Love & Friendship
Lecture 2: Love as Undergoing and the Paradox of Giving

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

God. It pleased the Lord that I should see this angel in the fowling way. He was not tall, but short and very beautiful. His face so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest types of angel, who seemed to be all afire. That's the way Dionysius explains the seraphim, the highest of the angels. They're brooding with love of God, huh? In his hands I saw a long golden spear, and at the end of the iron tip I seemed to see a point of what? Fire, huh? With this he seemed to pierce my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he drew it out, I thought he was drawing them out with it. You draw me, right? Like we saw in the romantic one, right? And he left me completely afire with the great love of God, huh? The pain was so sharp that it made me utter several moments. And so excessive was the sweetness caused me by this intense pain that one can never wish to lose it. Nor will one's soul be content with anything less than God, huh? That's very significant, huh? That she receives this great increase of love under the likeness of being wounded by a spear with an irate point, huh? And it seems to draw her love right out of her, right? You see? Just like all this being drawn in the romantic love by Demetrius, huh? It's very striking, huh? Now, in the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux. Was it Pius X? Was it the greatest saint of modern times? Was it Pius X? I think it was. It's one of the Pope's. Pius X, isn't it? So. On other occasions she related the following incident. A few days after the offering, the oblation of myself to God's merciful love, I was in the choir beginning the way of the cross, when suddenly I felt myself wounded by a dart of fire, so ardent that I thought I should die. I cannot transcribe the transport, and no comparison would convey an idea of the intensity of the flame. It seemed as though an invisible force had plunged me wholly into fire, but what fire, but sweetness, huh? St. Alfonso de Goury, right, in his meditations there in the Passions, have you ever seen those? Some of the best ones I've seen. But in the beginning there he quotes Luke there, huh? The Gospel of Luke, where Christ says, I've come to cast fire upon the earth, and what do I will but that if you can do, right? He's talking there about the love of God, right? But there he uses the metaphor of what? Fire, right? And so he had that in both of these ones, huh? But if your heart is set on flame, your heart is being acted upon, isn't it, right? Okay? Fire acts upon the paper, you know? Your heart is being consumed, huh? Okay? Now the next section here is, again, similar to the idea that the heart is undergoing, but being more explicit, the love is a forming over, right? A transformation, to use the Latin word. Metamorphosis, which is the, what, Greek word, right? Etymologically it's the same as transformation. Morphosis is, what, formation, right? That's what we get in biology, the term morphology, where you're studying the forms of the animals, right? So he's saying that love is a transformation of your heart, huh? A metamorphosis of the heart, huh? Now the beginning of the two gentlemen Morona, the friend of Proteus, Valentine, is going off to court, huh? He's in love with no woman at this point. But Proteus is, what, very much in love with Julia, and he's betrothed to him and so on, right? But Valentine's going off to court, you know, to get some finishing. He after honor hunts, huh? That's Valentine. I after love. He leaves his friends to dignify them more, right? I leave myself, my friends, and all, everything, for love. Thou, Julia, thou hast metamorphosed me. so if the heart of proteus has been transformed by julia right then love is very much a what undergoing isn't it there's a beautiful line there i don't know if i got in here or not from goethe you know the great german poet that we are shaped and fashioned by what we love that's well said we're shaped and fashioned by what you love if you love beautiful things already a bit for yourself right if you love disgusting things you are disgusting already yourself you know you're transformed by what you love right thou julia that's the one he loves thou has metamorphosed me transformed me made me neglect my studies uh lose my time huh okay let's see what i have when he gets to the effects of love when the articles with the love is a is an ennobling thing or a what makes you worse huh there's some evidence on both sides huh made me neglect my studies lose my time put me at war with good counsel right good advice set the world at naught made wit my mind my wisdom with musing weak my heart sick with thought right now valentine goes to the court right and he sees the daughter of the duke right sylvia and she's really something sylvia right you know what shakespeare says who is sylvia that are swains to commend her heaven lent her such graces that she might admire it be it's beautiful shakespeare says it huh heaven lent her such graces that she might admire it be yeah and of