Logic (2016)
Lecture 57: Simply and Somewhat: The Fundamental Distinction in Philosophy

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

Well, it is the perfection of knowledge, right, but it's not the perfection that makes it simply better, right, so I stick myself to what mathematics can know, but mathematics is tied up with what, quantity, and quantity is tied up with matter, okay, now over here, I think that ability comes simply before act, right, and therefore matter is the beginning of all things, right, you see how they tie together, things fit together, right, but you're making the mistake of what, mixing up what is so simply and what is so in some imperfect way, right, or somewhat, as I say, right, these brief gravities, so over there, okay, but because I mixed up which knowledge is simply better, I'm looking for that mathematical knowledge and that's an appropriate quantity, right, un-fundamental, important this distinction is, now, I was at my daughter's house there, I was looking at a copy of Plutarch's Lies, right, ever read some of Plutarch's Lies, an educated man must have read Plutarch's Lies, that's what it used to say in 19th century of East America, yeah, but so I was reading some of the Lies, I was reading the, I was reading the, you're reading the life of Solon, right, huh, now Solon was a great, what, yeah, great logger to Athens, right, huh, and so much that we often call sometimes the senatary, what, Solon, you find even that sometimes, in the American, right, we call the senataries Solons, right, I was struck by a little bit of conversation of Solon, that Plutarch gives us, right, someone who admired Plutarch, right, I mean, excuse me, Solon, asked him this question, right, did you give, did you not give the Athenians, right, the best laws that a city can be given, do you know, Solon replied, no, he says, I didn't give the Athenians the best laws, right, that a city can have, I gave them the best laws that they would accept, Now, here in political matters, right, huh, what distinction is this, yeah, do you see that, now, when you pick up the politics of Aristotle, right, huh, he will distinguish between the best city, or the best government, and the best government, and the best government for a given, what, people, and those aren't necessarily the same thing, right, and the best government, he says, the government according to a prayer, right, that you have to, what, have unusual circumstances, right, to establish the best city, and there's something more pray for, right, than think that it's within your power to have the circumstances exactly right, huh, So this is a very important distinction for political philosophy, huh, you always make kind of fun of our State Department, you know, wanted to, thought our government was the best government that there is, you know, but I mean, it wasn't always fitting these different countries that we were, what, coming into contact in the, what, world, right, huh, right, but Solon is making the same kind of distinction, too, isn't he, right? Unique conditions that existed at the time of the formation of this country, there were exceptional, sort of, accumulation of conditions of people, and it's a real shame to see it being lost, further away, and undermined. This is an important distinction, right, huh? Now, Aristotle talks about happiness, right, and happiness, of course, is the end of life, huh, and therefore the greatest good, right, huh? But Aristotle realizes the human situation, you know, and how things are, yeah, he says, an old man is not as hopeful as a young man, because he's seen how many things will turn out, right, you know, huh, and what's the famous joke there, a truthful joke about Sam Johnson there, you know, about the man who, the second marriages and like that, you know, a triumph of hope for him, a triumph of hope for him, you know, but take something from, but anyway, Aristotle is talking about happiness there, right, and realizing, you know, the human condition, right, you know, you're going to die, right, you know, when Thomas is talking about the imperfection of our happiness in this earth, right, well, one thing he points to is the fact you know you're going to die, right, well, then that kind of diminishes your sense of the happiness you might have, right, you know, and so on, so Aristotle, then the question is, is anybody really happy, right, because this is the perfect good, you know, you know, you know, well, finally Aristotle says, well, let us say that they are happy as men, now what is that saying, that they're happy as men, yeah, that they have happiness somewhat. Then Augustine says it about heaven, it says if they ever knew it was going to end, it wouldn't be. Yeah, yeah, so you might say about someone in this life that he had a happy life, right, yeah, so he had happiness as a man could have it, right, but was everything perfect, a way he speaks of happiness as a state made perfect by the accumulation of all the ones, right, you don't have that, huh, so Aristotle in a sense is distinguishing between happiness simply, which, or God would have, right, being happy as men can be happy, virtuous life, but there's still kinds of things, huh, sometimes they say, I hate the world, you know, it's so wicked and so stupid, I hate the world, you know, in this given situation, in many ways, you know, pretty terrible, right, huh, that's pretty important, huh, to see the distinction of this sort, huh, we're taking an example from the church here, I mean, from the, yeah, from the church, is the celibate life or the married life better? Is the celibate life or the married life better? Is that what you said? Yeah, but does that mean that the celibate