Logic (2016)
Lecture 35: The Eight Senses of 'In' and Thinking Out

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

I'm in this room, right? You are in this room, right? The sense of to be in. And the Greeks were so taken up with this that they said whatever is must be somewhere. If it isn't somewhere, it doesn't exist. Now, what's the second sense of to be in, right? As a part in a hole, in the first sense of the word, the composed hole, right? That's the closest, right? I am in this room. You are in this room. These chairs and tables are in this room, right? But I've got teeth in my mouth. Are my teeth in my mouth in the same way that you are in this room? Because my teeth there in my mouth are not false teeth. They're in my mouth. It's a part of my mouth, right? My tongue is a part of it. So you're really a part of this room, Jason? Josh, you're up there. You might think, oh, Professor does this room all the time. You're really a part of it, right? Now, if you hit me in the mouth, and my tooth comes out, then it's in my mouth. It's in a what place? Yeah. See how close it is? Right? Okay. But you're not glued to the chair that's sitting on. The chair is not passing to the floor and so on, right? Okay? So you're part in a composed hole. Now, what's the third sense that Aristotle gives, or Thomas gives? He gives the one of the genus in the species. And you put to this sense attached difference in the species, right? Now, the genus, in a sense, is part of the definition of species, right? The differences in the other parts, right? Okay? This is a little different kind of hole in the part than this one right here. Then the fourth sense is an even more distant sense of part of the hole, which would be the reverse of this, the species in the what? In the genus. You say, how can that be? How can the genus be in the species and the species be in the genus, right? The wine's in the bottle. The bottle's not in the wine. How can they both be? How can they be in each other, right? Food's in my mouth. I'm in the mouth and the food. Well, if it was one sense of in, they couldn't be in each other, could they? If I'm a part of something else, that other can't be part of me, right? In the same sense, right? This is a different sense, right? You dummy, huh? This is an equivocal word, right? The word equivocal by reason, right? But this is what we call the what? Universal hole, right? Jesus in the genus, right? The second and third sense are part in a what? Composed hole, right? The one is the hole we first know, right? The other one is this mental one. This definition, right? Okay? The species in the genus. Now, in Greek, the word for species there would be what? Ados, which is also a word for what? Form, right? What's the next sense? Form and matter, yeah. And that is the, what, fifth sense, right? Now, he comes back upon hole and part again there, right? And he says that form is to matter, a bit like whole is to what? Hearts. It's the Oxford, it's another place, right? And so they show this building and they show this building and they show this building and this is the name of the building and so on, right? Okay, but now where's the university? Well, the university is in, what? All these buildings, right? You go and take the function palette, right? I'm going to show you the library, I'm going to show you the chapel, I'm going to show you the dormant, I'm going to show you this academic building and this one, the science building and so on. But notice, when we define matter, we say matter is that from which something comes to be, existing, what, in it. And the whole comes to be from parts, so, whole is to parts, a little bit like form is to what? Matter, right? Okay, now, in these two senses, of in, as opposed to these here, these parts here, the part is actually in the whole, right? Where the form is in matter originally, only in what? Ability. And the whole is in the parts, only in ability, right? The cook is out and he has all the ingredients, and then he's in all those parts, but in ability, right? Okay. And now he's done a kind of ability. In ability to catch you in my power, right? Okay. And this is the active one, right? So it's in, we say, well, it sounds off, extract the superfluous. I'm sorry, it's out of my hand. See, what we said, though, right? It's out of my hand. It's not, what? In my power to do it, right? Active ability, right? That's touching upon nutrition cause, right? Is the baby in his brother's father? He has the ability to reduce the baby, or at least reduce the body of the baby, right? To begin in the body. The last one goes to the other end, extrinsic causes, in the what? I left my heart in San Francisco, right? My heart's not in it. Okay. Loved are in the end, right? So people will say this, right? My heart's not in it. What did you say? My heart's not in it. I'm a philosopher, my heart's sore. I'm a lover of God, my heart is sore. So, here. Here. Here. Here. Now, how many senses are they thinking out, right? It seems to me, without getting too sophisticated, at least in these six senses, there are six different senses. And maybe sometimes