wrote your package degree or something you know I mean some people just don't belong in college you know but so you don't have to kid just go out and be a wasteful right well if he wants to work on cars and that's his life he loves cars okay well maybe this is the thing for him right so you have to to some extent listen to what the son wants and what's suitable to him right you you you you you Okay. So sometimes there's ambiguity there sometimes. Did the Stoics say that all emotions are a sickness? Because sometimes Thomas speaks as if the Stoics were all the same. And other times, you know, as if, no, they're calling these, what? Excessive ones, right? But they say there's ambiguity, I know, as a child growing up, and they say, well, anger is one of the capital vices, isn't it? And they say, well, is anger always a sin? Well, anger there doesn't mean emotion pure and simple, but this kind of disordered anger we have, right? But the kind of ambiguity as a child that was not explained to us, you see? And then later on, Christ, you know, actually angered, and sometimes it actually speaks of him as being angry, but his actions indicate a certain righteous anger, you might say. Or even one gospel. Is it Mark? It's kind of curious how, after the resurrection, how Christ upbraided the disciples, where you don't get that? Yeah, because they wouldn't believe the other ones. Yeah. And the testifying. But I know there's one when he's in the synagogue, I think it's in Mark's gospel one. They're hard to see. Yeah, he said, is it lawfully? Well, he all was out, and he wouldn't answer them. He looked it down with anger. Yeah, it actually says that, yeah. Now, the passionis peccatorum there in the third objection, right? Those are the emotions of the sensitive appetite tending towards what? Elicit things, right? And these were not in Christ, just as neither the foams of sin. Now, we're up to Article 5 here. What is this Latin word doler? How would you translate it into English? In this context usually, I think, I would say pain. Yeah. Sensible pain. There would be this distinction between the beginning of the body, Article 4, remember? That the soul and the body constituted, it can suffer two ways, right? In one way by passioni corporale, another way by an animal or soul-like passion. Still something bodily, but a little different, right? Well, pain is more something that you associate with the injury of the body, right? Sadness is probably more the name for the passioni animali, as he calls it. Okay? Thomas would sometimes, you know, be very precise about this dimension of those two, you know? In the same way, pleasure is sometimes spoken of as something really in a sense of touch, right? And then delight, you know, or joy is something more of what? Spiritual. Spiritual, yeah. What's the name of that book of C.S. Lowe? Surprised by Joy? No. What does it mean? The sensual light. It means you're discovering, you know, the truth and great literature and so on, right? You know? But there's something, you know? There's also a joke about that, too, because the woman that he ended up, the divorced American woman that he was marrying later on, her name was Joy. So, Dr. John's surprised by Joy. But there's more to it than that, because she was a confirmed bachelor. Yeah. And he was surprised by just how much he fell in love with her and how happy he was. It seems like an aggressive woman, though, if I read about him. It's strange, too, because the Anglican, the first Anglican bishop or something that he went to refused because she was divorced. Yeah. So he went to some charismatic Anglican or whatever, evangelical Anglican. So it's kind of a strange one for C.S. Lewis, who, you know, started to think of all these different Christian themes. We used to have this, but Laval used to kind of drive these texts over the great about women, you know. And he'd go through, you know, a whole bunch of the dangers of them and so on, and then end up with, you know, the one, the quote we always remember. And if I said everything I know about women, he says, the whole world would stupefy. To the fifth one proceeds thus, it seems that in Christ there was not true, sensible, what? Pain, right? For Hillary says in the tenth book about the Trinity, when, when, when for what? For Christ? Life. To die. To die. Sins. Yeah, sins because of the subject. To die. What would it be? What would he and what? What should he be estimated to what? Suffered in the sacrament of death, who for himself paid life to the dead? For those dying, yeah. Or who bestowed his life on such as die for him is the translation here. Oh yeah, die for him. Per se. And below he said, the only begotten God took on a true man, right? Not failing from himself as God, in which although either what? Blows fell upon him, right? Or wounds ascended, or nudie, what's that, nudie, ran together, or suspension was elevated. These brought a certain impetus of passion, but not over did they infer what? Pain, right, huh? Therefore, in Christ there was not true pain, huh? That's quite a text there. The translation here says, as a dart piercing the water. He had no pain. Pain as a dart piercing. Well, Tom's going to have to explain that text somehow for us. Moreover, this seems to be what? Proper to flesh, conceived in sin, right? That it undergo a necessity of what? Pain. There wouldn't be any pain in the garden, right? Before sin, right? But the flesh of Christ was not conceived with sin, but it was conceived from the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin. Therefore, he was not subject to the necessity of undergoing what? Pain. Moreover, the pleasure of the contemplation of divine things diminishes the sense of pain. Hence, for the martyrs and their passions were more able to tolerate pain for the consideration of the divine, what? Love. Turn me over, right? Yes. But the soul of Christ was, in the highest way, delighting in the contemplation of God, whom he saw through what? His essence. Therefore, he was not able to sense in equal pain. So, Thomas is going to say that what? He didn't allow this to overflow from his soul into his, what? Body, huh? But against all this is what Isaiah says, chapter 53. These are the chapters that Alphonsus uses, you know? It's almost like a gospel cult of his great suffering. Okay. Truly, he bore our, what? Sicknesses, huh? Mm-hmm. And our pains, he himself bore. Okay. Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, as has been said from those things in the second part. To the truth of sensible pain is required the injury of the body and the injury of the, what? Sense, huh? Mm-hmm. But the body of Christ is able to be, what? Injured, because it was, what? Able to suffer, and it was, what? Mortal, huh? Mm-hmm. That's why he's still considered to be a viator, right? In part, right? Nor was there lacking to him the sense of, right? Of lesion, of danger, which means the sense of touch, mainly. Since the soul of Christ perfectly had all the natural powers. Yes. Whence, it's a no, it's not tough at all, but that in Christ there was true, what? Pain, huh? Okay. So one would think it seems to me, if you count the Holy Week, you would think that, right? Right. But Thomas is giving the reason for it here now, okay? Because he had a body that was able to suffer, right? And it was mortal, right? He could die. And he had this sense of touch, right? The sense of the, and more. Aristotle says, the better sense of touch you have, the better mind you'll have. So, Christ would have a more, what? A more sensitive, you might say. Touch, right? He never could feel pain more than, what? Anybody else, right? Dollar. Yeah. Okay, now there's terrible at texting from Hillary, right? He just adds to it, he quotes more of it. What? He quotes more of it. Yeah. Well, what can we do? To get these texts, I realize I don't want my Latin anymore. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that in all of these words and ones like them, right, Hillary does not intend to exclude from the flesh of Christ the truth of what? Pain, right? But the necessity of it, right? Okay. Whence after the four said words, he adds, right? For neither when he... Thirsted or hungered or wept is the Lord shown, right? To have drunk or to have eaten or to have sorrow. But to demonstrating the truth of his what? Body, right? He took on the custom of the body, right? The ways of the body. Thus that by the custom of our nature he satisfied the custom of the body, right? Custom is taken in a kind of different usual sense, right? It means the nature, right? As Warren Murray points out, even Aristotle will speak of the custom of nature, right? You know, that custom is distinguished from nature. Or when he took on, what, drink or food, not according to the necessity of the body, but to give, what, way to the custom of the body, right? And he takes necessity in comparison to the first cause of these defects, which was what? Sin. So that for that reason, the flesh of Christ was not subject to necessity of these defects because it was not in him what? Sin. Hence, he subjoins that Christ had a body, but what was proper to its origin, right? It was neither existing from the, what, vices of human conception, the human father, right? But in the form of our body, by the power of his virtue, subsisting, right? But as regards the proximate cause of these defects, which is the composition of the body from contraries, so it can separate from the contrary, something too hot or too cold, right? The flesh of Christ was subject to necessity of these, what, defects. Let's see who that said on the boat is, right? This passage from Hillary is in the sentences of Lombard, and that's what all, St. Thomas and Bionic all have to sort of explain what Hillary means. Yeah. Yeah, because he's a critical passage. Okay, now the second objection is saying, well, he started from the fact that he was not subject to sin, right? So, the second should be said that flesh conceived in sin was subject to pain, not only for the necessity of the natural principles of the body, but also for the necessity of the punishment of sin, or the guilt of sin, right? Which necessity in Christ was not, but only the necessity of the natural, what, principles. Now, the theory of objection is going to be solved, as you'd expect, by saying he didn't allow it to overflow, right? To the third, it should be said, as has been said above, that by virtue of his divinity of Christ, he disposed, that thus the beatitude in his soul was contained, that it was not, what, derived to his body, so that his, what, ability to suffer, his mortality would be, what, taken away, you know? And for the same reason, the pleasure of contemplation was thus contained in the mind, that was not derived to the sensible powers, so that through this, sensible pain would be, what, excluded, right? You can see that kind of in the transfiguration, right? Because there he allows the glory of his soul to flow into the body, and you see what the ultimate state of us would be, you know, our body will shine at the sun, it says, right? But it's subject to his will, right, to allow it to overflow in the body, yeah? But just as the glory of the soul that you see in, the glory of the body there, overflowing from the soul in the transfiguration, is not the usual, what Christ allows in his body most of the time. So he doesn't allow it to overflow in his body, so he would not feel pain, right? Because he wouldn't be able to do what he wants to do. Can we get time for it? Is it going to get stuck now? I said, yeah, yeah. I found with these, there's sadness in them next. Yeah. But I think the contrast between the word tristitia and dolor is expressed by the difference in English between pain and sorrow, right? Okay. So when someone I love dies, I feel sorrow, right? But when I bump myself or run into something sharp or something, then I don't feel sorrow, I feel pain. There's a real difference between those two things, huh? Pain and sorrow. And something like that in the, with pleasure and joy, right? But it's more clear in some ways the difference between pain and sorrow, right? When Aristotle talks about the definition of tragedy, he put in there the idea of pity, right? Well, pity is a form of what? Sadness, right? And there are other forms of sadness like melancholy, right? Envy is a kind of sadness, right? But envy and pity and melancholy are more of these passionis animalis as he calls them, huh? As opposed to the pain, you know, where you've got an ulcer, you've got, you know, tooth or something, right? You probably have some of those pains. That's the toxin. Infections there about a toothache, right? Okay. Well, that's not sorrow, it's pain. So there's a real difference between those things, right? And tragedy is not trying to purge pain, but to purge what? You pity, so you feel pity for what is really pitiful, right? Let's go. Thank you. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, orden and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. In the name of Christ. And help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Did you celebrate St. Catherine of Siena yesterday? Yes, of course. Okay. I was reading in a little bit of her life there that they thought she didn't know how to, what, write. And then she was lonely when her confessor had left her for a while, and she wanted to write. And so she was given to Mark as a gift of writing, right? But it was given to her. Christ appeared to her with St. John and Thomas Aquinas. I was kind of interested in, well, why John and Thomas Aquinas with our Lord, right? Of course, John is the one who emphasizes the Word, right? He's really famous for that, right? And of course, Thomas is, what, the master of the Word, right? You know, one of the, the image of the Trinity in the Dominican Order, they say, is Dominic represents the Father, right? And then his Word is Thomas, right? And then the Holy Spirit, or love, is Catherine of Siena, right? So it's appropriate that Thomas has come down to help her put things into words, huh? Okay, we're in Article 6 here, huh? We're finding out about the, what they, in Latin, they call the passionis anime, right? But what do we call these passions in English? So as we use it with passion, that's more for, we access them usually. What do we call them in English? Yeah, emotions, and sometimes, what, feelings, right? Okay? But emotions comes from the word for, what, motion. And so we speak in English, you know, that I was moved to anger, I was moved to, you know, some other emotion, right? And of course, the word passio in Greek or in Latin has the idea of, what, undergoing, right? And therefore being moved in some way. But the word feelings, which has more meanings than that of emotion, but it kind of shows the fact that there's something bodily about these things, huh? That would be known even by the sense of touch, right? So you feel, we say you're angry, as if it's by the sense of touch that you know, huh? You're bodily changed when you're angry or you're feeling fear or something, right? So Christ had these things, right? Especially when you wanted to have them. Okay. To the sixth one proceeds thus, it seems that in Christ there was no, what, sadness, huh? Now, it's interesting that he has an article on sadness here. He's going to have one on fear in the next one, huh? And then admiration, which is connected with fear in a way. Well, it's not fear in the ordinary sense. And then he's going to have one on anger, right, huh? And no one on joy. Interesting, huh? Maybe it's kind of obvious that he had an anger. Or hope and things of this sort, right? So it seems that in Christ there was no sadness, right? For it is said about Christ in Isaiah chapter 42 that he was neither, what, sad nor disturbed, huh? We had that scene there where Philip, you know, did you have that today? I don't know. No, I have that. Where he gets up to the eunuch there from Ethiopia, right? Yeah, the other day. He was reading Isaiah in the carriage or the chariot or something, and he doesn't know what this refers to, you know? It wasn't this exact passage, but it's a different one, the one about the sheep there, I mean, being for the suffering. Okay. Moreover, Proverbs 12, verse 21. The just man is not, what, saddened no matter what happens to him, right? You see why the church is, people are kind of attracted to the stoics a bit, right? That's what the wise man is supposed to be, you know, he's above this. You know, when the wise man is told that his son has died, or always knew he was mortal, or some other such inhuman reasons. And this reason the stoics assign, right? That's going right to the stoics. Because no one is sad