De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 77: The Unity of the Soul: One Form or Multiple Souls

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

in that way is outside the soul, which is understood. For he posited that the natures of things, natures of man and dog and so on, exist, right, separated from matter, right, and outside the soul. Now, the fifth objection is very brief, because he's going to take this up more later on, question 117. That science is other in the student and in the teacher, right? So my knowledge is not your knowledge, numerically speaking. But what weight is caused will be shown in the, what? Yeah, yeah. Because that involves what Socrates said, right, that in a way learning is, what, recalling, right? Right. And Socrates says, you know, I'm an intellectual midwife. He's helping you to give birth, right, you know, to knowledge that's already in you, at least in potency. The thing about Augustine, Augustine is simply saying in that text, Thomas says that there aren't many souls differing in kind, right? But there are many individual souls. Augustine is not going to deny that. So maybe try to look at Article 3 here, if we take a little break now. Sure. Okay. I don't know if we had time to go to Article 3, or else I can give you a lecture on Thessalonians. And the psalm is, I think, 99 in the correct numbering, but some days it's numbered 100, right? And they sing it in church sometimes, you know, there's a version of it, especially in the church and so on. But the way the psalm goes, it says, Sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, son. Come before him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God. He made us, his we are. His people, the flock, he tends. Enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. Give thanks to him. Bless his name, for he is good. The Lord, whose kindness endures forever. His faithfulness to all generations, son. Now, I remember one time when the kids were little, you know, I thought we should, you know, find a psalm to say with them, you know. This one here seemed very appropriate for your little children to sing, you know. You know, sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands, huh? But notice, huh, in the first part of the psalm, you twice talk about joy, right, at least. See, it begins with the first verse there. Sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, right? But there you're talking, really, about obeying the Ten Commandments, right? You know, which is tied up with loving God. If you love me, you do my commandments, right? And then it says, come before me with joyful song. And then what does it say? Know that the Lord is God. He made us, his we are. His people, the flock, he tends. Now, if you know the Summa Contra Gentiles, that's the way Thomas divides, what, theology. You consider God by himself, and then God is the maker, and then God is the end and the one who is provident, right? So in the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, he talks about God by himself, right? Second book, he talks about God as the maker, right? Third book, he talks about God being the end of all things and his providence over all things, huh? Well, that's what you say there in the second part. Come before the Lord with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God. First book of Summa Contra Gentiles. He made us, his we are. Second book, right? His people, the flock, he tends. Third book. He's our shepherd, he directs us, huh? It's beautiful, right? So I say that, in retrospect, I say, it's kind of agitation to me, to be in request, to read the Summa Contra Gentiles. So the Summa Theologiae, which is really based on that too, but it's more, even more explicit the way the books are divided in the Summa Contra Gentiles, right? That's basically the way you consider theology and the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Consider God by himself, and then as the maker, and then as the end, and that's what you consider as providence, huh? Okay? Now, in terms of faith, hope, and charity, which is basically what the Christian is characterized by, right? What do these two refer to? Well, theology is the science by which faith is engendered, nourished, strengthened, and defended, as Thomas says, in the beginning of the Summa there, right? So, Come before him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God. He made us, his we are. His people, the flock, he tends. That refers to theology, in a way, right? And to the faith, therefore, right? But the first part, Sing joy for the Lord all your lands, serve the Lord with gladness, right? That refers to obeying God, right? And that's what you do because of what? Charity, right? Now, if you know, there's a third theological virtue. Where does that come up? See? In a sense, what this is saying is, do the will of God, right? Serve the Lord, in other words, right? I used to say in the old catechism, right? Why did God make me, right? To know him and love him in this world, right? And to be happy with him forever the next, right? But you have that two things, to know him and to love him, right? But this psalm, in a