De Anima (On the Soul)
Lecture 99: The Three Powers of the Vegetative Soul and Their Theological Significance

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

Now, the third objection was the one taken from this more general understanding of appetite or desire. Thomas says, to the third it should be said, that natural appetite, natural desire, is the inclination of each thing to something from its own nature. So when we say that the plant likes sun, right, it will tend to grow towards the sun, right? Okay, and it will flourish in the sun, right? Or it likes water, right, okay? And so it likes a soil that's kept moist, huh? Or if it's near a stream, it's down there, right? Okay, but that's something that follows upon its nature, not upon, what, knowing. But animal desire, right, soul desire, don't know about that. This extra genus of powers follows some form that has been, what, apprehended by the senses or by the reason of it. And for this kind of desire, there is required a special power of the soul, and the apprehension alone does not suffice. For the thing is desired insofar as it is in its own nature. It is not, however, by its very nature in the sensing, in the grasping or grasping power, but according to its, what, likeness, huh? Whence it is clear that the sense of sight, desire is naturally visible only towards its own act, mainly towards seeing. But the animal desires the thing seen through his desiring power, not only to seeing, but also for other uses, like to eat it or something, right? Okay. If however one, the soul did not need things perceived by the sense, except for, what, the action of the senses only for sensing them, right? Then it would not, what, be necessary to have a separate power, or a desiring power as a special genus among the powers of the soul, because the natural desire of the powers would suffice, huh? Okay. I know, it's good to know that, if we use the word want, you know, all the way down sometimes even to inanimate things, you know, and you're trying to put something together, you know, and it doesn't want to go, we say, right? You know? Well, I mean, it doesn't, I mean, I've got the wrong place now, you know? So, you're trying to put something together, you know, and you buy, you know, and you don't have it all put together, you've got to put something together, right? Is that where the screw goes, you know? It doesn't want to go there, you know? It doesn't want to go there, see? Because it's not made for that, right? But that's a very, what, different sense of wanting than when you say, I want my dinner, right? Or I want to know, right? Because there I have to know before I can be said to want, huh? Okay. I don't want to just smell my dinner, I want to eat it, you see? Okay. So the inclination of the nose to smell things doesn't suffice to explain my wanting to eat the thing that I smell, right? If I wanted to smell it, I wouldn't need this other kind of thing, huh? I wouldn't need hunger and thirst and so on. Okay. Now, the fourth objection was taken from what Aristotle had shown in the third book about the soul, that some kind of knowing, either sensing or what? Understanding. And some kind of desire, right, huh? Are behind the animal moving from one place to another. So the cat sees the bird, right? And desires to eat the bird, right? And then he said, we're going to go back there, you know, you can see the way they're getting ready. He said something, you know, real fast. And so somebody might say, well, why do we need another genus of power here, the motive power, right? Why don't you say the sight and the, what? Desire of the cat is enough, right? Well, you see the reply that Thomas gives us, huh? Although sense and desire are moving principles in perfect animals, nevertheless, sense and desire, as such, are not sufficient for, what? Moving. Unless there be added some other power. For in the immobile animals, there is sense and desire, too. But they do not have the power of moving from one place to another. And this motive power is not only in desire and sense as commanding motion, but also in those parts of the bodies, huh? That they might be, what? Suitable for obeying the appetite of the moving soul. A sign of which is that when those members are removed from their disposition, their natural disposition, like when you're, what, injured there, right? They do not obey the appetite to, what, motion, right? Oh, yeah. So these people had a stroke or something, right? Sure. And they can hardly walk, right? Sure. And so he's not denying what Aristotle says, that sense and desire move us to go from one place to another, but we need something beyond the sense and the desire, right? And even the, these animals that don't move from one place to another have sense and desire. Right. So, to convince there are five January powers then, so let's take a little break here before we look at the second article, which is going to... To the second one proceeds thus. It seems unsuitably distinguished, huh? Or assigned the parts of the living soul. Namely the feeding power, the... In English it would be the feeding power, right? The growing power, right? And then the, what, generating power, huh? You have three there. And the first objection is that these powers are called, what, natural, right? But the powers of the soul are above the natural powers, right? Therefore, these powers are, yeah, should not be called powers of the soul. That's practically what you mean by calling these powers natural, right? Part of your problem in the word there, right? Moreover, that, to that which is common to living things and non-living things, we're not, not to assign some power of the soul. But generation is common to all things that are generable and corruptible, both living things and non-living things. Therefore, the generative power ought not to be laid down to be another power of the soul. So it seems to the ancients there, right? We've got a candle here with a flame, and I put to your book, right? I generate another flame over there, right? Okay, so you have, you know, generation in the non-living world as well as in the living world, so how can the power to generate be a, what, a power of the living soul, yeah. Moreover, he says, the soul is more potent than bodily nature. But the body nature, by the same active power, gives the, what, species, the kind of thing it is, and a suitable quantity. Therefore, much more the soul. Therefore, the power to grow should not be another power from the, what, generating power, huh? Sort of interesting objection, huh? Moreover, each thing is conserved in being through that to which it has being. But the generating power is that by which existence or being is acquired by the living thing. Therefore, through that same thing, the living thing is conserved. But to the conservation of the living thing is ordered, the feeding power, as is said in the second book of the soul. Where he defines it as a power, right? Able to save the one, what, having it, right? We're not, therefore, to distinguish the nutritive power from the, what, generative power. So the first objection was against all these powers, right? Because they're called veras naturales. The second one was against the generative power, right? And the third and fourth were saying that the other two powers that are going to be distinguished really should be reduced to the generative power. And the third one was against the generative power. And the third one was against the generative power. And the third one was against the generative power. because the generative power of the living thing should be stronger than that of the non-living thing but the non-living power gives both being and a suitable quantity to what it makes therefore or it ought to be the same thing that gives something existence and maintains an existence it's like God created us and conserves us in existence but against all this is what the philosopher says that's the man with a capital P there that's Aristotle himself this is Aristotle called Homer what? the poet with a capital P and I call Mozart the musician but in the I think I mentioned before how in the Federalist Papers where they're talking about that if we don't unite we're going to be weak and picked off by the European powers and in the words of the poet a long farewell to all my greatness well it doesn't identify the poet by his own name right but years later I saw this as in Henry VIII by Shakespeare right you see but he's called the poet right when the talker came to the United States he'd find in the Law of the Capital there's only two books the Bible and some plays of Shakespeare that's all he found wow at least I first read Henry V of Shakespeare in a long cabin in the United States so that was the kind of authority right you know the Bible and Shakespeare that's what you'd have if you had anything of course they say they're much better off than we are because we have all these trashy books you know to distract us and when I get to the books we should really read everybody reads the newspaper every day Charlie I worked with at the package store there you know hadn't picked up a book since what? high school right? high school oh yeah oh you're the Newspaper that's what I ever read yeah sure so that's what's most read how many people have picked up the Bible and read it today? yeah sure right very few compared to those who have read the Newspaper and make it a prerequisite for your students not to watch soap operas while they're taking a class while they're taking a class yeah you hear them somebody's talking about that you're going oh my god yeah get rid of the TV sets you know so my kids are young we didn't have a TV set there and everybody's offering us the free TV sets you know they're new and bigger ones you know no no instead of no I don't want one they thought we were couldn't afford one but well we couldn't afford one in another sense yeah yeah yeah yes it's very bad for kids you know yeah sure and my daughter now she's expecting the number five now yeah great but it has no no TV set there right so they don't want a TV set you know it's you know yeah sure and maybe kind of you know a waste of time if not much worse you know much worse yeah much worse so and it doesn't help the imagination or the ability to read and so on yeah and kids who grew up reading books and having books you read to them yeah it helps them in their studies too sure you know people have lost the ability to read or absorb yeah they'll look at the reading yeah you know just bring that so some of my colleagues said you know they think the computer's going to write the paper for them right well maybe it doesn't I don't know I guess the ancients they had they're much more able to memorize than we are sure you know they speak of