Love & Friendship
Lecture 11: Love's Effects: Union, Indwelling, and Ecstasy

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

The effect of love that he spoke of, that love makes as an efficient cause. It moves me to seek to be with you, or to be with the candy, right? Being upon a kind of love. And this is the real union which the lover seeks with the thing loved. This is the union we seek with God in the beatific white vision, right? But by charity, in the second sense, we're already attached to God, right? Okay? You see that? And this union is according to the suitability of love, for as the philosophy reports in the second book of the Politics, Aristophanes said that lovers desire from two to become one. But because from this it would happen that either that both or one of them would be corrupted, they seek a union which is suitable and fitting, as if they stay together and talk together and are joined in other things of this kind. Now, the third objection is a different kind of objection, right? It was arguing simply that union is more in effect of knowledge than of love, right? Thomas says no, it's reverse. To the third it should be said that knowledge is perfected through this, that the known is united to the knower by its likeness, right? Okay? But love brings about that the thing itself which is love is united in some way to the lover as has been said. Whence love is more unifying than what? Knowledge, right? Of course, you can see that expression is a bad thing, right? By knowing what badness is, it doesn't really make me a bad man, does it? But by loving what is bad, right? That really unites me with the bad, right? So a lot of times when Thomas talks about the three theological virtues, he'll say that faith gives us a knowledge of our end, our goal, right? By hope, we tend towards that goal, right? But by charity, we're already united to some extent with that in their goal, right? So charity then is greater than hope, and hope is greater than what? Faith, right? Interesting, right? But the fact that love unites us with the thing itself is the reason why charity remains even in the next life, right? Although in maybe a more perfect way, right? But faith doesn't remain because you don't see God as he is in this life, right? And so faith is replaced by the beautiful vision, right? And hope is replaced by the possession of God, right? But charity is not replaced, but may be perfected in heaven, huh? So let's look at the second effect of love here, right? So I say these first three effects of love are fairly closely related, but the second brings out some things that first doesn't, right? About this union. So the second effect of love is the mutuo adhesio, as he says in the Latin, right? Adhesio is like adhesive, right? Gluing together, right? Very smart. A mutual staying within. Now Anthony is being summoned back to Rome, right? Politics, right? Cleopatra is a bit upset. Come, he says, our separation so abides, remains, right? And flies, that thou residing here goes yet with me to Rome, right? And I, hence fleeting to Rome, here remain with thee, right? The sonnet, one of those loves here. And happy I that love and am beloved, for I may not be moved or be absent from, right? Nor be removed, right? So I'm within you and you're within me, because we love each other, right? Okay? Hermione. Why get you gone? Who is it that hinders you? A foolish heart to leave here behind. I left my heart in San Francisco, right? See? So it's simple that your heart is left with the thing you love, right? It dwells there with them. Oliver and Cecilia, those ones who were so much in love, we read about earlier, huh? You and you are what? Heart in heart. That's the conciseness of Shakespeare to express himself. You know, Washington Irving said to his nephew there at the end of his life, it's idle for the rest of us to claim any merit for our writings. Shakespeare. and maybe one or two others, he said, I said, oh, that's it. He said, I'm kind of marvelous, he said that, you know. But they named that period of English American literature, you know, the age of Washington Irving, right? He's really marvelous, right, you know, but, you know. He said that Pierre Irving was his nephew, just helping him, you know, in there in this, I think, this biography of, like, of Washington. Title for me, you know. Cleaning Mary for writing Shakespeare's son called Shakespeare one or two others, you know, he didn't mention that one or two others are, that's marvelous, you know, marvelous. Dr. Connick's saying to me, you know, and I asked him this question, I gave him my doctoral thesis, you know. He said, what are you asking me for, Dr. Connick? What's he asking me, you know? It's not going to ask anyway, so. It's kind of marvelous, I mean, it's humility, you know. But St. Teresa of Avos says, humility is the truth, right? There's nothing false about this, you know. And you know my inwardness, son. Inwardness, we have another word sometimes, intimacy, right? But inwardness, right? I'm within you and you're within me, right? There's a staying within of us. And you know my inwardness in love, right? Well, love is the cause and inwardness is the, what? Effect of the love, right? It's very much unto the prince and Claudio within each other. I would have had not known him. It was the death of the most virtuous gentleman that every nature had praised for creating. If she had partaken of my flesh and cost me the dearest groans of mother, I could not have owed her a more rooted love, right? Myself have often heard him say and swear that this is love was an eternal