sense, is saying, do both with joy, right? God does it, your forgiver, and so on, right? Joyfully do the will of God, right? Joyfully think about God, huh? Okay? Joyfully read the Summa Kajitila. You know, he can, right, huh? You see? Okay? But what about hope? Now, next part. And of course, I'm working with the way I memorized the translations. I can't, you know, you don't know Hebrew, right? But always constructing the way the English version I had, went, enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise, huh? Well, there are the, to me, there seem to be a certain order there, right? That when you ask God for something, you're thinking about your need, right? When you thank God, it's a little less me, right? But nevertheless, you're looking back to what you've received from him, right? But you're thanking him what you've already received, rather than, give me more, give me more, right? Okay? But when you praise God, you're not asking for anything, right? Not thanking him, you're praising him because he's in himself so good and so excellent, huh? Okay? And therefore, you're kind of, you know, going behind yourself, right? Okay? So the way the psalm was received, enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise, if you've gone even further in, when you're praising him, huh? Okay? It's kind of beautiful the way it builds, right? Okay? But thanksgiving and praise, I mean, almost, you know, in the explanation of the psalm, they're almost interchangeably, right? Okay? Okay. Enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. Give thanks to him, bless his name, for he is good, right? Okay? And then it talks about his mercy, right? And his faithfulness, huh? Okay. Now, what about, what about, what about hope, right? Okay. Now, as you know, when St. Augustine and the ingredient on faith, hope, and charity, right, he was asked by a, by a layman, he might say, but for kind of a summary, you know, of Christian doctrine, right? Augustine writes the ingredient, right? Something you can have in your hands, something, you know, concise and brevity as it's all with, huh? And it's divided according to faith, hope, and what? Charity, right? Okay? It's not divided the way the summa's are, divided, huh? Divide according to faith, hope, and charity. And Thomas follows Augustine there, right, huh? When he writes his own catechetical instructions, as they call them sometimes, the Naples sermons at the end of his life. Now, what you do when you talk about faith, you talk about the, what, creed, and you expound the articles of faith. You talk about the hope, you talk about the Our Father, maybe the Hail Mary, but primarily the Our Father. Because in prayer, you're relying upon God, right? And then when you talk about chariot, you talk about the two commandments of love, and the, what, ten commandments, right? Okay. Now, in the last chapter here, the Thessalonians, huh? Okay. he's giving them some advice, some exhortations, right? And of course, you have to look at Thomas' commentary, the way he divides us up. Now, just a little bit of it. What is the reference again? The first epistle of Thessalonians, chapter 5. Now, I'm not going to read the whole text here, but see this here, starting in verse 12 here, before we come to one thing I'm concerned with. But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. This is in reference to where your superior is and superior with. Be at peace among yourselves, and we exhort you, brethren, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, right? Help the weak. Be patient with them all, right? These are very general instructions as to how they behave to other people, right? See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Now, the lines that kind of struck me because of my preoccupation with Psalm 99 there are the next three verses, verses 16, 17, and 18. Okay. I was kind of struck by these three verses because of the order here, right? Oh. The 16th verse. Rejoice always. Okay. Okay. Pantota kairita. Pantota. Always rejoice. Kairita. Kairita. Okay. Same thing he had in those first two parts of the, what, 99th Psalm, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Verse 17. Pray constantly. Okay. Adia leptosa. Which means unceasingly, yeah. Pros, you kiss them. It's the Greek word for it to pray, right? Pros, you kiss them. And of course, aukin in Greek can mean, what, asking or prayer. I think I mentioned how Aristotle, when he's talking about the best city, which I think is very possible, right? Right. He has had exceptional circumstances, but he says, according to a prayer. In other words, the circumstances you would need to establish the best city, are so exceptional that you would more, what, pray for those circumstances than expect them to, that you can bring them about yourself, right? Sure. Pray constantly. Now the 18th verse, the first part right here. Give thanks in all circumstances, huh? Okay. In pante euchariste. Eucharistita. You know how the word Eucharist means Thanksgiving, right? I think it's because in our Lord, it's doing the thing, he says, what? He's thanking God. Remember how he does that? In the Greek, huh? Giving thanks, right? He's