life is suitable for everybody? Right? Because some people, you know, when they try to lead the celibate life, they fail, right, huh, and they're worse off than if they had, what, the pursuit of the married life, right? So, um, the celibate life is better simply, but for someone in particular, um, the married life might be better, right? But that's, in some way, right, huh, for him, right? So, but, like, this government is not the perfect government, but it's the best they would accept, right, or they could, they could do it, right, huh? You see what I mean? There's a lot of confusion about that, because sometimes people seem to want this distinction in regard to vocation, and they'll say, no, no, no, whatever's good, whatever's best is best for you, and that's the best, simply, because some people, they want to do all the way with the distinction of simply, and then say that simply, whatever's best for you is what's best. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the best life is not necessarily the best for you, right? When Aristotle talks about different lives too, is it better to be a professor or a cook or something? Or is it better to be a king or to be a cook? Depends on how pretty it is. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what is a highway, a better life simply is not maybe better for this person, right? You think a lot of times of a person like Mozart or even Shakespeare, right? Would it have been better for Mozart to have been a philosopher than a musician? You know? But isn't a philosopher a better life than being a musician? Or, you know, Shakespeare, you know, he's very wise, you know, but he's writing all these dramas, you know? So is it better to be a dramatist or to be a philosopher, you know? You can write a reflection on that. What? You can write a reflection on that. Yeah, yeah. I often think of my father, you know, my father before he died, and he said, he said, you know, he has these sons who are all professors, right? Philosophers, right? He says, you're going to have a better life than I had. But wouldn't the philosophical life have been a better life for my father than the businessman, right? So it's an important distinction, right? But you can get mixed up, right? So it runs through all the parts of philosophy, right? This distinction. You know, going back to ethics a moment. Which is better, the active life and contemplative life? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. But is that suitable for most people, right? It's a mistake when she had a vacation day in grade school. Yeah. Yeah. Well, since the religious life is the best kind of life, that's what we should all be doing. And since you said, sit down and shut up because you don't know what you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a mistake, obviously. Or is it a mistake of simply and somewhat? Well, if you go to the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, right? You look at the article where it says whether God is infinite, right? The infinite is one of the five attributes of the substance of God, right? The two Summas, right? In the Summa Theologiae, the first one that he shows is that God is all together but simple, right? He quotes Vestin's De Trinitati where he says God is very ensume simple. He's truly simple and supremely so, right? It's a little different the way Thomas proceeds in the Summa Congentila to show this and in Summa Theologiae. Because in the Summa Theologiae, right, the question of the simplicity of God is eight articles, right? And the first six articles are about six different kinds of composition. So, God is not a body, not composed of matter and form. He's not, what? There's no distinction between what makes him to be an individual, right? And his nature. And there's no distinction between his substance and his existence. And then there's no accidents in God and he's not any genius, right? So, six different ways in which God is not, what? Composed or put together, yeah. And after those six articles then, the seventh article, is God entirely, you know, Summa, as I guess I said. And he shows it universally, right? No doubt about it. That's enough, okay? Now, in the Summa Congentila, it's the reverse order. How can he do that, right? Because in question, what, 18, right, is the first one in book one, where he shows that God is, what? No way can hope, but commit it universally. And then later on, he takes up some of these, almost all of these particular ones, right? Okay. Well, the Summa Theologiae is between four beginners, right? And the same as I'm giving you many examples of simply, in some respect, huh? That's the way you'd be the beginner, right, huh? These particulars, right? And so, in the Summa Theologiae, he goes through the six kinds of composition that there are in creatures. He eliminates every one of them from God. And then he has an universal argument that can be accomplished in God, right? It's appropriate to the beginner to be led, what, from the particular to the general, right? It's beautiful in order, right? Because the first three are found in material substances, but not in the spiritual substances, the angels. The last three are found in all created substances, right? It's beautiful in this work, right? Okay. But now in the Summa Contra Gentiles, I see the order is just the reverse, right? He syllogizes in the question in chapter 18, right? That God is completely simple, right? And then he says, God is out of body, you know? So he's proceeding more syllogistically, right? A little more inductively, right, in the Summa, right? But the Summa Contra Gentiles was written at the command, the superior general, I might say, of the Dominican order, to help the Dominican. Theologians are going down into what Spain and where Avicenna and so on, right? And one, you know, talking to people, right? So it's based, so the Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into what? What can be known about God by reason as well as by faith? And what can be known about God only by faith, right? The fourth book, right? And so this is directed to the high-powered, you know? Dominican theologians, you know, are going down there, you know, and going to be proceeding, you know, you know, syllogistically and so on. And so it's, the powerhouse is ignored, you know? So there's a little difference in the order there, right? That's interesting, you know, just to see the difference there. That's the first thing shown in both, you know, in the Summa Theologiae, the simplicity of God, huh? And then the second thing you show is that God is, what? Perfect, right? And it kind of ties together with the simplicity and perfection because in material things, right, they're always composed, but the composed is more perfect than the simple. And God is just the reverse, see? So the tree is more perfect than the stone, but the stone is simpler. And the tree is simpler than the dog or the cat, but the dog or cat is more perfect than the tree. And man is more complicated than the dog or the cat, but he's even more perfect, right? So in material substances, the simple is less perfect than the composed. While in God, there's all the other simple, he's universally like perfect. So Thomas puts those two together, right? In both, what? Seemless, right, huh? Exactly. The problem with Richard Dawkins and some of the other atheists stumble over because they assume that God must be a much more composite, more complex. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Thomas studies the angels, you know, huh? The angel knows primarily himself, right? But knowing himself, he doesn't know everything else, but God does. But the less perfect he is, the more extra thoughts you might say he needs, huh? So as you go up, if you could take a kind of Dante-esque, you know, ascent from your guardian angel all the way up to the nine orders, right? You'd find as you ascended, they became more perfect and more, like, simple. So in the immaterial substances, simplicity and perfection goes side by side, right? But in the material substances more known to us, right, huh? The composed and the simple don't go together. I mean, the composed and the simple and the perfect don't go together, right? The composed is more perfect, right? So Thomas puts those two together, right? The simplicity of God and the perfection of God. So you show together that God is, I mean, first, that God is simple and perfect. And then later on that he's, what, infinite and, what, there's only one God. But being one is especially closely tied with being simple. And that's why in any of the theology, the unity of God is put in the consideration, the simplicity of God, right? It goes together. And the infinity goes into perfection, right? God is in God's perfection. Okay? Now, the place where they differ the most, of course, is in the consideration of the God being unchanging, right? Because in the arrogance for the existence of God, the parts from motion and the summa conscienties are much more developed than the summa theologiae. And so he starts off the consideration of the substance of God by showing that he's changeless, right? Assuming it, right? From the, I think he, well, in the, yeah, it's taken up forth, right? The unchangeableness of God, right? But anyway, what I want to come to here is going back to Horvath, right? He gets to, in the summa conscienties, or summa, summa theologiae, right? He gets to the article on the infinity of God, right? It shows that God is infinite, and why he's infinite, right? And it's immediately followed by a second article, which is what? Anything infinite besides God. And there, Thomas points out that in some way the material substance, like the angels, right? Because they don't have what? Matter, right? Is somewhat infinite. And our soul, right? Which can exist without matter, is somewhat infinite, right? And insofar as we know, for example, the universal, right? Universal, what covers everything, right? We know those things that are set of all, like being, one, and so on, right? And so, um... He's making a distinction, right, that the only God is simply, what, infinite. But I am in somewhat infinite, right, insofar as I know the universal. There's even a number, right, there's the universality there, right? Number is a set of infinity of things, right? This is the large discourse, right, discourse about the universal that Shakespeare talks about, right? So anybody who's read those two articles of Thomas and understands them, right, his first reaction is to just laugh at you, for about saying, man's mind is what, infinite, the infinite is God, right? Well, God is what, haplos, simpliciter, simply infinite. Man, and a fortiori, the angels, right, are somewhat infinite, right, but not what? There's a joke with students, you know, they say, well, you know everything, don't you? What do you mean? Well, everything is something, and you know, but something's bad, who's everything? Is that to be simply infinite in your knowledge? It's a very imperfect knowledge, right? You know, you know, you know, the wisdom, the wisdom of Aristotle talks not only about the cause of all, which he does in the 12th book, right, at the end, but he talks about what is said of all. And he says the wisdom is about being in one, right? And he's always distinguishing, you know, the senses of being, you know, and being per se, and being gratitudines, and so on. And