De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 91: Order Among Powers of the Soul

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

It's really funny, holy things. It's probably between those two, the anger and reason. What you notice, you see, in powerful men, right, men who get to be rulers and things of that sort, right, they often have, you know, real anger. They've learned maybe to control it if they get to the top, right? But they do have a real anger, huh? You know? I remember when LBJ there, you know, spoke out at St. Mary's College, you know, during their... And I was teaching out there, there was like the 100th anniversary of the college, and somebody knew LBJ, so he came there for the ceremony, and he gave a little talk. But he didn't come out until it was time to give his talk, because he had kind of a little cold out there, or something like that. But the Christian Brothers, you know, it was a Christian Brothers College there, St. Mary's. It's kind of like how harassable he was in there with his subordinates, huh? And they say even Kennedy was that way with his subordinates, you see? And I really chewed him out, huh, if they didn't have the things ready, huh? Yeah. And so, but I think men who tend to be domineering, right, get to be heads of companies or heads of government and so on, they often have this irascible side to them, huh? But that's kind of, uh, goes with leadership, it seems. Yeah, right, right. That's a good factor, yeah. But again, as you say, that goes back into tragedy, right, huh? Because, you know, you take the tragedy of King Lyra, let's say, huh? You know the tragedy, or, say, Coriolanus, huh? A very famous one, huh? Coriolanus is the invincible warrior, right? Soldier, right? But he can't quite control his anger, huh? You see, but in the same way with the greatest work of ancient fiction there, the Gilead, huh? The wrath of, what? Achilles, right, huh? You know? The way Homer represents that, huh? Yeah. And the wrath of the great men, like, uh... You know, the tragedy starts because of the anger of, what? Achilles. Achilles and Agamemnon, huh? Right. You see? And, uh, so you see that, uh, what the great poets represent, the great men, right? The men who rule cities or rule armies, right? As being, what? A more irascible, huh? Not a mild person. Hmm. Hmm. But comic characters, you know, like Falstaff, you don't see anger in Falstaff, really. You see his, what, indulgence in food and drink and woman and so on. And his kind of, his grasping nature for money, too, right? Defeat his vices, huh? But the great men represented as, what? You know, lovers of honor, maybe, huh? As Henry V says in the play, right? You know, to love honor, you know, is a sin. I'm the most offending of men, right? No. You know? And at the Battle of Agincourt there, you know, there's somebody says, you know, I wish, you know, 10,000 of these idle men in England were here to fight with us. And because they're all great outnumbered. And he says, why, the fewer men, he says, the greater the glory, you know? You know? But these are the kind of men, you know, who lead, huh? You see? And they have to be kind of, what? Fearless, huh? You see? And because, you know, in some of these comedies, you know, they're set in the old Days of the Duel and so on, right? And some guy who's a coward gets challenged. And the military man who, you know, accompanies him to the field of doing, you know? Can't figure out what's, what? Confound, what's wrong with you, man? You know? You know? Well, you see, you see, the tragic hero is, what, more or less fearless, huh? You see? But the comic man is often, what, laughable because of his fear, huh? It's like Falstaff, right? You know, the merry ways of Windsor, huh? Where he's, you know, the merry ways of Windsor are playing tricks on him, right? And he's making assignations with them and so on, and he almost gets caught. And of course, he's terribly scared of getting caught by the husband and so on, see? And so you have that kind of fear that makes somebody laughable, right, huh? Can you take a little break here? I'm going to start a break before here pretty soon, though. Okay. More slowly. There is an order among the powers of the soul. To the fourth, he proceeds thus. It seems that in the powers of the soul there is no order. In those things which come under one division, there is no before and after, huh? But they are naturally, what? Together, right? Simo. So if you divide number into, what? Odd and even, right? They seem to be together, right? But the powers of the soul are divided against each other, huh? Therefore, among them there is no, what? Order, right? Well, Thomas is going to admit that in one sense they are together, but in another sense there is a, what? Order among them. Because order, as you know, has more than one sense, huh? Moreover, the powers of the soul are compared to their objects and to the soul itself. But from the part of the soul, among them there is no order, because the soul is one, huh? Likewise, neither from the part of the objects, since they are diverse and wholly disparate, as is clear about color and sound. They seem to be entirely different things, huh? Therefore, in the powers of the soul there is no order. Moreover, in ordered powers this is found, that the operation of one depends upon the operation of another. But the act of one power of the soul does not depend upon the act of another, for the sight can go into act without hearing and vice versa. Therefore, there is no order among the powers of the soul. Make it easy to counter-object to that, huh? That with, let's say, reason and will, right? Or the senses and the emotions, that there's obviously an order among the acts, huh? Because I have to taste the food before I want it, let's say, right? And I have to understand what wisdom is before I desire wisdom, huh? So there, they could give counter-objections, huh? But against this is what the philosopher says in the second book about the soul. He compares the parts or the powers of the soul to, what? Figures, right? But figures have an order among themselves, huh? Like the, what? Two triangles inside of a, what? Parallelogram, right? Therefore, the powers of the soul. I answer, it ought to be said, that since the soul is one, and its powers are many, and one proceeds from one to a multitude in a certain, what? Order, huh? And especially if you're talking about something natural, right? Okay? It is necessary that among the powers of the soul there be some order, huh? Now he says there is a three-fold order to be noted among them, of which two are considered by the dependence of one power upon another, huh? And the third is taken according to the order of objects. Now the first, he says, is going to divide into two. The dependence of one power upon another can be taken in two ways. In one way, according to the order of nature. Now that phrase you'll see in Aristotle a lot, and in Thomas, according to the order of nature. When we talk about nature, huh? In the philosophy of nature. And Aristotle will point out there that both matter and form are nature, huh? Both matter and form. But Aristotle will reason that form is more nature than matter. And the reason why he does is because by matter you have a natural thing, only an ability. By through the form you have actually this or that natural thing. Well, nature is obviously that by which something is said to be natural. So it's actually a natural thing through form that's more nature than matter. Just like in human art, right? Is art more tied up with the wood or the shape of the wood? Shape. See? Yeah. Because the wood is only a work of art in potency until it's been shaped into that statue of it. Or the crucifix or something, right? So because of that, they'll sometimes say form is before matter, secundum ordinem naturae, according to the order of nature. I mean, there's more nature, it's more perfect, form than matter. So sometimes you see that phrase used for what is, what? Before in perfection or in excellence. So you have to understand a little bit about the word nature to see why it uses it in that way. So he says the dependence of one power upon another can be taken in two ways. In one way, according to the order of nature, insofar as perfect things are naturally before what imperfect things are. In another way, according to the order of generation and time. That's the first sense of before in the categories, if you recall. Insofar as the, what? From the imperfect, one comes to the, what? Perfect, huh? Thus, according to the first order of powers, the understanding or intellectual powers are before the sense powers, huh? Whence they direct them and, what? Command them, huh? You see that when you want to think about something, you, at the command of reason, really, you imagine something, right? In order to consider what you want to think about. And likewise, the sense of powers in this order are before the powers of the, what? Feeding soul, right? You can see that, huh? You know, you give the cat sometimes milk and the milk's been in the refrigerator too long and it's spoiled, right? And the cat won't drink it, huh? Or if the meat is, you know, sometimes people actually have used animals, right? To see if the thing is still good, right? Because the animal will, okay? So he's not going to eat it, right? You see? And the cat sniffs these things, huh? Okay? And so the cat comes around the table there at the other time, you know, wants a little handout and sometimes I take the wine glass and go like this and, you know, catch the money in the wine. Say, well, how about a bean? You know, green bean now. How about a little piece of my steak? You know, what's your fingers? See? But I mean, their feeding is what? Being directed by their nose, isn't it? You see? The sensing powers, huh? And you know, we ourselves, huh? Our feeding is fed up with, I mean, is tied up with our, you know, does it look attractive to the food? Does it smell good? You know, does it taste good, right? And then we might eat it, huh? Or it smells bad, you know? It smells bad. Pour it out, you know? So the higher powers, in that sense, what? Are before, in the sense of a ruler, directing, right? But according to the second order, the order of generation and time, it's just the reverse, huh? For the feeding powers of the soul, the nutritive powers, the power to feed and grow and so on, are before, in the way of generation, the powers of the, what? Sensing soul. So when you have what we call the fertilized eggs, for example, what do you see first after that? We see cell division, and you see growth, right? Which is what we have in common with the, what, plants, right? And then gradually you start to see the sense organs being formed, right? And then finally, you begin to see a little bit of the action of what? Reason itself, right? So in the order of generation, the powers we have in common with the plants come before the powers we have in common with the animals, and finally the powers that are unique to man, huh? Come into one. Now, according to the third order, the order of objects, the sense powers are ordered among each other. And that's kind of subtle, what he's saying here. For the visible is what? Before