going to start the institute. Now, those three verses, when Thomas is defining the text, he says now, he's talked about certain things you should do with reference to your brethren, like the ones I was reading, right? All these things about, you know. But now, he turns to God. What should you be, you know, you should, what is he exhorting them to be in regard to God, right? And three things. Rejoice always. Pray constantly. Give thanks in all circumstances. Pantota carita. Rejoice always. Adia leptos pros eukeste. Pray unceasingly. In pante and everything. Eucharistitae. Give thanks, huh? Okay? Now, notice that refers to hope in a way, right? According to the explanation that you have in Augustine and Thomas, where when they take up Christian doctrine according to faith, hope, and charity, they do what? They consider the creed according to faith, right? And theology is kind of a, what? According to the definition of Augustine, he quotes there at the beginning of the Summa, at the beginning of the Summa, yes. It's a sciencia, right? And he quotes the words of Augustine, huh? That this is a science by which faith is engendered, nourished, strengthened, and defended, right? So that part, come before him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God. He made us as we are as people of the flock of the tens. That's all about the faith in a sense, right? Okay? And it gives you the actual division of the Summa Conjunctiva. It's a division of theology, the basic one, right? Which is the science by which faith is engendered in others, nourished, strengthened, and what? Defended, right? Okay? Or it's faith-seeking understanding, right? He says, serve the Lord with gladness, right? Then it's referring to what? Obeying the commandments, right? And this is the object of charity, right? When they take up hope, they take up what? Prayer, right? But now you have prayer there, fouling upon, what? Joy first, right? See? Pantota caritae. Always rejoice, eh? Unseasingly pray, everything you think. Now, Thomas takes up prayer in the secundi secundi, right? Under the virtual religion. The last article is about the integral parts of prayer, right? And one part is praying in the sense of asking God for things. Another part is what? Giving thanks, right? Because only if you give thanks are you, what? Dispose to more. Yeah, you see? But you owe Him thanks anyway, right? Yeah. Didn't give it used to less, right? It's just. Now, a couple of things struck me about this. The first thing, of course, they say is the order there, right? It's the same as in the psalm, right? Except it's in regard to what pertains to hope as opposed to charity or to what? Faith, right? But in both cases, it's preceded by rejoice. Okay. Okay? See? Always rejoice. See? Now, I see in the psalm it says, Sing joyfully to the Lord all your lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, right? But joy before serving the Lord, right? And then come before Him with joyful song. Know that the Lord is God. He made us as we are, right? So we should do the will of God, right? Have to be exorted to joy, right? We should, what? Try to know God, right? Himself and as the beginning and the end of all things, right? But it's prefixed with joy. Now we're being told, right? Before we're being told to pray and to give thanks, which are connected, we're told to what? Rejoice, huh? Now, what is there to rejoice about? Well, if you read Thomas' commentary, you know what the answer is. Why is one supposed to be rejoicing always? I mean, there's a lot of bad things going on in the world, as you know, and a lot of troubles in the church and so on, right? But his cardinal law got to rejoice in it, you know? But he's saying that what? The goodness of God, right? It's infinite and so on, right? That weighs something. So you can always rejoice in what? God. The Lord, right? And of course, that's more explicit in the psalm, right? Sing joyfully to the Lord. In a sense, you're rejoicing in the Lord, right? Come before him with joyful song, right? See? Now, if I can take a secular example, you know how Gustin is, you know, if you read his thing on catechetical instructions, you know? He uses sexual arousal in his explanation of how one should give catechetical instructions. He doesn't understand me now. But the principle he's giving the man, have you read that? The first catechetical instructions, they call it in English. The catechism is called in the Latin. But, um... Justin is saying that he's giving advice to this man who's asking how to give catechumen instructions. He says, your primary intention should be to show them the love that God has for us, right? That should be your primary intention. And why is that so, right? Well, the main thing, the ultimate thing, is to get the catechumen there to love God, right? And Augustine gives this principle. Which, that nothing more rouses love in us for someone than an experience of their love for us. Yeah. You see? And Thomas, you know, calls that principle in the fourth book of the Summa Concentilis. But Augustine wants to manifest that, right? And he goes all the way down to sexual love, you know? Where if someone