we multiply, right? So when I think out a division, right? A division is a what? Distinction of the parts of some whole, right? So when I think out the composing parts of a whole, and thinking out, in a sense, corresponding to the sense of him. So my teacher Aristotle, he thought out that the plaque is the beginning, the middle, and the end. He thought out that the plaque is tying the knots and the untying the knots. He took the course anatomy of thinking out. It's your body, right? You learn how to spell a word. Heart type, that's a thing, right? It's something to be able to spell, right? Tied up with the girls, right? So we're exercising with a boy. Sister was, you know, I had a contest between the boys and the girls. The girls were ahead, but I wanted to say, I get the boys who are trying to catch up. And so she asked me to exercise, and don't go ahead, right? So tied up with the girls. So when you think out the parts of a composed whole, right, huh? It corresponds to this sense of what? Yeah, right, huh? You think out that a definition is composed of a genus, and one or more differences, right? And you think out the parts of that whole, right? Genus and species. Thinking out is that. Let me just give myself some room here. But they all correspond. Thinking out a division in the first sense, right? A division is a distinction of parts, right? And this is the first sense of whole, right? So I just call it thinking out a division, right? What are the parts here? Well, the genus is in the species, and also the, what, differences. So this is thinking out a definition. You can also say, in a way, it's thinking out the parts, right? You're thinking out the parts of the definition, right? But you're thinking out what? Being defined, right? Division is not the same thing as the definition. Species in the genus, right? Well, when you think out the species of a genus, you're thinking out another kind of division. The division of a, what? Universal, right? Thinking out the division of a universal whole. So there is thought out the drama as tragedy and comedy, right? The two main species, right? The purpose taught out that Shakespeare has four kinds, but being in comedy and in between, right? Love and friendship, play, and mercy and forgiveness. In the chapter on quantity, right? Aristotle thought out, the quantity can be divided into what? Yeah. How the hell do you do that? Every quantity has parts, right? And you saw that sometimes the parts leave somewhere, and sometimes they don't be anywhere, right? So you have discrete and continuous quantity. So he's thinking out, right? In this, what? Sincere, right? And Porphyry was thinking out the definition of a genus, right? He's thinking out the definition, right? Ahem. Now, form and matter, right? Make, for example, thinking the order of something, right? That's thinking out. In a sense corresponding to that, what? Fifth sense of what? In, right? So there is thought out the order of the... Without some order in our knowledge, right? Now, what would be an example of thinking out the whole from the parts? I was thinking of the... The second act, right? Suppose you think out in the first act what a square is, and you think out what a quadrilateral is, and you think out what a circle is, right? These are the parts that state that you could probably make now. A square is a quadrilateral. Thinking about what a square is, and what a quadrilateral. If a square is not a circle, what would you think? Think about square and circle, and these are the parts of the statement that I could think out, right? A square is not a circle. If I help, it's a statement, right? And what about the accents, right? How did I think out? Didn't I think out what a role was, with what art is, before? They had gone on here. I don't example of that, right? That's one that strikes me, right? It's appropriate for our thing here, right? Inaccuability, right? Well, I may want to get some, not so I can see it. If you look at my wedding book there, right? You know? You see many pictures of Rose Day and May, right? And some relatives and so on. And then at the end of the book, the picture of what? A young children. Yeah. A few little children. A young children. But they were what? In our ability, right? Let's take an example from logic, right? Did you ever think out a conclusion? Sure did. Yeah. Now, I won't be taking out conclusions, huh? When you get to the logic of the third act, which is what? Reasoning, right? Reasoning is the third act of reason, huh? But now, is the conclusion a part of the argument? Is that one of the premises? Or if I can prove it? Yeah. That would be a real bad thing to have the conclusion be a premise, right? If you say it is so, it is so, right? So the conclusion is not one of the premises. I'd say every woman is, every mother is a woman, and no man is a what? Woman. Every mother is a woman, and no man is a woman. I'd say mother, right? But, was the conclusion one of the premises? The premises were, no man is a woman, right? And every mother is a what? Woman. And the conclusion was, either goes, but no man is a mother. So, in what sense