Prima Secundae
Lecture 22: Vision and Pleasure in Beatitude; The Trinity and Reason

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Praise the Lord. And help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. I forget now sometimes what I've said to you guys, but I've said 200 people before you. You know, so forgive me if I beat myself sometimes. But as Pederke says, what is worth saying can be said more than once. Now I was thinking the other day of the connection between Shakespeare's definition of reason, right? His exultation, to use reason. And the greatest object of the human mind. Now what is the greatest object of the human mind? What? I think God. Yeah, that's close. But maybe you could say even more precisely the Holy Trinity, right? Okay? That's kind of the greatest object of the human reason, right? Okay? Now, how do you get from Shakespeare's exhortation to use reason and the definition of reason? How do you get to be what? Right. Right. Yeah. To get some understanding, you might say, of the Trinity. Shakespeare doesn't reveal it, obviously. It's revealed by God, right? But how do you get, in a sense, from Shakespeare's definition and exhortation to some understanding of the Trinity, right? Well, three ways of trying to understand the Trinity is to begin from the footprint of the Trinity in creatures. So, a second way of trying to understand the Trinity is to begin from the image, right, of the Trinity, right? And then the third way is to go right to the Trinity and try to understand it, right? Okay? Now, how, of these three ways, does Shakespeare's exhortation begin, right? Well, as you know, he completes the definition of reason by before and after, right? Looking before and after. Now, when Thomas explains the footprint of the Trinity, he says, every footprint of the Trinity is a footprint of the Trinity insofar as it has a beginning, middle, and what? End. End, right? So, because that was the connection between looking before and after and beginning, middle, and end, huh? And the connection is that beginning, middle, and end are defined by what? Yeah, by the affirmation and negation of before and after, right, then? Now, we explained before how you define these, right, then? So, you can say before something and not before something, right? After something and not after something. Then you draw your boxes, right? Now, what is before something and after something? The middle, right? What is not before something but after something? The end. Now, what is before something but not after something? The beginning, right? And what is neither before something nor after anything? Yeah. That's not going to be a part at all, right, of this, huh? Okay? So, this is the way you arrive, right? An understanding of beginning, middle, and end. But in arriving at that, which is not only by looking before and after, because one of these is before and after the other, right? But the very definition of beginning, but the very definition of beginning, middle, and end is by before and after, right? By the affirmation and negation, so this very much leads to this, and then as Thomas says, every footprint of the Trinity is the footprint of the Trinity insofar as it has the aspect of the beginning, middle, and end, right? Now, you say, well, as Thomas shows, when he takes up the Trinity, there's no before and after, right, in the Trinity, huh? But it's like that, right, huh? But, of course, the footprint is a very distant likeness, huh? Even greater than that of the image, huh? Okay? A sign of that is we never say that, what, the Son of God is the footprint of God, would we? Well, you say he's the image of God, right? A perfect image, right? The chosen image is much closer to what it is, okay? But the Trinity is distinguished by affirming and denying of what two things? The Trinity is one person, the divine generation of another. Now, there's something broader than that, you say. You proceed from someone, right? Or you do not proceed from someone, right? Okay? So, this is the way Thomas and Prince will say. Proceed from someone, and you do not proceed from someone, right? And then, what's the other two? Someone proceeds from you, right? Yeah. Someone proceeds from, and no one proceeds from, right? Now, who proceeds from someone, and someone proceeds from him? The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit. Who does not proceed from someone, but someone proceeds from him? The Father. The Father. Now, who's the fourth one of the Trinity? That's the Virgin? No. Muhammad. Thomas would say, there cannot be anyone in the Trinity, right? Who neither proceeds from anyone, nor does anyone proceed from him, right? So, that's, again, not a real possibility, right? Okay? You see the similarity between these two, right? So, in a way, and this, of course, is stretching the likeness, because it's a great inferior likeness. You can say, the Son seems to be a little bit like, what? The middle, right? Because he proceeds from someone, and has someone proceeding from him, right? Just as the middle has something before it, and something, what? After it, right? There's not a right before and after. You've got to be careful, right? If you don't. You see, Dionne always quotes this little passage from, I think it was the Sophist, the dialogue of Plato, where Plato says, likeness is a slippery thing, okay? And people are always, you know, seeing similarities, and extending them beyond what the likeness is, huh? And that's why Aristotle, you know, when he gives a tool of difference and a tool of likeness, right? You know, the way he describes it, remember, right? You know, the tool of difference is to see the difference between things, right? And the tool of likeness is to consider the likeness of things, right? You see, the data... right now likeness