De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 22: The Nutritive Soul: Food, Growth, and Generation

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

Because of the element Earth, one of the four elements, you know, being heavy and going down to the soil, right? It goes up because of fire, the letter element, you know, so that fire actually tends to rise, right? Well, what would give you any unity to the, what, plant, just do the full part, right? It's a little bit like what Heisenberg is saying, right, in terms of our more sophisticated chemistry. So, he says, Empedocles does not speak properly, adding this, that growth happens in plants by sending roots down, because Earth is born thus naturally, down, right? Actually, you go, a cloud of dirt falls to ground, right? So, up, it goes up in the air because fire is born upwards, similar to air, okay? The first question he gives is that, you know, when you speak of up and down in the plant, it's not the same thing as in the, what, universe, huh? And he says, for he does not grasp up and down fittingly, for up and down are not the same to everything and in the all. But now he makes a comparison. But as the heads of animals, so are the roots of plants, huh? So, through one's head, through one's mouth, a particular one takes in, what, nourishment, right? The raw materials you need, huh? The plant takes them in through its, what, roots, right? So, they're down rather than up, right? So, now the animals are kind of, what, in between the plants and man, right? Because man has his, what, mouth and his head up into the sky, right? Because he's interested in divine things, right? He's a star, right? Dailies, right? Walking, falling into the wells, huh? And the animals kind of, what, you know, turn downward his head, right? Towards the earth, huh? And, uh, the plant is completely, outside down, in that sense, huh? So, man is, again, a macrocosm, right? That what's up for man, in man, is up in the universe. It's doubt in man, it's doubt in the universe, is what it seems. But then a more serious thing here is 156. In addition to these, what is it that keeps together things born to contrary places, the fire and the earth? For they will be torn asunder, if there will not be something preventing this, huh? But if there is, this is the soul, and that's the cause of both growth and, what, feeding, huh? Narastal sometimes will contrast nature in the more narrow sense, as it's separate from soul. So, you know, I've talked about that way of naming, haven't I? Now, sometimes we say the soul is a nature, and sometimes we distinguish nature and the soul. But the soul, unlike nature, nature seems to be limited to one, to opposites, right? So, in the ancient science there, the earth goes down, right? And the fire goes up, but they don't go in both directions. But the plant kind of overcomes that, right? But as you go up in the soul, you see this even more so. Until you get to man, and you have the same knowledge of what? Opposites. Opposites, right? And therefore, the human arts, like the medical art or art of grammar, they can do, what, contrary things, right? The fifth book of Aristotle's Politics is about how to prep the government and how to preserve. They're the same knowledge, right? Can't really know one about going to the other. So, as Shakespeare says there, nature not being able to be more than one thing, in poor Hermana's son. Nature is more limited to one. Why, as you go into the soul, even a little bit, in the pine soul, right? It has the ability to grow in opposite of that direction. I think, fortunately, about the soul, towards the understanding soul, you start to see this transcending contrariety. And that's one way, too, that they come to understand how the understanding of the soul is immortal. Because corruption is changed from one contrary to another. And contraries are not contrary in the soul. That's why you have the same knowledge of contraries. You see, they're not contrary in the soul. The way we know is not the way things are. Things that are contrary to each other, when understood, are not contrary in the soul. But they're understood to be contrary in themselves. Like virtue and vice, and health and sickness, and so on. Now, some attribute life to, what, fire, right? Okay, that is the soul running fire. So, in 157, he takes up the second mistake. It seems, to some argue, that the nature of fire is the cause of feeding and growth, simply. And these would be analogous to the modern scientists who'd want to try to explain feeding and growth, simply by, what, physical principles. Now, it's interesting, among the four elements, if you remember the four elements, the Greeks came to individually, and then a pedicly took the four together. And the poets spoke of Mother Earth, right? And then Therese spoke of water, as the beginning of things. And Maximinas, if you remember, spoke of air. And then finally Heraclitus of, what, fire. Now, it's interesting that in these more crude, you might say, opinions about what the soul is, hardly anybody would say that Mother Earth is a soul. Or even that water is a soul, right? But the poets, like Homer, speak of the soul as if it were a, what, air-like substance, huh? And sometimes, you know, people today, I think, when they think about the soul, they imagine some air-like substance, right? Okay. But sometimes they compare the soul to, what, fire, right? Metaphorically speaking, right? So the famous scene there in Othello, you know, where Othello comes in, he's going to kill Desdemona, right? And he's got a candle, you know, that he speaks of putting out the light of the candle. If he does that, he can again illuminate. But if he snuffs out her light, he can't, what? He doesn't know where that Promethean fire is that he can in her life again. But notice, the sort of light is there between, what, putting out the candle light and snuffing out, even the words snuffing out in the life of somebody, right? That's what he's going to do, he's going to choke her, right? But notice, something about these, air and fire seem less material