else is interested in you sexually, right? You know, it tends to rouse you. So, I mean, in all kinds of love, right? He goes all the way down the line. Um, but he's trying to illustrate that principle, right? Well, I'm not going to go stand that lowly in my exposition. But, um, you read some of Shakespeare's sentence about friendship, right, huh? And, of course, you know, where he's depressed with all the things that are wrong in the world or in his life or whatever it is, you know? But then if I think of you, dear friend, right? You know? His joy is restored, right, huh? But, of course, if you think of God, in the midst of our troubles, right, then we can, in a certain way, rejoice, but always, huh? See? Now, it's not as explicit here in this text here because it just says, always rejoice. So, what is there to rejoice about? But Thomas, in the commentary, he's saying, these three things are all reference to God, right? So, rejoice always in the Lord, right? Because that's, that's, that's pretty in agreement with the psalm, right? Sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands, right? And even more clear in the second one, come before him with joyful song, right? It's because you're coming before him, you're thinking of him, that you have joy because his goodness outweighs all the, what, evil in this world and so on, right? In fact, the whole world seems to be nothing compared to God, right, huh? Whether it be good or bad, right, huh? There's nothing to, to think about, huh? Okay? But here, so you have the same order, right, that you have in the psalm, but now, it's in regard to what you do by hope, right? Mm-hmm. Because prayer is what makes us pray, huh? I mean, it's connected with hope, okay? But then, giving thanks is sometimes, as I say, explained as an integral part of, of prayer. And you look at Thomas's, you know, prayer after communion there. Mm-hmm. It begins, gracias, tiviago, right? Mm-hmm. You know? Or Gustin says, deo gratias, no prayer shorter or grander, deo gratias, right? Mm-hmm. Okay? But sometimes you take prayer in the, in the more narrow sense, where prayer means what? Asking God for suitable things, right? Mm-hmm. And then we distinguish between prayer, right, as you do here in the text here, in 17 and 18, and giving thanks, right? Mm-hmm. Okay? Now, go back to the psalm, right? In a way, there, the psalm is itself a prayer, so that's, it's not like a part of the psalm, but the whole psalm, in a way, is a prayer. But now, if you come back to the last part, there, enter his gates with thanksgiving, his courts with praise. That's interesting. If you take thanksgiving and praise, how are they related to the theological virtues? How are they related to it? Would praise be related to faith, it seems? Mm-hmm. Well, yeah, because you, you learn of all the great things that God is, and God has done, that leads you to praise, because I'll lead you to thanksgiving, too. Well, I got thinking of the text of Paul VI there that I've written before. I don't know if they were giving you a copy of it, but he's talking about, when I talk about the connection between music and love, okay? And this is the address of Paul VI there on the Feast of St. Cecilia, who's the patroness of what? Music, okay? And it's really kind of a golden chain from Augustine, okay? And he's got to bring up the idea that music has a place in a liturgy, because liturgy is concerned with charity, right? And charity is a kind of love, huh? And he quotes Augustine to this effect, right? That about the one we love, we want to sing, right? Mm-hmm. And, of course, you can see this very much in secular music, huh? Mm-hmm. So, you know, I have that same texture there, the one from Kierkegaard and Mozart's Don Jelani, right? Why it is the opera of operas. Perfect harmony there between the content and the thing. But then he goes on to talk about the connection between love and what? Praise. And Augustine's words are very concrete there, huh? Amare and audibus, laudare and amore. To love and praise, and to praise and love, right? You know? As if Augustine sees those two as what? Yeah. Going together, right? So that is speaking of heaven. Yeah. But you just take something more similar than that, huh? If I love the music of Mozart, right, I naturally go on praising the music of Mozart. I love the plays of Shakespeare, I'm praising him, you know? Or I love Thomas' text, I'm praising him, you know? You know what I mean? You see? If a man loves a woman, he's raised about the woman, right? You know? Who is Sylvia that all our swains do commend her? Heaven lend her such graces that she might admire it be. You see? Mm-hmm. And there's a connection there between love and praise and between both of them and music, huh? And, of course, Aristotle saw that, huh? But, you know, from Augustine there, Paul VI shows that music is a natural sign of love, right, huh? The most perfect expression of love, huh? And, of course, you can see that in the Bible, right? The book that is most fully devoted to love is called the what? Yeah. Which is, yeah? Very clear, right? Yeah. But notice, when you want to honor somebody, you use music, right? You