De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 71: Lowest Species and Diverse Operations: Soul and Angel

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

Yeah, I don't think there are different kinds of Ikudawa Triangle, in the sense that, you know, there's different shapes of Ikudawa Triangles. It could be maybe bigger or smaller ones, but they all have exactly the same shape, all Ikudawa Triangles. This is a portion, right? But when you get to Isosceles Triangle, there it seems to me you could have, what, different shapes, right? Mm-hmm. See? A cube. And maybe the, you know, the ratio of the equal side to the unequal side might be two to one or three to one, or, you know? And you have a slightly different shape, right? Mm-hmm. So I think it's kind of interesting because they are on the same level. I mean, they're, you know, the first division of Triangle, right? But one of them is the lowest species and the other is not, right? Now, likewise, when you divide quadrilateral and even parallelogram in particular, into the square and the oblong and the rhombus and the rhomboid. But it seems to me square is like a lowest species, huh? All squares have exactly the same, what, form or shape, right? But do all oblongs have the same? See? Ten by two and six by two, are they the same? No. Not exactly either, huh? So one member of the same, you know, division could be a lowest species and the other is what? Not, huh? Now, there it's easy to tell in geometry which is a lowest species, which is not, huh? You get into dividing, say, drama into tragedy and comedy, right? Was comedy a lowest species, huh? Well, I think in Shakespeare, there's at least two kinds of comedy, right? And one you might call, I call the good-natured comedy, which is my favorite. And the other is the satire, right, huh? You see? It could be different kinds, but it's kind of not so clear there, right? As it is in geometry, huh? When Aristotle divides the virtues of reason into, what, five there in the sixth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, and he has natural understanding and wisdom and reasoned-out understanding and art and foresight, right? Well, are they the lowest species or what? Well, wisdom is the lowest species, huh? Even though it's the highest knowledge, right? There aren't many kinds of wisdom, right? There wasn't me to talk about there. And natural understanding is the lowest, huh? But episteme, scientia, reasoned-out knowledge, that's a genus of geometry and natural philosophy and other ones. And art is a genus, right? The art of carpentry and the art of cooking and many other arts. And foresight is a genus. There's a foresight of the human being and the foresight of the father and the foresight of the king and the foresight of Elizabeth MacArthur. The general, right? That Thomas distinguishes, huh? So it's a little tricky sometimes, right, huh? And sometimes we don't maybe even have a name, right, huh? So you have maybe, you know, I use the term good-natured comedy, satyr, a different kind of thing. And maybe there's more than one kind of, what, tragedy, right, huh? You know, tragedy like Macbeth. Is that the same thing as King Lear, you know? You know, where a man knowingly chooses what's evil and eventually he's defeated. And where a man is, in a sense, suffers because of circumstances, right? More than maybe he should for his mistake, huh? So when you say intellectuale esse, huh, to be understanding, huh? You're able to understand. Is that a lowest species, right? Or is the soul's way of understanding and the angel's way of understanding not exactly the same, right? Okay. Third objection. Moreover, the soul differs from the angel. It does not seem to differ from the angel except through this, that is, united to a body. But the body, since it is outside the essence of the soul, does not seem to pertain to its species, huh? Therefore, the soul and the angel are one in, what, species, huh? But against all this, of those that have diverse natural operations, they differ in, what, species, huh? Those things of which there are diverse natural operations differ in species, huh? But the souls and angels, but of the soul and of the angel, there are diverse natural operations. Because as Dionysius says in the seventh chapter about the divine names, the angelic minds have a, what, simple and blessed understandings. Not gathering, right, from visible things, divine knowledge, huh? Right, Shakespeare defines reason as, what, the ability for a large discourse, right, huh? We gather, what, the universal from a large induction, right? Uh-huh. Why the angelic angels don't have to induce, right? They see the universal right away. About the contrary, which he says later on about the soul. Therefore, the soul and the angel are not of one species. Now here he's going to touch upon the error of origin. And origin is kind of influenced by the Platonists, right? And I answered, ought to be said, that origin laid down that all human souls and angels were of one, what, species of one type of one kind, huh? They did a different kind, huh? And we're all created in the beginning, and some of us sinned, and we got attached to bodies. Okay? And he has something like this kind of, you know, in the Platonists, huh? And maybe the people who believe in the transmigration of