naturally, because it is common to what? The superior bodies, like the sun, the moon, and the stars, if they thought were immortal, and the inferior bodies, huh? Okay? In some way, the eye seems to be more universal in its knowledge than the, what, other senses, huh? If I had only hearing and smell and taste and touch, I'd know nothing beyond this earth, right? But with my eyes, I can, what, explore the universe to some extent. And all the knowledge of the sun, the moon, and the stars would be lacking in some of the lack the sense of sight, huh? And likewise, audible sound, which comes in the air, which is naturally before the, what, mixture of elements, which odor, what, follows, huh? That's kind of a strange order there, but let that stand, huh? Okay? He's saying that air, being a simple body, right, or what they thought was a simple body, is before odor, which involves kind of a mixture of air with something else, doesn't it, huh? Because, you know, when you're cooking, right, and there's air there before you cook, but after you cook, the air is kind of permeated with something else, right? Right. So it's something composite that is posterior to just air, but sound just requires the air, right? Yeah. Correctly, huh? Your vision's picking up something because it's light as opposed to smell, which is carried on something slower. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's interesting, huh, the use of waves there in science, where it first was used with the water and then used with sound, and finally they saw light as being wave-like in some way. Now, the first objection was saying that when you divide a genus into a species, aren't they all at the same time? So you divide number into odd and even, right? You divide triangle and degree ladder and so on. He says, so at first it should be said that the species of some genus can be to each other according to before and after as numbers and figures, huh? So we could say that two is before three, right? And three is before, what? Four, right? And Aristotle gave the example there in the second sense of before in the categories that two is before what? Or one is before two, he said, right? Okay? As regards their being, he says, right? Although they could be said to be together, right, insofar as they receive the predication of the common genus, huh? Okay? Now notice what he's saying there. He's thinking of logic here, right? Okay, so you might say you descend from a genus to species, right? Reptilineal figure but said of triangle instead of quadrilateral can't be said two sides because you can't have a figure with just two sides, right? Mm-hmm. It's said of the pentagon and so on, right? So these are all in one sense together, right? But I might divide quadrilateral like Buta does into square and rhombus and oblong and rhomboid and so on, right? So it's a rectilineal figure instead of quadrilateral and then quadrilateral instead of square, right? So quadrilateral and square are not together, right? But quadrilateral is before square, right? But quadrilateral and triangle are together on the rectilineal figure, right? So in some sense you could say these things are together, right? But in other sense you might say the triangle is before quadrilateral because in the quadrilateral you have what? Two triangles, right? So in some sense the triangle is before the quadrilateral as far as their being is concerned, but as far as receiving the predication, triangle is not before quadrilateral, right? But triangle would be before right-angled triangle, right? Like quadrilateral before square. And square would be before what? Pentagon, right? In being, but as far as being, having written a figure set of it, it's said simultaneously you might say of all three of these, right? You see that? But it's not said as a word simultaneously of quadrilateral and round woods, right? But we say you have to leave a figure of quadrilateral and quadrilateral round woods and therefore we could say we're taking a figure of round woods, right? But it said first of quadrilateral and quadrilateral said it, right? Right? and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral and quadrilateral Just like if I said, you're an animal because you're a man, right? So because animal is said of man, and man is said of you, then consequently we can say animal of you, right? But we wouldn't say animal is said of dog because it's said of cat. In that sense, they're together, right? But now you're thinking of the logical, what? Relation of genus to species, huh? But if you're thinking of their being, right? Well, two could be what? Without three. I could have two children without having three. But I couldn't have three without having two. I could have two dollars in my pocket without having three dollars there, right? But I couldn't have three dollars in my pocket without having two there too, could I? You see? But if you're talking from the point of view of genus and species there, logically, you wouldn't say that is two more a number than three? Is three more a number than two? No, one is just as much a number as the other, right? Yeah. Yeah. So Thomas is not denying that in some sense, two and three are together, right? But in some other sense, two is before, what? Three, right? Because two can be without three but not vice versa. But they are kind of, what? Immediately or equally under, what? Number. Okay. While quadrilateral and square are not equally under rectilineal plane figure, are they? But quadrilateral is first, and then under quadrilateral comes this, huh? You see? Yeah. Okay. You had that in the army, couldn't you, right? Suppose I'm the