course now he's completely transformed right and speed is one of the servants there right and now you are metamorphosed with the mistress you have been transformed huh then when i look at you i can hardly think you're my master you're not the same man anymore you see so love is your actual transformation now what happens in the play is that a proteus uh who's at home open about julia his father said hey it's a good idea that they send valentine to the court i think i'll send proteus to the court right so there's a tearful parting scene between proteus and julia right and proteus goes off to the court and when he gets there valentine is the gentleman of ron confides in him his plan to elope with sylvia because he's you know not the one that the duke has picked out for his daughters right and when proteus sees sylvia wow that's why his name is all taken he doesn't keep his shape right proteus is always changing his shape in in the odyssey homer and so he goes through shakespeare's his look where he's he's debating right but he should pursue sylvia because to pursue sylvia he's got to be unfaithful to julia and and he's got to betray his friend valentine right okay she's fair and so is julia that i love that i did love for now my love is thawed which like a waxed image against a fire bears no impression of the thing it was huh it's like it's lost the form that julia had given his heart right and it's melting and taking on now the form of what sylvia right then now what uh proteus does is to reveal to the duke valentine's plan to elope with the daughter and he does it like you know very reluctantly you know like you know it's only his duty to the duke that makes him do this huh and of course the duke gets heard about proteus is you know being betrothed to julia so he thinks that you know proteus is quite safe with his daughter right and uh so many finds this out of course he you know exiles valentine from the court right under pain of death and so on and now proteus can what pursue sylvia without valentine around right and so on and uh the duke you know is hoping you know that sylvia will forget valentine once he's out of the court and so on so again that image you know, of losing the form, right? This weak impress of love is as a figure trenched in ice, which within hour's heat dissolves the water and doth lose his form. A little time will melt her frozen thoughts, and worthless valentine shall be forgot. Now, 12th night here. How easy is it for the proper false? And the proper false means what? A handsome villain, right? And so, how easy is it for the proper false in woman's waxen hearts to set their... Isn't that a beautiful metaphor, right? Because the wax was always being stamped with, what, the form of my seal and letters, right? You can actually buy sometimes, I see them in some of these gift shops, you know, we get the wax melted and staff you, that is that way, you know? Never had an application to do that, right? But it was a very common thing, it was a very common image all the time in those days, you know, you're always sealing letters with your thing. So, but, you know, a woman had more capacity, you know, to love than a man, huh? And so metaphorically he speaks of the woman's heart as being, what? Waxen as it is, it's easily, what? Formed by the proper false, right? His heart, like an agate, with your print impressed. That's a common thing in Shakespeare, they have little agates, I guess it was, with the person's portrait on it. I've seen pictures of them in books and so on. His heart, like an agate, with your print impressed. Proud with his form, right? In his eye, pride expressed. Again, you get the word impressed, right? Okay, so I say, you hear that in daily conversation sometimes, you know, that the two roommates go to the party and so on, and one notes that you made a big impression upon somebody, right? Okay? You made an impression upon this other person's, what? Heart, right? And then the heart has been acted upon by you and your good qualities, right? And that impression you made upon their heart is they're beginning to, what? To like you, okay? They like you a lot, okay? But that shows that loving isn't undergoing, right? So what Thomas is going to say, basically, in the articles, it is, huh? But then we have to explain, why is this other word used giving, too, though? Why? If it's really being wounded, being transformed by the loved, huh? It is certain I am loved of all ladies, only you accepted. And I would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard heart, for truly I love none. That's a common metaphor, too, right? A heart that is not apt to love is a, what? A hard heart, sometimes you'll see a stony heart, right? Like Olivia, you know, saying to this person that she loves, doesn't love her in return. I said too much into a heart of stone, right? So a hard heart, or a stone heart, is a heart that is not apt to love, right? Well, a soft heart, right, or a waxen heart, is apt to what? To love, right? But the soft is what receives, right? The hard is what gives, right? So when I soften the wax there, you know, and dribble it around the