is a source of error right very often and so the the most dangerous errors are the ones where the the falsehood is most like the true right and then it deceives people okay but nevertheless there's a likeness kind of between uh the son proceeding from someone right and someone else proceeding from him right and the what right in the middle right and the likeness between the father and the beginning and one reason why they appropriate as thomas explains power to the father because power is defined as the beginning and he seems to be you know the beginning so you see how beautiful that is right you see how that comes about here if you look before and after one of the first before and afters you see is obviously that beginning of them because they're defined by the affirmation negation of before and after right and that is to see the what the footprint of the trinity you know that's one way of proceeding right and what makes me with wonder is how close it is to shakespeare's definition of reason to consider the footprint of the trinity right and therefore to think about the greatest object of the human mind which is in fact the what trinity right it's amazing huh that you can go from the definition of reason to the footprint of the trinity and then to the trinity in a sense right and you can see this likeness here right both in the way you firmly deny these things right and get one of the four members that is not a real one right and uh the way in which the sun you said was in some way the middle and the father in the beginning right and the holy spirit hides it up you know okay that's beautiful you know one thing this is the first thing that you do when you look before and after but it's amazing you can go all this way right now the second way to go from creatures to god the trinity is the image of the trinity now go back to shakespeare's education reason meaning by reason or now the ability from reason reason goes forward a thought of what reason is a reason goes forward a thought about or a thought of what reason is what is that thought that goes forward from our reason that is a thought of what reason is and this is the definition of what reason is and this is the definition of what reason is and this is the definition of reason itself okay so from reason goes forward a thought about or a thought of what reason is and this is the definition of reason and the definition of reason is not reason is the definition of reason is the distinct thought of what reason is and then taking the education as a whole or your urge to use your reason right you can say that from reason and the definition of reason goes forward the love of reason that's all in the education isn't it because from your reason it goes forward a thought of what reason is it's marvelous definition of what reason is so you're ready to start to dawn on how profound this thing was that shakespeare written you know and then you're urged to use your reason because you see how good reason is what a wonderful thing it is right so from reason now the definition of reason goes forward this love of reason right now you've got here the what image of the trinity right because from god god the father right there goes forward a thought in verbal right because it's called logos in the greek right which is a thought of what god is no more than that is god but but it is a thought about what god is it's a thought of god right in both senses huh okay it's a thought that the father has but it's a thought of what god is and then from the father and the thought then the word goes forward what the love of god the holy spirit isn't that marvelous okay now what's the third one right well you go directly to study the trinity right like thomas does huh and gets a a reasoned out huh now so far as possible the trinity huh great influence by the great augustine right remember seeing this this line from augustine i can't you know locate now the text you know it said uh it was quoted by maybe a britannic but intellectum valde ama a lot of intellect right a lot of the reason very much huh intellectum valde ama that's disgusting quite a bad now we've said before how distinction comes before what order right nothing that the axiom of before and after nothing is before or after itself right so there's always some distinction between what is before and what is after right now one interesting distinction is that reason looks before and after not only in what it's thinking about right but it looks before and after in its own thinking now which of these before and after should reason think about first the before and after in its own thinking or the before and after in the things it wants to think about what probably thinks about the before and after a bit of in things right but if reason is the ability for large discourses you know right and discourses implies a what before and after right to bring one thing to another to know adequately or perfectly or fully the before and after in things you have to consider the what discourse whereby you're going to know them right you have to consider the what before and after in your what thinking yeah that's what Thomas says in a way that logic is the first science because it teaches the road you have to follow in all reasoned out knowledge yeah okay so Thomas called the order of learning there when he began the treatise of the trinity he says the persons are distinguished by what relations of what origin right okay so what are we going to do we've got to think about what the processions, right? Relations of origin or procession of one from another, right? You've got to think of the processions first, right? Then the relations that are in our thinking based upon those processions, right? So because the Father, for example, generates this other one, he's called the Son, right? And