so, that's to be what, man is, you know, how did philosophy name get its origin? Well, it goes back to the Thagnes, yeah, and the, here's a guy who discovered it, the Thagnes theorem, right? It was a marvelous thing to discover. And so, someone called him wise, he said, don't call me wise. God alone is wise, right? Well, what the hell should we call you then? Well, you've got to call me something, call me a lover of wisdom, right? So, there's a humility there, right? But, you know, like true humility, right? Now, when Aristotle talks about, you know, the premium, right, he says, either we should say God alone is wise, right? Or only God is wise fully, right? So, God is wise, what? Simply. Man is what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, Aristotle even speaks, you know, of natural philosophy as being somewhat wisdom, right? It's a wisdom about natural things, right? Okay? Or you can say ethics is somewhat wisdom, right? Because it's a wisdom about human life, right? But true happiness really is, right? And the necessity of virtue for true happiness and so on. What was the Thagnes, so, thinking of when he said God, or say Aristotle, what would Aristotle be thinking of when he would use the term God? He was thinking of God. The one true God. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, how common was this concept of what in Greece, times on, when, because there was the pantheism? Yeah, yeah. You might think that there was a supreme God, you know, among them, you know, who might have been the origin of the other ones to some extent, you know? Part of this, so, I can't remember. I don't know if it's in Father DeSmet or not, but I've heard it said that many of the so-called Native Americans, and it's came, you know, they have all kinds of gods of this and gods of that, but they all recognize it, but there's one great spirit, it's over a wall. Yeah. So, they all, it's kind of natural. You can't think of it, the Olympians, they were the offspring of the predecessors. Yeah, but that's those guys with the brains kicked out, you know, of course. That's the marvel of Chesterton's work, you know, I don't know, who talks about it. Yeah. I'll tell you that later, but. Well, my son, Marcus, is reading Chesterton's thing, what's wrong with the world, right? Yeah, that's great, that's great. I heard that long years ago, I hear that, did you read it again? Who was the one that wrote the book, The Feminine Mystique? Betty Friedman. What year was that? In the 60s, I think. Was that the reason? Somebody, I don't know, maybe Bill Butler, somebody paraphrasing, spelled it the same Q-U-E on the end, but called it The Feminine Mystique. Well, it turns out that she was not exactly 100% honest in a lot of her analysis. She was a Marxist and was a revolutionary. That's what I told you, that's my mother sized up feminism in the 60s, she was invited to a meeting, she just, she came home and she said, oh, a bunch of Marxists, that's all she did, that's, she just sized that up. Yeah, yeah. What did Chesterton say about the feminism, you know, that it's a contemporary thing that's truly feminine. Yeah, that's the thing. Whereas I like to paraphrase him, it's the, it's the, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, yeah, feminism means contempt for what is anything that's truly feminine. He said, yeah, it's, it's, I like to paraphrase him when I say it's the contempt for the chief feminine characteristics and often lacking them as well. Yeah. You know, uh, I told you I was reading a book, uh, the last part of, uh, Teddy Roosevelt's life, right, and, uh, he was talking about how we're all in debt, you know, for giving birth to us, right, and, and for preserving the race, right, in a sense, right, and, uh, uh, he's, he's strong about that, huh? He's got an understanding of these things. Yeah, but something that's really early, uh, in the 19th century, they recognize divorce, abortion won't be bad for women. Yeah, yeah. And they don't want to talk about it. Yeah. So notice, notice these galaxies now, you know, the materialist, in a sense, is thinking that the matter is the beginning of all things, right, and, uh, it comes before everything else, right, what does in some way come before other things, right, because nothing that goes from the ability to act, it's an ability before it's an act, but because it goes from the ability to act for the reason of something already in act, and I put water on in the morning and it's, what, it's able to be hot before it's actually hot, if I make my tea, but, um, it goes to an ability to actually being hot, by reason in the stove or something, electricity that's already actually hot. So simply speaking, the act comes before ability and ignorance. They miss that, right, huh? And then they, they, they want to be mathematical because that seems to be simply better for them, but it's really only in some way better. And, uh, in the, uh, the last, the last word, right? The man himself is God, right, huh? The infinite is God, and man's mind is infinite. That sounds pretty good syllogism, you know? Sounds very good. And that's taking, taking marks out of the rest of these guys. System, you're looking at Angle's system, and it used to, you know, you used to add an addition there, it would have the, the whole dog damage on your blood out, so, you see, when you think about being, you know, you seem to not be saying anything, really, you know? And so being turns into what? None being. And then the, the union of being and none being is becoming, right? So you have Hegel all over. Yeah. And, uh, for Hegel, you see, in becoming something both is and what? And then, uh, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,