than, what, earth and water. Just like in modern science, sometimes they speak of, what, matter and energy. Although energy is still something kind of material, but the use of the language is interesting, right? Louis de Broglie's got a very interesting book called Matter and, what, Light, right? A bunch of different papers here. La matière, la lumière, you see? But notice that contrast, right? I suppose if you've been down to a modern scientist, he'd still say light is something material. But notice the use of the words there, there's a kind of distinction made. That light seems less something material than atoms and things of that sort, huh? And likewise, when you speak of matter and, what, energy, right? I don't get E and MC squared and so on, huh? Energy and matter, they're the use of the words, right? The more gross matter, you might say, keeps the name matter, and the more subtle and fine and thin gets the, what, name of light or energy or something of that sort, huh? The same way here in ancient times and now all the way through history, huh? The soul is more like air or fire than like earth or water. Especially like fire because fire seems to move and transform things. And so you kind of, you know, kind of anticipation of the soul as being something kind of immaterial, right? You haven't quite understood the materiality of the soul yet. But fire especially seems to be like living things because it seems to, what, grow and digest things, huh? Consume them, right? I consume my food, huh? Fire consume things. And fire seems to kind of grow, right? Okay. Okay. Let's do it. speaking is the fire growing or is it generating another fire right my fire jumps across the road as i was saying you read about these fires in colorado and other places there you know where the fire springs through the forest you know is it the same fire growing or is it a new fire being generated by the old fire and the old fire is dying out you know when it's consuming all the material there right but there's some similarity there right so i start taking out this opinion here that fire is the cause of what digestion and growth right but he's going to admit it could be as a what as a tool of the soul right but fire just grows with whatever what consume whatever's there right it goes on forever i mean if the forest went on over the whole earth that fire down colorado right as long as you got dry forest it's going to go burning forever right okay not until you get to pacific ocean it'll stop right see but this is not the way living things grow right they grow to a certain height and then they stop right and they grow in a certain what shape right it's kind of marvelous when you think of you know you take one of these trees out here and there's what thousands of leaves on there right and every leaf is more or less the same shape for that type of tree right it's kind of amazing thing to think isn't it see if you have something like fire that's raging you know and you end up with anything in different shape no wherever the trees or the burnable material happen to be that's where the fire went huh see so fire might be something you know to digest things but it's not the main cause because it would not lead to this ordered finite hole it seems to some order that the nature of fire is the cause of feeding and grow simply for this alone of the bodies and the elements of those four elements appears to be feeding and growing due to which someone might assume this to be what is at work in both plants and animals it may or be somehow a joint cause right huh like an instrument yet not the cause simply huh but rather the soul is the cause and it gives us a reason for that for the growth of fire is unlimited so long as there is fuel as long as there is dry forest right it's going to keep on going right while of all things framed by nature and especially living things there is a what a limit right and a ratio both of magnitude and growth so these are from the soul but not from the fire and rather from the account to the definition that's what the form is right form is what kishu defines things rather than from what the materials that which is made huh up to this point which occupies uh seven eight two lexios and thomas right that's kind of setting the stage here for discussion of the living soul the first soul right but now starting 159 and uh going down to the end of this uh chapter right he's going to determine now about the living soul the first soul the plant salvation okay he's going to follow the order that we've seen before which is um talk a little bit about the object first right and then about the powers and finally about the what soul that has those powers huh however since the same power of the soul is feeding and generating and he says same power he means in general right but there are particular powers the power of feeding yourself and the power of growing and the power of reproducing are separate powers under this same general kind of power it is necessary to determine about food first for by this work of this object is separated from the other powers of the what soul right so food is the object of what this power right okay so we got to talk about the object before the act right right okay that's kind of interesting how metaphorically we use the name of the object right um of this power and even the names of the desirous for this object uh and talking about emotions right and talking about um even about reason okay let's give a simple example here from shakespeare okay you know the play there much ado about nothing in the play much ado about nothing there's uh among other characters beatrice and benedict right they're always kind of making fun of making fun of each other right and eventually they're tricked into to marriage in a way they'll be the whole play but anyway um uh they have a copy of uh from charles the first of the king of england there he used to call the play beatrice and benedict he's all like those characters but just read a little bit here see benedict has been saying something and beatrice says i wonder that you will still be