captain, you two guys are lieutenants, right? You're both Emilian and Emilian, you're kind of together there, right? Under me, right? Okay. While the sergeants are below you, right? You see? So you're before the sergeants, but you're not before him because he's a lieutenant, and you're both lieutenants under me, the captain. Okay? But now is the time for the war, right? And I know you're the better commander than he is, right? So I said, we're going to have you lead the, what, attack, right? And I want you to follow him, back him up, right? He's going to burst through the enemy, and I want you to follow through the opening that he's got. Because I know he can do it, right? He's packing with somebody, right? He's going to burst through there and then make room for the, you see? So in some sense, I'm putting him before you, right? In another sense, you might say that you guys are both lieutenants, so you're together, right? Right under me, right? You see? See what I mean? So nothing prevents two things from being together in the same way, but in another way, one being before the other, because as you know, there are more than one sense of before and what? After, right, huh? Okay? Now, I was teaching at St. Mary's. I had a 20-year army man in my class. Oh, wow. So he was, you know, they get, you know, at 20 years, you get a pension, right? Sure. And it's maybe not entirely enough to live on, but, you know, he was still, you know, young enough to go back to college and prepare himself for a second, what? Career. Career, you might say, right? So I used to tell him, you know, he's older than me, much older than me. I was just young at a graduate school. So I said, you know, Socrates was a soldier before he was a philosopher. He alludes to his military service there. And apologies, I'd say things like this, you know. So notice, this guy was before me in, what? Time, right? But as a teaching student, there's a different order there, yeah. It's interesting you say that about the commander thing, because when we had it all for about, what, nine years ago, over 10 years ago, the strategy was if we were to attack in force, they would send the reserves in to attack because they wouldn't last that long. They would be shot down and killed, and then once the main conflict was over, they'd bring in the more experienced guys who would be flying around longer and obviously their experience would be better for them to be in the rear because, you know, they wouldn't know what to do, you know. But, you know, you just send the reserves in and say, just fly in, try and drop these bonds, and if you make it back out, hey, great. Yeah. Okay, it's suspicious now. The second objection was saying, you know, that the soul is one, so how can there be order, right? And he says, this order of the powers of the soul is, right, also in the part of the soul, which, according to a certain order, has an aptitude for diverse, what, acts, right? Although it be one in its very essence or nature, and on the part of the object, and on the part of the acts, as has been said. So he's going to say later on, you know, that the powers of the soul come from the soul, like a property comes from its subject, but in a certain order, right? The one power falls more immediately from the soul, and another one through that, huh? Okay? Of course, that's interesting, you talk about the reason and the will, huh? Because the object of the will is the good as known by reason. So, in one sense, reason will naturally come before the will, huh? And that's very important to know when you study the Trinity later on in theology, because the Son proceeds by way of, what, understanding, right, from the Father. And then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? But you have kind of an image of that in us, where, from my reason, there proceeds a thought about what reason is, like when we studied Shakespeare, right? You say, my, what a good thing I am, huh? And then you start to love reason, huh? Like Augustine says, Intellectum Valdeyama, love the intellect, the reason, very much, huh? So you have that reflected in the Trinity itself, right? Really, I should say the reverse, right? It reflects the Trinity in the order of reason and the, what? Will, huh? Okay? And in the order, you know, of reason, thinking and forming a thought of itself. And then you're coming to love reason, right? Because of this, huh? It's a little reflection of, it's a, I have an image there of the Trinity, huh? But in us, huh? We're made to his image and likeness, huh? To our image and likeness, they say. Okay? Now, the third objection was taking the, what? Eye and the ear there, right? We says, that argument proceeds about or from those powers in which there is to be noted only in order according to the third way. But those powers which are ordered according to the other two ways thus have themselves that the act of one depends upon the other, right? Right, huh? I notice, huh? In this case, you can say that there are two orders like you spoke of before, right? And sometimes the lower act disposes for the higher act, huh? You see? So, for example, in education there, the fine arts, huh? Contemplating the beautiful, let's say, in painting or in music, right? Or even in fiction, is disposing us for the life of the mind, huh? So Aristotle can say in the premium to wisdom there that the philomuthos, right? The lover of fiction, right? Is, to some extent, a philosopher, huh? Okay? And I can see myself, you know, reading all the plays of Shakespeare as a freshman in college. That was the occasion of me to first read all the plays of Shakespeare. That disposed me for the life of the philosopher. And there the imperfect is disposing for the perfect in the order of time and, what, generation. It's easier to love the plays of Shakespeare than to love philosophy, huh? It's easier to understand the plays of Shakespeare than to understand philosophy, right? But you're kind of being disposed for that, huh? And, but vice versa now, you see. When you get the higher things now, right? Now my understanding of philosophy enables me to go back to Shakespeare and see even more in him, right? And to say, now, this is what you kids should be reading instead of this trash you're reading, right? Ha ha ha! Well, I don't know. I don't know. You see? And if you make the mistake of reading trash or watching some stupid thing on TV, you have a somewhat unfulfilled sense for the end of the evening, right? Somebody was describing to me, you know, this weakness people have, you know, where it's very easy to turn the TV set on after dinner when you're kind of, you know, at the leggies. And then, you're in the midst of some stupid story, right? Sure, right. And you're going to be frustrated either way. If you watch it to the end, you know, you're wasting all your time on that stupid story. If you turn it off before it's in, you're still going to have a little bit of curiosity about what's going to happen. So, it's better not to turn the damn thing on at all. So, notice then that the lower can dispose for the higher, right? In the order of generation of something, right? And you can see, in a way, when the senses are used simply for food and that kind of pleasures, they're tied up with food and those lower things, that's somewhat remote from the life of the mind, right? But when the senses are used to see beautiful paintings or to hear the music of Mozart or to read the plays of Homer or Sophocles or, I mean, the fiction of these people, epics, then you're being, what, through your senses, being disposed more closely for, what, philosophy, huh? I used to, you know, make a kind of a joke, you know, of how you educate people there. You start with a room there where dinner is being served. And, you know, nice food and wine, you learn what wine goes with what and so on. And you watch people and you see people who get a certain cultivation there, eating and drinking, right? As opposed to the slobs, right? And for some of them, there's a door at the end there that you can go through, and one night it's open and they can go in there. And there's a music of Mozart being played in there, right? And there's another door beyond that, but it's locked. And so you see those people who like to go from dinner in to the thing and listen to the music of Mozart, huh? And they're going further now, right? They're not so physical in their pleasures, right? More spiritual. And then one night, that door in the further end, the music room is open. You walk in there and there's beautiful editions of Homer and Sophocles and Shakespeare and Dante and so on and see who really eats this thing up, right? But there's another door beyond that, right? And eventually you get into philosophy and eventually into theology, right? But you have to gradually do that, huh? And so someone who's been brought up to appreciate beautiful music or beautiful fiction and so on and has kind of a thoughtful approach to the beautiful, right? And they're being disposed in many ways for the life of the mind. But sometimes that's as far as they get to, you see? But vice versa, when you get to the higher things, you come back and judge these lower things better and say, this really leads somewhere, you know, in terms of moral virtue and in terms of even the life of the mind. This is a leading work. This is junk, you know? I remember Mark used to be and Father Schuller used to be at our parish, you know? Did you know Father Schuller? Yeah. Kind of an expert in music there. But he used to direct the choir at our parish thing there. He was kind of soft. He started off with some more popular things, right? And then he graduated them into, you know, the really good church music. And then they realized how silly, you know, they feel how stupid something more popular church music was, you know? But you can gradually, what, lead them into something higher. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. You know? But some people never get into those other things, huh? Mm-hmm. I remember the first time I heard Mozart, I mean, my brother Richard, I mean, really the first thing, they brought home the magic flute of Mozart, right? And I listened, you know, I'm a fairly docile person, and I listened, you know, to the whole of the marriage of Figaro, right? One evening. I don't think I heard anything. Mm-hmm. There's some kind of, you know, how to listen to it. I remember my cousin down, too, as a philosopher, and saying, you know, he's kind of, he just listened to a lot of Baroque music and so on, and more than Mozart. And he said, oh, all of a sudden he realized that you really had to listen to Mozart, you know? You could just have background stuff, right? Mm-hmm. You know, the Baroque was fine just for background music, you know, you're doing something else, you know? But Mozart, you really had to listen to the man, you see? You see? Mm-hmm. And, of course, people who learn good music, too, and they know how to play an instrument, you know, piano or something like that, organ, they get a lot of discipline, too, you know? And sometimes they're very good students, you know? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. One of the best students at the Anophilus was a girl who played the piano and played the organ, you know, played Bach on the organ and so on, you know? I mean, they get a certain discipline there, huh? Mm-hmm. But also their emotions are being disposed for the life. Mm-hmm. I think someone like Shakespeare, too, you know, we speak of the Shakespearean universe, huh? There's a kind of, the way he takes in the whole human life, huh? Mm-hmm. And kind of satisfies your curiosity about human life and the meaning of life that the young person has, huh? Mm-hmm. And therefore kind of settles you down, right, to now study philosophy, you know? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay. A lot of people, you know, are afraid to hit the books, you know, because they think they're missing out on life. Right. Well, maybe in party life they're missing out on. Yeah. But I mean, there's more to life than partying, but even so, I mean, you could wander around the world forever, right? Mm-hmm. Without ever settling down, huh? Mm-hmm. But Shakespeare gives you a sense that you've, you've seen something about human life, really, and you know what it's all about, huh? It's like a person who's traveled, you know, in a sense, huh? And has seen things, and now he's ready to settle down, huh? You know? But, I mean, this other stuff doesn't reveal much about the meaning of life, huh? Mm-hmm. In even a poetic way, so you're completely dissatisfied, you know? You know, just, most movies now, you know, things are going up, you know? Mm-hmm. They're going up, I don't know, how many cars, I think they'll go up. Mm-hmm. Well, it doesn't, it doesn't give you any insight into anything in life, huh? Mm-hmm. Okay. Mm-hmm. So, next time we'll go on to what? The next two articles here, right? So that would be, what, five and six, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. This is going to get a little more concrete here when you get into the particulars, right? I'm going to explain, but, excuse me, last but not least here now, okay? Mm-hmm. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, ordinal luminar images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Amen. And help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Amen. So we'll look at the fifth and the sixth articles here in question 77 today, and we'll take a little break between the two articles. That's a logical place to break, huh? The fifth article, whether all the powers of the soul are in the soul, is in a subject, right? To the fifth, one proceeds thus, It seems that all the powers of the soul are in the soul as in a subject. The first argument here is based upon a proportion, in the words at least. For just as the powers of the body are to the body, so the powers of the soul are to the soul. But the body is the subject of the bodily powers. Therefore, the soul is the subject of the powers of the soul. And that's based in part upon how you understand that phrase, powers of the soul, right? And powers of the body, right? Like, that powers of the body might refer to powers that are in the body, right? As in a subject, like powers of the soul might be a broader phrase and include not only powers that are in the soul as in a subject, but powers of which the soul is the, what, origin, even though they're in the, what, body, huh? Okay. But anyway, we'll see that when you get to the reply to the objection. Moreover... the operations of the powers of the soul are attributed to the body because of the soul. Because, as is said in the second book about the soul, the soul is that by which we first sense and understand. As you frame there, I guess, to the demonstration there about the soul, right? The soul is that by which we first live, sense, move, and understand, right? And that by which we first live, sense, move, and understand is the form of the body. Remember that demonstration, huh? But the proper principles of the operations of the soul are its, what? Powers, huh? Therefore, the powers are in the soul before the body. Now, the third objection there with our friend Augustine now, right? Moreover, Augustine says in the twelfth book on Genesis to the letter, that was supposed to be what? He wrote something on Genesis that Jerome didn't think was, what, close enough to the text or something, right? So then he wrote these many books on Genesis to the letter, right? Right down to the letter, right? Augustine says in the twelfth book, upon Genesis to the letter, that some soul senses not through the body, rather without the body. Or it senses some things, right? Not through the body, but rather without the body. As, for example, fear and things of this sort. And something it senses through the body. But if the sensing power was not in the soul alone, as in a subject, nothing could, what? It could sense nothing without the body. Therefore, the soul is the subject of the sensing power. And by like argument of all the other powers, huh? Now, Thomas doesn't like to go against Augustine, right? So, we'll see what he does when he gets to that direction. But against this is what the philosopher says in the book on sleep and being awake, huh? See how concrete Aristotle was? He wrote a book on what? Yeah. Sleep and waking, huh? Mm-hmm. That to sense is not proper or private to the soul, nor to the body, but it's of the, what? Two together, right? The sensing power, therefore, is in the conjoined, huh? Soul and body is in a subject. Therefore, the soul alone, or by itself, is not the subject of all of its, what? Powers, huh? Now, Thomas says in the body of the article, I answered that it ought to be said that that is the subject of some operative power, huh? Now, this is why he says operative potencia, huh? What kind of potencia is there that's not operativa? What would be the... The passive power. Yeah, I don't know if he's thinking of that contrast so much, but he's thinking of when you say that matter is in potency to form, right? Okay. Okay, and even accidental form, right? Okay. So you can say the wood here is able to be what? To be a chair. To be a chair or a table, right? And that's an ability for form. Yeah. But the powers of the soul are not abilities for form so much, but the abilities to do something. Do something. Okay, or to undergo, too, right? Yeah. Operation isn't necessarily taken in the active sense, huh? Yeah. Because sensing is, you know, it's an undergoing, right? Love is an undergoing, too. Yeah. Okay, if you ever teach the course on love and friendship here, you'll find out that love is an undergoing, as Shakespeare tells us, too. So, what does it be to say to Benedict? For which of my good qualities did you first suffer a love for me? And Benedict says, you have a very good word there, you know. Because I love you against my will, right? There you have the original meaning there, the word, what? Undergo, right? To suffer, huh? So, he says, that is the subject of an operating power, right? A power that has some kind of activity, operation, that is able to operate, huh? For every accident denominates its proper, what? Subject, huh? What does that word denominaria mean, huh? To take its name from? Yeah, that's the idea, huh? He had that word in the categories, you may recall, huh? So, if I, a man, am said to be healthy, right? Well, it's not as man that I'm healthy, right? But healthy is being said of me because of what? The health is in my body. Okay, now what does this mean? The same thing is what is able to operate, right? And what operates. That's kind of common sense, isn't it? Right, okay? Obviously, what does something is what is able to do it. Right, okay? So, whatever does something is the one that has the ability to do it. Right? Whence of that thing, when something is the power or ability of something as a subject, of which is the operation of that power, right? Okay? Okay, now you can put that in a little more elegant English, right? Whence, right? Whatever has the operation is the one that has the power as the subject of that power. As also the philosopher says in the beginning of the book about sleep and being awake, huh? Okay? Sarah Stahl is probably investigating there what is what? Sleep and awake, huh? What part of us do they belong to, huh? Are they tied up with sensation, or what are they tied up with, huh? Is falling asleep losing your senses temporarily? Or is it something else that the loss of the use of the senses follows upon, huh? Oh, right. Aristotle's interested in those questions, right? What is it to fall asleep? Because we all kind of fall asleep eventually. Mm-hmm. There's this anecdote about Aristotle, that he's supposed to have a metal vase and a metal ball, and he sat there studying like that. And when he started to fall asleep, it would fall into the thing and bang! It would wake him up again. I don't think you'd do anything as stupid as that, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They attribute Aristotle's death, you know, to what chronic indigestion brought on to overwork. Oh. But you can't believe half these stories, you know, what they died from or anything like that, you know. Yeah. There's no sufficient diagnosis that we could trust at this point in time. There's all kinds of anecdotes floating around about these people. So, Plutarch, you know, in his life of Alexander, has an excerpt from a letter between Aristotle and Alexander, where Alexander is writing Aristotle saying, don't publish the metaphysics, I want it all for myself. Oh. And Aristotle actually kind of published as well as publishing meant in those days. Right. And Alexander wanted it all to himself, and Aristotle writes back saying, don't worry, he says, only those who already know the subject will understand the book. Yeah. Yeah. This is probably apocryphal, right? But sometimes these stories illustrate a point, though, even though they're not, what, may not be actually true, huh? But they're good enough to be true. They certainly make a point, nevertheless. Now, he says, it is clear from the things that have been said above that some operations of the soul, that there are some operations of the soul which are exercised without a bodily organ. And the two that stand out, of course, are to understand and to will. Of course, we saw that in our study of, what, the third book about the soul, but when he comes to study understanding and willing here, in particular, later on. in the street is right we'll get some of the arguments again for the immateriality of that right so understanding is an activity that is not in the body did you know that okay and one way that they show that is because what we understand directly is something universal and universal differs from the singular by the fact that what it's separated from what makes something individual or singular now any circle let's say huh that you put on the board here will be what here or there and therefore it'll be what singular but what a circle is it's neither here nor there is it it's removed from what makes something what singular individual okay but whatever is received in the body is received here or there right so what's received in the body is received always a singular and therefore you never sense the universal you always sense a individual singular so if the if circle was received in a body organ it would be singular and not universal but