the Father's called the Father, right? And because they breed this other one, he's called the Spirit, right? And so on, love, huh? So we're going to study the proceedings first, which there are two, and then the what? Relations, right? Persons, right? So you're seeing the before and after in your reasons thinking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, right? Beautiful. So how did Shakespeare figure this out, right? You know, sometimes I'm playfully about the fact that, you know, these are lines of blank verse, right? And in the fourth, I think it's the fourth act of the fourth, scene of the fourth act, right? Where he says these, right? So back in a lot of the later tragedies of Shakespeare, you have this blank verse, which is unrhymed, Iambic, what? Pentameter, right? Okay. Now you say, why should Shakespeare put his exhortation in meter, right? It just happened? Is it in a play or something? He said, well, I'm rather fond of this prayer, Thomas, the Adorote Devote, right? Which is one of the prayers after the Second Vatican Council, there was a revision of the increasing of indulgences, and they kind of cut down on a number of prayers that are not special indulgences attached to them, but they kept them for some prayers, which are a special, what, excellence or a special place in the tradition of the Church, right? And among those, of course, is the Adorote Devote, right? I mentioned how when my home parish of Nativity there in St. Paul, Minnesota, that they were refurbishing the Church, you know, and the Rookman got up over the Baldachina, you know, with that wooden one, and he said, there's something up here, you know, that's faded, and so we, you know, we knew it, huh? And of course, if we knew it, it was Adorote Devote. That's beautiful, you know? That's what's attached. But the Adorote Devote has got kind of a meter, right? And it's actually rhyme and so on, right? So why should Thomas compose a prayer in rhyme, right? And in meter, right? Some of the Latin texts, they call it the rhythmus, huh? Yes, tome, as he called that, huh? Why should he do that? It's not poem, you know, something that's got meter people call poem, but that's really kind of a misuse of the word poem, right? Why should Thomas compose this magnificent prayer that is the tradition of the church? I call this, you know, the traditional prayer book, you know, of the church, right? The ingredient of indulgences, huh? And you have the scriptural one, the psalms, right? But why should Thomas compose this prayer in metering and rhyme and so forth? I think three reasons would be just for, to help memorization, two for beauty, and three to glorify God. Yeah, yeah. To me, the first one is a fundamental one, right? Yeah. You know? It's easy to do that. Now, I've heard this, maybe you gentlemen know more than I about this, but they said that, you know, I don't know how they note exactly, but the, our father in the Aramaic, you know, or what the original language was, had a what? Yeah, have you heard that? That'd be interesting, right, if you'd done that, right? Or do the psalms have some kind of, you know? So sometimes I look at what Shakespeare has done there, right? And he's, he's put it on what? Seven lines, right? But he begins the first line in the seventh syllable. So you have two sevens there, right? Well, seven, you know, I'll be in the seventh chapter there of the third book of Summa Cana Gentiles. I say, seven is a symbol of what? Wisdom, right? Seven wise men in Greece, right? Seven angels that stand before God. So, and so maybe there's a little meeting there, right? Starts in the seventh syllable and he stretches it up on the seven lines, right? The seventh line ends on the sixth syllable, right? So that since the first line begins in the seventh syllable and the last one ends on the sixth syllable, there's only, in quantity, six lines of amic metameter, right? And it ends on the sixth syllable. And six is the, what, first perfect number, symbol of the completeness of it, right, huh? Okay. And then how many words in the exhortation? And Thomas says that when you take the square of a number, it has the same, what, symbolism as the original number. So seven is a symbol of wisdom, 49 is what? Yeah. So it's marvelous. Is it just by chance he did this? You know? See? Now, the text itself, apart from all this, you know, meter and what syllables they begin and end on and how many lines are and so on, if the content is so, what, profound, right, huh? We couldn't put it beyond you. And of course, my teacher Aristotle said that the human reason is best at the age of 49. And Thomas Aquinas died at the age of 49, right? God took it, right? But, you know, I can't mention those things kind of playfully, but I think it kind of concentrates yourself on the words, right? And then I allow anybody in 50 words or more to give as good an exhortation, right, as Shakespeare has, huh? So am I exaggerating the excellence of this? That's what I got thinking about before and after in Mary, right, huh? So she's the mother of the church, I think, because she's the mother of all graves, huh? And she's the mother of all graves, because she's the mother of, what, God, huh? It's not the reverse, huh? But there's a cause and effect there, it seems to me. No, I got thinking again, I was puzzling words, you know, was, who are you? And she says, I am the Immaculate Conceptionite. You say, why did she say that? Wouldn't she speak more radically correct, huh? Is that she does no grammar or that she, there's some meaning in those words, right? Well, if she's the mother of the church, in a way, she's giving, what, birth to all of us, right, huh? Okay? And we're kind of Immaculate Conceived when we're baptized, huh? Not when we're born. But in Mary, when she was conceived, she was, what, Immaculate, and, yeah, yeah. And so, she's kind of a universal, what, cause of our baptism, right? Because she's the mother of all graves, right? And that's the way you symbolize that by saying, I am the Immaculate Conception, right? Just like Christ said, I am truth itself. Well, many reasons why maybe he says that, huh? But it's because he's the source of all truth, right? So, but that's after I had, I had thought a little bit more about the, the order of these things, huh? Mother of God, it seems, it's always seemed to me to be her greatest title, right, huh? What's it, uh, prison system? It was one who said, you know, infinite is the distance between the servants of God and the mother of God. Let's look now at the second article. And if you remember right behind, the first article in question four was, were there pleasures required for, what? Beatitude, right, huh? He had said, yes, pleasure is caused from this that the, what, appetite? uh rests in the good obtained right when since beatitude is nothing other than the what obtaining of the sumum bonum right the highest good huh is not possible that there be the attitude without pleasure concomitante huh coming together with it huh okay i mean if i have this delight and seeing this theorem in yukta i mean imagine i say god it's not me i'll be you know you know like the psalm says right you know the torrent you know this delight huh or read socrates uh thing about that and higher higher love matters right and you see the beautiful itself right oh my goodness that is something huh okay but now he's asking in the second article a more precise question huh where the beatitude is chiefly division or the what pleasure right now now you modern hedonists might think it's chiefly the pleasure or the delight the second one proceeds thus it seems that didictatio is what let's play in beatitude then vision right for as the philosopher says in the 10th book of nicomagian ethics uh delictatio right is the perfection of operation huh preparation is not perfect until you what enjoy it right but perfection is more potent than the perfectible therefore pleasure is more potent than the operation of the understanding which is vision huh in some way it's perfecting that right just like when i hear the music of mozart huh i'm pleased right huh the beautiful is that which pleases when seen or heard right so it seems to be a perfection of my hearing the delight i take in it moreover that an account of which something is desirable is more potent huh but operations are desired in account of the pleasure of them right huh burkowitz wouldn't be studying those geometrical theorems he didn't take great delight in them right and people don't take any delight in those things they're not going to go around studying the theorems of euclid right but likewise if i didn't enjoy the music of mozart when i listen to it so but operations are desired or wanted in account of the pleasure of them whence nature has right to operations necessary for the conservation of the individual like eating right or the species huh like reproduction it has added what pleasure to them huh so that these kind of operations would not be neglected by what animals huh and therefore pleasure is more potent in than vision huh i was thinking a little bit about the attitude than the attitude than the operation of the understanding which is the seeing seeing of god as he is face to face moreover vision corresponds to what faith huh but pleasure or enjoyment to charity but charity is greater than faith as the apostle says one out of corinthians 13 huh therefore um pleasure or enjoyment is more potent than vision huh i was thinking a little bit about this um figure of speech which is called what what he calls saint paul here instead of saying paul what antonio messiah yeah yeah yeah and this is very common in scripture right okay but you'll find thomas will often refer to saint paul as the apostle and aristotle is the philosopher right i was thinking about it again and you know the the latin language is uh imperfect huh because it doesn't have all the parts of speech and one part of speech that that the latin language lacks is the what article okay i was thinking how in english huh we're using a word as an antonio messiah we tend to use more of the article the than the article a right so if i say that aristotle is a philosopher that's true but i'm not speaking by antonio messiah am i if i wanted to i'm not saying when i say aristotle's a philosopher that is any more eminent than any other philosopher right just just another philosopher right i remember at a at some kind of a conference there and they had a dinner or lunch or whatever it was and got talking about science there and so on and uh i quoted what einstein had said right and so the cat crossed he said well that's just what einstein says you know so what that's like he said one more opinion about it well i wasn't like a doubt it being you know necessarily true but i mean so they probably you know einstein would say this about uh you know science i don't know what the nature of science was okay so um or if you want to say that um homer uh is the poet right now antonio messiah you wouldn't say homer is a poet but it just seems like you got to say the poet right okay now i don't mean to say and if somebody will just quote me obviously that you're always speaking by antonio messiah when you say that okay if you say i am the teacher of so and so is that saying i am the teacher no no so i'm not saying that every time we use the word the we're using the figure of speech called antonio messiah but the reverse seems to be true right that when you want to uh use the figure of speech called antonio messiah we will use the article that rather than a right i am a grandfather huh would you say that i am