plant. Whereof the root was fixed in virtue's ground. The leaves and fruit remain maintained with beauty, son. That's the idea, you know, of being, what? Dwelling within. The Latin word has got the idea of, what? Almost a glue, adhesi, all right? Get rid of adhesi, right? I think Thomas' text would make sure adhesi, all right? The idea of being rooted within the other person, right? Which you love, right? But this exceeding posting, day and night, must wear your spirits low. We cannot help it. But since you have made the days and nights as one, to wear your gentle limbs in my affairs. Be bold, you do so, grow in my recital as nothing cannot hurt you, right? So you grow into me, right? You know, like a transplant almost, right? You know, when a plant draws and goes on. I think it's a very nice metaphor that Shakespeare has there in these two or three passages here. Duncan, the great king to Macbeth and Banquo, who have done great service in the war there. Welcome hither, I have begun to plant thee, right? In my own heart, right? Again, that same metaphor, plant, right? And will labor to make thee full of growing, huh? Noble Banquo, thou hast no less deserved, nor must be known, no less to have done so. So let me enfold thee and hold thee to my heart, right? So the idea of staying within me, right, huh? Being enclosed in my heart. And how's it called it ends well? I grow to you, right? That same metaphor. And our parting is a tortured body, right? You know, a tortured body is being torn apart on the rack, right? So in a sense, our being separated is like being, what? Physically torn apart, right? There's some kind of blightness there, right? Which would become a part of me, right? So it's like being torn apart when you are separate from me. I wish you had bestowed this totes on me, says Don Pedro, right? I would have daft all the respects and made her half myself, made her my wife, right? But again, that's even part of me if you're half of myself, right? On Anthony Cleopatra, of course, Anthony goes back and marries, what? Octavia Senior's sister, right? Who's the very uninteresting woman, but... Anthony will use his affection where it is. He's back in Egypt with Cleopatra. He married by his occasion here, right? Okay. But his affection, his heart is still back in Egypt with... Let's get back, right? Hence, ever then, my heart is in thy breast. Your heart is where your treasure is, right? It is my soul that calls upon my name, where we saw Portia referring to her husband as your soul, right? And now Romans referring to his wife as his soul, right? It is my soul that calls upon my name. It's usually the way he says those things, right? Can I go forward when my heart is here, huh? See, the Lord says, where your treasure is, there your heart shall be, right? Can I go forward when my heart is here? Turn back, don't earth, and finally send her out. Of course, you see, the gutter is that same idea. The weight of being your love, right? You tend for it wherever it is, right? But be contented when that fellow rests without all bail, or shall carry me away. My life hath in this line some interest, which for memorials still with thee shall stay. When thou reviewest this, thou dost review, the very part which consecrate to thee. The earth can have but earth which is as due. My spirit is thine, the better part of me. So then thou hast but lost the drugs of life, and I die, right? The prey of worms, my body being dead. The coward conquests a wretch's knife, to base of thee to be rumored. The worth of that is that which it contains. And that is this, and this is the remains. Perfect. I think mutual staying within. So now we come to the article of Thomas. Where the mutual staying within is an effect of love. One goes forward thus to the second. It seems that love does not cause a mutual staying within. That is to say that the lover is in the loved and the reverse. For what is in another is contained in it. For the same cannot be contained or contained. So if the water is in the, what, glass, the glass can't be in the water, right? So how could I be in you and you in me, right? That shows the difference between the spiritual staying within and the material staying within, right? Thomas says one of the articles there for the material to the mind. That I could be in your mind and you could be in my mind, right? But one body could not be another body and that body be in it, right? Shows the difference between the mind and the body, huh? Love is like the mind, huh? Material. Moreover, nothing can penetrate into the inside of some whole without division. But to divide what are joined in the thing does not pertain to the desiring power in which love is, but to reason. Now you notice what it takes to define reason, right? It's the ability for a large discourse, right? Looking before and after, right? But nothing is before or after itself, right? So reason also includes the ability to distinguish, right? And therefore when Hamlet says, since my dear soul was mistress of her choice, and could a man distinguish, right? Well, it's a reason that could distinguish, therefore, and divide and get inside of things, right? So how can you say that love makes you get inside of the love, right? Well, it's a reason that divides and distinguishes, right? Of course, we know that knowledge is a cause of love, right? So if the mind can get inside of things and divide them, then love can follow, what? Just like the needle, right? If that can penetrate, then the thread goes along with the needle, right? Moreover, if the lover through love is in the love, then vice versa, it follows that the love is in this way joined to the lover, just as the lover is a love. But this union is itself love, as has been said. Therefore, it follows that always the lover is loved by the love, which is clearly false. Therefore, mutual staying within is not an effect on love. Now, Thomas is going to defend mutual staying within, even if I love something and it doesn't love me in return. right? But even more so if I love someone and they love in return, there's even more of this mutual staying within, right? But on the other side is what is said in the first epistle of John. Of course, John's epistle is very much about love, right? Who remains in charity, agape, remains in God and God in him, right? So that's a mutual staying within, right? Of the one who loves God and God. Charity over is the love of God. Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the love to be the lover and vice versa. I answer, Thomas says, that this effect of mutual staying within can be understood as regards to knowing power and as regards to desiring power, right? And both of them is going to be mutual staying within, right? For as regards to knowing power, the loved is said to be in the lover insofar as the loved remains within the knowledge of the lover. So I keep you in mind if I love you, right? According to that in the epistle to the Philippians, in that I have you in mind, right? So if I love you, you're on my mind. I keep you in my mind, right? I don't forget you, right? But then vice versa, he said, the lover is said to be in the loved by knowledge insofar as the lover is not satisfied the superficial knowledge of thee. That should be thought. He loves. But strives to search into everything which pertains to the loved, huh? Okay? Just as it is said about the Holy Spirit, who is the love of God in the first epistle of the Corinthians. He searches even at the depths of God, right? So if I love the plays of Shakespeare, right? I enter into all the details of the play, right? You see? If I love the music of Mozart, right? I enter into the particular parts, right? If I love the cell dressing, you know, what do you use in your cell dressing? You know, I want to get inside the cell dressing, right? So in terms of knowing, if I love something, I keep it in mind, right? And I seek also by my mind to get inside of it, into its parts and the details of it, right? Do you see that? You know, the division of two and three, right? So I get the details of each other. But as regards the desiring power of the heart, the loved is said to be in the lover according as it is in his affection to a certain agreement, a certain conformity of his heart to the object, right? So that he delights in it or in its good when present. Or when absent, he tends towards the loved itself to the love of wanting. Or to the goods he wills to the love, the love of friendship. And not from some cause when someone desires something for another thing. Or when someone wishes good to another because of something else. But because the agreement of the loved is rooted within. And that's the same word that Shakespeare was using in four or five of those things we saw, right? Interesting the way the greatest of the poets, the Shakespeare and the greatest of the theologians here, Thomas, you know. He's got an idea rooted within, right? Once love is said to be intimate, which is the Latin word for inward, right? And the bowels the church here mentioned, right? Very concrete way of talking about the innerness. Conversely, the lover is in the love, but in one way by the love of wanting, another by the love of friendship. For the love of wanting does not rest in the extrinsic or superficial attaining on German love, but seeks to have perfectly the love by arriving with intimate parts of it. So if you like some food, you really, what? Mmm, savory, right? Trying to get inside of it, right? In the love of friendship, the lover is in the love, insofar as he considers the good or bad things or the friend is his own. So if something bad happens to my friends, like I hurt myself, right? And I feel that it's a little bit like I was him, right? So I'm in the one I love, but I love what? Friendship, right? If something happens to my children or something, right? See? And I feel. This is if it happened to myself, right? What's the parents say when they beat the kid? It hurts me more than it hurts you, right? But in a sense it does, right? And the will of the friend as his own. So that he seems to undergo and to be effective as if in his friend. And because of this, it is a property of friends to wish the same things, and to sorrow and rejoice in the same. According to the philosopher in the 9th book of the Nicomachean Ethics and the 2nd book of the Rhetoric, Thomas was the most faithful and the most humble student of Aristotle. No question about that. The tonic says in his introductory essay, right? Plus fidel and most humble, right? Student of Aristotle. Thus the lover, insofar as he regards what belongs to the loved as his own, seems to be in the loved, is made the same as the loved, right? However, insofar as conversely, he wills and acts with a friend as for himself, as considering the friend the same as himself, thus the loved is in the loved. All of this is not dependent upon the one you love, being able to, or actually loving you in return, right? But then he adds in the last paragraph, mutual staying within and can be understood in a third way, in the love of friendship according to the way of returning love. Insofar as friends mutually love one another and will and do good for