the souls, right? Yeah. And the worse you've been, the worse body you go into, right? And if you gradually purify yourself, you may not have to go back into a body, you know? Is that why I believe that everyone might be saved? Well, that's another mistake of his, but, you know. But in other words, we're all created equal in the beginning. Right. And that kind of, you know, kind of democratic thinking, in a way, is if it would be unjust for God to make us unequal, we'd have to do something to be made unequal, right? Yeah. Okay? But, as you know, God hates equality. And therefore, because he laid down the diversity of greed found in these substances to be accidental, right, as coming about from, what? Free will, right? Okay. As has been said above. But this is not able to be, because in immaterial, incorporeal substances, there cannot be, what? A diversity by number, without a diversity in kind, yeah. And without a, what, natural inequality, yeah? Mm-hmm. And the only reason why you can have many things of the same kind is because you have matter subject to, what, continuous quantity, right? And therefore, I can, what, put this form of chair in this metal and that metal and that metal and that metal and that metal, right, huh? Oh, yeah. And then, okay, the woman rolls out the dough, right? She can make this cookie, this cookie, this cookie, this cookie, this cookie, right? Because she has enough, what, dough to make this many cookies, right? So they can be exactly the same. They can all be Christmas trees, right? You know, Christmas tree cookies. But they differ because, what, the shape of a Christmas tree is in this dough and in that dough and that dough, and dough is something material with part outside of part so you can cut it up, right? If you have enough, you can make a large number of these Christmas tree cookies, which I'm all in favor of. Mm-hmm. Okay. But if you don't have that, then you just have form, then you're going to have to differ in form and therefore differ in what? Kind of. You have many squares, exactly the same, right? Remember the first theorem here in Euclid, right? You know, in a straight line, you construct an equilateral triangle, right? And he rotates it around one end, gets a circle, and then he rotates it around the other end, right? And with a bisect, intersect, rather, he draws a line, right? But you have two circles exactly the same, even in size, right? But one's here, and one's there. The center of the one is here, and the center of the other one is here, right? Okay? But if you didn't have part outside of part like that, then you have to differ like a circle and a square differ, right? And a triangle, right? And that's the way these immaterial substances differ, like circle and square and triangle. They can't differ like two circles. Two circles can differ, for one being here and one being there. You see that in modern science, too, in quantum theory, because they discovered that these parts, when they come together, they lose their, what, definite position, right? They become blurred. And the blurring is in the thing, yeah? You can't say exactly where they are in principle, not just in practice. And therefore, they're not really individuals. They lose individuality, as Schrodinger says, huh? In his essays, huh? Because you can't say one's here, one's there. They become blurred in reality. Okay. Which is not able to be, because in incorporeal substances, there cannot be a diversity by number without a diversity by species or kind, and without natural inequality. Because if they are not composed of matter and form, which is what the truth, I think, really is, but they are subsisting forms, it is manifest that it is necessary for there to be in them a diversity in species or kind. For it cannot be understood that some separated form be except one of one kind. Just as if whiteness, huh, were separated, it could only be, what, one only, huh? For this whiteness does not differ from that whiteness except through the fact that it is of this or of that, right? But the diversity by species always has a natural diversity following upon it. Just as in the species of colors, one is more perfect than another, and likewise than others. And this because differences dividing a genus are contraries. And contraries have themselves according to perfect and imperfect. And you first learn that a bit in the first book of Natural Hearing, remember? When Aristotle was trying to find a common thought among his predecessors, and he found that they all spoke of change as being by contraries, right? But then he saw that in the contraries, one is more perfect than the other, right? One seemed to be lacking something in comparison to the other. So, when Demarcatus spoke of the full and the empty, obviously the empty is lacking something, right? But even when they talked about love and hate, hate seemed to be missing something that love has. And when they talked about hot and cold, well, the cold seems to be kind of lacking what heat has, huh? And so one contrari tends to be more perfect or better than the other, the other to be kind of lacking in it. And this is developed in a more perfect way in the 10th book of Wisdom, 10th book of First Philosophy, 10th book of the Metaphysics. Because the beginning of contrariety is what? Lack and having, right? Now, he