leather there, you know, and then I take the hard seal with the purposed coat of arms, right? So the hard acts upon the soft, right? So if the heart that is acted upon by the beloved, it's got to be a soft heart, then loving is a, what? Being acted upon. It's an undergoing. It's a suffering. It's a being wounded. All these different words they use, right? Bring that up. Now, these forms that act upon your heart, they come through your eyes. It's a danger in the eyes here, as far as Lawrence says. As love is full of unbefitting strains formed by the eye, and therefore like the eye full of strange shapes of habits and of forms, varying in subjects as the eye doth roll to every varied object in his glance. Of course, when Romeo goes to the house... So Juliet, right? His friends say, you know, I'm going to point you out some really good looking girls and you'll forget all about Rosalind because he's other girls. Of course, he himself, his own, right? Sees Juliet, right? And does forget all about Rosalind, huh? So another form comes in through the eyes. It's even more impressive, right? Impressive, right? And his heart loses the form it had, right? And now there's Juliet, beauty, impressed upon it. This next one talks about the imagination, right? As well as the eyes. Oh, spirit of love, huh? You know, so Shakespeare, what? Ties up spirit with love, right? That's part of the reason why the Holy Spirit is called spirit, huh? Oh, spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou, that notwithstanding thy capacity receiveth as the sea. That's what's the idea of receiving, huh? You know, love. Not enters there of what validity and pitch so err, but falls into abatement and low price, even in a minute. So full of shapes his fancy, that alone is high fantastical. Now, this first little text from Thomas is kind of anticipating what he's going to say in the first article that we're going to look at in Prima Secundi, right? That love is, what? An undergoing, right, huh? Let's just look at a passage here from the sentences. Love pertains to the desiring power, huh? To the heart. Which is an undergoing ability, he says, right? Whence the philosopher says in the third book on the soul that the desirable moves as an unmoved mover, but desire as a moved mover. But as everything undergoing is perfected as it is formed by the form of what acts upon it, and its motion ends and rests in this, thus the understanding before it is formed through the form of the understandable inquires and doubts. But when it has been informed with this, investigation seizes and the understanding is made firm in this, and then the understanding is said to adhere firmly to that thing. Likewise, when affection of the desiring power is entirely filled with the form of the good which is placed before it, it is in agreement with it and adheres to it as made firm in it, and then it is said to love it. Whence love is nothing other than a, what? Transformation. A metamorphosis, right? Of the affection of the heart into the thing loved, right? We'll say later on that love is a, what? Conformity of the heart with its, what? Object, right? The love, huh? So love is more a, what? Undergoing, a receiving, than it is a, what? Giving, right? Right? Okay? Okay? So why do we say then that love is a giving, huh? Why? When the first gift is what? Love is the first gift, huh? Why do we say that, right? Because giving is not receiving, right? That's the old saying, it's more divine to, what? Give than to receive, right? But we're talking about human love now, right? So not the same thing to give and to receive, are they? So most of these things, the passages we had about love, indicate that it's a receiving, right? It's a being wounded. It's a being transformed by the loved, right? It's not giving. I mean, you might give as a result of love, but is the loving itself a giving? Why do you say that? How do you justify the truth in saying loving is giving in the face of all this evidence that loving is being wounded? It's being transformed. It's suffering. How do you reconcile that? How do you reconcile that? How do you reconcile that? The Thomists are going to say, especially in the second article, that love is a what? Undergoing, right? If you look at the title, I don't know if you're going to look at it. Page 11 there, right? The second article. Whether love is an undergoing, that's the question. And he objects always, you know, to what he's going to include. But then, in the body of the article, he's going to maintain that love is an undergoing, right? So, how do you reconcile that with the word give being used in respect to love, huh? If that's what loving is, basically, undergoing, at least human love, right? Then how can you speak of love as a giving? Paul says, although it doesn't give an answer, it says the same thing. Where Christ loved me and gave himself for me. Yeah, yeah. I see, what you give someone because you love them, right? It's an effect of your love, but it's not the love itself, right? But is there a way in which the loving itself could be said to be giving, huh? You see that Juliet is giving her love to Romeo, right? She's giving her heart to Romeo, right? You can see that too, can't you? How can that be correct when it's Romeo, as he says to Fr. Lawrence, I was wounded, and someone else was wounded by me, right? When she was wounded by him, huh? And that's when she began to love. Yeah, so I got an act of receptivity. Well, I think the answer, really, is the answer to the Aristotelic is in the sixth book of wisdom, where he contrasts truth and goodness, right? He says that truth is chiefly in the mind, even though it's measured by things, right? Where do you find truth? Do you find it in the ground? Do we know there was any ground today there, out there, digging out there? Did you find any truth when you dig in the ground? Not out there. And if you go down to the ocean, or swim through the ocean, do you find the truth there in the ocean? Or if you fly through the air, or walk through the air, do you find truth in the air? Where do you find truth? Yeah, it's in statements, right? Which are primarily the mind, okay? If I say you are sitting, I'm true, right? Okay, that's a statement I made, right? So truth is chiefly in the mind. And we can also say that the thing known is known when it's in the knower. Okay? The thing known must be in the knower before it can be known. So if I recognize people, and I walk in here, or I walk in some other place, it's because I already have their shape and color and so on inside of me, right? And I recognize, right? In fact, Alzheimer's at least, I'll recognize you, right? Okay? And I'll have to have that. And that's why we say that knowing is a taking, basically. Okay? Or knowing is a what? Grasping. So we use the word grasping for understanding, don't we? Now, a professor might say, do you grasp what I'm saying? Meaning, do you understand what I'm saying, right? But when I grasp something, like I grasp this piece of chalk in my hand, it's contained in my hand, right? Okay? And that's like truth being in the mind. Okay? The thing known is in the corner. And so when you define something, right, if I want to grasp what a square is, I take the genus of square, which is quadrilateral, right? And then I take the differences, like equilateral and right-angled, right? Okay? I take all these things, get a firm grasp on them, and now I know what a square is, an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, right? So, a knowing is a grasping, right? Okay? Is that what loving is? A grasping? No, we don't say that, do we, right? And why not? Well, as Aristotle points out, good, for that matter, bad, good is chiefly in things. Okay? And so, let's say if in things virtue is something good, right, and vice is something bad, right, then for me to love virtue is something good, right, because virtue is something good, and to love vice is something bad, right, because vice in itself is something bad, right? Okay? And so, what love does is to attach me to what I love, right? So, if I love virtue, I'm attached to virtue. If I love God, I'm attached to God. If I love Mozart, I'm attached to the music of Mozart, right? If I love vice, I'm attached to vice, right? Okay? So, love, in a way, joins us to the thing in itself. And that's why there's a very important difference, right? And Plato and Aristotle, the chief philosophers in history, they're often pointing out how there is the same knowledge of opposites. Like in the symposium, the dialogue symposium, the last bit of conversation in the symposium is Socrates is talking to the tragic poet Agathon, who's won the prize that year, and the comic poet, what? Aristophanes, huh? He says, If you guys knew what you were doing, you, Agathon, could write comedies as well as tragedies. And you, Aristophanes, could write tragedies as well as comedies, huh? He's hitting at the idea that there's the same knowledge of opposites. And so, if you study, say, the Nicomachian Ethics of Aristotle, you'll learn both what virtue is and what vice is, huh? Okay? And knowing one helps you to know the other. So, in Aristotle, it defines moral virtue. It's a habit with choice existing in the middle, huh? Towards us is determined by the right reason. And the vice is going to be something in excess, or something, what? Falling short, right? So, the courageous man is in between the foolhardy man and the coward, right? And the generous man is in between the stingy man and the extravagant man, right? Okay? So, understanding what virtue is helps you understand what vice is, and vice versa, huh? Okay? The same way the medical doctor, right, in his knowledge of high blood pressure, is a knowledge of what healthy or normal blood pressure is, right? So, the knowledge of one opposite helps you know the other one, right? And if you know logic, you know how to reason correctly, and how to deceive as well, you see? And when I give a logic exam, I know what form is going to appear to some students to be good when it's bad, huh? They just know that. Just like no one would know better than a doctor how to make you sick, you see? And, uh... But now, is there the same love of opposites? Does my love of virtue help me to love vice? Does my love of truth help me to love falsity? No. But my knowledge of what is true helps me to know what is false, right? My knowledge of what is healthy helps me know what it is to be sick, right? But my love of health prevents me from loving sickness, right? My love of virtue prevents me from loving vice, right? But if I love vice, that's going to prevent me from loving virtue. See the idea? Now, why is it that there is the same knowledge of opposites, but not the same love of opposites? Or why is it that the knowledge of one opposite helps you to know the other opposite, right? You can't really know one without knowing the other. Why the love of one opposite impedes you and prevents you from loving the opposite? Why is that? Well, it's because the good and the bad are chiefly in things, and in things one excludes the other. So when you tend by your heart to one, you can't tend by your heart to the other. But in knowing, they go into the mind in the form of what? Thoughts and so on, right? And the thought of one opposite helps you to understand the words. See the idea? You can't love God. Yeah. So, the motion of knowing is what? Bringing things into the mind, huh? And one is having difficulty understanding something. One is having difficulty getting that inside one's mind, right? Okay? But love is tending towards a thing in itself. So, in the popular song, the word said, I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Or our Lord says, you know, laying up treasures for yourself in heaven. And where your treasure is, there also shall your heart be. So, love is more in the thing love, and the thing known is more in the Lord. It's just the kind of contrariety between love, therefore, and what? Knowledge, huh? Okay? And that's reflected, then, in the use of the word take, or grasp, for knowing, and give, for love. So, as you always say, it's always bad to lose your head. To lose your head, it's always bad. Okay? Is it always bad to lose your heart? Depends upon to whom or to which you lose your heart, right? Okay? To lose your mind is always bad. Well, you know, Shakespeare will speak of, but lovers and mad men have such shaping fantasies and so on, such seething brains, you know? Now, you compare a love to what? The heat, because the heat overflows, right? And you speak of cool reason, right? When you say keep your cool, right? Because the cold is not, what, overflowing and going out to other things, is it? See? That's what knowing is. It's pulling things into yourself, right? See the idea? I told you about when I was just teaching philosophy out in California. One student picked up on this idea of the same knowledge of opposites, right? And of course, at that time, ethics was required of everybody, right? Ethics course. And he said, you guys shouldn't really be teaching ethics, right? And I said, why not? He said, well, same knowledge of opposites, right? So, they learned not only what virtue is, but what vice is, right? And since you're all inclined to vice, he says, you're making them worse. That's the best argument I heard against teaching ethics, right? But the point is, you can't know one without knowing the other, right? If I know grammar, I know that I, is your professor, is incorrect, right? So, grammar enables me to speak correctly and incorrectly, right? So, it's always the same knowledge of opposites there. Mozart has a piece of music called The Musical Joke, in which he teaches us how not to write music, right? Now, there's some obvious mistakes in The Musical Joke, that everybody can recognize, huh? There are more subtle things that meaning composers fall into, right? And Mozart's showing how not to write. Okay? It's the same knowledge, right? Knowing how to write music and how it should not be written. When Aristotle determines how the way of science should be determined, he also shows how it should not be determined. Same knowledge with both. So this is the reason why we use the word give, right? Because your heart is going out to the, what, good which is in things, right? And therefore, love is more said, the heart is more said to be in what it loves, than what it loves is said to be in it. There's a way in which that can be said too, but it's more said to be in what it loves. So I say that in the popular song, I left my heart in San Francisco, right? But you might say, I'll keep you in mind. Right? I'll keep you in mind then. That's knowing, right? But there, if I was talking about, you know, if I keep San Francisco in mind, that's knowing, right? But if I love San Francisco, or something, or someone in there, that left my heart in San Francisco, right? Okay? Like Romeo says when he's banished there, you know, how can I go forward when my heart's back here, right? You know? Anthony goes off to Rome, you know, he's leaving his heart there with Cleopatra, right? Or Augustine says, you know, the soul is more ubi amat, kwam arima, right? The soul is more where it loves than what it animates, right? That's why you say, yeah, right? Not because in originally loving someone or something, you are giving something to that person or thing, right? But rather they are acting