Thomas you know memorizing the bible memorizing the census Peter Lombard well that's what they say with the Chinese now they still pretty much have that kind of memory that unbelievable memory this one doctor friend about in California he said he always had 93, 94s on his test but because he was great on a curve and he was going to California University all these Chinese guys were just getting hunters and he came out getting C's in class you know that was where he ended up on the curve you know so how can he compete with that you know so again this is what the philosopher says in the second book about the soul that the works of this soul are to generate and to use food and again to make growth right now he says I answer it ought to be said that there are three powers of the living part for the living as has been said has for its object the body right living through the soul and for such a body a threefold operation so is necessary one by which it acquires existence right and to this is ordered the generated power another through which the living body right acquires a suitable quantity to this is ordered the what growing power this augmentativa another to which the body of the one living is saved both in its being and in its what suitable quantity and to this is ordered the feeding power right the nourishing power right here it got a division into three right there is however a difference to be noted among these powers for the feeding power and the growing power have their effect in that in which they are right because the body united to a soul grows and is conserved through the growing power and the nourishing or feeding power existing in the same soul but the generating power has its effect not in the same power but in a what another right because nothing is what generates itself nothing is generated of itself right make sense right I can't bring myself into existence right so the power to generate is a power to generate another body right another one from oneself right so the first two powers are to what to make my own body grow right and to I keep my own body and keep body and soul together as they say right to stay alive right and and okay and notice he says then and therefore the generative power in a certain way approaches to the dignity of the what sensing soul right now why is that so right because it's it extends to another body right and not just to one's own body right see and we recall back in the previous article there he said that the sensing power has a more universal object than the living powers right it's not just one's own body right but one senses the bodies around one okay well this power to generate is approaching that dignity because you generate another body a body other than your own body so he says therefore the generative power in a certain way approaches to the dignity of the sensing soul that's very interesting which has an operation in exterior things although in a more excellent way and more universal way the senses have and then this is the famous principle that Dionysius and Aristotle said before too but he often quotes to Dionysius that the highest of the what lowest nature right attains that which is lowest in the higher as is clearly through Dionysius in the seventh chapter of the divine needs and therefore among these three powers more final more in and more principal or chief and more perfect right is the generative power as is said in the second book about the soul for it belongs to a thing now perfect to make another as it itself is right for the growing power and nourishing power feeding power serve the generative power right and And the nourishing power serves the growing power, right? Now, Plato in the symposium, right, and Aristotle following him, they both talk about reproduction as being something godlike. They speak of, by reproduction, the mortal is trying to be like the immortal. Now, these mortal animals and mortal plants, right, as individuals are not immortal. But by reproducing another like themselves, right, they give their what? Kind of animal or kind of plant a kind of immortality. If you look at Shakespeare's sonnets, some of the first sonnets there are urging someone to marry, right, and reproduce and so on, huh? And Shakespeare begins, like the first sonnet begins with the lines, from fairest creatures we desire increase, that thereby beauty's rose might never, what, die, huh? Yeah, see? In other words, you see this beautiful man or beautiful woman, right, and they're going to get old and wrinkled and lose their good looks and so on, right, huh? And therefore they've got a duty, right, to reproduce themselves, huh? Um, so that, what? The time they're old, there's someone that's pretty. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, see? You kind of see that, you know? My wife and I were at churchyard on Sunday there, and a couple we've known, they're, you know, growing old now, even older than we are, in the parish and so on, but one of their daughter's husbands was there with the little boy, and he was a real handsome little fellow, he really, really, he couldn't help but notice the guy, you know, and my wife was remarking how he looked like his mother, you know, and so on, you know, and the good looks, you know, and so on, and so on. So you see that you're immortalizing this, huh? Yeah. And in case of the animals, too, or even human beings, Plato is, in a sense, explaining why one is sexually attracted more to a good-looking person, other things being equal, right, than not to a good, than to a person not so good-looking, huh? It's natural, because you want to perpetuate the, what? Yeah, from fairest creatures, meaning the most beautiful ones, right? We desire increase that thereby beauty's rose, right, might never die, huh? But as the reaper should, by tying disease, as tender air might bear his memory. But they're trying to be like God so far as possible, you see? And so it's the mortal seeking to be immortal so far as possible. That's kind of striking, huh? Sure. Now, that's in the symposium, huh? Now, in the dialogue called Theotelus, Plato gives a definition of philosophy as becoming like God so far as possible for a man, right? That's a very profound definition of philosophy. And, of course, when Aristotle takes up the two culminating parts of the two kinds of philosophy, wisdom and political philosophy, right, when he's in the ethics, he says, it's lovable, he says, to help one man to be happy, he says. But it's more God-like to help a city become happy, right? That's kind of striking, huh? And, of course, Thomas says, well, of course, God operates for the good of the whole universe, right? We can't do that, right? But when we operate for the good of the whole city and the happiness of the whole city, right, we're more like God than when we do something for the happiness of one individual. That's good and desirable, too, right? Well, it's more God-like, right, to help the city become happy, huh? See, so there's something God-like about George Washington, huh? Or something like that, huh? The father of his country, huh? And then, of course, Aristotle talks about wisdom. He says this is the most divine science, huh? Because it's about God and because God, most of all, would have this knowledge, as you may recall, right? And so philosophy is, what, becoming like God, so far as possible, Plato says so well in the theotators, huh? You might say, well, isn't that kind of presumptuous? You know, it sounds kind of presumptuous to people in the audience. But even the plants in reproducing, right? You know, the Greeks always used kind of morto and immorto as kind of synonyms, almost, for men and gods, right? So in Homer, you know, you refer to the mortals as you and I, and the immortals are the gods, right, huh? Right. So when the mortal is trying to be immortal, so far as possible, right, then it's trying to be, what, like God, huh? So each in its own way is trying to be like God, huh? That's what's interesting, too, about Shakespeare's great exhortation to use reason there, right? You know, he gives all these reasons why we should use reason, but one reason, of course, is to obey God, right? When he says, sure, he that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and godlike reason to fuss in us and use, right? But he also calls reason godlike, right? And so usually I develop that as two different reasons, right? If you use your reason, you become like God in some way, huh? Who made all things in wisdom, as Scripture tells us. And you're obeying God's plan for us, right? But if you put the two together, I say, what does this suggest? That God's plan for us is to become godlike. But in a way, that's his plan for what? The plans, too. It's his plan for everything to become like him so far as possible. When you were talking about going from good, helping a person to helping a city, becoming more godlike, it reminded me of a saying, this one priest would always say when I was taking his political side class, he would always say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. You know, you can't talk about how we're trying to become more like God, but that problem energy is that if you are spiritual or something, you believe it would be corrupted as opposed to being more like God. What would you think of, you know, as the founder of an order, like St. Benedict, let's say, right? Or St. Dominic, right? Or St. Francis, right? They set up a way of life, right? In which many, right, Benedictines or many Franciscans or many Dominicans have, what, flourished and attained some kind of sainthood, right? Not everybody, obviously, right? And so these men are more godlike than one of us who might help some friend get straightened out, a mess in their life, you know? And that's good and desirable, right, to help some individual that you run into get out of this mess that they're in. But it's more godlike, right, to what? Oh, many. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, you know, the famous words of Gregory the Great, though, huh? You know, he said where, when they made him a bishop, he began to, what, doubt his salvation, his own salvation. When they made him a pope, he began to despair of his salvation. I think it's a good way of putting it, though, right, huh? Because you're under a great responsibility there, right? You know, like St. Paul says in the epistles there, you know, the solicitude of all the churches, right, is kind of weighing him down there, huh? And I'm sure that's true of the pope, too, huh? He's seeing bishops from all over the world and getting reports, right? So he's seeing what's going on and so on. Okay. So Thomas doesn't mention that here, but it's worthwhile seeing that both Plato and Aristotle say that, huh? Yeah. That there's, that reproduction