each other, right? Okay? Now the first objection was saying how can both be in each other, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the loved is contained in the lover insofar as it is pressed upon his emotions by certain agreement. Conversely, the lover is contained in the loved insofar as the lover pursues what is intimate in the loved. Nothing ever prevents something from being contained in the container and contained in diverse ways, as the genus is contained in the species and vice versa. This is going back to Aristotle's famous text in the fourth book of physics, right? Aristotle distinguishes eight senses of in and out. And one sense of in that Thomas refers to is the genus is in the species, right? So animal is in man, right? In another sense, the species is in the genus where man is in animal. So it's possible two things to be inside of each other but in different ways of being inside of each other, right? So Thomas is going back to Aristotle's being the most faithful and humble student of Aristotle, right? It goes back to that famous text. Aristotle refers to that again in the fifth book of wisdom when he says two things can be parts of each other, a different kind of part, right? So animal is a part of the definition of man, right? Because man is an animal that has reason, right? But man is a part of the genus animal, right? Which contains dog and cat and horse. So in one sense, man is a part of animal, a particular kind of animal, right? In another sense, animal is a part of the definition of man, right? So animal can be a part of man and man a part of animal but not by the same meaning of part, right? You see? Man can't be a part of the definition of animal and animal can't be a part of a particular kind of man except metaphoric. You see the idea? But man can be a part of the genus animal, right? A particular kind of animal. An animal can be a part of the definition of man, right? You see the idea? In the same way the word in, right? One thing can be in one thing in one sense, right? And vice versa. The other can be in it. So man is in the genus animal. An animal is in the definition of man. You see? But different senses of being in, right? So you've got to go back to the book of Natural Hearing. You've got to go to eight books of Natural Hearing like that, you know? So you can pull these things out, right? Otherwise Thomas would be lost, right? Without his teacher or stone. I told you that famous dinner there where they're honoring Charles de Connick and Jacques de Molion at the ball there, you know, for their... I know, 25 years old, I was at Laval, you know. And, of course, they praised him, and so they had to come and say a few words afterwards, right? So Jacques de Moulion spoke first, and he thanked him, you know, for all these nice things they said about him. He said, well, you shouldn't have been praising me. He said, you should have been praising Thomas and White. But then the kind of guy got to get up, you know, and he says, well, he says, well, I'm sorry, he said, but you shouldn't have been praising Thomas. You shouldn't have been praising Aristotle. But it's kind of, you know, you frame my comparison there, you know. One reason in divine providence for the non-conversion of many of Jews, right? And one good that God brought out even of the violent opposition of many Jews to the early church, right? Like you read about in the Acts of Apostles now every day, we almost see in the Acts of Apostles, you have this. Well, the Jews who were violently opposed to the new church were witnesses to the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament, whose prophecies, right, refer to Christ, right? So when the Christian preachers referred to the books of the Old Testament in confirmation of their faith, right, people might say, well, he invented those books, you know. But here your violent enemies, the unconverted Jews, were witnesses to the authenticity of the very books in which the Christians reason, right? The same way now, the fact that Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle thought out many of these things, right, without the faith, right, is a sign, right, that these things are naturally knowable, right, without the faith, right, you know. And like I tell the students, so you know, Plato in his last work, The Laws, the Athenian Strangers, he's called, right, the dialogue, he proposes a law against homosexuality, right? And the reason he gives is that it's against nature. I say, well, now, Plato lives in a society where this vice was quite prevalent and quite tolerated and so on, huh? But here he can follow nature, right, in opposition even to the customs of his time, right? So if I say I'm opposed to homosexuality, it's not just because I happen to be a Catholic, right, huh? But I can say, hey, with Plato, I can say it's against contrafussion, as he says, against nature, right? But if these Greek philosophers had not done these things at a time when Christianity was not around, you might say, well, they just, you know, kind of support their Christian faith, right? I think it's kind of interesting to see that, you know. I always mention, you know, my cousin there, one of my cousins who was in, you know, I've never gotten to college like that, you know, but she's kind of interested in good things and so on. And she got enrolled in one of these, you know, minor Greek books programs, you know, they had these little excerpts from the Greek books and so on. But she ran across some of these texts from Aristotle and God, and she was just absolutely amazed by them, right? That