know? When the president rolls in, we play Hail to the Chief, right? Mm-hmm. And when the conquering hero comes back, right, you play the march, right? Or, you know? What's the one there? The Italian opera, you know? You know, Trump will march there when they come back from the winning the victories, huh? But that's, or we want to honor the country, right? We play the national anthem to it. Mm-hmm. See? And you stand in tension, right? And so on. If you're a soldier and so on. So, there's a connection between music and love and music and, what? Praise, huh? Mm-hmm. But also between love and praise, huh? Mm-hmm. See? Now, obviously, you know, love presupposes faith and so on, right? But the connection between praise and love is closer than between, say, praise Sunday and, what? And hope, right? Mm-hmm. But maybe thanksgiving is closer to what? No. Mm-hmm. See, you take this text here from the Thessalonians, right? Mm-hmm. See? And as I mentioned before, when Thomas takes up prayer there in the Secundi Secundi, in the last article there on the parts of prayer, right? You know, one part is the ascent of the mind of God, right? Our Father who art in heaven, there's a mind going on. Okay? But another part is, is what? Why he should hear us, right? And then the other part is, is the petition, the actual things you're asking for. And the other is, what? Thanksgiving, right? And Thomas shows how prayers, what, then, have these four parts. Yeah. But you see this text here, right? Because, uh, pray always, right? And then thank, give thanks everywhere, right? And Pante Eucharistete. Mm-hmm. The two are, are, are linked there, right? And, and, uh, and if you're not thankful what you receive, then you're not really, you know, supposed to ask for more, right, huh? Mm-hmm. I mean, you know, you... you're maybe disposed to by meaning that you're not worthy of being heard again, right? But again, you can see it in human things, right? If we give good to somebody and they're not thankful for the good that we've done to them, that's not going to encourage us to give them more good, right? But if we do give something good to somebody and they're very thankful for this, this makes us want to give them more, right? You see what I mean? So there's a real connection there between those two, huh? I don't want to make too much of a separation or distinction between thanksgiving and praise, but there's some distinction there between the two, right? And thanksgiving here is closer to prayer than praise in some senses, huh? And praise is closer to charity, huh? It seems to be common to all three, faith, faith, and love. Yeah. See, what struck me was, you see, that in thinking about that, that's saying joyfully to the Lord, all your lands. You had joy preceding something pertaining to charity, right? And then joy preceding something pertaining to, what, faith or theology, right? And here you've got joy preceding something pertaining to hope, right? Yeah. But Thomas' explanation of why we should rejoice always is because of the, what, of God himself, right, huh? So, you know, that's the things that happen to us in this world, right? You know, that car that got totaled, you know, down there at West Point, I told you about that story, didn't I? Your car with the flood. Yeah, yeah, it went down, you know, and they had us, you know, parked down by the river, right? There's a parking lot down there. And I guess it really was, you know, tremendous range. Yeah, so the Hudson rose, and the Hudson across the saltwater in it, and then, you know, my son got to his car, which he had rented, you know, the van with the kids, but it was a little, wasn't quite as near, you know. But he had, you know, he was waiting for the water like that, you know. And so the car got told us, he said, well, we were thinking we're going to have to make another trip down there to pick up the license plate and so on, and we've talked to somebody down there. And he said they'd mail it to us, and we never did. And the insurance won't stop until, you know. So we've been calling them and so on. I think they've got to finally send it out, or they found it or something, I don't know. But you've got to turn in the license plate, you know, before they can get out. You're paying insurance on a car. You've lost a car, now you've paid insurance on a car that doesn't exist. Yeah, yeah. That's just one of my little problems in life. I mean, it doesn't like to rejoice on, so I can laugh about it now. I mean, there's nothing to rejoice about there, you know. I mean, whatever your troubles are, right? You turn to the Lord, right? Yeah. And then you can, what, rejoice in the Lord always, right, huh? You see? You certainly can't, you know, rejoice in this world, right, huh? What's happening, what's happening in the church now? I mean, this is, you know, for Cardinal Law and so on, you know, and again, pretty aggressive, you know, a lot of these people, you know, one of the things we addressed. They were interviewing one of them on TV the other day there and saying, you know, we're coming after you, Bishop McCormick, you know, like he had to do. So they're going to be coming after all