says the same thing would follow. He still wants to take in those people who have this kind of strange notion that there's some kind of spiritual matter, right? The same thing would follow if these substances were composed to a matter in form, but were not bodies, right? And then have they continuous. For if the matter of this is distinguished from the matter of that, it's necessary that either the form be the principle of the distinction of matter, that the matters are diverse on account of a relation to diverse forms. And then there would follow, still, a diversity according to kind and a natural, what? Inequality. So I was saying about the angels, huh? When they met in convention, right? They said, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all angels are created unequal. So there's no democratic government up there, that's for sure. That's right. Or matter would be the beginning of the distinction of forms. Nor can this matter be said to be other from that, except according to a quantitative division, right? Which would not have any place in bodiless substances, right? Of which kind are the angel and the soul? Whence it is not possible that the angel and the soul be of one, what? Species. But the same thing is going to be true when you study the angels. One angel cannot be of the same, what? Species is another one, right? In what way, however, there are many souls of the same kind will be shown below, right? In case you don't know it, your soul was made for your body, huh? Your body was made for your soul. Okay? My soul couldn't fit into your body. Oh, okay, no. So they weren't made for each other, there's a priority? Yeah, you see, matter and form are kind of like relatives, right? Okay. And so not any form can be any matter, right? Mm-hmm. And this individual form, my soul or your soul, is adapted to your individual, what? Body, right? So if your parents had not met, and if they had met, if they had not produced your body, right? Right. God would not have created your soul, huh? Oh, yeah, I see. So you have to thank God that your parents met, right? Oh, yeah. Kierkegaard, you know, talks about this strange thought, comes across a man who realizes his mother and father might never have met. Right. But you know, I mean, even if your mother and father meet, the number of, say, seeds, right, in the mail especially, I guess, a huge number, right? So your chances of being the one, you know, just from the point of view of chance. From the point of view of chance, yeah. Yeah, yeah. But you say, God's providence extends all the way down to your parents meeting, right? And to their conceiving you, right? Right. Your body, huh? And that was intended, huh? You know? You realize how, in a sense, how gratuitous is our existence, right? Yes. On his part, huh? You know? And what right do I have to be, you know, more than those countless other people that could have been generated even by my parents, right? Even by our parents, yeah. Yeah. You know? Do I have some right to be more than they did? No. No, it's purely generosity in God's part that I'm around here at all, you know? Mm-hmm. It'll be interesting, you know, our thankfulness in heaven, right? I mean, it's going to be much more obvious, right? Yeah. You know? That, uh... But, of course, you know, you have also considerable debt to your parents, right? Mm-hmm. You wouldn't be without them, obviously. So the soul, how can the soul be kind of modified or something in itself to do a lot without being a different species? Well, it's something individual, yeah. It's not a different kind of soul. But it's still peculiar to your body, right? And so even your soul is separated from your body, you know? Some people thought, you know, when the soul was separated from the body, there would only be one soul, right? You see? Wait, say that again, please? When the soul is separated from the body, right? Yeah. That you don't have any body there, you have only one soul, see? And so they denied the personal immortality of your soul or my soul, right? Oh, it's just one big soul. Yeah, yeah. It's just one soul, you see? But, even if my soul is separated from its body, it still is, what? A soul that's proportioned to that body, right? to that body, right? A soul that's proportioned And when your soul is separated from your body, it's still a soul proportioned to your body, right? And so, you don't have to worry at the resurrection, and I'll get your body, you get my body. We'll be back in the same body, right? We'll be resurrected, right? I thought those differences that distinguish the souls only came because they had been in bodies, but if they weren't first in bodies, then there would only be one soul. Yeah, your soul was made by God for your body, right? Right. You see? To fit your body, right? What's unique? Your flesh and blood and bones are not mine, that's for sure. When the souls are, after that, before the resurrection, how do they keep souls separate if they don't? Well, we bring our supernatural gifts to that. Yeah, but nevertheless, as I say, your soul is still relative to your body, even when it's separated from your body. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Just like a nut and bolt, right? I mean, you don't have to be together, right? You're both. Yeah, yeah. All right. Don't try to understand it too distinctly now, okay? Right? You see? Is one man more intelligent than the other just because of the matter, or is it form and matter combination for a human? Well, it may be a bit of both, but you know, you kind of start from the body there, right? Yeah. Yeah. Because it's not because of the kind of thing the soul is that one's soul is more intelligent than the other, right? But this soul is made for this body, but Thomas' body. Very good soul for that body, right? He's magnanimous. Yeah. So his intellect itself would have been a good problem, wouldn't it? Maybe some individual differences, yeah. It's hard to specify exactly what those are, but you read them, you know. He's quite different from you. I always thought that all came from his body, his brain, and it wasn't like, you were saying it's also something of his soul, too. Well, there's some proportion there, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I was going to begin to, I have to remember that text, I was going to read that text in from Paul VI, you know? Oh, that's right. But that's even more clear, the difference between the woman's body and the man's body, right? That has something to do with the difference in their soul, right? I was referring to the text there where when Paul VI, if I remember it correctly, when Paul VI made Thuisa of Avila a doctor of the church in St. Cathay of Santa, that was the first two women there, and then he spoke of the difference in the way they are a doctor of the church in, say, St. Augustine is and so on. And then, if I remember rightly, he quotes St. Francis de Sales there, you know? To the fact that a woman has a greater capacity for love than a man, huh? You know, St. Francis de Sales was a doctor of divine love there. Doesn't hesitate to say this, right? You know, so he seems to be quoting it with approval, right? At the time he's making this woman a doctor of the church, huh? Proclaiming her a doctor of the church. So it's kind of interesting, huh? That the woman's soul has this natural difference in the man's soul, huh? Now, I was mentioning how Aristotle wants to show that friendship consists more in loving than in being loved. He doesn't give the reason why this is so, as if you should be able to figure it out for yourself. But he gives a sign from the mother, right? And Thomas notes, he takes it from the mother rather than from the father, right? And it's because of this, huh? There's a certain excellence in love, right? But then I was mentioning, if you read the treatise on love there by St. Francis de Sales, the way he would take his examples from Teresa of Avila and other women's saints, rather than from Augustine or Thomas, right, huh? And I was always struck, you know, but it's different. It's just my own one time reading something there, St. Teresa of Avila and she was saying, I don't know what more I could have in heaven than I have now. She says, our union is already complete, she says. But that's obviously the union of love, right? It's complete, huh? And then when you go to Augustine, you know, the vision is a whole reward. You know? A little difference in emphasis there, right? You see? You see? Not that Augustine neglects the importance of love or he doesn't have love. And not that you would not want to see God face to face, right? I can't imagine Augustine or Thomas saying that, right? I don't want to mark it. The vision you're going to get! You know, you don't see God face to face, right? But this union of love, you see? It's already complete, she said. I've got an easy thing to say, but she was bound. Okay? And, uh... I was going early to that thing, you know, where Christ is supposed to have said to someone there, you know, if you're looking for me, you'll find me in the heart of virtue. Well, you wouldn't say that, don't think about it. You'd say Augustine or St. Thomas, you know? Even though I'm sure he was, in some sense, in the heart, too, right? Sure. You know? But it's kind of amazing that he would see that, huh? Right. Yeah. I know? And, uh... But Shakespeare understands that a lot is that, you know, in the plays, you know, this Dernstein man-woman in terms of these, her reason and love, you know? So, like, two unions, or is there just a sense that union of love is for this life and union of, you know, like this vision is the next life, or it's not quite... No, no, no, charity's going to remain, huh? Yeah, right. But faith is going to be replaced by the vision, right? Yeah. But when you see God as he is, face to face, then you will love God more than you could in this life. Yeah. But the degree to which you see him, right, depends on how much you love him. Right. Okay. So, in a sense, I mean, this metaphor of marriage there, you know? Mm-hmm. You know, it says in... Thomas Coates said, in Osea, I guess, Osea, I have espoused you in faith, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. So he calls this kind of, you know, a betrothal, right? Mm-hmm. Faith is kind of betrothal. But then there's going to be a wedding, right? Mm-hmm. But obviously, you don't want to marry somebody. You don't... There's not this love, right, huh? Yeah, okay. So, the more the soul loves God, the more God will unite himself with that soul. Mm-hmm. And the more he unites himself with that soul, the more clearly they