the grandfather you might say i'm the grandfather of of this of lady of wisdom there sophia right um but that's not infamous you say that right i'm the father of paul right let's say that i am the father right you get that point right okay so um now poor thomas right poor thomas is um thinking mainly in the latin language right that's the language of schools right and reading texts in in latin right and there's no articles so he might be slightly less aware than he could be right of the what antonio messiah in some passages right of scripture okay i take an example of this in the beginning we say was the word right and of course the greek which is a superior language and has all the parts of the parts of speech you'd say i guess oh logos right so you have a a particle right i mean a um yeah yeah um by thomas and the latin say you know you wouldn't have any on that so thinking back upon thomas's explanation of the gospel of john right if i remember correctly he doesn't uh emphasize or say at all that in the first sentence in the beginning was the word right there's no the other the latin right that this is perhaps being said by what yeah that among all thoughts that they've ever been there will be this is the thought right then and so i've tried to in my own thinking sometimes to think about that as being said by you one of messiah and then why among all thoughts is this the thought right and even before you get to the next line and you know or in a couple lines we found that the thought is god himself right let's but even before that right this is a thought of what god is right in some respects even a thought of all things because it's a perfect thought of what god is right it's a thought that expresses fully what god is there's other i have many thoughts about god but none of them express very well what god is none of them express fully what god is and and any one of them even less so you know but this is the thought now one thought is better than another because it's about a better thing right and if it's of a better thing in a better way it's even better so this is a thought of the best thing there is and annoying and it's a thought that is what the only thought that fully expresses what the best of all things is right and in a way it expresses everything else too because when god is understood fully and he's comprehended everything else is known right okay so you could you know even before we're told that this thought is god himself right we could see that among all thoughts right this is the thought right this is something right i don't think thomas emphasized that right for me it's because of of the defective what language right now on senior diane you know said you know sign of the excellence of thomas's thinking is that he could think so well in an inferior language like latin right aristotle was doing his thinking in greek which is a much superior language to latin right and then he said you know english in the same way is superior to french even though he was french speaking so we put around saying you know aside of the excellence once you do honestly can think so well in french kind of paraphrasing what he said about thomas you know that's true that's true that's true i used to drive the french students you know according to the only respect monsignor they don't want to challenge authority to monsignor but both monsignor and goulay whose native language of course is french you know they both said that english was superior to french for philosophy and for poetry so the the uh i think i mentioned walter hurtle you know the philologist up there he's retired now but for him you know the english language huh is the greatest invention of the human mind right you know i don't know all the reasons he has you know but i mean you know interested in the philologist you know he realizes the excellence of the english language and i realize it in other ways myself you know but it's actually a marvelous language but anyway do you think it's possible that saint thomas was also limited by the translation of logos in the verbum or the verbum also mean well it can i mean the greek word logos means word first too right okay but then you know it's a word that's equivocal by reason right and so what the word signifies the thought inside and so on so thomas would make all those distinctions right so it's not that's not the problem but but you don't have what an article with the verbum right and therefore you don't see it as um example in tony messiah right i kind of stretch like like in the uh the federalist papers you know when they're talking about the um what's going to happen to us if we don't unite and and all these horrible things and then he says and in the words of the poet a long farewell to all my greatness and of course later on i read this in shakespeare right now but he's not called shakespeare he's called the poet you know the poet capitalizes you might do to make it more accurate but he doesn't say in the words of a poet which you just say okay some poet said this you know but in the words of i wrote that one but i think it's probably hamilton right but the the poet the same way but against this the cause is more potent than the effect but division is the cause of the what pleasure therefore division is more potent than the what pleasure i answer it should be said that this question the philosopher moves in the 10th book of the ethics and talks about pleasure and then man's beatitude and he leaves it what unsolved huh but if one diligently considers from necessity huh is necessary that the operation which is the understanding which is the vision of god as he is face to face is more potent than the what pleasure for pleasure consists in a certain what quieting of the will huh that's why the police there would give candy to the kid now when the kid is lost right and trying to find the parents huh quiet them down right and this time when we were traveling across country one time and the kids are going to give us some love you know so he i made little bags you know with three little bars something to candy in them and put them in a big bag you know every time the noise got too too hard for rosie and i i'd open the bag and pass one back you know they'd be satisfied for a while and they never caught on did they time for a daddy tweet okay let's always speak of a beautiful sight it's restful right you can kind of look out in a beautiful mirror graduate to vermont there went to fall there one time you know just beautiful that you know the colors you know and so on and i was saying you know what a beautiful place to have a house you know did you see that you know and i drove you know all since a house there you know look it out of this magnificent you know panorama of color and stuff that's very restful um but the will is what rests in something will not rest in something unless what an account of the goodness of that in which it what rests if therefore the will rests in some operation from the very goodness of the operation proceeds the quiet of the what will nor does the will seek the good in order to be at rest for then the act of the will would be the end which is against the what thing we show before that was the act of the reason rather than the will and therefore it's it seeks what uh uh brings it to rest in an operation because the operation is it's what good once it is manifest that chiefly the good the good is the operation in which the will rests then the resting of the will in it now sometimes in aristotle or thomas talks about what aristotle says in the tenth book he doesn't say aristotle he's just unsolved because aristotle ends up by saying that pleasure perfects happiness right as beauty perfects what youth he says and thomas says there he seems to be saying that um beauty i mean uh pleasure is not what makes it to be happiness right just as beauty doesn't make youth to be youth right but something that seems to go with you right and as you get older you lose your good luck you get all wiggled up and so on and uh uh so aristotle seems to be saying that uh pleasure perfects happiness like beauty perfects youth right it's not the essence of it right not the essence what's most essential in our attitude now but it goes with it right because the perfection of the operation and that's what he quotes there in the ad premium there right to the first therefore it should be said that as the philosopher right huh sometimes you you find you know in the medieval latin they try to stick in some kind of invented article right i guess because of the defect of the the defect of the latin language yeah truth truth First, it should be said that as the philosopher says there, pleasure perfects operation as decor, beauty, youth, right? Which is what? Something fouling upon the youth, right? Rather than the very essence of it. Whence pleasure is a certain perfection going along with vision, right? Not as a, what? Perfection making the vision to be in its own what kind or perfect, huh? See, there he's saying that Aristotle is, in a sense, expressing, right? What the answer is to this question, right? Beautiful person, huh? There's two ratios there, right? Pleasure to operation and beauty to youth, right? And he's making, he's arguing from one ratio, using one ratio to manifest the other, right? Got to be careful there, you know, as I'm mentioning. Sometimes when you have a proportion, they actually reason from one, what? Ratio to the, what? Other, right? Like Shakespeare does in the exhortation, right? But sometimes you just use one ratio to, what? Illustrate, right? By kind of likeness, the other, what? Ratio. Okay? So you got to be careful what the guy's doing there, right? The nearest out here, I don't think, is reasoning from the way that, what? Beauty perfects youth, right? To the way, what? The way pleasure perfects the operation, the seeing, right? But he's using it for a kind of likeness, huh? To help you understand a little better, right? How the one is to the other. Okay? The second objection, he's talking now about the pleasure of the animals and so on. To the second, it should be said that the grasping by the senses does not attain to the common, what? Thought of the good, huh? But to some particular good, which is, what? Pleasant, huh? And therefore, according to the sensitive appetite, which is in animals, operations by them are sought for the sake of the, what? Pleasure, right? But nevertheless, you know, God has arranged that way so that they will do the operations that are necessary to preserve themselves as individuals, right? Or to preserve their, what? Kind, huh? Of animal. The plants preserve their kind. They reproduce too, right? Or without, what? Pleasure, right? Yeah. Yeah, interesting. But the understanding apprehends the universal notion of the good, upon the attainment of which follows, what? Pleasure, huh? Whence it more chiefly intends the good, then, what? Pleasure, huh? And hence it is that the divine intellect, huh? Who is the instituter of nature, adds pleasures in account of the, what? Operations. Now, some things should not be estimated simply according to the order of the sensitive appetite, right? But more according to the order of the intellectual appetite, the will. Now, what about charity, huh? Well, charity does not seek the good loved for the sake of pleasure, right? But this is something, what? Fouling upon it, right? That it delights in the attainment of the good, which it, what? Loves, huh? And thus pleasure does not respond to it as an end, but more vision, to which first the end becomes what? Present to it, huh? Okay. To another order.