reason understands the what universal okay yeah thing is singular and sense but universal and understood yeah now another way you can show it here and we're showing it just to recall for a brief thing here um when i understand what a circle is or i understand what a square is or something of that sort i understand it in the form of a definition so i understand distinctly what a a square is that it's a equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral now are those parts the definition are they continuous does equilateral and right-angled meet at a point like the parts of a line meet at a point do they do it huh if they were so that equilateral and right-angled would be a straight line wouldn't they they're not the one do they meet at a line no they meet at a surface no so the parts of the definition are not continuous that's very curious because the square is something continuous so i'm understanding a square something continuous by definition which is not continuous i'm understanding the continuous in an uncontinuous way now why do i understand what is continuous by definition that is not continuous is that due to the nature of the square that's understood in that way no because the nature of the square is to be continuous so it must be due to the nature of the reason itself that it understands continuous things in an uncontinuous way of course bodies are continuous aren't they so it understands the continuous it understands bodies in a non-continuous way an unbodily way it can't be due to the thing being understood because that is continuous it is bodily therefore it must be the nature of the mind right that's not a body it's not continuous and that's what has to understand the continuous in an uncontinuous way okay so there's a lot of arguments you can give to show that understanding is not what in a body right and of course the will can also what uh you can also love and hate the universal right see like i hate all terrorists or something like that right you can't stand those people but there's a class of people right see hate all feminists it's a class right you see the idea uh my daughter one time she's got a a job you know just a little summer job there being a waitress right huh first of the question says you one of these feminists she says heck no no nothing at all that she says okay we'll come back to that when you take up these powers again in particular whence he says the powers which are the principles the sources of these operations that are not in the body they are in the soul as in a what subject right okay but there are some operations of the soul which are exercised or or well that may not be the best way to translate there um uh which act did you just say which yeah which are performed yeah which are performed yeah through through bodily organs right as seeing is through the eye right and hearing is through the what ear you know the sign that Aristotle gives there the body character of the senses as opposed to reason that if something is too bright then one is kind of temporarily what blinded yeah like when you come out of a dark theater in a summer afternoon can't see right away right or you can be kind of what deafened by a very loud sound right when you think about something very understandable like God when you turn to lesser things they seem what easier to understand so it shows that kind of an unbodied character of understanding as opposed to sensing the same thing is true about other operations of the feedings part right the nutritive part and the sensitive part and therefore the powers which are the sources of such operations are in the conjunction right of body and soul as in a subject and not in the soul what alone right so Thomas is making a distinction right he's saying there's some powers like the ability to understand and the ability to choose right the will that are not in the what body as in a subject they're only in the soul as a subject other powers like the powers of sensing and even more clearly the power of feeding yourself or growing reproducing and so on they're clearly in the what body as in a subject now you might recall you know the way of speaking that we have in the a scripture there where sometimes we have the word soul and the word spirit okay mary says my soul magnifies the lord and my spirit rejoices in god my savior well the soul and spirit are the same thing in us but it's called a soul insofar as it animates the body but it's called a spirit insofar as it transcends the body so the soul you could say insofar as it has certain powers or abilities not in the body like the power or ability to understand and the power or ability to what to choose to will is called a spirit and of course we have that in common with the angels right who are called spirits for another reason but for a similar reason and god himself is said to be a spirit in scripture right okay but the the angel is in no way a form of a body right so you never call an angel really a soul unless you want to speak metaphorically right and we wouldn't call god a soul unless you want to speak kind of metaphorically right but we call god and the angels a spirit right but we wouldn't call our soul scripture a soul insofar as it has some abilities or powers that are not in the body but in the soul alone what does our lord say in one place there the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak though well of course it's a higher kind of conflict there between the body sometimes and the powers that are in the body and the reason and the will which are resisting the inclinations of the what body but the light would uh the ease of men's you