will see God, because you're going to see God through God being in your soul, right? Oh, yeah. But then, no matter how much you love God, when you die, you're going to love him more after you see him face-to-face than you did before you saw him face-to-face. Uh-huh. See, it's going to be proportional, in a sense. Uh-huh. Proportional to the love you had when you died, right? Mm-hmm. Because the clarity of the vision that you'll see, star differs from star in magnitude, as Paul the Sixth says. Mm-hmm. But the beauty of the vision will be given only to those who love God, and the more they love God. As I say to people, you know, I mean, the metaphor there of marriage there, the union of bodies in marriage is not as intimate as the union of God with our soul in the beauty of the vision, right? Mm-hmm. You know? And if the union of bodies is repugnant, you know, except between people who love each other, right? Um, this intimacy of God being in our reason, right? As that by which we understand as well as what we understand, that by which we see and what we see, uh, he wouldn't unite himself in that way with us, right? Unless we had this pure love of him. That's why most of us will... That's to go through purgatory, right? You know, to be before, but it's like, it's not, it's like, you know. These people, you know, who, you hear about things on honeymoon, you know, where they break out in rashes or something, you know, because there's... And if someone around honeymoon time or marriage time broke out into some rash, they'd want to, what, you know, have their rash pass away before they got married, right? Well, that's what they say, that the soul that needs to be purged, right? You know, it doesn't want to be division until it's purged, right? Because it's so ashamed of itself or so, you know, filled itself. It wants to be purged, it wants to go through this, however painful it may be in some ways. Okay, so we're ready to go to the objections now, I guess? Yes. Okay. Now, the first objection was the one that's saying, well, we and the angels have the same end, right? Which is this eternal beatitude, huh? And Thomas says, and of course, it's reasoning from that, that the species and the end, huh? Correspond. But he says, that reason precedes about the, what, proximate end to the natural end. That's the one that's tied to the, what, species of the kind of thing it is, huh? But eternal beatitude is the last end and the, what, supernatural end, right, huh? So you can't reason from man and the angel having the same supernatural end that they are naturally the same, right, huh? And of course, our natural understanding, which is turning to these images, right, is entirely different from the angelic way of understanding, huh? Where the angel understands through, what, his own substance, right, and through infused forms, huh? But not by turning to the senses or through the senses at all, yeah. Yeah, I just thank you, Dr. Kahn. Yeah, because he, he says that angelic intelligence is simple and blessed. Now, I think I may understand simple in that what they know, they know all wants to complete. Yeah. But blessed, is it the infused aspect you're talking about? Well, I don't know if, in the text from Dionysius, whether he's using biaktos there, you know, in the sense of the blessedness of the angel, I mean, they're supernatural blessedness, but just they're natural. Natural blessedness. Yeah, yeah, okay. But their mind is completely formed, you might say, right? Okay. They're filled with forms, right? Like I was saying there about my son Marcus there, you know, he's little, there, saying, you know, why can't we be born with everything we have to know? You know, we have to go to school and learn all these things. He wants to be an angel. That's what an angel is, right? He's born, he's created, that's to say, knowing everything, right? That he naturally is able to know, and that's really to be something, right? But we're born, as Aristotle said, like a, what, blank tableau with nothing written on it, right? Or Thomas, you know, is in the letter to the students, you know, you know, thinking of your mind is kind of an empty vessel, you know, that needs to be, what, filled with something, right? So, we're quite different than our natural understanding, in the, in the sentences on Thomas, a lot of times uses the, the words of Isaac there, I mean, the philosopher, not the prophet. You know, that man has an intellectus abumbratus, right? An overshadowed understanding, huh? So, it's quite different from the angels, huh? Very clear understanding. Now, the second objection was saying, well, the ultimate difference is understanding, right? The angel is an understanding substance, and the human soul is an understanding substance, right? But there, they're thinking as if understanding, or the ability to understand, was really, what? One in species are kind, huh? Yeah, okay. Now, it's interesting, huh? The way we use the word here. We use the word understanding, not to name now the act, but the ability to understand, huh? The Latin word would be the lectus, huh? Okay. Then we divide it sometimes into, what? Understanding and reason. Okay? So, in Latin, it's a intellectus, as common now to man and the angels, right? It's divided into intellectus, which is what the angels have, and the reason