talking senior benedict nobody marks you and benedict turns there he says what my dear lady disdain are you yet living and she says is it possible a disdain should die while she has such meat food to feed it that senior benedict and that's what you say right he's the object of her disdain right but he says what disdain is it possible disdain should die while she has such meat food to feed it as senior benedict so sometimes you find people even in daily life speaking of feeding a passion right if i keep on telling you reasons why you should be angry with somebody right i might be said to be feeding your what anger right see um and then we carry that over and apply it even to the mind sometimes you say something is what food for thought right okay and socrates speaks of a feast of reason and so on okay when you say food for thought how is what is food for thought related to to thought or thinking what do you mean you say food for thought as the object yeah it's something to think about right so it's the object right so i mean we're very much aware of the fact that food is the object of these uh powers of feeding and so on so much so that we metaphorically apply it to the what to the emotions it's very common right so you know thomas will speak of the bit of vision as that you know convivium in a fabula that inexpressible banquet right and christ speaks some other way you know not taste his intellect taste of you or you'll sit at my father's table right you know and that's interesting right if you sit at my father's table you're going to eat the same food that my father's eating i'm eating right which means that you'll have the same what object right in the vision that god has in his actual understanding of himself an amazing thing and then we also apply sometimes the uh hunger and thirst right oh god you are my god whom i seek for you my flesh blinds and my soul thirst right okay or thomas in the devotee says that he's thirsting for god um as if that's uh god is to the soul like like water or something right stress of life so it's very much the idea of an object there but just say that way by by way of showing that in fact we all do think of food as the object of these this power right so much so it's clear to us that we carry it over and apply it to the other ones when the gospels there were the apostles kind of go in search of food i guess and christ has left her at the well or something and and he comes back and says yes food and you know thought someone brought him food and he says my food is to what through the will of my father yeah that's actually awfully awfully interesting way of speaking isn't it you know but um why does he speak that way say well what's the reason for that metaphor well one reason perhaps is to bring out the what intensive of his desire to do the will of the Father, right? All these guys are hungry, you know, looking for food, right? And his food is to the will of his Father, right? He has an intense desire, right? Hunger and thirst, these are very intense desires. And if you haven't had food for some time, you'll realize how intense these desires become, right? And we're very much aware of them. So metaphorically, we use them in talking about desire for God, right? When it's intense, huh? So there's three songs of thirst, right? You know, one in each of the 350s. There's a high and long, so there's no warning waters, right? Okay, and there's one in the last 50s, too. So, notice importance then, huh? Speaking metaphorically of understanding, you know, that food is the object here, huh? Okay. So we've got to talk about food first. Now, in 160, he talks about what it seems at first sight. It seems that the contrary is food for the contrary. Now, why does he say that, huh? Well, because food is going to be changed, right? And in natural philosophy, we learn that change is between what? Contraries, right? And also, you're going to digest your food, and one contrary acts on the what? Other. It's like the hard acts on the soft, right? And the hot and the cold, and the wet and the dry, and so on, right? So, contrary acts upon contrary, and changes the one contrary to the other. So, food's got to be something contrary, right? To the fat. Okay? That's what it seems at first sight, anyway, from what we know of natural philosophy. Now, not every contrary, but things that have a mutual generation, as he says. Kenny compares it to fire, right, huh? Or water is more the food for fire, as you can see in the candle, right? Look, the fire turns into fire. But then he raises the difficulty of 161 here. But there is a difficulty. For some say that like is fed, huh? Just as it grows by like, huh? So if I grow and have more flesh and more human bone, and so on, I'm not a cannibal. I'm going to have to grow by the addition of like to like. I had more of the same. Whereas I was going to solve this by saying, there's an element of what? Yeah. So he's saying food in the beginning is what? Contrary or unlike the fed, right? But after it's been digested, right? Broken down, huh? There's a way to be assimilated. Then it is now, what? Like the fed, right? Okay? But all things change. But for all things, change is to an opposite or middle. More of a food suffers somewhat something by what is feeding, but not the latter by food. This is a power that acts upon samdhi, right? So he's transforming it, huh? So in 162 then he sees the solution. Whether the food is what is finely added or what is first makes a difference. If both, the one undigested, the other digested, in both ways it might be called food. For as undigested, contrary, is fed by contrary. While as digested, like by like. Once it appears that in some way both parties speak rightly and what? Not rightly, right? Okay? I think it's an interesting thing. Aristotle sees that those before him, some have said that food is like the fed, and some say it's unlike the fed, huh? He says, well, there could be an element of truth in the thinking. They've both seen so far in the truth. I kind of imitate that, you know. I ask people, you know, is philosophy a reasoned out knowledge or is it a search? Most of you want to say, well, it's a search, right? But it could be a search in the beginning, right? And a reasoned out knowledge in the, what? In the end. So Aristotle sometimes calls philosophy a zetecesa, which means a search, or an historia, an investigation. Other times he calls it an episteme, right? Which means a reasoned out knowledge, right? Reasoned out understanding. It might be that both answers are true, but not the same way, right? Now, when they talk about the mind, sometimes they say something like this, huh? Because when you hear something unusual and difficult from Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle or some other teacher like that, it's first like something that is, what? Not yours, unlike your thinking, unlike your thoughts, right? But if you can digest what Aristotle or Thomas is saying, then it becomes, what? Like your other thoughts, huh? And you can assimilate it, huh? Father Boulay used to say that the Greek word krino, you know, it's tied up, the Greek word for judging. It's first tied up with digestion, right? And people can't judge, you know, he says they have constipated minds, he says, right? But a very concrete way of speaking, though, huh? Judgment is what? What is judgment? You speak of the judgment as an act of the mind, an act of reason. You should come back and pick up the mind later on. But what is judgment? The genus of judgment is separation. Judgment is the separation of the true from the false by some beginning. So, I'll take a simple example of this, huh? When you put us taking up the, let's say, the sixth theorem there, book one, right? The sixth theorem in book one says that if these two angles are equal, then what? These two sides must be what? Equal, right? Okay. Now, that's the true, true. Falsity would be that those two sides, what? Might not be equal, right? Okay. Now, how does he separate, how does he judge this matter? How does he separate the true from the false, huh? Well, he says, if one of these lines was longer than the other, it doesn't make any difference to me which one is longer, but let's say the one here on the left is longer. Well, then I could cut off on the longer one a line equal to the what? Shorter one, the nice one. Okay. And then I could draw a line from where that shorter one is cut off down to the opposite line. Corner, right? I could do that, right? And now I have two triangles here, right? One of which is obviously smaller than an apart again, right? Which have an equal, what? Angle, right? This angle is equal to that angle. And this side is equal to that side. And this side is common, right? So, you have two equal triangles there, right? According to your admissions, right? But obviously, the lesser is equal to the greater. Or the part to the, what? Hole. So, you've gone back to the beginning in our knowledge, which is that the hole is more than the part, right? That the part is not equal to the whole. The lesser is not equal to the what? Greater, right? I separate the truth and the false now by that beginning, which is an axiom in our mind. Of course, the very first beginning in our knowledge is the senses, right? So, is purpose standing or sitting? So, purpose is standing. Purpose is not standing. One is true, one is false, right? Can you separate the true from the false now? How do you separate the true statement, purpose is standing, from the false one, purpose is not standing? We go back to the beginning, which in this case is your senses, right? Okay, okay. Excuse me. Go back to the beginning, maybe the ultimate consensus in some ways, but go back to the axiom, something of that sort. Now, you may change a little bit for practical matters, you can say separation of the good from the bad, right? Well, I guess, I don't say the word, but Boulay used to say that the Greek word, the same word was used for judgment and for digestion, right? Because what you do when you digest your food, your body's going to reject some things and eliminate them, right? As not being useful for the body, right? And other things it will take in and assimilate them, right? So you can't separate what you can use, what you can't use, the good from the bad, and so on, and you're constipated, you've got problems. And he says most minds like this, right? They read all these things and they can't do it. But separate the truth from the false, and they get more and more constipated and finally they can't think anymore. It's very cognitively speaking, right? I mean, it makes it very clear, right? But the other thing that's interesting about that, you know, being like and unlike, as I say, when you first hear something, you know, well, that's Aristotle's idea, or that's Thomas's idea, or somebody else's idea. But if it's really a good idea, a true idea, and you think about it long enough, you can, as we say, what? Make it your own, right? I mean, as my first teacher, Eric Osterich, used to say, you know, you have to read even Aristotle and Thomas with a grain of salt, right? You know? You see? Because you are going to try to make this your own, right? And then you, what? Yeah. But first, you know, when it's something kind of really far from your understanding, that seems to be so-and-so's thought, right? It's not my thought. But I really succeed in understanding it, you know? Like, you understand these theorems, and now they become yours, huh? Like Dustin says there in the Confessions, huh? You know? It's not my truth, or your truth, you know? But it's kind of like it was both, though. So a lot of nice analogies here, and he's just speaking here, going back to food. And now he starts to talk about the acts a bit here, huh? Now, up to this point here, he's talked in 160, 161, 162, about the object here, which is food, right? Now he's going to talk about the acts in comparison to food, right? Since no thing that does not share in life feeds, huh? I know sometimes we speak of feeding the fire, right? You know, you give another thing. But you're really not feeding it in the strict sense, huh? There's a sort of lightness there. But it's