this pagan, you know, could know this much about God, you know, that she would know as a Catholic, you know. And that's good to see, I think, you know, because it shows, huh? And, you know, what St. Paul says in Romans 1, verse 20, you know, that invisible things of God are made known, but things are made. He's talking about the pagan philosophers, right? And it's good to know that these things are knowable by natural reason, right? So I make kind of an analogy there, right? You know, that something in divine providence in men like Clayton Aristopoulos, although it would have been better for them to have been exposed maybe to the Catholic faith, right? But the fact that they philosophized without the Catholic faith and arrived at some understanding of what was naturally good and naturally bad and so on is a sign that these things can be known without the, what, faith, right? And therefore, we're not simply imposing our faith, as we're accused of doing all the time these days when we say we're opposed to sexuality or whatever it might be, you know. We're opposed to these things also, maybe even first of all, because they're unnaturally, okay? Now to the second, which is an objection there, but isn't this idea of getting inside a thing and so on... involve dividing and distinguishing, and isn't that the work of reason? Thomas doesn't deny that, but he says, to the second it should be said that the knowledge of reason receives the affection of love. That's one of the causes of love, right? And therefore, as reason inquires within, so the affection of love enters deeply into the loved, as is clear from what has been said, right? Okay? So it's the thread that penetrates the cloth or the needle. Does the thread get inside the cloth? Well, the thread can't penetrate the cloth, can it? It's a needle, like it's, you know, see? But the thread follows the needle, right? You go in there, right? And so, because reason can get inside of things, and love, which is an effect of knowledge, can get inside of things, right? We speak, you know, of a good student as being diligent, right? Which means that he penetrates the subject, right? Interesting, we use the word diligent, which comes in the word for what? Love, right? And the third objection was talking about there's sometimes love without mutual love, right? But even without mutual love, there's still mutual staying within, right? So if I love the girl, and she doesn't love me to return, I keep her in my mind, right? And I observe her, and try to get inside, and know the details of her, right? But there'd be even more mutual staying within if she doesn't love me to return, right? Okay? Shall we take a little break here before we have ecstasy here, huh? Okay? He's guessing the right casket, you know, you know, the story, don't you? Goes way back in English, in European literature, right? You have to choose one of these three caskets, and if you choose the right one, you get the girl, right? Choose the wrong one, you can't never marry anybody. You have to swear you'll never marry anybody if you don't choose the right one. But Sonia chooses the right one. She's the man she wants, too, right? So she's saying, she seems to be making the right choice. Oh, love be moderate, huh? Allay the ecstasy, right? The love is so strong that she's going to ecstasy. In measure reign thy joy, like the great wise men of Greece said, right? Know thyself. They didn't say what? Love yourself. They said know thyself, and nothing too much. You can't marry each other, right? Especially if you love yourself. In measure reign thy joy, right? Scant the success. I feel too much thy blessing. Make it less for fear I serve it, right? Now Polonius has concluded that Hammon is mad because he's in love with, what? Ophelia, right? And, of course, being a prudent father, he's told Ophelia don't, you know, give in to this prince because princes don't marry, you know, commoners, right? They marry princesses, right? And so he's gone mad because he's in love with her, right? And she's not becoming his love. This is the very ecstasy of love, right? He seems to be, what? Beside himself, we say sometimes, right? Well, if you're beside yourself, you're out of yourself, right? Ecstasis means, what? To stand outside of, out from yourself, right? So he says, this is the very ecstasy of love whose violent property foredoes itself and leads the will to desperate undertakings as oft as any passion under heaven that does afflict our natures, right? So does love make you better or afflict you, huh? And again, talking about now women's love here. And the ecstasy hath so much overborne her that my daughter is sometimes afeard or afraid, right? She would do a desperate outrage to herself, right? And Proteus, in the words you saw before, he's talking about his friend Valentine, he after honor hunts, I after love. He leaves his friends to dignify them more. I leave my friends, myself, my friends and all for love, right? So he's left himself, right? He's gone out of himself, right? Fact of love, right? Go out of yourself. And Romeo says, I have lost myself. I am not here. This is not Romeo. He's some other word. Okay? Now Ferdinand wants, I love it first. He sees Miranda on the island there in Tempestown. Oh, if a virgin, that's condition number one, right? And your affection not gone forth, I'll make you the Queen of Naples, right? So if you're not in love with somebody else, your affection has not gone forth, right? Out of yourself, right? Now, Leontes is the father of Hero, right? And Hero's been falsely accused in this love and friendship play. But