except about the loss of his own, what, goods, right? But the just man does not regard as his own goods anything other than justice and virtue, which he cannot lose, right? Of course, the Aristotelians, they divide the goods into the goods of the soul, the goods of the body, and the outside goods. And there's an order among them, right? And the chief ones are the goods of the soul, but the goods of the body are goods, nevertheless. And even the exterior ones. My chair is good, and so on. Without my car, I'd have a hard time getting up here. I bicycled up here all the way. There's somebody on the road I passed, bicycling along. I don't know how far he was going, but a little dangerous out there. Otherwise, a just man would be subject to fortune, right? If he was saddened by the loss of the goods of what? Fortune, right? But Christ was most of all just, right? According to that in Jeremiah 23, 6. This is the name that they call him. Lord, our just one young. Therefore, in him, there was no, what, sadness, huh? And I think Catherine Siena is saying something like that, huh? No matter what happens, you don't get upset about it. He says, because it's come so bad that it came to you, so I get upset about it. Moreover, the philosopher says in the seventh book of the Ethics that all sadness is bad and to be, what, run away, freed from, huh? But nothing bad or to be freed from should be in Christ, right? Therefore, in Christ, there was no sadness, huh? That's an interesting argument, huh? Moreover, as Augustine says in the 14th book about the city of God, sadness is about those things which happen to us, not willing them to happen to us, huh? But nothing that Christ underwent was against his will. For it is said in Isaiah chapter 53, he was offered up because he willed. Therefore, in Christ, there was no, what, sadness. But against all this is what the Lord himself says in Matthew chapter 26. My soul is sad, usquiet mortem, even unto death, right? And Ambrose, huh, says in the second book about the Trinity, that as a man, huh, he had, what, sadness. As God, he couldn't have any sadness, but as man. And he underwent, huh, took on my sadness, huh? And with confidence, I call it sadness, who, what, when I preached the cross, huh? Thomas answers, I answer it should be said, that as has been said, the delight or pleasure of the divine contemplation was thus, by the dispensation of the divine power, retained in the mind of Christ, in such a way that it is not to overflow or derive down to his, what, sense powers, huh? So that the sadness or the pain, sensible pain, would, what, exclude it. But just that sensible pain is in the sensitive, desiring power, so also sadness, right? But there is a difference according to the motive of this. Notice the word motivum, right? You see, these are the words, emotions. Or the object, right? For the object and the motive of, what? Pain, right, Dolores, Dolor, is the, what, injury, right? Perceived by the sense of touch, huh? As when someone is wounded, huh? But the object, The object in the motive of sadness is something harmful or something bad grasped in an interior way, so it's a more spiritual thing, either through reason or through the, what, imagination. So when Hammond says there's nothing good or bad in this world, but thinking makes it so. He's probably thinking there, not so much in the sense of reason, but of, what, imagining, right? You can imagine things a certain way, and then they seem terrible, and imagine another way, they seem good, right? Sometimes we laugh about the awful thing that happened to us. The car's broken down, huh? The way back from the south there, I almost drove the car until it's empty, right? Oh, no. I said, I've got to get it filled up the first thing tomorrow morning, you know? It's the next day. And then I was driving, so I'm driving along, and I forgot about it. And then finally there's a rest area. I said, will I stop here, Rosemary? Yeah. And then she's going to drive a little bit, you know? Hey, it's almost empty! There was enough gas in there to make it to the thing, but it would have been, you know. It wouldn't be always fun to be out there on the highway without any gas, so. Well, no, I hadn't seen that rest area. Yeah, you know, it may not be the rest area for another three miles. I'd probably run out. We did that in New Brunswick, in front of John Mayer, in the fall of Foley, which is beautiful. Yeah. We just left the big town, we passed through it, and we're up countryside, nothing anywhere. Just like, oh, look at the leaves, look at the leaves. Ding, ding, ding. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding ding, ding, ding. goods, and secondly, we need some of all three. But they disagree as to which ones are better, right? And which ones you should try, therefore, to get the most of, right? And consequently, where the purpose of life is going to be found, it's going to be found among the greater ones, right? I used to always quote, you know, the kind of thing from Ben Franklin, I guess it is, early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. And there you single out three goods, one from each of the three kinds, because wealth is the excellence of exterior goods, and health is perhaps the greatest good of the body, and wisdom is the greatest good of the soul, right? So in some sense, we know there are these three kinds of goods, and you need some of all of them, right? But they disagree as to which are better, right? And sometimes Thomas uses that division in talking about Christ, you know, that what did he do after his death, right? Well, as a consequence of the merits of his death, and so on, he first descended into hell and gave the big division to the prophets, and so on, right? That was the good of the soul. And then he rose from the dead, right? Which is to bestow upon us the good of the body, right? Not only that, but I mean, it kind of stands out there. And then he is sent into heaven, right? And that's the exterior good, right? So, but he goes back to that division into those three. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and the, when he talks about the articles of the faith, right? Maybe we'll come back to that when you get to the part where he goes to the life, not Christ, you know, when you get to these different things. Because, oh, this is what he took on when he became man, right? So, Thomas says, although the bono monestum, that was the name that was adopted in Latin, right, for the goods of the soul, right? The honorable goods, huh? So, although the bono monestum is the chief good of man and the dishonest, meaning, that has a different meaning, of course, in English now, the chief evil of man, because these pertain to reason, which is chief in man, there are nevertheless some secondary goods of man, which pertain to the body or to the exterior things serving the body, huh? And according to this, there can be in the soul of the wise man sadness, right? As regards the sense-desiring power, according to the grasping of these evils, right? Not or such that that sadness would disturb reason, right? So would function. And according to this, it should be understood that he is not saddened the just man. Whatever happens to him is if he goes crazy when something happens, huh? Jumps out of the, you know, like when the stock market collapsed in 1929, right? People were actually jumping out of skyscraper windows and so on, and some people were taking their lives and their leaders down, down. Because for no accident is his reason what? Disturbed and taken out of proper functioning. And according to this, sadness was in Christ, this kind of technical term, secundum propasionum, right? Not according to passion, this full one that deranges a man, right? Okay, now what about this argument from Aristotle here? All sadness is bad, huh? That's why there's no sadness in heaven, right? Because it would not be a perfect good, huh? There's any sadness, huh? If sadness was fair to say, good, there should be some sadness in heaven, right? To theory, it should be said that all sadness is the evil of what? Yeah, or punishment, huh? But it's not always the evil of, what, guilt, but only when it proceeds from a disordered, what, affection. When St. Gustin says in the 14th book about the city of God, huh? That when these affections, that's another word they use in Latin for these emotions, when they follow right reason, right? And when and where is necessary to show them, right, huh? Who dares to call them morbid or vicious, what, passions, huh? So it's appropriate for our Lord to show sadness there when his friend, Lazarus, died and so on. Okay, to the fourth, sadness is about those things which happen to us, not willing them. To the fourth, it should be said that nothing prevents something to be, what, contrary to the will in itself, which is nevertheless willed by reason of the end to which it is, what, ordered. Just as a bitter medicine is not by itself or in itself willed, right, but only according as it is ordered to, what, help, huh? So when I was a little boy there, they were giving me some medicine for something and it had like that cinnamon coating on the outside, the little cinnamon thing you used to eat sometimes, you'd put on cakes and so on. Well, I put it in my mouth and that's in there enough, you know. It tastes pretty good, you know. All of a sudden I got through the cinnamon and, oh! Before you get this colonoscopy and you got to take all this stuff, you know, and it got awful taste to it, but anyway. Sometimes they fix it up a little nicer, but so on. I always thought, you know, that my dislike of milk when I was a little boy was due to the fact that I took milk and magnesia one time, you know. I was getting some, you know, for some ailment and I associated milk and magnesia with milk. Do you know why it's called milk and magnesia? I'm curious. No, I don't know. I don't know what it's even given for. I remember it used to be a home remedy in those days for something. Magnesia was in Asian minor, and I was wondering if there was some sort of connection, classical Greek connection to the name of it. I thought maybe it was a chemical. Yeah, magnesium or something. I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with that. I suppose it's time to get a set or something. I don't know. Yeah, a number of different views. So nothing prevents something from being contrary to the will as such, which is nevertheless willed by reason of an end which is ordered. You see, bitter medicine is not willed according to itself, right? But only according and disordered to what? Health. And in this way, the death of Christ and his, what, passion, considered in itself is involuntary, right? Contrary to his will, not my will, and causing sadness, right? Although it was willed or voluntary in order to the end, which is the redemption of the human, what, race. So sadness as such is not good. Go back to the definition there of Augustine, that sadness is about those things which happen to us not willing, when someone was contrary to his will to undergo this, huh? But all things considered, right? It was willed by him.