these guys around the country, so they're all sweating in there. But anyway, I mean, there's a lot of evil coming from this, you know. And bishops lose a lot of authority and there's all kinds of wackos out there, you know, using this as an excuse, you know, to get demands for a female priesthood or whatever, you know. There are all kinds of crazy people out there. So, you know. But in the Lord, there's always, you know, that's a, you know, you can always rejoice in the Lord, right? Turn to Him, huh? And that makes a lot of sense. But, I mean, it fits, you know, coming back to the Psalms, you say, well, I can't confirm that Thomas is saying, huh? Come before the Lord, the joyful song, right? It's, you know, it's like those stories, you know, told by the, you know, these sisters of, what do they call them? Sisters of Charity, what do they call them? No, the sisters of Mother Teresa, you know. But, I mean, they're looking for Christ in these miserable beggars or whatever they are, you know. And the sisters come back happy, joyful, you know, because they've seen Christ in some, some mega Indian there in the ground, you know. But they're rejoicing in Christ, I'm meeting Christ in these people in some way. So that's basically the idea, right? Sing joyfully to the Lord, right? Sing joyfully to the world. Come before the world, it's right. So, I mean, your joy may fall out when you go out to the world, but it's because of God, huh? Yeah. It's exactly the same order there, but not for hope, huh? Prayer in the sense of asking God for things and being thankful, right, huh? Because you're praying always, then you've got to be, what, thanking you always, right? That makes you think, you know, what's the distinction between thanking and praising, right? And how are they related to the theological virtues, huh? And I don't want to overextend the extension there too much. It seems to me that of those two, thanksgiving is closer to, more closely tied to what hope is doing, right, than praise, right? And praise more to charity, right? I'd give you that text sometime from Paul VI, but it's taken mainly from Augustine, you know. But, you know, something like Amare in Maudipus, you know, to love in praises, and then customs around, Laudare in Amore, you know, to praise and love, you know. I mean, he's really emphasizing the connection there between love and praise, and between both of them and what? Music, right, huh? There's no way better to honor somebody or the country or something than music, huh? And no more privy way of, you know, a natural expression of love is what Augustine emphasizes too, that music is very much tied up with that. Shakespeare says, if music be the food of love, play on, right? There's many allusions in Shakespeare to that connection between music and love. So he's developing that in the edifice and the Feast of St. Cecilia, right, that the liturgy being a service and charity, right, music should have a place in it, huh? But therefore he has to connect music and love. So that's my little sermon for today. It's kind of struck me in some way, though. Sure. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, come to the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Help us to understand what you've written. So we've got another long article here, huh, today. Question 76, article 3, huh? You realize it's hard to think about the soul because you can't sense the soul, and you can't imagine the soul, right? If you try to imagine it, you imagine it falsely. So let's look at the third article. To the third he proceeds thus. It seems that besides the understanding soul, there are in man other souls, huh, differing by their nature, right? Namely, the sensing soul and the feeding soul. Now he gives four arguments, huh? The first one is, the corruptible and incorruptible are not of one substance, not of one kind of thing. But the understanding soul is incorruptible, as we saw before. But the other souls, namely the sensing soul and the feeding soul, or the reproducing soul, are corruptible, as is clear from what is meant before. Therefore, in man there cannot be one essence or one nature of the understanding soul and the sensing soul and the, what, feeding soul, right? So, the objector is saying that the soul by which I nourish my body, right? And the soul by which I sense, and the soul by which I understand, are not the same soul, right? Because one is incorruptible, or two of them are incorruptible, or two of them are corruptible, rather, and one is incorruptible, right? Now, if it be said in reply to this, the second objection is going to deal with this. If it be said that the sensing soul in man is incorruptible, against this is the famous saying in the 10th book of the metaphysics, that the corruptible and incorruptible differ in their, what? Genus, right? Different kind of thing, all together. But the sensing soul in the horse and in the lion and the other brute animals is corruptible. If, therefore, in man it be incorruptible, it will not be of the same genus or kind, the sensing soul in man and the brute. Animal, therefore, which is named from having a sensing soul, then animal will not be