mine, in mine I loved, in mine I praised. Notice the connection between love and praise there, right? That's what heaven would be like. Be a loving God and what? Praising God, right? In mine that I was proud on, mine so much. This little, what? Daughter, only daughter that he loved, right? That I myself was to myself, not mine. Value of her, right? Sometimes you see this in parents, right? They're so attached to the child, right? They seem to, you know, forget themselves, right? To go out of themselves, identify themselves with the good of that, what? Child, right, huh? Everything's blasted, you know, the false accusations against her. Now, Capulet, again, is another father with his daughter there, huh? And Juliet is found apparently dead on her wedding day. Terrible. You can't imagine. On that dead wedding day. Oh me, oh me, my child, my only life. And of course, the wife says, revive, look up, for I will die with thee. Oh child, oh child, my soul, and not my child. That's the same thing that the husband and wife's on the side. My soul, and not my child, right? So he's identifying himself. He's now in love to her. Dead art thou, like my child is dead. And with my child, my joys are buried. So, Thomas here. Whether ecstasy is an effect of love. One goes forward to the third thus. It seems that ecstasy is not an effect of love. For ecstasy seems to bring in some alienation of mind. Now we saw that, right? An example there of Hamlet being mad, right? And he went for much to do but nothing, right? Which went to the side of someone. For ecstasy seems to bring in some alienation of mind. But love does not always make alienation. So lovers are sometimes, once in a while, in full possession of their mental powers. Therefore, love does not make ecstasy. Moreover, the lover wants the love to be united to himself. Therefore, he draws the love to himself more than he goes forward to the love going outside of himself. Now, Thomas is going to distinguish between the two kinds of love, right? If I have the love of wanting, then I'm more trying to draw the object into myself, right? But if I have the love of wishing well, then I'm going to undergo ecstasy, haplo, simplicity, without qualification, right? Why, my love of candy is only ecstasy in the very, what, qualified sense, right? Because I go out of myself for candy to bring it back to myself, right? But if I really wish well to somebody for their own sake and not for the good I get out of it, right? Then I seem to go entirely outside of myself, right? And this is where the saints are in respect to the love of God, right? Now, the third objection, moreover loves joins the loved to the lover, as has been said. If, therefore, the lover tends outside himself so that he may go into the loved, it follows that he always loves the loved more than himself, which is clearly false. Therefore, ecstasy is not an effect of love. So one undergoes ecstasy, especially in the full way. One seems to be loving the beloved more than oneself, right? Okay? And can one love the loved more than oneself, right? That's the question, eh? Okay? But on the other side is what Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names. That divine love makes, what, ecstasy, right? And that God himself undergoes ecstasy because of love, right? That's sort of when he became man, but basically outside of himself, isn't it, right? and taking on the form of a slave, right, as St. Paul says. Since then, every love is some participating likeness of the divine love, as is said there by Dionysius, it seems that any love causes some kind of, what, ecstasy, right? I answer that someone is said to undergo ecstasy when he is placed outside himself, right? That's what the very etymology of the word ecstasy is, to stand outside of oneself, right? Which happens, he says, both according to the grasping power, the knowing power, right, and according to the heart, the desiring power, right? Now, according to the knowing power, someone is said to be placed outside himself when he is placed outside the knowledge proper to him, either because he is lifted up to a higher one, as man when he is raised up to comprehending some things which are above sense and reason is said to undergo ecstasy. So when St. Paul was carried up to the third heaven, as he describes in the Corinthians there, right, he seems to undergo ecstasy on the side of the knowing powers, right? Whether in the senses or not, I don't know, right? I was outside of myself, right? Okay? In heaven, right? Seeing God. Insofar as he is placed outside the natural knowledge of reason and sense. Or because he is pressed down, right? That's in the bad sense of ecstasy, right? As when someone who falls into fury or madness is said to undergo ecstasy, right? And then he's mad, right, huh? He's gone outside his reason, right? He's acting out of his imagination, right? Okay, that's ecstasy, but now what? In the bad sense, right? So you can go ecstasy above your natural way of knowing, right? Or ecstasy falling out of your natural way of knowing below, right? By the desiring power, by the heart. Someone is said to undergo ecstasy when his desire is carried into another, going forth in some way outside himself. Now, he says, love is the cause of these two kinds of ecstasy in a different way, right? Love makes the first ecstasy by way of what? Disposition. Insofar as it makes one meditate on the love, as has been said. Intense meditation on one thing withdraws from what? Other things. So if you love God, that disposes you for ecstasy on the side of your knowing powers, right? For being carried