really you're, what, generating more fire. But the ensouled would be a feeding body, as ensouled, huh? The living body. Whence also food is relative to the ensouled, and not accidentally. Now, he's distinguishing now kind of the way food is related to the fundamental power of feeding yourself, and how it's needed to grow. And what's the difference there? However, to be food and to be able to cause growth are different. For insofar as the ensouled is an amount of food is able to cause growth, as a this something and substance, it is food. He means it's more the, what, object of the feeding power. For it conserves a substance and exists so long as it, and the substance exists so long as it can feed. What is he saying there, right? He's saying that we can consider food as a this something, which is Aristotle's way of speaking of an individual substance, right? Okay, so this something is a substance. And that's why I feed my substance, you might say, right? Preserve my substance, right? Okay, but insofar as it's, what, so much, insofar as it's quantity, right? Then it's tied up with not feeding so much, but with, what, growing, right? Okay? So in other words, there's two things going on here. One is the preservation of my substance, the preservation of Dwayne Burkwist, right? And I have to do it all my life, I have to eat, in order to preserve Dwayne Burkwist. I'm a this something, an individual substance, okay? But when I was growing, and I stopped growing now, maybe I'm shrinking, but I stopped growing, except in the wrong ways. It's insofar as it's, what, so much, right? Insofar as it's, what, quantitative, right? Okay? A little different relation to that, right? So as they say, the sons of immigrants might be bigger and taller than their father, right? You know, these short time, and you say, you know, they don't have the same diet we have, right, Don? Yeah. You know, Big Ten there, you know. Big Ten had the contract for the Rose Bowl all the time, because all these corn-fed farm boys in the Midwest, you know, were really going to the state universities and making good football players, right? So, but they're getting lots of food, right? Right, huh? So, that's quantitative, right? It refers to, what, growing, right, huh? Aristotle and Thomas had the idea that reproduction is kind of the, what, the excessive food, right, that goes into that, right? In other words, charity begins at home. So, you've got to take your own body first, right? Use food to grow and to, what, preserve yourself, right? See? But then there's something in addition that you can, what, get into the business of reproduction. Which makes some sense in terms of fasting and other, you know, aesthetic practices. It's cutting down people's concubisence, right? I think it's a little more complicated, maybe, than Aristotle and Thomas saw to be, okay? But food is related to these three acts, huh? To preserving yourself, you know, feeding yourself, that's, preserving yourself, and growing and reproducing in a somewhat, what, different way, right? Now, he gets down to generation. He makes a distinction, huh? That you don't generate yourself, but you generate another like yourself, right? But you feed yourself, right? In a sense, you, what, grow yourself, right? Okay? And that's different between, you know, you know, we go back to philosophy of nature there and I contrast the growing of a tree and the brick wall getting higher, right? The brick wall is not really making itself get taller, is it? You put the cement and the brick spider, you know, soak them in and build itself up like that. But the tree will soak things in and build itself up, right? So, in a way, you feed and grow yourself, right? But you don't generate yourself, you generate, what, another, right? Okay? Like yourself, huh? That's what he says in 165 there, right? Whence, this is 166. Whence such a principle of the soul is a power, such as to consider the one having it as such, while food helps it to be at work. Whence deprived of food is not able to exist, huh? That's kind of a corollary of what we've seen before. Since there are three things, what is fed, that by which it is fed, and the one feeding. The one feeding is the first soul, what is fed is the body, and that by which it is fed is the, what? Food, right? That's the expression we use sometimes. I'm fed up with that, huh? I hear some people using this catchphrase all the time, that I get too much on my plate. You hear that? You know, too busy? I get too much on my plate. And all the time, you know, people... One of these phrases, you know, gets popular, you know, and it goes all around, you know, I hear it. Like where I go. I read in a newspaper magazine, somebody's saying it, you know, and then I go to school and somebody's saying that. you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, Well, the end here is to generate one like oneself. The first soul would be, what? One that is generative of one like itself. Now, so he's taking the ultimate thing that this kind of soul can do, right? This soul, in a sense, feeds itself, right? Causes itself to grow, right? But ultimately, it, what? Reproduces itself, right? So he's going to define the soul by the ultimate thing that it, what, does. Remember back when you were defining reason there with Shakespeare, right? And reason is the ability for large discourse, looking before and after, right? And I say, why is it defined by large discourse? Because the soul is even more, or reason is even more capable than small discourse. So why does he leave that out, right? Well, if you say small, you wouldn't see the full extent of what the soul, the reason can do, right? But large discourse, right? Tells you they can have a discourse not only about unimportant things, but about great things. Not just about the singular, but about the, what? Universal, right? And so on. So you define it by its, what, ultimate, right? You're going to define my weightlifting capacity, right? If I can lift 200 pounds, but the 201st pound would be the straw of the camel's back, right? You define me as, like, 200 pounds, not by 100 pounds. Even I can lift 100 pounds easier. Do you see? We define something by its ultimate, right? So he's going to define this, therefore, not as the feeding soul, or the growing soul, right? But the reproducing soul, right? Do you see? Part of that is, right? Yeah. Just as our soul would be called the, what? The view of Shakespeare calls it in the play sometimes, the understanding soul. Our understanding soul. Yeah, without understanding soul, you have a sensing soul, right? You have a growing soul, a feeding soul, a reproducing soul, right? But that's not the ultimate thing, the highest thing, I don't think. But that's included, right, in mortal things, right? But if you're talking about the animal soul, well, that's going to be the sensing soul, not the reproducing soul. Although you understand that it can do that, right? But there's something beyond that, right? Okay. Okay, now in 169, he's merely kind of summarizing some things he said already, I think. But he says, later on, we'll take up food in a more, what? Particular way, right? And there was a treatise attributed to Aristotle on food, you know, where he did more into what, you might expect a modern nutritionist to be talking about, right? But entering into, you know, material constituents of food, right? He hasn't really defined food, has he? You're just saying it's the object. Well, no, he said some things about food, right? You know, that it's, in the beginning, it's unlike the fed, right? In the end, it's like the fed, right? It's that by which it, what, preserves itself, and so on, which it blows, and so on, right? You know, he hasn't gone into the material constituents of the food, okay? But he sees the food as the object of this, first thing, you know? But see, so familiar is that idea to us that we tend to speak of, you know, use all those metaphors, right? Food for thought, you know, food for disdain, right? Food for anger, food for laughter. It's very clear that it's kind of the prime example, right, for us. Now, where is this used in theology, this distinction of the three powers of the living soul or the first soul? This is whereby our material life is, what, preserved, right, huh? And I suppose this kind of immaterial existence we have, even in sensing and a fortiori and understanding, huh? Or is it used in theology on the distinction of those three powers? Yeah, yeah. And now, when Thomas takes up the sacraments, huh? And the sacraments are always something that is sensible, right? See? And this is kind of in harmony with the nature of man, right? It also fits the fact that sacraments are tools of Christ, who's the word made flesh, right? And how man has to be led, you know, to spiritual things through these sensible things, you know, this is a common thing, right? Then he starts to explain the sacraments. The first sacraments we talk about are baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist, right? And even in the catechism there, right, those three are, what, grouped together, right? And, of course, it's very clear in the way the Orthodox do it, right, where you receive all three at once, I guess. I mean, right together, almost. I mean, you're baptized first, but, I mean, then you see, give me your confirmation. But Thomas assimilates those three, they have to be kind of approached through their sensible likeness, right? And he compares them to what? These three powers, right? So, the Eucharist is like what? Food for the soul, feeding the soul, right? Confirmation is like what? Faith. No? Growth, right? See? Growth of the soul, right? You know, you kind of said, you know, that when they build confirmation, they, that's why they think it's kind of appropriate in the Western Church of these, to give it to a person who has sort of maturity, right, that's supposed to be now a soldier for Christ and so on, right? And I don't know if they do it still now. You know, when they confirm, you get a little slap in the cheek, you know, that you're, you know, ready to suffer for Christ, right? And then they would give you the, what, crosser, you're not ashamed to confess Christ before the world and so on, right? So, that is, you're kind of an adult, so to speak, in the church now, right? So, that's like growth, right? And then baptism is like what? Generation. Yeah, yeah. See, Christ is very concrete when he talks to Nicodemus there in the Gospel of St. John, right? Unless a man be born again, right? And of course, Nicodemus says, well, how can a man get into his mother's womb, you know, now these will be for a mother, right? And, I mean, but notice how concrete our Lord is being that way when he expresses this thing, right? See? And, you know, these miracles of the multiplication, you know, the, you know, lows kind of anticipate the prayer of the way for the Eucharist, right? And the changing of, what, water into wine, huh? Kind of prepares our mind to believe that he can change wine into his own, what, blood, right, huh? And so on. So, why are there those three sacraments concerned with life, right? St. Thomas will manifest by the likeness to these three powers there. It's very concrete, huh? That's kind of a marvelous, you know, use of this, huh? All the way to the sacraments. In fact, when Thomas takes up sometimes that Christ is in the Eucharist, he's really what? Present Eucharist, right? See? In a way, his power is found in all the sacraments, right? But, uh, Christ himself is really under the appearance of bread and wine there, huh? His flesh and blood, huh? Mm-hmm. But, yeah. It compares that to the fact that it's, what, being given in the likeness of food. And therefore the very substance of the thing you're being fed by, right? It's not just by the power of the thing, but by its very substance, as Aristotle said, you're being fed, right? So the very substance of Christ has to be in there. But he gives other reasons why Christ is present in there, but that's tied in the very symbolism, right? So, does it make you hungry there reading about this kind of soul? Well, there's a kind of interesting comparison, though, between, you know, those three sacraments, right? And these three powers, right? It's kind of interesting that you're going down to the first soul, but the lowest soul, in a sense, right? You know, to manifest those three, right? And you get to the Trinity, and you're trying to explain, you know, the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards God, and the Word was God, right? Then Thomas goes to what soul to manifest that? The rational. Yeah, yeah. In other words, you have to see, I mean, the likeness there, the sort of likeness, right? That if my reason, right, thinks about itself, like when you have Shakespeare's definition of reason, right? When reason thinks about itself, and reason has a, what? A thought about itself, right? That's a little bit like, what? God having a thought of himself, right, huh? There are all kinds of differences, but I mean, the likeness is there, right, huh? You know? He doesn't really try to manifest the Trinity by the plant soul, the living soul, does he? I mean, you make yourself a likeness there that I'm aware of, right? He doesn't even use a sensing, because a sensing is a sense you're being acted upon with something outside of you, you know? But in the case of God in the Trinity, it's all, what, within, right? So, it's more like imagining or thinking, right? Where the image or the thought produced, right, is what remains within the one, imagine the one thinking, right? But you can't really imagine your imagination. But you can, in some sense, understand your understanding. You can have a thought about, you know, reason or mind, huh? And then we realize what reason is, then you love it, right? And then you've got, you know, the Holy Spirit there, right? But for the sacraments, we go to this soul right here. Okay. So, maybe next time we'll go on to the, what? We'll talk about the sensing here, right? We'll talk about chapter 5 here in page 16, you know? Kind of interesting here, you know, because when I grew up, you know, when I always thought of the sacrament of reconciliation, right? They call it now, confession, penance. And the Eucharist, right? Because they're always associated with our mind. They're kind of the two very common ones, right? But when you get, go back to Thomas there, he will, I suppose when you go to the Orthodox, right? You tend to put those three sacraments of baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, right? Right together, right now? And the, but we were, you know, it's always very good. It was coming into us the need of, you know, penance before you go to Eucharist, right? You know, I mean, kind of disorder, you know, it's crept into some parishes, you know, where they receive communion before penance, right? But anyway, in terms of explaining these things, this is in part two, a celebration of the Christian mysteries, part two of the Catechism. And it's down here into section two, which is called the seven sacraments of the Church, right? How does that divide? Well, chapter one is the sacraments of Christian initiation, he calls it. And then you go to that article one, the sacrament of baptism. Article two, the sacrament of confirmation. Article three, the sacrament of Eucharist. Then you have chapter two, the sacraments of healing, which are the sacrament of penance, and then, you know, you get the sick. And then chapter three, they call it the sacraments of the service of communion. The sacrament of holy orders, and the sacrament of what? Matrimony, right? Okay. I know it's the order there, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist. I mean, bring those three together, huh? So Thomas, you know, that's what he does when he explains the seven sacraments. That's how he's put those three together. That's kind of the old tradition, I guess, in the church, though. But then he explains it in terms of the effectiveness going back to this here. Okay. I've got to ask you this question on a different topic. Mm-hmm. I was thinking about the, you know, we use the term purity, especially in relation to chastity. So we could really use the word purity for any virtue. But anyhow, I was trying to, something about that, trying to figure out, do you have any helpful insights on why we do that, particularly for chastity? Well, what are the integral parts of chastity, or of temperance in general? If you look at, if you go to the Summa, and you take it to the virtue of temperance in general, Thomas will say the two parts are vera kundia and anastasa. These integral parts here, temperance. Vera kundia, right? And anastasa. Now, vera kundia could be translated, I suppose, as, what, shame? Anastasa is a little harder to translate, huh? Now, Thomas will speak of anastas there as a kind of, what, spiritual beauty, right? It's a kind of light, you know? As you like it, I guess, as many as you like it there were. The word honest is being used, right? In the sense of chaste, right? That reflects, you know, more than I had to use it. Now, Shakespeare often, you know, refers to those two, huh? But usually, you know, in a less obvious way, right? There's not an example, right? Now, why would shame be a part of temperance, huh? Would it be because it fosters it, it acts as a... Okay. I mean, is intemperance more shameful than, say, robbing or something like that? Stealing, huh? Yeah. Now, why is lust, let's say, more shameful than anger, right? Why is that so... There's an interesting line there in Lear, you know, when he's maltreated by his daughters and so on, right? Because he's given the kingdom, you know, and so on. He doesn't want to cry, break down and cry like a woman. And he says, fill me with what? What's noble anger? Oh, okay. Interesting phrase, noble anger, right? And these great, you know, characters in the tragedies and in the... Or go back to the beginning of the civilization, which is the Iliad, right? Uh-huh. You know? Uh-huh. The Iliad is kind of what? It's about the tragedy of Achilles, right? But Achilles, what? The wrath of Achilles, right? You know, the very opening words of the Iliad, and you know what happens in the thing, right? Um, but