was the conclusion in the premises? It wasn't in there as a part, isn't it? It's not a part of it, right? Yeah. Just like my children were in Rosie and I, right? But not as a part, right? I was hoping we would have found a baby in there, right? Okay. So, when you think out the conclusion, right? That's the sense here, right? The sense is right. If you think out the means to an end, are you thinking out in the eighth sense, maybe? The means to get to an end? The premises, right? It seems to be a little bit right. I'm not sure that's exactly the eighth sense, but sort of the likeness there, right? I've kind of dealt with myself, so I kind of, you know. Do you think out the means to an end? Do you think out the means to an end? Mm-hmm. Do a lot of times, don't we? What you're in? Dinner, right? The means, right? Yeah, right. So, let's leave something similar to here, right? We mentioned how Charles DeConi said that every respectable word in philosophy is equivocal by reason, right? Kind of a strong way of putting it, right? And, you know, if we didn't have words that are equivocal by reason, we have a hard time talking about anything except our immediate surrounding things, right? That's a very important thing. But, to think out the meanings of a word or the chief meanings of a word, which is that, which of these senses would that be here? That's a very important thing. Is there a scholar who thought out the meanings of the words that we use everywhere, right? And especially that we use in wisdom, right? And what a philosopher did that, right? We saw how, in those little passages there, how Thomas uses the senses of, what, before, right? In showing that God the Father is not before God the Son, right? He uses the senses of opposites in trying to discover how the Christians of the Trinity are distinct, right? It's really profound stuff, right? You know, the end of our knowledge is to not complete the Trinity, right? But you use these basic senses in thinking out the senses of opposite, thinking out the senses of before, right? And understanding the Trinity. I mentioned, I always go back and mention the guy who wrote a doctoral thesis and Karl Marx and his thesis in the whole library up there. Of course, one thing he points out is that opposition is central to what? Marxist philosophy. And the technical name for Marxist philosophy is not Marxist philosophy, I just think. The author, and it goes back to Hegel in a sense. But, uh, it's galactic interiorism, right? It matters the source of everything, but things develop by a more opposites, right, huh? But nowhere does Marx really distinguish the senses of what? Opposites, huh? Yeah, yeah. So this is very important, right, huh? Distinguish these things, huh? Some of you might want to say that it's reduced to the fourth sense here, right, huh? And it might be because they see a certain likeness, right? When you divide a genius into species, right? Genius is said of each of the species, right? When you divide a word into its meanings, each of those meanings, the word can be said, right? But I wonder if that's, you know, in some ways it reminds me a bit of to be in place, right? Because in the same place you could put, what, any one to all this in there, right? If I give you a box, you know, if I give you a box, you know, if I give you a box, you know, if I give you a box, you know, you might believe you give you a box, right, huh? Might you not do that? If I'm a terrorist, I put something in it, you know. If you've got a bunch of gold bars, you might put the gold bars in there, if you don't have a safe and so on, huh? It's like you might put your money in your mattress or something, it's like, hey! No! What are you? You know, I remember reading an article on it, a young lady philosopher, she was quoting Shakespeare, what's in a name? I wrote a thing the other day and it still smells sweet, right? He kind of, kind of cleverly said, sometimes there are many things in a name. And that same name is what? Equivocal, right, huh? So in a way, the name is like the place where many things are, right, huh? It could be many things, and what does it mean to understand the name, right? I don't know what the meaning is. But the name is kind of a very, kind of arbitrary sense, right? Shien, what we call it, Sophia, sapientia, we call it wisdom, right, huh? You know, it's kind of, you could totally be going to be something, you know? With the species and genus, right, huh? The genus signifies, in general, what each of the species is, right? So animals signifies, in general, what a dog is, what a cat is, what a horse is, what an elephant, right? So you distinguish the various kinds, right? Okay. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so. Jesus would throw a species under, right? Okay, but he said, Jesus, it's a name set with one meaning, but many things out there in kind signify what it is, right? Because a different kind signifies what they are in general, right? But a name is kind, signifies by custom or accident even, or by choice, right? It seems almost as accidental what you put in a room, right? So one room in a house might be a study for me, Professor Herbless, right? And another child is born and becomes a bedroom for his so-and-so and so-and-so, right? The else that are on the line. But it seems to me to think out the meanings of a word is different from all of these right now. To think out the order of this meaning, maybe it could be put a little more in the room on the phone today. How do you say it's stuck to be in place, right? I wasn't too sure I didn't think about that or not. But it seems to be something different right now. So let's think about the logic of the second act, right? And what's our purpose in thinking about this? To think out all kinds of things, right? Many of these senses, in fact, are making these all. These are all ways, right? Okay. So the Aristotle wastes his time in distinguishing the eight central senses of Ian. Or did Thomas waste his time in figuring out the order of these? Then you see more distinctly what they are, right? Sometimes I order these senses of thinking out, right? I like to think of thinking out a distinction, right? Back in fact, when we start off and confused, right? You first think about something, your knowledge is what? The first step out of this is to think out a distinction, right? Okay. Thinking out a distinction. Then, thinking out a what? Division, right? Now, why did I give those separately, right? Because in a way, thinking out a distinction is more general than thinking out a division, right? But a division is a distinction of the what? Parts of some whole, right? There are some distinctions that are not distinctions of the parts of the whole. Would you say that the meanings of the word in, are parts of the word in, or to be in? It's a distinction that's not a division, right? The distinction between act and ability is that a distinction of the whole of this. But you could subdivide this into the division of a composed whole, and the division of a what? Universal whole, right? There's another kind of whole, which Aristotle calls the parts of the soul, right? The powers of the soul, right? Causing parts, right? It's a different kind of part. Universal whole, right? And composed whole, right? It's kind of in this likeness to both, right? Just Aristotle, in the fifth book of wisdom, he just distinguishes these two holes, right? Thomas, you know, points out that Aristotle has a sudden sense of whole. Attested to the whole. And thinking out a, what? Definition. Now, in a way, a definition is what? You're thinking out the parts of a definition, which is a composed whole, right? But you're doing something different when you think out a definition, and you think out the division of the genes and the distinctions, aren't you? You're not defining something, are you? Now, sometimes, sometimes I say that distinction and division definition are going from, what? The more universal to the less universal, right? Because a distinction, or some distinctions are not a division, but a division is a distinction of the parts of some whole, right? Okay? A definition is a little, it's something in the aspect of a division, right? But you're really bringing something out differently than the division is, right? Now, sometimes we take off from a distinction and we go to order, right? Thinking out order, right? What does order mean, right? Let's think out the definition of order. That's the sequence definition of order. And so, you can think out, then, the different senses of order, right? We're doing that, right? We're thinking out the order better in knowledge, right? We're thinking out the order, which one knowledge comes before another in knowledge, right? And then we're thinking out why one is better than another, our bias came before that, right? So, we're thinking out many orders, right? But all the senses of what? Before, or all the senses of after, and all the senses of what? Order, right, huh? So, we multiply these things, right, huh? Okay? You might want to think out, you know, why the first act of reason comes from the second act of reason, right? Kind of stupid and slow, so we might, you know, need an example to help us, right? But it dawns upon me, you know, not too bright sometimes. It seems to me you have to understand, to some extent, what a square is and a quadrilateral before you can understand if a square is a quadrilateral, which you need to say. You have to understand what a square is and understand what a circle is, which is the first act, right? Before you can understand any square or not a circle. We think that's at least some reason there, right? We were in the phone today and they said, Well, you see, how do you know it's true that a square is a quadrilateral? That's an important thing, to know whether the state that you made is true or false, right? So, how am I able to know that a square is a quadrilateral is true and a square is not a circle is true and a square is a circle is false and if the square is not a circle is false. How do I accomplish that? Because it's a task, right? Yeah? But this doesn't go back to the first act. It's by understanding what a square is and what a quadrilateral is that dawns upon