out of your natural way of knowing, huh? But now love makes the second ecstasy directly. But now he distinguishes, as we were saying, between the two kinds of love, right? The love of friendship, simply, and the love of wanting, not simply, but in some respect. Now, we've talked about that kind of distinction before, haven't we? And in Greek, they'll say, Aristotle will say between haplos and not haplos, right? Or in some way. In Latin, Thomas will, you should say, simpliciter, in secundum quid, right? Okay? But simpliciter means fully and completely, right? Without qualification, right? In secundum quid means in some very qualified, limited, and perfect way, right? And this is the kind of distinction we make, what? In every part of philosophy, right? We've talked about that before, haven't we? Okay? So, I'll take the example from ethics there, I think, before, right? You annoy me, so I murder you, right? Is it good to murder you? Yeah. I mean, if my little boy or little girl asked me, you know, I'd say, no, not good, right? Okay? It's only in a very qualified way, huh? It doesn't move an annoyance in my life, right? That's in a very qualified way. That's good, right? Okay? People commit, you know, abortion or, you know, it's a form of murder. But second, it's a career, right? It can avoid, you know, something or other, right? So, it's good to secundum quid, right? In a very limited, imperfect way, right? So, he's saying the love of friendship, the love of wishing well, right? The love of wanting, they both create ecstasy, but... The first simply, and the other only in a very, what, limited way, right? For the love of wanting, the lover is in some way carried outside himself insofar as not content to rejoice in the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside of himself, right? Gotta have a bottle, gotta have some candy, gotta have a steak, gotta have some chips, gotta... But because he seeks to have the extrinsic good for himself, right? He does not go outside himself simply, but such an affection in the end is enclosed within himself, right? But in the love of friendship, the affection of someone goes outside himself simply, because he wills good to his friend as having care and foresight over him for the sake of the friend himself, right? And so in those examples there of the parents there, right? You see, they will good to the child, their child, right? Not because they're going to get some good out of themselves, right? So they've gone, you might say, simply out of themselves, right? Okay? Okay, let's go back and look at the first objection, right? Making it a nation of mind, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that reason proceeds... That that reason proceeds in regard to the first ecstasy, where you go out to something less than a man, right? So Nebuchadnezzar, right, he went mad, didn't he? He was down the ground eating the grass, wasn't he? Isn't that what he described? Yeah. He's undergone ecstasy, but in the bad sense, right? Okay? Now not every love produces that kind of ecstasy, right? A second objection was taken from what? The love of wanting, really, right? Thomas says, to the second it should be said that that reason proceeds about the love of wanting, which does not make ecstasy simply, as has been said, right? So am I in ecstasy in regard to the candy? Well, in a very qualified sense, but I really, you know, go out to myself, sticking candy, you know, stopping at the stores on the way to find some candy. It's all to bring it back to my stomach and my mouth, right? Okay. So notice that Thomas has a distinction there, right, between the two kinds of love and the kind of ecstasy that they, what, produce, right? You see that? I think it's all nicely tied there. Those are together, right? Now does this mean, though, in the third objection, that if you have this love or friendship, that you love your friend more than yourself? When Christ says, greater love than this hath no man until he does life for his friends, right? It might appear that in laying my life down for my friend, that I'm loving him more than myself, right? Is that, in fact, true? Because what I'm choosing for him is the continuation of his mortal life, right? What I'm choosing for me is this most noble deed, right? Which is the greater good, see? This noble deed of dying for my friend, right? Or the continuation of his mortal life, which is the greater good. We have to be a materialist to think that the continuation of mortal life is the greater good, right? So even Christ, in choosing to die for us, right, and to die a most painful, right, and a most shameful, you might say, death, right, he's choosing the better thing for himself, right? Okay. And even in the off-quoted lines of Dickens' novel there, The Tale of Two Cities, right? Where the one man gives his life for the other man, right? And it's a far, far better thing that I've done than I've ever done before, right? You know, they all quote those words, right? And he sees in some way that he has chosen the, what, the better part, right, huh? Okay, so Thomas could expand more on this, but to the third, it should be said that the one who loves goes outside himself to the extent that he wishes and does what is good for his friend. You might say for his own sake, right? Nevertheless, he does not wish... the goods of his friend more than his own whence it does not follow that he loves the other more than himself right so that's a kind of a subtle point there right you know but the average man would see the man who dies for another as what apparently loving the other