that man has, huh? Okay? Now, this is a good example of one way that we have of naming things, huh? And a good example of one kind of name equivocal by reason, huh? And that's where the common name is, what? Kept by one of the particulars, and a new name is given to the other one, huh? And there's two ways that it takes place, right? And one of the ways is where only one of the two has fully what is meant in the common name, huh? And the other has imperfectly and deficiently what the other, what's meant by the common name, huh? And we're the ones that have the deficient one, right? Now, when Shakespeare defines reason, huh, he defines it as the ability for a large discourse, looking before and after, right, huh? Okay? Now, the discourse of reason is not understanding, but it's a way to arrive at some understanding. And so he doesn't say the ability for a large discourse, seeing the before and after, he says looking before and after, huh? That in the discourse of reason, reason is trying to understand, or to come to understand something. So we don't understand much to begin with, and most of what we understand requires, if not all of it in some way, requires some kind of a, what? A discourse, right? Even our understanding, what is called natural understanding, what Hristal calls nous, or intellect is one of the habits of reason, even that depends upon, what? Sense experience, right? Induction, huh? So we gather by some kind of a discourse, you might say, even what we naturally understand, huh? But if it's your, when you go towards episteme, right, we have, you know, you've had some experience with geometry, right? And even understanding those things, right, you have to go through, you know, definitions and syllogisms and so on. And so, um, by, um, large discourse, we come to some understanding, right? So, simply to say that reason is ability to understand, um, would seem that it is to understanding like the eye's ability to see, right? I open my eyes right where I see. Does that use my reason why I understand? No, no. I'm sure when I correct the exams next week, the students will not be, uh, I mean, still a lot of things, right, huh? You know, they didn't open their mind to what I was saying, right? It takes a long time to understand these things, huh? I've read Thomas a long time, you know? Still, we think they don't understand in there, right? Or as Augustine said about, what, Scripture? There are more things he doesn't understand in Scripture than he does understand. Even though Augustine went much further than the rest of most of us, huh? Um, so, this is called a, what, overshadowed, uh, I was giving you a Latin there, Abu Brakis, huh? Shadowed over-understanding, kind of like a darkened understanding, huh? So we have what is meant by understanding in general, the ability to understand in a very, what, imperfect way, right? Um, it's very difficult for us to understand much, huh? And we always require some kind of discourse to understand it, and even so we don't understand it very well when we get through, right? Sort of, kind of, uh, intellectus defectivo sign. So we need a different kind, right? Now, um, the different angels, though, will differ, too, and... and the way we can understand a bit about that is that the first thing an angel understands you can say is himself his own substance but in understanding his own substance he doesn't understand everything and therefore he has other what thoughts in addition to his own what substance on now the the higher the angel the fewer thoughts he has but the better he understands by them and the lower the angel the more thoughts he has and he doesn't understand as well as the higher angel now you can see a certain likeness of that thomas says even in human beings are much more equal than angels right and that is that the uh more intelligent man gets the point understand something quicker than the less intelligent mind he understands it better right now i was thinking back and you know i don't know when you went to grade schools like this but when i was in grade school you'd have like to learn mathematics right something in some kind of mathematics course and it'd be in the book some explanation of the thing right and then there'd be some exercise you had to do right and then there's a sentence exercises extra exercise for those who need it was called so he's joking about this extra exercises well some people could do the first group of exercises and understand it better than those guys who had to be the second group as well right and as thomas says you know sometimes you have to multiply your examples and your comparisons and so on before someone can begin to understand something right now and someone else might understand right away um with very few words right someone else you have to multiply examples and comparisons and so on to help them understand and they still don't understand as well as the other guy did right away and uh as the cognizant used to say you know these guys are pretty wise compared to us you know and they say an awful lot in a few words and uh you know you have to really learn how to read again and you learn um how much they can say in a few shorter words and uh so you see a little bit you know the likeness there to what you find in the what angels there are in the right that but