my selfish mind that a square is a quadrilateral. And it's by understanding what a square is and what a, what, circle is that dawns upon me that a square is not a circle, right? The second act, you know, you can't understand the true or false, but you can't even know what is true or false without that first act, right? And you have these axioms, you know, like the whole is more than a part. So you have to understand what a whole is and what a part is before it dawns upon me that a whole is more than a part. So isn't the first act better? Yeah, but I mean, is it, you know, I mean, the second act, it came and accomplished some task there, you know, knowing the true or false, right, without, you know, one begging for the first act? We didn't say it wasn't necessary. I said to Warren, you know, I said, but if you understand what a square is, right, and you have to see at the same time understand what a circle is in the first act, the square is not a circle. So understanding a square is not understanding a circle. So it's two different understandings, right? And you have one and then the other. Therefore, you see, you know, both together, right? This is like, you know, with the victim, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, you know, it's like, think away if you look like an angel, you know, you've got to, you know, those aspiring things you write in your opinion. So, and then in my mind, one, thinking out a, what? Statement, right? Now we're in the second act, right, huh? Thinking out a statement, huh? And then what? Thinking out a... In each theorem of my friend, Euclid, right? Look at Euclid's elements. Let's just take book one. He begins with the, what? Definitions, right? And then he has statements, right? He's thought out, like, the whole is more than a part. If he equals the idea, he goes, results are equal, quantities are equal to the same, and so on. And then he starts thinking out, what? Conclusion, right? About 48 theorems, right? In book one. Then you've got the Pythagorean theorem, right? So this order, kind of, is the order in which we think out things, right? And then it becomes this magnificent thinking out of the, what, sense of cause and effect, right? You mean, in this paper, you know, all of them and stuff. And it dawned on me, you know, that, what is the cause of man and woman, right? Are you a man by nature or by choice? It's by nature, right? Everybody thought it was by nature. Now the thing is, you're one another by choice, right? So then what the cause is, right? It's really, really mixed up, right? A day before and after, right? It's a picture of a woman who is modified and looked like a man, except the sort of horrifying thing was that she had had a baby. And the way she was looking at the baby looks at a baby. Yeah, yeah. And so she has taken the form of a pretty stagnant. So you're looking at the cause of man and woman, right? Nature, right? It's choice, right? How are your husband or wife? You think so-and-so is your wife or your husband, right? It's a mix-up because it gets really weird because I read about recently that a woman had her uterus taken out. And so they refused. And now she is technically, at least for some people, it's her... Yeah, she's suing... But the newspaper reports it as he is suing them for refusing to do a hysterectomy on him. Does that sentence make sense? He's suing them for not a thing with a hysterectomy on him. See, that's where they refused to look at nature. Men do not have Jews. That's it. That's nature. Yeah, I'm the first man ever to win a hysterectomy case or something, you know. That doesn't make sense. Here you've got almost all the senses right that we talked about. Kind of in a little bit of an order, right? So if we think about the logic of the second act, right, huh? Then we've got to think about thinking out, right? Can we say something about that last sense of the end here? Oh, I left my heart in San Francisco? Yeah. Well, I don't know if there's a sense of thinking out there. But if it were, it might be something like thinking out the means to some end, right? Okay? Because all the means, in a sense, are, you know, up to love, the order to that end, right? The means for getting into that end, right? Thomas, in the Prairie into Logic, he speaks of the first two acts of reason as being, what, a kind of understanding, right? Then he adds a third act, which is, what, reasoning, right? Okay? But now, you want to distinguish these two understandings, right? And in the logic of the first act, what kind of understanding are you concerned with? Yeah. But more basically, it's understanding what something is, right? Okay. Understanding what a thing is. So why did their sound give us... The first is called the Father of Lodge. Why do you give us the categories, right? Well, the categories are what? The ten highest genes, right? What's the genus, right? Well, genus is a name, said with one meaning, of many things, other in kind or other in species, signifying what it is, right? It's the connection between what the categories is about, what a category is, and understand what a thing is, right? It's