is the immortal trying to be, so far as possible, like the immortal. And they can't be immortal as individuals, but they can, their kind can be immortal. Of course, in the sonnets, you have the sonnets aiming at that, right? In the other sonnets, they're trying to immortalize somebody in the sonnet, right? So long as they can read, you know, and read the sonnet, you know, we've got your beauty there. Just like you make a famous painting, huh? You know, somebody at the prime of life, huh? You kind of perpetuate their beauty, right? Even though they're going to get older and wiggle in. Lose that beauty, right? So you have those two. A friend of Spencer, too, right? He's down by the ocean there, and he's writing the girl's name in the sand, right? And the wave comes in and watches it out. He says, he can't moralize me. But it's the poet he can, right? So you read his Epithelomian, right? It's the same thing as the Song of Songs, right? The Song of Songs is Epithelomian on the day of marriage, right? So to speak. Epi means upon, Thelomian means the day of marriage. There are two poems of Spencer, right? The Quothelomian, right, which is written for, I think, two daughters who are going to get married, right? That's before the day, right? Beautiful poem, right? You know, it represents him as two swans. But the Epithelomian is to celebrate his own marriage to Elizabeth. Okay? So it's a really beautiful thing, yeah? It's kind of a poetic rendering of his courtship of Elizabeth, huh? Interesting thing. But you read the commentaries on the Song of Songs, and they'll call it Epithelomian, huh? And one of the Psalms is that, too, huh? The one that has the same, is it 40-something? The time or 40. Yeah, but it has the same matter, Thomas says in his commentary on the Psalms, as the Song of Songs, huh? That kind of short version. Very, very interesting. But anyway, Spencer has these poems, you see, where he's immortalizing Elizabeth in his poems, right? Okay? So he had the same thing in Shakespeare, you have this double thing, huh? But you see the mortal striving to be immortal, huh? Either by reproducing itself, right? Or by enshrining it in a poem or something, right? So trying to be like God, huh? The immortal, the eternal. So, you know, when the great Aristotelic is through there talking about the soul, and you could call this the living soul, because this is where life is first found in bodies, right? Okay? It's not the highest life, you know. The animal has a higher life, and man has an even higher life than the animal. But this is called the living soul, because this is where life first appears, right? In these powers. And sometimes you call it the feeding soul, right? The nutritive soul. Because of this basic activity of feeding there. But Aristotel wants to call it in the end, what? The reproducing soul. You see? Because that's the most perfect thing it does, right? And that's where it's becoming most like the divine, right? And we tend to name something by its, what? Utmost, huh? That it can do, right? We see man has an understanding soul, but these cats have a sensing soul, right? Well, man senses too, but he does something more that he understands. So we have an understanding soul, as Shakespeare says. And so we name something by the ultimate thing it can do. Well, this reproducing is the ultimate thing that this kind of soul can do. So this is a soul that can make another like itself, right? A marvelous thing, yeah. And we try to get rid of dandelions or something like that, you know, and you realize how great is the desire to reproduce and to make oneself immortal, huh? And that the plants resist and they can exterminate it. And I remember a former neighbor there next to me, you know, he had been there for some years before I moved in, you know, and they were talking about the grass and so on and the weeds and so on. But his last remark, it's a losing battle, though, he says. You know, he got down one year, it's like that, you're back, you know, with all kinds of weeds and other things, right? All these things stick in their own immortality, huh? Now, the first objection was a little different. The first objection was saying that the powers are called, what? Natural powers, right, huh? And therefore they don't belong to the soul, right? Now, sometimes we distinguish between nature and soul because nature is determined to one and two opposites, like I was saying, huh? And the soul, even the plant soul, starts to rise above that, right? Because it grows in contrary directions, huh? And by the time you get up to reason, but it's the same knowledge of opposites, right? And so by my knowledge of the medical arts, I could cure you maybe or make you sick, either one, right? Save your life or kill you, right? That's true of knowledge and the same knowledge of opposites, huh? You transcend that being determined to one of two opposites, huh? So, but he says these powers are called naturals because they have an effect like nature, right? Which also gives existence and quantity and concerns, right? Although these powers have this in a higher way than the non-living thing does, huh? But it also shows that these are the closest to nature, huh? At least rising above it, huh? And because these powers exert their actions instrumentally through active and passive qualities, which are the principles of natural actions, huh? Maybe. So in