upon your what? Heart, right? Transforming your heart, right? Okay? You might give them, in the strict sense, something, right, as a result of that. But the loving itself is that they've made an impression upon your heart. They've transformed your heart. They've wounded your heart in some way, right? You see? So you're all right. Loving is basically for us undergoing it. Okay? And that's true from the romantic love, and all we have to this love that St. Teresa of Avila or St. Trismas you have, right? Where it's spoken of by both as a wound, right? And a wound is something you, what, receive rather than, yeah, right? But because the object of love is the good, and the good is chiefly in things, then the heart is said to be, what, in the thing love, right? And notice how, you know, you have to do something you don't like to do. I'm sure you've experienced that, right? And we have an interesting expression, you know. So I'm going to say, my heart's not, what, in it. It means I don't like to do this. My heart's not in it. You see the idea? So although loving for us is an undergoing, basically, right? There's a reason why we are said to give our love, or give our heart, right? But it goes back to what Aristotle points out, this is in the sixth book of wisdom, right? That the good is primarily or chiefly in things, right? And there's a lot of ways it's showing that, right? But one of the most fundamental ways it's showing it is the fact that love respects the condition of things, where one opposite, what, eliminates the other, right? So if I have normal blood pressure, that eliminates abnormal blood pressure, right? Or if I have abnormal blood pressure, or high blood pressure, something like that, that eliminates normal blood pressure, right? You have an overactive thyroid, right? That prevents you from having an accident. You might have to take an atomic cocktail or something, and people have had that. Oh, he's kind of frightened me, atomic cocktail. Or an unactive one, right? But as far as knowing is concerned, right? In the doctor's knowledge of overactive thyroid is what? A healthy thyroid, right? Could the doctor know I'm overweight without knowing what my weight should be? But in things, I can't have the weight I should have and be overweight at the same time. If I have the weight I should have, then I can't be overweight, can I? Or if I'm overweight, I can't have the weight I should have, right? One excludes the other, right? And so, when you can't love both opposites, but one love prevents the other, right? It follows the condition of the things themselves, right? Because good and bad are in the things. And as one excludes the other, so the love of one excludes the love of the other. But knowing is in the mind, right? And even contrary things are, what? In a way, the same knowledge, huh? And the very definition of ignorance is what? A lack of knowledge, right? So when I define ignorance as a lack of knowledge, and my knowledge of ignorance is knowledge, right? And when I, you know, understand what blindness is, right? Then my definition of blindness is a lack of what? Sight. Okay? But in things, right, sight and blindness exclude each other, don't they? I can't love both of those, right? If I love my sight, I must hate blindness, right? But if I know what sight is, that helps me to know what blindness is, right? In fact, I can't really know what blindness is without knowing what sight is, right? Do you see that? Yeah. That's why we use the word giving, and that explains, I think, why. I'm talking about the love itself, not what you might give someone because you love them. That's an effect of the love, right? And so there are many ways that the idea that love is undergoing was brought out, huh? The word suffering, the word wound, right? The word metamorphosis, huh? Transformation, huh? In many ways, you see that love is, as Thomas will teach, an undergoing. So I'm going to take a little break around here. Huh? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I have to stop around 430, but we'll look at this first article one. Now, Plato and Aristotle, many other philosophers before them, they had distinguished, as far as the emotions are concerned, they had distinguished two kinds, and in Greek, they are called epithumia and thumas, huh? What's that word out here? Thumas. And in Latin, they translate epithumia by concupiscible, naming it from the most known emotion of this kind of powerful emotions. It is desire for what is pleasing to the senses, right? And thumas, in Latin, they called it the irascible. And apithumia originally means desire, but it's used here not for desire, but for the ability for certain emotions, huh? And so Plato and Aristotle distinguished these two, huh? Now, what was the basis for this, huh? Well, epithumia follows upon what is pleasing to the senses, right? Well, epithumia follows upon what is pleasing to the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, the senses, Or what is painful or disagreeable to the senses of me, okay? Now, something pleases my senses, like candy pleases my senses, right? Then I like or love candy, right? If I don't have any, I want some. If I get some, I have joy, pleasure, right? So I have three possible emotions with regard to what is pleasing to my senses. If the music of Mozart pleases my ears, I like the music of Mozart, right? And then, if I don't have any around, I want to hear something. I desire to hear something, right? And when I hear it, I have joy, pleasure, delight, okay? And then there are three other emotions that encubes our appetite, which are with regard to what is disagreeable or painful to the senses. So if you give me a dish of salmon or something, right, okay? I hate the taste of that, so I dislike it intensely, okay? And if possible, I'll try to just not want it, but to avoid it, right? I'll turn away from it, right? But if I'm somewhere and it's served me and I have no alternative, then Father may try to conceal it from the host or hostess. I am sad within the pain, you know, okay? See that? Now, originally, I'm referring to six emotions, right? And in the will, there are acts like that, right? So when I know what wisdom is, I might start to love wisdom, right? If I don't have any wisdom, I might want wisdom, right? And if I succeed in getting some wisdom, I am the delight, joy. What does Augustine say? Heaven is gaudium de veritate, joy of truth, right? And if I know what vices is, I might, what, hate it or dislike it, right? And try to avoid it, right? But I'm saddened when I realize, look at myself in the mirror, see all my vices, okay? You see that? So these words like love and desire and hate and sadness, they can name emotions, right? Or they can name the more bodiless acts of the will, right, that are like them. Okay. Now, Thumas is really the fighter and defender of the concubisible. Because sometimes the good that I want is hard to get, right? Okay. And there are two emotions that can possibly arise at that point. Either hope of overcoming the difficulties, right? Which will make me persist in pursuing what I want, right? Or else despair, right? Of overcoming those difficulties, right? Okay. Now, likewise, the thing I hate and want to avoid, right, sometimes it's difficult to avoid. And then I feel fear from the bully or something in grade school. But if I think I can overcome this bully, then I have, what, boldness, right? Okay. Now, that's four of the emotions of the Thumas. Hope, and its opposite despair. Fear, and its opposite boldness, right? Okay. But there's also a Urascal one that arises from pain or sadness, and that's called anger. Especially if I think I can get rid of what is causing me sadness or pain, then I have, what, just tipping on my toes and causing me some pain, you know? I formulate a fact, and you say, so what? Well, you know, unless you're awfully big and I'm afraid of you or something, I'm going to get angry, right? And you know, shut it off me, you see? But there's no emotion irascible that arises from joy or pleasure. The difficulty of enjoying yourself, right? When you are enjoying yourself. yourself i should say okay so there's six emotions in the accused appetite and five in the irascible appetite now if you listen to uh the classical music and especially you know mozart who was the supreme musician there um you'll see that he uses different keys for these different emotions so for desire or joy he'll use a major key and for sadness he'll use a what minor key right if you had the two quintets he wrote right next to each other 515 and 516 the crucial number the joyful one is in c major and sorrowful one is in g minor okay you represent anger and despair and fear in the minor key but they represent hope and boldness in the major keys like maybe c major d major so my rhythm is going to do with the two differences um aristotle and thomas and so on saint john the cross vatican ii they recognize the four principal passions joy and sadness in the cubicle and hope and fear in the thomas and of course the two main forms of fiction now comedy moves us to mirth which is a form of joy and hope and tragedy to what pity which is a form of sadness and fear okay if you look at say the the constitution on the church in the modern world you know it says the church you know the joy is the sadness the hopes the fears you'll find those four together right you see treatises of saint john the cross of those four right and thomas would have articles on them to be the four principal passions right so um this treatise on love is um in the treatise on the emotions in the prima secunde right but britannis britannis you can apply it to the acts of the will you don't make the distinctions in here so he's going to talk about love he's going to talk about hate and talk about all these things but we're interested in love so he's asking is love belong to the epithumia to use appetite or to thomas right okay because the good or the bad as such pertains to the uh concubisible right but the difficulty of getting or avoiding difficulty getting the good or avoiding the bad or getting rid of the bad right thomas comes in right okay now as you know in the summa thomas will always object against the truth first okay and so let's look at this on page nine of your readings one proceeds thus to the first where the love is in the concubisal appetite and the latin word there is the what amor which names or the emotion right sometimes you'll see later on the word dilexio for the love of the will one proceeds thus to the first it seems that love is not in the concubisible desiring power for it is said in the book of wisdom in the old testament chapter 8 verse 2 i have loved and sought this wisdom but the concubisible since it is part of the sensible desiring power the power that desires as a result of some kind of sensing right is not able to tend to wisdom which is not harassed by sense therefore a love is not in the concubisible i assume that when he answers that objection he's going to point out the difference between the love which is an emotion and the love which is an act of the will right but there's the reason why i use the word love for both right but the love of wisdom is going to be more in the will than in emotions as soon as they do that we'll see okay the purpose may be a surprise right moreover love seems to be the same as any passion any emotion in latin they call the emotions the passions right which very well names that they're an undergoing right a suffering right we use the word emotion that implies you're being moved by the object huh for augustine says in the 14th book of the city of god for love longing to have what is loved his desire But having it and delighting in it is joy. Fleeing what is opposed to what is love, it is fear. But sensing this thing, being forced upon you, that's opposed to what you love, it's sadness. But not every passion is in the concubiscible, but fear, also enumerated here, is in the irascible. Therefore, it ought not to be said simply that love is in the concubiscible. Now, probably what Augustine is doing here is saying that love is the root of all the other ones, right? So I want something that I love but don't have. I have joy when I have something that I do love. I hate what is opposed to what I love, right? I fear what will take away or keep me from what I love, right? I have hope for overcoming the difficulties in getting what I love and so on, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But love is the cause of all the other emotions in some way. If I didn't love my body, I wouldn't hate sickness, right? Okay. Moreover, Dionysius, in the fourth chapter about the divine names, lays down a certain natural love. But natural love seems more to belong to the natural powers which belong to the living soul, the soul, you know, the plant. So you'll see the guy in the nursery saying, you know, now this plant loves a lot of sunshine or it loves a lot of water, right? Okay. I've heard broccoli say it's a big feeder, you know, it's a big feeder. It loves to eat, this plant. That's natural love, right? Okay. It likes sun or it doesn't like sun, you know? Therefore, love is not simply in the contibisible. But against this is what the philosopher, that's Aristotle by Antonio Messiah. I was reading the Greek there, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and there's an incident that appears, I think, in Matthew and I guess Mark, Luke, at several of the Gospels anyway, where Christ is, and it's often translated, God alone is good, right? You know, someone would say, good master. Why do you call me good? Why do you speak of good? And I think in a couple of the Gospels, the other Gospels, other than Matthew, it does say God alone is good. But in Matthew it says God is, hoagathos, the good one. That's by Antonio Messiah, right? The good one. To the good one. Yeah. Yeah. So he calls Aristotle by Antonio Messiah the philosopher. Okay. So the philosopher says in the second book about places, that's a book in logic, by the way, in dialect of reasoning, that love is in the concubisible. But Aristotle would say in Greek, epithumia, right? I answer that love is something pertaining to the ability to desire, since the object of both is something good. Hence there is a difference of love according to the difference of desire. There is a certain desire, a certain wanting, not following upon the grasping or the knowing, right, of the one desiring, but of the knowing or grasping of some other one. And this kind is called natural desire, right? So the plant wants sunshine or water, not because it, what, grasps what sunshine or water is, right? But because its inclination has been put into it by its maker, right? For natural things desire what is suitable to them according to the nature, not through their own grasping, that's the knowing, right? He's grasping in Latin there. But through the grasping, the understanding, of the one instituting nature, as has been said in the first book about, the first book of the Summon, there is over another desire following upon the grasping of the one desiring, but from necessity, not from free judgment, and such is sense, desire, and the beasts. So without having free judgment about what is good or bad, right? They do have, what, some kind of sense knowledge, huh? So the cat comes around the table and you're having some meat or something, huh?