only the beginning, right? Aristotle somehow divides them into different species, right? It's the task of all the different parts of human knowledge or different parts of philosophy to divide and subdivide, right? So Aristotle is going to divide heavens and odd and even, primal and composite, you can do that for you, right? And Aristotle in the ethics and divide habits into virtues and vices. Some divide the virtues into humans, right? So, understand what a thing is. Well, in the second act, you are what? A lot of times, Thomas just calls the second act there, like Aristotle does in the third book on the soul, which thinks the second act is composing or dividing, right? Putting together the things you understood in the first act, right? Okay? Well, I have to use the word understanding which she talks about in the introduction or the premia, understanding the true or the false, right? I have to ask my students, right? What is an even number and what is an odd number, right? And they seem to understand what an even number is and what an odd number is, right? And how did they understand what an even number is and what an odd number is? But they seem to know what an even number and an odd number is. Or a number that can be divided into parts, right? So, it's some kind of definition that you're giving to understanding what an even number is. An odd number is a number, not divisible to two. A number that differs from an even number by one. And then I ask them, well, it's a perfect number for that. But how do I make known? So, an odd number is a number which is equal to the sum of everything that measures it evenly, right? So, the first privy number is six. I'm going to give examples, right? It depends upon the senses of it. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Thank you. Now, I'm going to give you trouble. Can you talk for the ones today? This is a material distinction, right? Divide and continuous. We have a continuous supply of these things. You know, you get to lecturing it all and you probably get to suit on it and you don't get some of this because it's toxic. It's like stuffiness. It's an occupational hazard, you know. Father Harbin used to call it the dust of battle. Yeah. So, six is measured evenly by one. There's six ones and six, right? It's measured evenly by two. There are three twos and they have six. Evening measured by three is two threes, right? But you can't measure it by how many fours are there or how many fives, right? So, it's measured only by one, by two, and by three. And they add up to what? Three twos. Yeah. I'm going to, you know, not to sleep tonight. You can try to find the next number but I'll try it ahead of time. It's twenty-eight, right? And, uh, so it takes a while. But, you know, if you go on, you get bigger, right? It takes higher amount. But, um, you know, some, they knew what an odd number, what an even number is by definition, right? In order to perfectly, they can state the definition, right? And they came to know what a perfect number is by definition. And now you see a definition is connected with knowing or understanding what a thing is, right? But would you distinguish between the definition and understanding what a thing is? Here I understand distinctly what a thing is by its definition, right? But there's still a difference between understanding what a thing is distinctly and having a definition, right? Now, um, you can see the definition is that by which, huh? You understand or can understand what a thing is, right? It's kind of what enables you, right? And, uh, so my father had his, his extra stuff in the back in there, And, uh, so my father had his, his extra stuff in the back in there, to make a stand for it, right? And, uh, so my father had his, his extra stuff in the back in there, to make a stand for it, right? And, uh, so my father had his, his extra stuff in the back in there, And, uh, so my father had his, his extra stuff in the back in there, And, uh, so my father had his, his extra stuff in the back in there, So, uh, we went out there for the, for the first day to look up at the sky, right? He was going to turn on the moon, right? Well, the DL clouds came in to turn on the moon, right? And then he turned it on, on satin, right? And I can see pictures of satin, though. When you look at the telescope, you see the rings of satin. Boy, is that impressive, you know? I'm like, what is that? You know, I mean, it means something, you know? Um, now I could never have seen with my naked eyes, they say it in, in, in, in, in, in books, that he brings a satin, right? Um, so, what's the connection between seeing something at a distance and a telescope? Is a telescope the same thing as seeing at a distance? But it's that by which, right? He was sitting in the distance. Then there's another thing called a microscope or something, right? Which is seeing something that's very, what? Small. And is a microscope the same thing as seeing something very small? No. Is there some connection between the microscope and seeing that there's cells in every monster? No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.