one genus common to man and the other animals, which is a difficulty, right? So, when you say animal of man and the dog, animal means the same thing, right? But if the animal is so named for the sensing soul, and the sensing soul of man is incorruptible, right? And the sensing soul of the other animals is corruptible, they're not being named for the same sort of thing, are they? Therefore, the name animal is said equivocally of you and the dog, right? Okay? Right, genus, as you know, is said univocally with one meaning of many things. Okay? Moreover, the philosopher says in the book about the generation of animals that the embryo is an animal before it's a man. But this could not be if there was the same essence of the sensing soul and the understanding soul. For it is an animal through a sensing soul and a man through an understanding soul. Therefore, in man, there is not one nature of the sensing soul and the understanding soul. So, Veristava, right? What you might call the seed or the fertilized egg doesn't have a human soul right away, huh? Okay? But first of all, it has what you might call a plant soul, right? You see cell division, you see, what, growth and so on. But we have in common with the plants. But you don't see sensation at first, huh? Then later on, you have the sensing starting, right? Yeah. In the embryo. Then finally, you have something that's recognized with the human, huh? Okay? More, the philosopher, says in the 8th book of metaphysics that the genus is taken from matter and the difference from, what? Form, huh? I just recall that from logic a bit. Why is the genus taken from what is material, the thing, and the difference from form? Why is the more general taken from matter and the more specific or determinate taken from the form? Let me just take a simple example from artificial things. If you have a wooden chair and a wooden table and a wooden desk, right? What do these things have in common? The wood. Yeah. And they differ by their what? Shape. Shape, by their form, right? So if the genus is stating what's common to the different forms of a thing, right? It's going to be taken from what is more like, what, matter, right? And the difference is going to be taken from what is as form, huh? But rational or reasonable is the difference that is constituting of man. And that's taken from the understanding soul. But animal is said from the fact that he has a body animated by a sensing soul. Therefore, the understanding soul is compared to the body animated by a sensing soul as form is to matter. Therefore, the understanding soul is not the same, essentially, as the sensing soul in man. But it presupposes it as a material, what, subject, right? Okay, so you kind of imagine, huh? What takes place in man is what? That he has the life of the plant, right? By a certain soul. And then on top of that comes what? The sensing soul, which gives another life. And on top of that, the what? Understanding soul. And one is taken from what is as matter and the other from what is as form. Okay, but against this is what is said in the book of ecclesiastical dogmas, right? That's kind of like what we have in Caridians, Simulorum. You've seen that, huh? Sure. Okay, and we have other little books like that. So it's a collection of authoritative texts here from the church's magisterium. Nor do we say that there are two souls in man, in one man, rather, as James and the other Syrians write. I'm not sure. Confrere is there, right? Probably. Watch out now. You're very nice, huh? And these Syrians, huh? One being animal, huh? Which animates the body and is mixed with blood. And another spiritual, right? Which ministers to reason. Now notice that contrast is the word there, anima, and the word spirit there a bit, huh? That'll come out again, huh? And we'll talk about that a little bit in some scriptural texts if we have some time today when we get through with this article here. But we say that there is one and the same soul in man. Which both the body... its society, or by its association, vivifies, and itself, by its own reason of, disposes. So it's one and the same soul, right? Whereby the body is a sensing body, right? And the soul by which you, what, understand, right? Any chance does your book have a note about identifying this Jacob or James here? It doesn't know. So, there's a reference down here to the Min, Latin, Min, yeah. But for that work, for that dogmatic, yeah. This one says that it's by, it doesn't get nothing about the Jacob, but the collection of these texts was by Janaius. Okay. In my life. Okay. But it's falsely included in the same passage. Okay. So Thomas says, I answer it should be said that Plato laid down that there are diverse souls in one body. Plato. Even distinct according to their, what, organs, right? To which diverse operations of life were attributed, saying that the nourishing power was in the, what? The liver. The liver, huh? In Shakespeare's time, the liver is, what, the seed of love, huh? So it's gotten quite a history, the liver, right? The Frenchman is always complaining about his ailment, it's always a liver ailment, right? Which may be because he thinks too much, but the