then he comes back into battle, right? At his friend, the Matrochus is going to kill them. Pooley-Dowman says, let's get back in the city, you know, behind the walls. And Zeus had taken away their minds, right? He alone looked before him behind him, he says. He says, you know, and Hector, they all kind of bullies him, you know, and he's down there and I'm not afraid of him anymore. And Pooley-Dowman says, the only guy who looked before and after, right? The homest phrases looked before and behind him, you know? And of course, next day, the kid just mows him down, right? You know? He doesn't see this noble, you know? You know? You know? You're thinking the death of this thing, you know? I look at from maybe a strictly, you know, Christian, you know, narrows the road. He's a salvation, right? But anger makes you do a lot of horrible things, right? But so much is just not seen as shameful in the anger of Achilles. It's seen as what? No. Justified, right? You know? See? Okay. Now, Shakespeare has a great play called, what? It's one about the angry man. Well, you have several of them, but Coriolanus, again, it's the most famous one, right? Oh, okay. And of course, Coriolanus is kind of driven out of Rome, you know? And then he turns against his native city, right? And he's invincible, you know? And the whole other rule is, they can't stop him, right? And he's gone over to the enemy, right? And they keep on sending his friends out to beg, you know? And just brush them off and finally send his wife and his mother. It would be a very interesting scene, huh? But I think it's interesting, huh? To show that anger seems to be less, what? Shameful, right? When someone's caught, caught my past, as they say, right? Why is that, saying? Why is that? Well, because anger seems to, what? Cure reason more than what lust does, huh? Or, reason is more, what? Extinguished in the sense of, yeah, here, than it is in the, what? Anger, right? The angry man, in other words, is, he's what? He's, in a sense, trying to punish, right? Okay. He's punishing you for having done this, right? Not quite as he exaggerates me what you've done, or I want you to be punished, right? But he sees this as, what? Just. Just, yeah, yeah. Reasonable, right? See? He has a reason for what he's doing, right? See? By the man who's moved just by sensible delight, he's moved like an animal, right? So reason seems to be more extinguished there, and therefore it seems more, what? More shameful. Yeah, more shameful, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of interesting, in the apology there, when Socrates has been found guilty, you know, of the charges, but he's not really guilty of anything, and he had the third part of the apology where Socrates speaks to those who voted for his condemnation, and he speaks to those who voted for his acquittal, and he speaks to both of them together, see? Now, when he speaks to those who voted for his condemnation, they've done something wicked and, what? Unjust, huh? But, very interesting what Socrates does, huh? Unjust, he begins and ends his remarks to them by saying, you've done something really stupid. And so in the middle he touches upon the fact that they've done something wicked, see? And I often remark to students who say, now, if you want to start a fight in a barroom, right, you know, you want to start a fight by calling somebody wicked or by calling him stupid. Stupid, I guess, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah, see? And, because that seems to be a direct attack upon their, what? Nature. Reason. See? See? And I always tell a couple of true stories here that I picked up from newspapers years ago, different times. One of my hometown of St. Paul, another home in the, Worcester happened, huh? In my hometown there, they have the hamburger chain on this white castle, right? So one night, late at night, you see, it was closing time, there's just a girl behind the counter, that's the only girl, person working there, right? And the guy comes in, you know, just jacking, you know, you know, they put the money in the bag, right? What's the poor girl going to do, right? Obviously, he puts the money in the bag, right? But as she hands the money to him, he takes his hand out. You see the idea? In other words, he's got, it's in there, and there's jacks like that, and for all she knows, he's got a gun in there, right? See? You can't see it, see? But once she hands it to him, he's been right-handed, without thinking, you know, he's... And she realizes he doesn't have a gun, right? Well, she still has a good hold of the bag, better than he does, right? And so there's a struggle with results, and she gets the bag, right? Well, that time he's rattled, and he, what? He runs out, right? So he goes home, he's going to be, what? You know, kicking himself, right? He's mad at himself, right? But he's mad at himself for trying to rob the White Castle? I don't see. No, I don't know. But because he was... That's all he's stupid, right? Yeah. Okay. And so, there's another chap in Worcester, I guess, the guy came in to rob the bank, or it was, and, you know, you might expect to go nourish him, and he says, well, that's his robbing a bank, right? And he handed the girl the note, you know, a note saying, you know, put the money in the bank, right? And she played dumb, see? She said, oh, I've never seen him withdrawing notes like this, so I have to check on this, you know, and she walked away. Because he got all mad at him, he ran out, and caught the police out there, you know? The point is, she was very clever, right? You know? She's playing kind of dumb, actually, about what it was all about, you know? Well, he's going to be really mad at her, right? Because she, what, kind of outsmarted his life, and made a fool of him. And so, people are, what, you know, the defect of reason there is shameful, right? So, reason is especially excuse to these matters, right? Therefore, they're naturally, what, more shameful, right? And things were reasoned as it's being used more. Now, if you're talking about Anastasia, Thomas has kind of...