sometimes you know they compare um god who's above all the angels god said it all in one word right right you heard my little pun on that huh my little poem huh god the father said it all in one word no wonder when that word became a man he said so much i don't know right um he spoke in words so few and said so much he was a brevity and soul wit but notice that the expression that the brevity is a soul wit right that the wise man says more in fewer words huh you see my but the difference between the angelic mind and the human mind is especially manifest huh because the human mind not only has more particular thoughts in the angelic mind even the lowest angel but it has to turn towards what images when it's in the body right and the angel doesn't understand in that way at all and that's probably the reason why our soul is naturally the soul of a body right because it needs very particular thoughts to understand anything so he says the specific ultimate difference is most noble in so far as it's most determined in the way in which act is more noble than potency but in this way intellectuale is not most noble most particular because it is something still generic right it's undetermined and common to many grades of understanding right just as a sensible to many grades in sensible being whence not just as not all sensible things are one kind so not all understanding things are one kind it's not in fact the lowest what species right after the third it should be said that the soul is not of the essence of the the body is not of the essence of the soul but the soul from its very nature right the very nature of what it is the very nature of its essence has that it is what apt to be united to a body right whence properly speaking the soul is not in a species but the composed thing is and this very fact that the soul in some way needs the body for its operation not as an organ now right but as an object shows that the soul holds the lowest grade of understanding it has an inferior grade to that of the angel who does not who is not united to a body so we're the lowest understanding because even the great thought and Xagre saw that right because he spoke with the greater mind obviously in opposition to the lesser mind right the greater mind that's responsible for the order of natural things so next week we can start question 76 which is the second question about the soul before we go into the powers in particular right and later on to the operations he's considering the soul partly by itself here in his first question and now he's going to be considering in question 76 the union of the soul to the body right and we'll try to do the first two articles first two yeah do two articles about what you can do in one of these sessions and so we'll go through the eight articles oh yeah did you know the first article is pretty big well if you don't have to do it then we'll have to take more of the time I mean it takes it all well that's pretty long yeah oh the second one's big too wow but we'll say two for the come after the two weeks 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 bold print you know if you got the text with a bold print there you know maybe they'll put um um the answer there is in you know in bold print there you know so you got a computer there you can just put the answer there you know we used to joke you know huh you know when I was teaching out St. Mary's College there um you know you get the administrator who thinks you know that if you have less time you can you condense the matter right huh so our joke was that uh right if you have less time you you leave out the minor premise and just state the major premise and the conclusion and if you have you know just just you know if you actually have one third of the time right yes and if you have only you know one third of the time you you you you just get the conclusion you don't even get the major premise right you get the conclusion right no I don't realize how um something as essential as that you can't you know it's like you know you want to teach a guy what a square is right well it's an equilateral and right ankle quadrilateral well if you don't have time to say equilateral and right ankle quadrilateral what do you say well equilateral quadrilateral you know or if you don't have time with that not time to say that just say it's a quadrilateral right or you know or circle with right angle yeah but I mean you didn't have to say essential there but you just say it's a quadrilateral or two things that are essential you know but there's no way we need to you know to condense that huh you know the king who was being taught geometry by Euclid you know says well I'm a king I'm a busy man you know you've got a short way of doing this and he said well there's no wrong road to geometry right I mean you you can't as were you know leave out the major premise or the minor premise for the king so you can get quicker to the faster the conclusion he's not really going to get the conclusion at all if he doesn't have both the major and the minor premise you're not going to get to what a square is if you leave out the differences right or even one of the differences you're going to have them both there there's no way to compact these things right you brought me a great paperback by Warren Murray it's it I advocate slow