Sacred Scripture
Lecture 3: Division, Definition, and the Structure of Logical Argument

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

But it makes sense, doesn't it, to divide into two? That's a good reason, right? Aristotle is talking about the dimensions being three, right? I mean, about dividing into three, right? He gives a sign, right, that three is the first number about which we say all. So if you and I are going to movies, we're both going. If the three of us are going to movies, we're all going, right? It's kind of strange, huh? Because you say we're all going. We emphasize that when we say to minimize something, we say all two of them, you can't use it. Yeah, yeah, well, I kind of, you know, y'all, you know, that's a little crucial language. But that's kind of a sign that's not as good a thing as the reason that you divide by opposites, right? But that's a sign that you divide into three, because you divide into all, right? And I don't know is that someone says that the word division, right, has related to the word to what? Empty something, right? You divide, you empty it out, right? Why is the word division used for the military formation? Do you happen to know? No, I don't know why it was adopted for that. I don't know. Why is a major called a major, right? Because he's not the major to everybody, right? Because the lieutenant is quite a place of, it seems like. Yeah, in lieu of him. He holds the place of something. Yeah, yeah. So my son's a lieutenant colonel, so he's a place of a colonel. It's funny because they always, you know, in speaking to them, they call you colonel, right? They don't say, lieutenant colonel. They say, colonel, you know? So there's a reason for dividing into two always, right? And there's a sign you should divide into three because you have to cover it all, right? So I combine into two and say divide into two or three, or both. And for the most part, at least, right? It seems that in most cases, right? But it's probably because, you know, you keep reading this Thomas guy, he's always dividing and subdividing into two or three, right? It's just a customer. A life of customers. I think, I don't really know what the etymology of divide is, but I would think it's the first part of the word DI, to see something as two. I think a cell division, that cell divides into two. I don't think it ever divided into three. I don't know. Ordinarily, if a cell divides into three, it divides into two. So how'd you divide the soldiers? Yeah, there are two premises, right? You divide the soldierism. Is the conclusion of the soldierism a part of the soldierism? Some people will speak that way to know better. Or is it an effect of the soldierism, right? So when they define the soldierism, they say it's speech, in which some statements lay down, another follows necessarily because of those laid down, right? So what's the soldierism composed of? Yeah. Yeah. And the other's like an effect of it, right? You know? And it's a little bit to say that the conclusion of the soldierism is a part of the soldierism, it's like saying the species defined is a part of the what? Definition. The definition has got two parts, the genus and the differences, right? Is the species a part of the definition? Now the species is kind of like the effect of that, right? Now you define the square as a equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral. Quadrilateral is a genus, right? And equilateral and right-angled are the differences, right? But square is not a part of the definition of square. It shouldn't be, you know? But the square is being made known by the definition, right? Now I know distinctly what a square is, right? And I have the definition. And so in the same way as the definition composed of genus and differences makes known the species, but the species is not a part of it. So the premises together, right, make known the what? Conclusion, right? The conclusion is not a part of the premises. That would be a logical fallacy, right? To have the conclusion be one of the premises. It's not really a part of the solution, I don't think. So are the children a part of the marriage? The marriage, yeah. The end of marriage, is it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you divided the family, you divide it into what? Probably either two or three, right? You do both, right? You divide it into the parents and the children, right? Or sometimes you divide it into the father and the mother. And the children, right? Seems like that's the way to go, right? Unless you're up to date. Then it's different. I remember my daughter's ten children, right? So I remember the four oldest are three girls and a boy. The four youngest are three boys and a girl. So it helps me even be a grandfather, right? Well, please talk about it. Logic for grandfathers. It helps you remember things. That's what I mean, yeah. The New York Times bestseller, I'm sure. Now we have to decide what we're going to do next, right? I don't know. And there are many things we can do next, I mean, huh? We can continue in the Second Pride Summa and go on to Faith, Hope and Charity, which you know are so important for this. What do we do then? I don't know. At least do those three. Or, if we believe that we proverb, Megatakon, Megatakon, we could go to the tertia powers, right, huh? We've done the incarnation before. We did the tertia powers before. We did the first 59 question, we did the sacraments. Oh, okay, okay. Or we can go back to philosophy and do some of the metaphysics or something, right? Or do the categories. Yeah. Or do the books on the soul. Yeah. So we'll have to... Now, you're gone next week? No, I'll be here next week. Next week. And then we'll be...