Aristotle's more primitive chemistry, the soul, right, digests food using the properties of fire, right? And our soul digests food using chemicals that you could maybe isolate in the lab, right? Okay? And use to break something down, right? Okay? So that's why these are called natural powers, huh? Although they have something above the natural powers because the natural powers are more instruments of the soul, huh? Tools of the soul, huh? Now the second objection was saying that generation is something found in the non-living world, so why should this be a power of the living soul? Well, he says, the second it should be said that generation in inanimate things, things without a soul, is wholly from the outside, huh? But the generation of living things is in a, what, higher way to something of the living one himself, which is the, what, seed, right, huh? Okay? In which there is some principle or cause that was formative of the body, right? That can form the body. And therefore it's necessary that there be some power of the living thing to which seed of this sort is prepared, and this is the, what, generating power. That can be a power of the living thing, right? That can be a power of the living thing, right? That can be a power of the living thing, right? That can be a power of the living thing, right? or forms of animal life you know they they what produce an egg but the egg is not really alive right they have to sit on it and then finally it germinates huh but the higher animals they give birth to these things within right okay and when thomas will talk about you know the trinity and the generation of the sun right it's much more intrinsic right than even in the human beings huh okay so you go up in life the generation is more inward huh than the one generating now the third objection was well what about the um uh non-living powers generating a thing and at the same time giving it the quantity it should have huh well he says that the generation of living things is from some seed because of that it is necessary that in the beginning an animal be generated with a small quantity and an account of this is necessary that it have a power of the soul to which it can arrive at a what suitable quantity and that's why plato and aristotle and thomas and so on when they're talking about a principle of philosophy they always compare it to a seed because a seed is small in size but great in its power what it can produce huh so the seed through which an animal or plant is produced is very small and then the plant or animal is generated by that seed needs to have a power whereby it can get a suitable what size eventually huh where it can grow but the inanimate body set is generated from a matter that is determined by an extrinsic agent and therefore at the same time that we sees the species the kind of thing it is and it's what quantity according to the condition of matter huh of course seed is very important in scripture too right i think christ speaks of the mustard seed and so on right now it's something very small in size that goes into something so large that the birds come in that's the way um plato and aristotle will compare the beginning in philosophy right something small in size but great in power yeah they're always quoting the greek proverb archaiponemiso the beginning is half of all and thomas and and uh yeah with the great and so on pick up on that now to the fourth it should be said huh this is talking now about the what the genitive power should also be what conserves the thing right now it should be said that the operation of the living principle is completed by means of heat of which is belongs to consume moisture right and therefore for the restoration of the humidity lost is necessary to have a power that is nutritive to which what food is converted into the substance of the body which is also necessary for the act of the growing power and the generative power huh that's the old science there right huh you dry up and that's it huh turned to dust huh moist you lose that moisture huh but anyway the body that is generated is separated in space eventually right from the body generated so how can that continue to support in the life but no it's not when the baby's generated in the mother's womb huh for the first nine months the baby's actually attached to the mother and it's getting its food from the mother right and that's to kind of watch what she eats sometimes because it affects the baby right and when we get to know that kind of you know eat this food the baby's gonna jump in the dick or something right and the other baby's gonna feel more sedate or something you know eats other food huh and so on huh somebody's going now getting me you know don't touch any alcohol or even tea you know huh my sister I would drink any tea when she was pregnant you know like I think they go a little bit over over a board you know huh yeah my daughter says this one's gonna be another boy she said it feels just like the boy yeah she had three girls and she was a boy and now she's we don't know what this is but she thinks it'll be a boy she told me away it's behaving in there like it like the boy did it that was born around the girl so I guess you know it was a girl's heart is heartbeat is faster i think for them boys oh yeah there's something yeah because everyone we went in for the first one you know and at the old hospital there was no operation but anyway had the head nurse comes in there you know works there and she listened to it you know she said it's gonna be a boy you know so anyway it was a boy the first one and uh she said this is this is this is this is every baby that comes in there see you know you know she's very expert at that huh i said that's why i happened to run into her by chance after and i said you're right it was a boy you just ask him anytime she says yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah it's by the sound of the beat of the art you just don't listen that's they also say because of a mother usually carries babies in the back when with their girls or in front if they're boys that's interesting i don't have to ask my daughter yeah yeah i've heard a number of women say that it's interesting so let's make a little theological footnote here shall we how is this second article used the previous article used in theology not obviously right now but you're talking about the sacraments huh well um sure because um what marriage and ordination would be generative comparable to generative well that's a comparison they make baptism okay what three sacraments are compared to these three yeah okay see when we talk about sacraments you have to realize the synthesis the sacrament is always something sensible right and it's a sensible sign that's going to be giving grace so on um but you have to realize that god understands that we're animals right we're growing oh with reason right yeah and therefore the importance of sensible for us to understand things so um under the likeness of bodily life right we receive the elements of what the spiritual life right okay and so under the likeness of these three we have three what you have baptism yeah because it's uh it gives an indelible seal yeah and you also have uh uh uh confirmation because it's also there's an indelible seal yeah and then the third would be ordination doesn't do that no eucharist see i see in other words the generative power right huh corresponds to baptism which is a kind of another birth right okay and then the and of course you can see that now when when in a conversation between christ and nicodemus right let's a man be born again of water the holy spirit and i think you don't have it nicodemus is saying well can a man get back into his mother's womb and be born again right he's understanding in two material way right there's a likeness there right between being born of your your own mother right and we're born of our mother the the church let's say right okay um then the sacrament of confirmation corresponds to growth so just by growing you get as soon what maturity right right as a as an animal right the kitten becomes a cat and the puppy a dog and the boy a man and the girl a woman and so on um so confirmation is a kind of what becoming an adult so to speak but in the spiritual life And that's why, you know, it might hit you a little bit on the cheek or something like that, so it's supposed to be able to stand and fight for the church, right? But obviously, food is the Eucharist, right? And so the Eucharist is given to us, the body and blood of our Lord, under the likeness of bread and wine, which Thomas says are more commonly used for food, huh? Okay, so you've got to wipe your meal. No, I mean, since I was thinking of being an Italian, right? Bread and wine are quite our most commonly used, and so on. So, if you read Thomas, say, in the Summa Conte Gentilis, and probably in the Summa too, you know, explicitly compare those three sacraments, right, which are sometimes put together, you know, like, especially in the Eastern Church, right, where the one is baptized and then maybe it's confirmed, right? And then you receive communion, huh? And those three are especially close together, those three, right? Why the confession and extreme unction and so on, or last anointing, what I want to call it, are more than they've gone wrong, right, some defect, right? But these three really are very close together, those three, right? And they are given to us in the likeness of these three here. It's going to be interesting to see that, huh? And of course, you know, when Christ talks about the beauty of the vision there, the Gospels and so on, and he speaks of you sitting at the same table with him and eating the same food, right? And what does that refer to? Well, it doesn't mean we're eating food in this ordinary sense here in the next world, right? But we'll be seeing God through God being joined to our mind, huh? So we'll be eating the same food. But it's food for thought, say, right, huh? And peace to a reason, as Socrates says, right, huh? Right. Okay. But as I mentioned before, you know, Shakespeare sometimes will borrow the word food, huh? And apply it even to the object of the emotions, huh? Like if Beatrice is making fun of Benedict, you know, and how could she stop making fun of him when she has such, you know, food for her laughter, right? It's just that, see? That's very cleverly said. But we do use that question, food for thought, right? And we speak of feeding emotion, right? If I keep on telling you about how nasty somebody is and what they've been saying about you and what they think of you, and you're getting more and more angry, I'm feeding your what? Anger, your hate or something. of this person, right? You see? So it's interesting that the object of the first power here, the feeding power, which is food, right, is sometimes kind of metaphorically, right, applied to the object that nourishes some emotion, right? Or the object that even nourishes the, what, mind, huh? Thomas sometimes quotes to the great Dionysius here, who will say that the higher angels are as food, siwus, food, for the lower angels, huh? You know? And, you know, something similar, I think, of myself and others being gathered around Monsignor Dion, you know, and he's feeding us, so to speak, right? Like a mother bird feeding a worm, right? You know, there's something like that, right, huh? When it says in Scripture, you know, there's no one to break the bread and distribute it, huh? Well, the bread of Scripture, so to speak, you have to break it into something that's bite-sized, you can eat, right? You distribute it, huh? The way Thomas divides the text for you, right? So to me, it's very striking. Now, if you study the sacraments there in Thomas, huh? You make that very explicit, huh? That these first three sacraments, right, that we receive, and they're put together. If you look at even the catechism of the Catholic Church, right, those three are put together, right? That they're seen under the likeness of something sensible, and this is the likeness, huh? Under these three powers, huh? That's very, very, very striking, very concrete, huh? You know, for those three sacraments. So maybe not aware of the fact that you grew when you were confirmed, huh? You grew spiritually, but it's given to you under the likeness of that, huh? But it's most clear in the case of the, what, Eucharist, huh? Which is the end of all the other sacraments, right? The greatest of the sacraments, huh? But there, the likeness to food, couldn't be more clear, right? Panis vivus, how it says, right? Eta priestant hominim. But then you see, when they go into this more, they'll say, what's the difference between spiritual food and material food, right? See? And the first difference that strikes you is that material food is not living. You don't eat the chicken when it's still alive, do you? And if you cook the carrots or something, they're not really alive either, right? And you, in a way, give life to what is not living when you, what? Yeah, when you digest this food and make it part of yourself, right? Okay? But in the case of spiritual food, huh? The food is alive, right? And it gives life to the one who eats it. It's just the reverse, isn't it, huh? Now, another difference made it seem more fundamental than that is that in material food, the lower is the food of the higher. So the plants are the food of the animals, for the most part, these strange plants. And the animals, the lower animals, are the food of the higher animals, right? And all the plants and animals are kind of the food of man, right? Who has a more varied diet, huh? But in spiritual food, it's just the reverse. The higher is the food of the lower, right? So the great Dionysius says that the higher angels are as food to the lower ones, huh? Okay? In the same way I could say, you know, that Thomas Aquinas or his writings are food for my mind, right? You know, I'm nourished, so to speak, my mind. But the higher, right, is the food of the lower, right? But the higher gives something of its life to the lower. So the lower partakes in the life of the higher. So I partake in something of the life of Thomas' mind here when I read him, right? I read scripture, I partake in the life of God's mind in some way, right? Some perfect way, yeah? But when I eat food, right, I don't, you know, take on the life of a carrot, the life of a chicken, the life of a cow. But they are broken down by me and they take on the life of what? A human being, right? So there's some very striking differences, right? But you wouldn't be able to notice and be struck by those differences unless you saw, first of all, that you're receiving our Lord under the likeness of, what, material bread and wine, huh? You see? But Augustine and Thomas will point that out, huh? You know, like in the end of the prayer of the Eucharist there. On these vivus, right? Well, right away, is the bread that we eat in the morning, ordinary bread? Is that living? No. No. That would be like the bread on the old ships, you know, where they're on the sea, you know, and there's all kinds of things in those. You know, horrible stories of what it was like to be in the British Navy in the 19th century, the 18th century, right? The bread, the biscuits, you know, were hard as rocks, and they had, you know, weevils in there, or bowels. That was, you know, well, you wouldn't want it to be alive, right? But no, it's the Eucharist there. Panis vivus, right? And then it says, vitam, preistam, so many, it's bestowing life upon us, right? By the bread I eat, and the chicken I eat, or the carrot I eat, or the broccoli I eat, it's not alive, right? And I give life to it, if it gets any life. I heard it said in one book I read, that when we eat food, it becomes part of us. When we take on, when we take in Christ, we become Him. Yeah, yeah, that's the exact difference there, right? See, for so many to eat them. There's all kinds of differences to discover after you kind of see, though, that in some sense this is food, right? Now, when you read a modern philosophy, I don't have any sense of food there, and I don't think I'm being fed, you know? You know?