sense desire, the cubisible, is in the heart, right? And the knowing is in the, what? Brain. Brain, right? It's kind of interesting incidentally, huh? That the Platonists, people like that, they tie up the knowing powers with the brain, right? But a lot of other ancient people's thought of the heart is the center of, of thought and so on. I was reading something there, they're talking about the Egyptians there, you know, they used to, you know, mummify a lot of the body, but they just, you know, pull out the brain because that's not an important part of the body, you mummify it. They didn't think that, they thought the thought was, what, in the heart, right? You see that in Homer, you know, the Greek poets sometimes do, huh? So, uh, I wonder, you know, we tend to think, people tend to think they're thinking up here, you know, rather than thinking down here, but is that just because they've been told that the brain is up here or something? Huh? They are sort of aware, the sense is being concentrated here in the head, right? Which opinion Aristotle disproves in the book about the soul? So, as regards those parts of the soul which use body organs in their operations, huh? From this fact that in animals, like the worms, right, which live when they are cut, right, it seems that they have, what, in each part of them, you find the diverse operations of the soul. You find, let's say, sensation, right? So different parts of the worm both sense, and there's pain, right, when you stick them with a pin or something, right? So you don't have, you know, the sense here, and the desiring power here, and another one here, right? They all seem to be, what, spread somewhat through the body, huh? This soul would not be able to be soul if the diverse principles and operations of the soul, as it were, diverse in nature, right, were distributed in diverse parts of the body, right? But about the understanding part, Aristotle, at that point in the thing, seems to leave under doubt, right? Whether it be separated from the other parts of the soul only in definition or also in place, huh? Okay? Now, he says, the opinion of Plato could be sustained if it was laid down that the soul was joined to the body, not as a form, but as a, what, mover, which is what Plato said, right? So Plato imagined the soul to be in the body like a sailor in the boat, right? Or a man in his car, huh? Now, nothing absurd would follow if the same mobile thing was moved by diverse movers, especially if it was moved in different parts, huh? But if we lay down that the soul is joined to the body as its form, as its substantial form, as we saw in the earlier articles, it is altogether impossible, it seems, for many souls differing in nature to be in one, what? Body, right, huh? Now, this is coming to the heart now of the article, or the body of the article, right? He's going to give three arguments, right? Against their being, right? Two or three souls in man, right? One by which he grows, right? And another by which he senses, another by which he understands, huh? But rather, these are by different powers of one in the same, what? Soul, huh? Now, what's the first argument that he gives here? Let's just review for a second, huh? A little bit of a difference there between a substantial form, which is what the soul is, and an accidental form, huh? Okay? You have to come back upon these things again and again, because otherwise your imagination takes over, right? Oh, yeah. Okay? Now, there's something that these two have in common, huh? And then there are some differences, huh? Between them. Okay. Now, what do these two have in common? A substantial form like a soul, and accidental form like the science and geometry in me, or my health in me, or the shape that's in the table or something. What do those two have in common? In some way they distinguish. Okay. They're both animals. Well, no, I'm not taking, the table's not an animal, right? Okay. But what does health, or my knowledge, or the shape of the table, or my shape for that matter, right, in a substantial form have in common? Why are they both called a form rather than matter, I say? But it, differently from what I said, in the sense of sort of like defining? Well, let me give you a hint here. Remember how Aristotle calls a soul not just a substantial form of a natural body, right? Compose and tools. Because of the first act, yeah. Well, both of these are an act, aren't they? Both, an act, okay? Rather than a potency, right? And secondly, by both, something is an act. So by my health, I'm actually healthy, right? By my knowledge of geometry, I'm actually a geometer. By its shape, the rubber is a what? Ball, let's say, right? By the spherical shape, huh? Okay? So my body is able to be healthy, but it's not always healthy, right? Wood is able to have the shape it has, but it doesn't always have that shape, so it's has ability, right? So that's what's common to the two of them. Both are an act, and by both, something is an act, huh? But now, what's the difference between the two, huh? Okay? It's a set, so then, um, with substantial form, um, substantial form causes the thing to be, uh, to be simply as... Yeah.