man more than himself right maybe that's not really true unless you think that the good of the body is the greatest good right but it ain't okay the good of the soul in that and the good of the what uh virtue of courage or whatever it might be right it's a greater good now the last three effects of love here we just begin to look at this a little bit here you know now as i mentioned before i didn't divide this into this because the first three effects go together and then the last three together the first four effects go together right okay because the first four effects are in reference in some way to the what the loved okay but the difference between the first three effects and fourth effects but the first three effects are talking about the loved itself and the fourth effect is about what either threatens to harm the beloved right or what impedes one from getting or enjoying the beloved right okay so if i love someone or something if i love someone by the love of a friendship of wishing well then i will move against what threatens to harm the one that i wish well to right if i have the love of wanting for someone or something right then i'll move against what prevents or impedes me from getting or enjoying what i want right do you think so still on the side of the loved in a way right that fourth article but it's different in the first three because you're talking about now something in addition to the loved right namely what impedes one from the loved right or what threatens to harm the loved right and then one is uh going to move against that thing right okay do you see that now uh there's a problem in uh the translation because in the latin you have the same word for jealousy or zeal right and maybe see etymologically she first part jealousy there in zeal they're really kind of etymologically the same but in english now zeal is more of the sense of what moving against what threatens to harm the one you love but the love of wishing well right and jealousy is more um one's moving against what impedes you from getting or enjoying what you what uh love right okay but i use both words because the english you don't have one word that captures both right okay but when our lord you know casts the money changes out of the temple right and it says zeal for my father's house right okay well that's uh that effect he's talking about here right okay because he loves his father and his father's house he knows his father's house is foreign and so on then he moves against those who are what harming the father's house right or degrading the father's house and so on right so if i love my children and wish well to them then when you're using my children for target practice or whatever it might be i move against you right you see out of zeal for my children i am you insult my wife and i move against you right because i wish well to her right now okay but then you have this jealousy you know where a person um uh pursuing the woman or something and he or someone's pursuing his wife or something like that, and then he moves against them, right, because they're impeding him, right, from getting or enjoying this particular thing, yeah? Okay. You see that? So it's well-ordered what Thomas has here, right, huh? Belongs to the wise to order, as Aristotle said, right? Trois and Cressida. More vindicative, right, than jealous love. Interestingly, Shakespeare writes, you know, he'll put sometimes the cause and sometimes the effect is an adjective modifying something, so you have to stop and think, right? So he speaks of jealous love, right? Love is grammatically speaking the noun, and jealous is the adjective, right? And the adjective here means what? The cause and effect of love. But now, sometimes Shakespeare would do the averse, right? And he'll put the cause, right, huh? Proud contempt. Right? Well, is proud or pride referring to the cause or the effect of contempt? Yeah, yeah. So he, an interesting way of writing, yeah? Where either the cause or the effect of something can be put in the form of an adjective modifying it, right? That's a passage you had earlier there from Romeo there. Loving hate, was it? Is love the cause of hate or hate the cause of love? Love is the cause of hate, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So because I love the house of the Capulets, right? Or I love the house of the Montagues, right? Then I hate the opposite house, right? You see? So he asks, does it have more to do with love or hate? You know, this fight between the Capulets and Montagues, right? You might say, well, they fight each other because they hate each other, right? Why do they hate each other? Because they love their house, they want their house to be preeminent, right? You see? So, if I want my house to be the supreme house in Verona, right? And I hate your house, it also aspires to be the chief house. You see? So it's love and hate, right? Well, then the adjective is the cause, or refers to the cause of the noun, right? But here it's the, what? Effect. Jealous love. But it gives a precedence, I mean, a brevity is the soul of wit, right? It gives a brevity to Shakespeare's way of speaking. Two gentlemen of Verona. My foolish rival. Valentine, of course, is in love with the daughter of the duke there. And, of course, the duke has got in mind to marry his daughter off, maybe, too. I would show money bags, huh? My foolish rival that her father likes, huh? Only for his possessions are so huge, right? He's gone with her along, and I must after her. For love thou knowest is full of jealousy. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha