Prima Secundae
Lecture 245: Law, Necessity, and Subjection in Thomistic Philosophy

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

and Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you God, thank you Guardian Angels, thank you Thomas Aquinas. God our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our bridges, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand all that you are written. Let's see if you guys can syllogize. Now, syllogism is a question of finding middle term, right? So, what's middle term? Why do you have to use your reason, as Shakespeare teaches us, to look before and after, in order to see the footprint of the Trinity, in the way that Shakespeare teaches us, which means to look before and after, right? Why must you use your reason, in order to know the, what, footprint of the vestigium, as they say on Latin, of the Trinity, huh? What's the middle term? I think of it in terms of something that has God as a beginning. That's what I think of. So, in order to understand what beginning is, you have to understand. Well, Chris, when Thomas is explaining the difference between vestigium and the image, right? The vestigium is a, you know, a confusa, he says, huh? Likeness of the Trinity. And the image is a distinct, you know? In the articles, I was reading the sentences recently, right, where he was talking about vestigium. There's more than one way you can see a vestigium, huh? Footprint in, what? Creatures, right? But Thomas says, there's something common to every one of these, huh? And that is that there's a beginning, a middle, and an end, huh? So you find in the creature a beginning, middle, and end. And this is a, what? Footprint of the Trinity, where the Son is in the middle, and the Holy Spirit at the end, right, huh? Father in the beginning, right? Thomas always says, the father is a principium, right? So, in order to find the beginning, middle, and end, must you look before and after? Yeah. And when you look before and after in the creature, and you find the beginning, middle, and end, then you're finding a footprint, right? So beginning, middle, and end is the middle term, right? Connecting the definition of reason, as Shakespeare teaches us, right? What it is to use reason, right? Ultimately, to look before and after, and, but, discovery, right? A footprint. I was looking at another beautiful article there in the, uh, sentences, which I read before, but reading it again, you know? Okay. Solicitate frequenter and reverend. Yeah. Solicitate is carefully. Read carefully, frequently, and reverend, right? Well, the article was, whether the father is before the son. He's prior to the son, right? Of course, um, do you have to look before and after to find out about this, huh? Yeah. But it's not in terms of beginning, middle, and end, right? It's another looking before and after, right, huh? So what's the middle term here, huh? To show that the father is not before the, what, son? Which middle term requires you to look before and after. Well, it's interesting, huh? Because what Thomas does in the article, right, is to say that the father is not before the son in time, right? Or by nature, right? Or in knowledge, right? Or in dignity, right? And then he goes on to show that he's not before in each of those four ways, right? Well, what are those four ways? And that's the exact order which he gives them, right? Those exactly are what? Yeah, that we have in the categories, right? Was it chapter 15, I remember, I think? But, you know, the chapter hung before there in the categories, which comes after the chapters on opposites, right? And, um, first talk is, those are the four chief meanings of what? Yeah. Well, this is a word that is equivocal by what? Reason. And therefore there's a before and after in the, what, meanings. And the first meaning, of course, is time, right? Because time is tied up with what? The before and after of motion, right? Time is the number of the before and after of motion. And so, Shakespeare says, right? Things in motion sooner catch the eye, the what not stirs. So the first meaning of before for us is what? In time, right? And this falls under this general truth that Thomas gives us in the Disputed Questions on power, right? Where he says that, he's talking about the word proceeding there used in the scriptures, you know, talking about God. And how proceeding comes from the continuous, right? He says that all of our words begin in the, what, continuous, right? And, of course, Aristotle shows in the eight books of natural hearing that, uh, the road is continuous and the motion or the road is continuous and the time it takes to go down the road is continuous, right? So, um, you have to look before and after to understand the word, what, before. Just like you'd have to do so to understand the word in, right? When Thomas was trying to understand the word in there, Aristotle doesn't order them there in the text he gives us, right? But Thomas gets a little hints that Aristotle gives there and then he orders all eight of them from one to eight, right? And so, unless you can look before and after in a word that's equivocal by reason, right? In a word that's equivocal by chance, there's no order, right? I had this student comes to the, to the, to my class there, his name is Richard, you know, and I said, no, my brother Richard, you know, you know, but there's no connection, it's just by chance that he and my brother Richard, and I think Richard the Lionhearted, you know, and so on. But this is the common example, you know, the names, you know, are not, uh, so, um, you have to look before and after to understand a word that's equivocal by reason. And it's not until you understand, uh, the senses of before that you can see eventually, right? It's another argument, of course, that the father is not before the son in any of these ways, right? He can't be before him in time because the son is eternal too, right? And he can't be before him in what? Knowledge because, because relatives are known together, right? And they're together by nature, right? And, uh, the dignity of Christ doesn't attach to what's, uh, relational, but to what's absolute in eternity. So he goes and eliminates all those, right? So I'm kind of impressed there with Shakespeare and, uh, just how he couldn't do those two articles, right? I just happened to them quite recently, you know, reading these things in God there, the first book of the Sentences. Um, by the way, do you guys read the Bible over every year? Returgically or personally? Or both? Well, either, you know, between the two of them. Pretty, pretty much. We cover, well, we don't cover the whole Bible in the literature, but we cover, we cover, I'm pretty sure, all the New Testament, and a lot of the Old Testaments, not everything, but a lot of it. And then individually rereading. I've been rereading my biography of, uh, John Quincy Adams, right? You know, it's amazing, how many things. But he made a resolution, you know, early in life, to read through the whole Bible every year. So every year he'd go through and read the Bible. And it's a shorter Bible, too. What? It's a shorter Bible. Oh, sorry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. A little bit shorter. So I get all these questions coming out about John Quincy Adams. They said, I said to my wife this morning, they said, who wrote the Monroe Doctrine, you know, about the, well, of course, it was John Quincy Adams. And, of course, Monroe announced it in his inaugural address, you know, in the beginning of his second term that he was, but the actual words were about the Monroe Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine and Yeah, one thing after another. He is responsible for it, right? He is very interesting. He was considered the greatest Secretary of State. Oh yeah, he is a very, very good Secretary of State. Notice the three there in that passage I was giving there from St. Thomas, right? Carefully, frequently, and urgently, yeah. You can have all three, right? Anyway, I was reading the 22nd chapter, I think it was. Matthew, right? Towards the end of that chapter, one of the Pharisees asked him, what is the great commandment, right? And Christ says, well, the first and the greatest commandment is... Yeah, but what does he say in the text, you know? There are three things he says, right? Your heart. Your heart. Yeah, yeah. And the word mind there, the dianoia, right? That's how you say sometimes, right? I'm talking about reason. Well, what do those three mean, you know? Well, Thomas in the golden chain, right? The chain of Aurea. He gives a number of explanations, but the first one he gives is the one that kind of struck me very much, you know? And it's by Chrysostom, right? Okay? I don't know if you've seen that explanation Chrysostom gives. It's kind of interesting, right? He says that the first thing to love God with your whole heart, right? Is a love that you can sense. Because it's partly what? Sensible, yeah. Sensible and able to be sensed, right? And it's kind of interesting to say, you know? Okay. He says the second thing that Christ says there, with your whole soul, right, huh? Well, this is a love now that is much more just spiritual, right, huh? It's a love you can't sense, he says. But it's a love that you know when you understand that God is good. You know? Because I was thinking of those five chapters of Thomas there in the Summa Congentiles, where the first chapter says that God is good, the second brings out that he's goodness itself. And the third chapter, therefore, there can't be anything bad in him. And then fourth, he's the good of every good. And then fifth, he's the Summa Congentiles, right? This is, you know, that's what he understands the second thing there. So that's interesting, you know? And then the third part is where I suppose out of the love of God, right, huh? You use your reason to always think about God, right? And to remember God, et cetera, et cetera, right? So that's a beautiful explanation, I thought. You know? There are other explanations of the words, you know? Well, they probably answer 2002, you know. That's what was most interesting, right? And I was thinking, you know, about the first one there being a love that is somewhat, what? Sensible, right, huh? And I'm influenced a lot by St. Francis Liguori, right? It's interesting in terms of three, you know, we've been talking about three. Three times in his life, he did his meditations on the, what? Passion of Christ, right, huh? But at the beginning, I think it was the first one where he has kind of a little golden chain of quotes from the church fathers, right? And they're all insisting upon the fact that this is the way to come to love God, huh? By meditating on the passion of our Lord, right? It's very appropriate to us, right? Okay? And Augustine says, you know, a tear is shed, you know. Anybody taken the passion of Christ is worth, you know, all this, you know. But it's really a beautiful collection he has from the, you know, he realized the importance of this. But isn't that a love that is to some extent, what? Sensible, right? Able to be sensed, right, huh? Because you're dealing with something that is, what, close to your senses of man dying on the cross and so on, right, huh? And greater love than this hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends, right? So you're struck by, what, the excellence of what Alphonsus is bringing out in these things, right? This is kind of the key thing, right? And you think of Mary Magdalene, right, huh? Or these female saints, right, who maybe on Friday, you know, Christ would appear to them in his suffering, right, huh? So that there would be, what, a love that touched upon the, what, the sensible, right, you know? It strikes me something, you know, like that, you know, when you talk about faith, too, right? Because the profession of faith of Peter is, what, complete, right? And the church is built on the profession of faith of Peter, right? Well, what is a profession of faith by Peter? Is it the 16th chapter, I guess, of Matthew? He says, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, right? So he starts with the, what, human nature of Christ, which is sensible, right, huh? Especially to those guys, right? You saw what others had wished to see and never saw, right, huh? And then you ascend to the, what, the divinity, right, of Christ, right? Okay? Which is not, what, sensible, right, huh? Okay? Same order, right, that the great Christendom is seeing there in the commandment of what? Of love, right, huh? Now, I was thinking of the, you know, I had this concern with road, right, huh? You know? I told you about my doctoral thesis, right? My doctoral thesis was a comparison of Aristotle and Descartes on the roads and looking knowledge, right, huh? And basically, there are three roads to be considered, right, in looking knowledge. And one is the natural road in our knowledge, which is the road from the senses into reason. And then there's the common road of reasoned out knowledge, which is studied in logic. The road of reason as reason, right? And then there is the, what, private road of each piece of knowledge, right? Aristotle is very good on all three of them, and Descartes, you know, problems with all of them, right? So, I was thinking about, when I first, you know, got thinking about these, because Monsignor was talking about the way of proceeding, right? He started off with this famous text in the metaphysics there, where Aristotle was talking about the way of going forward in mathematics is not the way of going forward in actual science. Sorry, not the way of going forward in wisdom, right? And so you have to be educated as to the way of going forward in each of these sciences. Well, then Thomas has a famous commentary on there, and he says, Aristotle says, you know, before you can really learn geometry or really learn natural philosophy, you have to know the way of proceeding in that science, right? Then Thomas said, and for this reason also, logic must be learned before the other sciences, right? Because it teaches the common way of going forward in reasoned out knowledge. Right? So you learn about syllogism and definition and things you use and all of these things. And so, the logic professor at Laval there was quoting that text, right? This kind of preparation, you know, for what we're going to do is something from logic, right? And then, and then, those of us who were going to Monsignor's class, he said, you have two modes to proceed, huh? Because we just heard the, you know, from the text of Thomas, right? You have two modes to proceed, right? And so, and he's talking about the, the way of proceeding that is in conformity with the nature of our soul, right? But then when Aristotle talks about that in the first chapter of the physics, right? I noticed that he not only uses that way of speaking that Monsignor had and Thomas has, but he also calls it the road, right? And so I, I was pointing this out to Monsignor, right? And he says, yes, that's much more concrete when he says road, right? Okay. I said, well, and then I mentioned how I ran across this text of Thomas later on, huh? Where Thomas says that virtue is the road to happiness and vice is the road to misery. How concrete that is and how true it is, right? You know, and how it's confirmed every day in the daily paper, you know, where somebody is in misery now, right? Because he found the road of vice, right, huh? And so I got thinking, you know, about how Christ is what? The road, right, huh? How concrete that is, huh? It's the word who does there, right? But before I come back to the... that, huh? Just as I was on that thing of Thomas, I was looking at the Gospel of Matthew there again, and where Christ speaks of two roads, right? The one is the road that leads to hell and to misery, right? And this is the broad road, and many there are who enter into the broad road, right? And then there's another road, which is kind of narrow, right? But it leads to what? Life and happiness, right? And it's a little bit like Thomas is saying, you know? It's very concrete, though, right? Thomas' way of speaking, when he says that virtue is a road to happiness and vice is a road to misery, right? But Christ is speaking of these two roads, how very concrete Christ is in his way of speaking, right? And very similar to Thomas, or Thomas is very similar, I should say, to our Lord, right, huh? Okay? And of course, you've got to stop and say, what do you mean by road in some sense, right, huh? And I remember speaking to this, the Paul here, when he was a little boy, you know, I said to Paul one day, just out of nonsense, they said, Paul, what do you think of the basic road in human knowledge? And he says, there are cars and trucks on it. So you know where you began, right, huh? With the sensible road, right, huh? And so I said, now when Christ says, I am the road, what does it mean? We're not going to drive over him or something, you know? Ride up him or something, are we? What does it mean, huh? The road, right, huh? I got thinking about that, and I said, well, I was thinking of this famous book there, The Imitation of Christ, right, huh? Which, I know St. Trez and Monsieur there, I think that is, yeah, yeah, yeah. And of course, Aristotle said, you know, that man is the most imitative of the animals, and at first we learn by imitation, huh? And I say, now, maybe this is what he means by saying he's the road, right? We don't drive up this road, we don't gallop off this road, or run up this road, or walk up this road, right? That is Christ. What does it mean to, he's going to be the road for us, right? Does it mean maybe, or just, yeah, to imitate him, right, huh? And then, you know, learn to be for a meek and humble heart, right, huh? And so we can, uh, uh, or Christ says, you know, uh, uh, take up your cross and follow me, right, huh? That means kind of imitating him, right, huh? Following his footsteps, huh? So that's, that's what it, uh, means, huh? You said that in St. Peter after the Resurrection, too, and he was about saying, what about this place? That's not your business, you follow me. Yeah, yeah. Don't line anybody up. Yeah. So it's very concrete, that, that image of the road, huh? Who does, huh? And when, uh, human beings are made in the East, uh, Buddhist traditions, and in those traditions, they talk about the way in a similar kind of way as well, the road, and it's, uh, seems to be, uh, perhaps the way God made our lives to seek a road, his road, even ultimately, but even the different traditions of philosophy and faith. I mean, the word, the word way is really transit a lot of times, so does, but way is not, it is concrete, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's Thomas says that the word love is used in three ways in talking about God, the words he uses is essentially, notionally, and personally, yeah, and, you know, there are articles where the Holy Spirit is love, right, yeah, of course, there are objections because everybody, you know, God himself is love, right, and everybody in the Trinity are loves, yeah, and then there's this, the love of the Father and the Son, just rise, and that's called the notional, right, sense of love, and of course, there's a love where it's something personal, and this is going to lead to the Holy Spirit, so, I mean, it's really, really difficult things here, huh? For a Sunday homily on Trinity, I know, and I know, so when we come back to Mass sometimes with my mother, you know, and she'd say, I wish the priest would explain that a little bit, you know, not the Trinity, she'd talk about something, you know, something like that, you know, something she's funny about, she'd heard it, maybe all her life, you know, in those days, you'd hear the same Gospels again, and kind of puzzled over that, but you can kind of see where there's certain prudence in not getting into explaining the Trinity. Certainly, certainly they did, you know, yeah. In fact, lose your audience in more than one way. Well, you know, Thomas was saying, you know, whether, you know, talking about the, whether the father generated a son by will, right, you can't say that, but anyway, was it necessary for the son, for the father to generate the son, what would you say? Well, that's another thing it brings out, that's another article, right, but one article is whether, you know, it's by nature that he's generating him, but insofar as the divine nature is the same as the Trinity, right, otherwise the son could generate two. