Prima Secundae
Lecture 241: Natural Law: Universality and Changeability

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

Whether the law of nature is one before all, right? To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that the law of nature is not one before all, right? So on the island there, they go without clothing, right? And that'll be vicious for us to do, but it's okay for them, right? That's what they say, right? For it is said in the decrees, the famous crown law work, I guess. You refer to one by Gratian down here. For it is said in the decrees, distinction one, the word distinction, that the natural law is what is contained in the law and in the what? Gospel. But this is not common to all, because as is said in Romans 10, 16, not all obey the what? Gospel. And therefore the natural law is not one before all. Moreover, those things which are according to the law are said to be just, as is said in the fifth book of the Ethics. But in the same book it is said that nothing is so just among all that it is not what? But that it is diversified by some. Therefore also the natural law is not what? The same before all. Moreover, to the natural law pertains that to which man is, according to his nature, inclined, as has been said above. But diverse men are naturally inclined to diverse things. Some to the desire of pleasures, others to the desire of honors, right? Others to others, right? Therefore it is natural one man to pursue the pleasures of food and drink and others to pursue honors, right? Kind of look down upon the pleasures of the table, right? Therefore there is not one natural law among all, right? This is not the confusion, huh? I will make you a bother. It is very contemporary. Yeah. But again, this is what Isidore, huh? Says in the book of Etymologies. That the natural law is common to all the, what? Nations, huh? I answer it should be said, that it has been said above, to the law of nature pertain those things to which man is naturally inclined. Inder which is proper to man that he is inclined to acting according to, what? Reason. Yeah. But to reason it pertains to proceed from the common to the, what? Particular, right? As is clear from the first book of the physics, huh? Used to have a text of Paul VI there, you know, he's talking about this is the common rule of all learning, right? When the Aristotelic gives there on his sermons. But in a different way, as looking reason about this, right? And doing reason, right? That's my translation of these two. Speculative, you know, there's been too much influence by the stock market and so on. Speculation, right? It's a very, uh, kind of a loose sense to it. Speculating is what's going to take place, you know? The end of the day is a place. Yeah. Just like the problem people have, I know when I grew up, you know, people got feeling, uh, awkward speaking of the Holy Ghost, right? Because of all the movies about the ghosts, you know? So, uh, and they wanted to say Holy Spirit instead of Holy Ghost, although Ghost is really the English word for Spirit, in a sense. But the other connotation is ghastly. Because looking reason, especially, right, is concerned with, what? Necessary things, right? That's why demonstration is defined by necessity there. Which are impossible to be otherwise, huh? Without any defect is found truth in its own, what, conclusions, like in geometry, right? It's very clear. Just as in the common principles, huh? But practical reason is concerned, negotiates about, huh? Contingent things, right? In which are found, what, human operations. And therefore, although in the common things there is some necessity, the more one descends to, what, the particulars, the more is found, what, defect, huh? Thus, therefore, in speculative matters, there is the same truth among all, both in the beginnings and in the conclusions in the Pythagorean theorem, right? It's just a conclusion, right? Not true for one man and false for somebody else, huh? Okay? Even though the truth is not known among all, right? In the conclusions, but only in the beginnings, which are called the common conceptions, huh? In doing matters, there is not the same truth or practical rectitude among all as regards the things that are, what? Private or particular. But only as regards, what? And among them about whom there is the same, what? Rectitude in private things there is not equally, it's not equally, what? Known to all, right? Thus, therefore, it is clear that as regards the common beginnings of reason, whether looking reason or practical reason, there is the same, what? Truth or rightness among all, right? And equally known. As regards, however, the private or particular conclusions of looking reason, there is the same truth among all, but not equally known to what? All. For among all, it is true that the triangle has three angles equal to two right. It's better study your geometry, right? Although this is not known to what? All. All, yeah. But as regards the particular conclusions of practical reason, there is not the same truth or rectitude among all, nor is it also among all, what? Even where it is the same, right? It's not equally, what? Known, huh? Now, among all, this is right and true that they ought to act according to reason. Now, from this beginning, it follows, as it were, its own conclusion that things, what? Lent, huh? Or depositing should be returned, huh? And this, to be sure, is true but in pluribus, right? For the most part, huh? But it can be that in some case it happens that it is, what? Damnosum, huh? Damnen. And, consequently, irrational if the, what? Things lent are returned. For example, if someone asks to, what, fight his country, right? Okay? Or if he wants to borrow my, he wants me to return his, what, knife so he can cut somebody's head off. Okay? I used to take the example in class there, you know, of, of, uh, you're at the party and, uh, and, uh, you're running short of something and somebody lends you the keys to his car so you can go to the thing and pick up some more beer or some more chips or whatever the party requires. And, uh, then you come back, of course, this guy has, has become drunk, right? And he wants the keys of his car but maybe you shouldn't, in this case, give him the keys to his, what? Car. Car, yeah. Or if a man has lent you his gun, right, you know, so you can go hunting or something, right? And now he's in a rage with his wife or something and he wants his gun back. Maybe he shouldn't return his gun at this time, right, huh? So not always should you return with your... should you borrow? Should you? For the most part you should, right? But there might be some, what? Exceptions, right? I told you when I was in the military academy there, St. Thomas Military Academy, and they were inspected by officers who would come usually in Washington, D.C., right? That was a very important thing for the school because your rank would depend upon what the inspectors did, right? I was in charge of taking the role, right? And our company was chosen to be the honor guard for these guys, right? So we're lined up there in perfect order, and this guy comes running in at the last moment. I said, stay back, don't go up there, you know? I didn't want them to see this guy running in at the last moment, right? But I'll get marked absent. I said, I won't mark the absent, I said, you know? I won't mark the absent, but don't go up there. So later on, the guy thanked me for, not him, but our own local officer, right? For not letting him run up, you know? But even though I was violating the thing of not reporting him absent, right? But a card, you know? Yeah, yeah. So you can find exceptions in these things, right? Should it be true always, right? It would be true much you borrowed, it seems like, you know? It should be true much you borrowed, you know? But there are exceptions, huh? There's no exception to the triangle, you're not going to find a triangle that has its interior angles equal to three right angles, or you're just one right angle or something, right? I'm really angry at you. What's that movie there where the guy hits the woman in the face, right? And he'd say, as a rule, you shouldn't hit the woman, whack her, you know? But the woman was becoming, what, hysterical, right? This guy woke her up, you know? But, like the exception, you know, huh? You know? Let's see. Um, the Thomas example is a good one, right? Um, so someone is asking them, he wants to fight his country or he wants to assassinate somebody or whatever. And this is found the more one descends to what? Particulars, right? If it'd be said that deposits should be rendered with such a caution or such a, in such a way. Because the more particular conclusions are pointed, the more ways it can fail, right, huh? That it'd be not right either in returning or in not returning, right, huh? Thus, therefore, it should be said that the law of nature, as regards the first common beginnings, is the same before all, right? Or among all. And according to rectitude and according to what? Knowledge, huh? But as regards some particular things, huh? Which are, as it were, conclusions of the common beginnings, is the same among all, ut in pluribus, right? And according to rectitude and according to what? Knowledge. But in what? A few things it can fail, both as regards what? Rectitude, on account of some particular impediments, huh? Just as generalable and corruptible natures feel sometimes, ut in what? Pouchy pores, on account of impediments, right? And also as regards what? Knowledge, huh? And this, on account of this, that some have a depraved reason from passion, right? Or from bad custom, or from the bad, what? Habit of nature. Just as among the Germans, huh? Long ago, huh? Steve? Thieber, yeah. Thieber, yeah. Was not regarded as Nicholas, as Nicholas, huh? I guess that scene was at the Spartans, they say. Okay. When Harvard is expressed against the law of nature, as Julius Caesar observes in his book on the Galic War, right? K myself. Okay. Yeah, that's three, yeah. I used to quote that there when I talked about the division of the three. What parts of this country is there besides the Midwest? Yeah, it's right into three, right? No, it's the Midwest, I'm called the Mid. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that word in the decrees, decretals, should not be thus understood that all things which are in the law and contained in the Gospels, right, are of the law of nature, right? Since many things are treated there above nature, right? But because those things which are of the law of nature are treated there, what? Fully, huh? Whence, when Gratians says that the natural law is what is contained in the law in the Gospel, immediately exemplifying, he, what, adds that by which one is ordered to do what, to others what he would want done to himself. One wants you to sleep with my wife, so I shouldn't sleep with your wife, huh? Makes sense, huh? One wants you to be telling lies about me, so I shouldn't go on telling lies about you. To the second, it should be said that that word of the philosopher should be understood about those things which are naturally just, not as the common beginnings, but as certain conclusions derived from them, which would in pluribus have rectitude, right? And in fewer, you know, they fail, yeah. To the third, it should be said, huh? That just as reason in man dominates and commands the other powers, so is necessary that all the natural inclinations pertaining to the other powers be ordered according to, what, reason, huh? Whence this is, among all, commonly right, that one, what, that all of man's inclinations should be directed according to, what, reason, huh? Or we should. What, reason, huh? What, reason, huh? What, reason, huh? What, reason, huh? What, reason, huh? What, reason, huh? goes forward thus it seems that the law of nature is able to be what changed because it is said upon that of ecclesiasticus there are adds to it right discipline in the law of life and the gloss says there um my footnote says it's for bonus he's quoted a lot in the ingredient too i'm not the ingredient i mean the uh the uh the gospels right yeah contain aoria yeah bonus yeah he says um the law of the letter right well that's not the natural law the law of the letter as regards the correction of the natural law which is to be written right he wants to write the law of the letter as regards the correction of the natural law that sounds heretical to me right but that which is corrected is changed therefore the natural law is able to be what changed huh strange argument huh i was reading this morning there in the article of thomas there in the sentences uh does god will everyone to be saved and uh he's going to take the position that no but the first objection is a quote from saint paul there you know where it says god wills everyone to be saved you know how some people want to say this too you know and uh thomas um quotes two explanations of that right and one is from damascene and john damascene and the other is from what augustine and um saint damascene has a distinction between god's antecedent will what he wills considering us simply as human beings and having human nature right and what he wills taking into account all the circumstances of our willingness to accept grace and marriage yeah and so on yeah and that this has been understood there for god's antecedent will right as opposed to his what consequent will that's an important distinction now augustine says it's the consequent will i said how can augustine say that so here's another explanation of it right and he says you know that it can be taken um in the sense of um everyone who's saved god wills that that's kind of really good of it right or someone is saved from what every class or type of human being right so some you know professors are saved some workers you know some farmers are slaves some you know mechanics is you know everybody even some politicians maybe right yeah yeah yeah and uh so so i was thinking about that it says okay here you have these two great men here damascene and augustine uh although i generally put best you know is the greatest you know but uh they both have an explanation of how this doesn't mean that god strictly speaking or fully wills everybody's salvation you know and i said now who's got a better explanation of a damascene or augustine what do you think yeah more precise augustine's i think so because he's talking about more precisely what god will meaning as he says the ones who are saved he wants everyone that is saved to be saved yeah because what saint paul says you know he wills everybody to be saved right didn't say he wills everybody who's saved to be that's kind of like and to me it seems that damascene is better in this case and thomas doesn't say that one is better than the other right just you know gives that reply but in the body of the article he follows damascene right so i don't know i thought the damascene is a little better i don't know it doesn't seem a little more you know stretched you know but it can be said this is in the sentences okay yeah sometimes there are things in these uh in the sentences that uh might catch a little bit of light you know sometimes it's a little more explicit about some things or sometimes we used to hear it approach a little bit differently you know but the sentences you know follows the order of the sentences so i mean it doesn't have the order that the summa's have you know kind of jump around a little bit according to it and like you take up the trinity more more than take up the substance of god you know maybe later on that sort of thing yeah so how do you get out of this thing here if you're not going to accept this conclusion more against the natural law is the killing of the innocent and against and also adultery and theft yeah those are three commandments i guess right but these are found to be changed by god right as in god commands abraham that he kill his innocent son as is had in genesis chapter 22 and when he commands to the jews that they what yeah much water is loaned i guess or something the vasa the gyps that they went off you know and take their yeah there's an augustine play that you know we take over from the pagans you know the glory of aristotle and so on you know it belongs to us to the right foreigners right and he compares it to this doesn't it augustine okay and when he commands oc that he take a wife who's a what fornicator or you know yeah as has had an oc one two right now that's when he's denouncing the uh the uh the egyptian i mean the uh israelites for being you know unfaithful right now like an unfaithful wife now see what it's like you know when you have to marry this woman of the streets therefore the natural law is able to be changed right yeah i don't know about these things right whoever isadora says in the book and etymologies that the common possession of all things and one what liberty is of the natural law well we see these things to be changed through human laws yeah you know this is my property you know get out of here you know yeah and not all men are free right now therefore it seems that the natural law is what yeah now someone doesn't know how to confuse a thing as the old teacher sirik said you know it's business of the teacher to confuse the issue put them in their place yeah but against this is what is said in the decrees huh decretals distinction five the natural law right from the what beginning of the rational creature nor is it varied in time but remains unchangeable is it unchangeable in some way in some way not i don't know i answer it should be said that the natural law is able to be understood to be changed in two ways huh in one way through this that something is what added to it and thus nothing prevents the natural law from being changed huh that's kind of a strange use of the word change there right if i say so thomas okay let me see clothes make the man right but when you put your clothes on you've been changed a little strange yeah yeah it says many things are added to the natural law useful for what human life right huh both through the what divine law right as well as through what human laws right well now you're supposed to what worship god on sunday aren't you church is there and head out there sunday for god and family well that is there in front of the church but um is that part of the natural law that you should worship god on sunday probably natural law you should worship god right huh thank you you know but uh you you know with uh jews it was on saturday right huh ramadins is what friday friday And maybe it's useful, you know, to have one day of the week that is, you know, yeah, not only that, but I mean that it's occurring once every seven days, right? That's what's your problem, right? Another way is understood the changing of the natural law by way of subtraction. So Thomas is doing a little mathematics here, right? That something ceases to be of the, what, natural law, that before was, what, according to the natural law. Now Thomas is going to make a distinction, or see a distinction, I should say. Don't make a distinction. And this is regards the first beginnings of the natural law. The law of nature is altogether, what, unchangeable. But as regards the second precepts, right, which we say to be, as it were, certain, what, particular conclusions near to the first, what, beginnings. Thus the natural law is not changed, but in pluribus, for the most part. It is right, always, what the natural law has. It is, however, is able to be changed in some particular, and in what, yeah, it's going to, you realize how, I always tried whether to do looking philosophy to practical philosophy, because you run into these things that are hard to decide, right? And some of these things, you know, and somebody's dying, what treatment is, you know, requiring what is not, and so on, and what is suitable. It's very difficult, some of these, these things. I remember one of my, Brother Richard's, I'm a partner of philosophy there, called Satanus, one of his colleagues there, said, a priest under 30 years old is not worth going to confession. It's a never experience. Yeah, yeah. It is hard to see where exactly some of these lines are drawn, right? It is all, however, able to be changed in some particular case, and in some few cases, right, huh? On account of some special cause, impeding the observation of such, what, precepts, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh? That the written law is said to be given to the correction of the natural law, either because it supplies, right, to the written law, what is lacking in the natural law, I suppose it's something more particular, like you go to Mass every Sunday or something, right? Or because the law of nature in the hearts of some, as regards some things, is corrupt to such an extent that they estimate those things to be good, which are naturally, what, bad. Yeah, and such a corruption needs, but, yeah. If you want to have a homosexual marriage or something like that, right, huh? Well, I'm born that way, you know, so nature comes from birth, right, huh? And so they regret some things as being good, which are naturally evil, right? So you have to have, yeah. Now, the second objection, this is a little more exciting, or disturbing, or... Yeah. To the second should be said that by natural death, all in general die, right, huh? Both the, what? The innocent and the not innocent, the guilty. Yeah, I guess noture means to harm, right? The solution done bad, you know? I mean, Augustine defines bad at one point, so what, no check, I don't know, but what harm is something. And the innocent, I mean, you know. Yeah, it's negative, the innocent, right? Yeah. Do no evil, yeah. Which natural law is induced by divine power on account of what? Original sin. According to that of the first book of Kings, chapter 2, verse 6, that God, what, deadens and gives life, huh? And therefore, without any injustice, according to the command of God, death can be inflicted upon any man, either innocent or not innocent, huh? It's strange, huh? Likewise, also, adultery is concubitus, right? With an alien, right? One of that one's own. Yeah. Which is what? Yeah. Divinely given, right? Divinely given. Whence to whatever woman someone approaches from the divine commandment is not, what? Yeah. That's got to strike people, you know, it's strange, huh? It's what we'll see as being, what, commanded. Okay. In the same reason, it's about theft, which is the taking of an alien thing. Now, whatever is taken by the command of God, who is the Lord of the universe, is not taken without the will of the Lord of that thing, huh? Which is what stealing is, right? It all belongs to God, right? Not only in human things, whatever is commanded by God is owed to it, but also in natural things, whatever comes about from God is in some way natural, as was said in the first, huh? We'll look at it again when we go back to the first, but that's not for today. Now, what about the last thing there about possessions and so on? To third, it should be said that something is said to be of the natural law in two ways. In one way, because nature inclines us to this, just as one ought not to injure somebody else. In another way, because nature does not induce the, what, conqueror. Just as we can say that a man is, what, naked by the natural law, because nature does not give to him, what, clothing, right? But art is foundness, right, huh? And in this way, the common possession of all, the vulnerability of all, is said to be of the natural law, that the natural law doesn't specify, by this shall, you know, by nature, you shall have this piece of land, and I'll have this piece of land, and so on. Because the distinction of possessions and, what, service, right, are not, what, induced by, what, nature, but through the reason of man as being useful for, what, the life. And thus, in this, the law of nature is not changed except through some, what, tradition, huh? That would make you afraid to study moral theology, right? Yeah, right, it's the law. Yeah. I was thinking this sort of thing, you know. You should reproduce with your sister, it seemed to be something very bad to do, right? But now, say, if you had Adam and Eve, right, starting the human race, and you're supposed to multiply and fill the earth, right, huh? So how are they going to do that unless their brother and sister reproduce? So in that particular circumstance, right, what would you say? I'm saying that. Yeah, yeah. That would be natural. Yeah, yeah. But we would think of it today as being something unnatural to have this other thing be used to start. You know, in these crazy Hollywood movies, you know, where the guy goes down to the ground to fix something, you know, and then the atomic or some kind of a thing comes up, everybody's been killed above, or burned everybody. And then he comes up above, and nobody's there, right? Nobody else has been vaporized, and so on. And he walks around. He goes by the car dealer there, you know, the cal-ox or the BMW orders, and, you know, nobody's there. So he just gets in the room, tries off, knocks the glass window, he's trying to get off the car. Of course, eventually he finds a woman, you know, somewhere, right? But suppose the only woman you found was, what, your sister, right? Then you're back in the situation now. You and your sister are the only people on the earth, and you've got to repopulate the earth, right? So then it would be lawful, it seems, right, huh? You know? And that's kind of an extreme example, I mean, you know. Given the circumstances of Adam and Eve, right, that they're the only, yeah. After all, where did Eve come from? Yeah, and that's even closer in some sense than your sister, right, huh? You know? To insert it to this matter, right? It strikes you, right, huh? I'll give you a little bit what the, so I'll text that quote back here in the notes from Thomas. Yeah, one quote here from the sentences, huh? Okay. In other things natural which are before us, the same determination is suitable as in naturally just things, huh? Those things which are natural before us are in the same way, which in pluribus, huh? But in, what? Pochioribus, huh? In a few cases, the ficio, huh? They fall short, huh? Just as it is natural that the right part, the right hand, I guess, is more vigorous than the, what? Left, huh? And this is true with in pluribus, right? But nevertheless, it happens in some cases that some come to be, what? Ambidextrous, huh? Ambidextrous, huh? So at the left hand, is this, what? Strong and active as the right one, huh? Thus also, those things which are naturally just, this is the obvious cacophage you can see, has the depositor, right, to be returned, what has been left with you. Ut employables, huh? Should be observed, huh? But in a few cases, it is, what? Change, and we talked about those exceptions, huh? It should be noted over, that because, what? The reasons of changeable things are unchangeable. Thus, whatever is natural for us, as we're pertaining to the very ratio of man, in no way is changed, as example, man to be a, what? Animal, right? Or man to be a man, or woman to be, oh, these crazy things are gone nowadays. There's no confusion. But the things that follow upon nature, as dispositions, actions, and motion, are changed in a few cases, right? That doesn't really add much to it, right, huh? In the text, that's actually in the previous article, but then the one that we have here. This is from the DeMalo, right, huh? Which is... All you want to know about is to ask. Yeah, yeah. When we're all afraid to ask. Just and good things are able to be considered in two ways. In one way, formally, he says. And thus, always and everywhere, they are the, what? Same. Because the beginnings or principles of the law, which are in the natural reason, are not changed. Another way, materially, and thus they are not the same just and good things everywhere and before all. But it's necessary for them to be determined by law. And this happens on account of the immutability of, what? Human nature, he says, huh? And the diverse conditions of men and of things, according to the diversity of places and times. I'll give you an example here. Just as this is always just, that in buying and selling, there come about a exchange, huh? Commutatio. According to equivalence, huh? Equivalent, right? But for the measure of grain that is just in such a place or time, so much be given. And another place or time, not so much, but more or what? Less. Less, huh? Okay. So, would the equivalent be the same everywhere? You know, when the white men, or when the Europeans came to the Indians here, right, huh? And sometimes these Indians, you know, were quite familiar with gold, right, huh? And so they would exchange gold for these little trinkets like a mirror or something like that. Yeah. So, are you giving the equivalent there or not? See, because they're very willing to give you the gold nugget for a mirror, you know? In case my wife, I don't think I can give her a mirror. See? I mean, is it the same thing in different places, right? If something is rare in one country, you know, you would give, what, less of it, you know, for the same thing, right? A science fiction story about this alien race that was creating a gateway to the earth and they wanted to start trading. Mm-hmm. And they were completely intrigued by the concept of paint. They never, ever considered paint. They never thought of it. They had these heavy gravity saddles that they used to ride around in. And there's this Midwestern tinker who ends up, it's his house that they're setting up their gateway. And he's the best sort of dicker or negotiator on the face of the planet. And so he's going to sell them the concept of paint for the anti-gravity unit. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It takes something like the age of marriage, right? We have laws, I mean, at the church, right? But they say, you know, in the southern times, you know, people get married at 12 or 14, maybe, right? And it might make sense, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. bed, and here I am, and I had no choice. And they told a story about Padre Pio, and he was always very strict about women's modesty. And they said that one day he came out of the confessional, and the woman was right there in church breastfeeding her child, and he came over, he patted the child on the head, and he said, Buon appetito. He was as careful as well. The missionaries, the early Catholic missionaries like Padre Pio was there, found that Indian women loved clothes. They were stark naked or close to it, but they had a real affinity for clothes, which was an interesting example of the difference between men and women as well. There was that affinity there, and the same nature. It is just vanity, it is not modest, it is vanity. You dress in a way that is not appropriate to your country or your age and so on. In the past time, men might have had, what, clothing is more like a dress, right? Well, a man goes around something like a dress. Nowadays, so you lock up and you go, you know? I mean, these things are changeable of that sort, huh? I guess that one day I made for a woman to wear pants was in gardens. Shocking. Yeah, yeah. You know, I know my brother Mark used to say, you know, when they would say, you know, well, see these portraits of Christ or paintings of Christ, you know, his hair is longer, you know, and so on. But he says, but the woman's hair, he goes, it was even longer, right? So what seems to be natural is that the woman's hair should be longer than a man's hair, right? And the Bible says that the hair is a woman's glory, right? You know, what the height should be is that depends upon the, what, time and so on, right? I was looking at a portrait there of John Quincy Evans, you know, and, you know. Long hair. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it's kind of, you know, like, but a woman would have much longer hair, right? There's nothing wrong with that, right? That was just the way I'm quite scared of and I said, go and swim it out. I guess the bathing suit has not been invented yet. Yeah, so, I mean, how else do you get swimming? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.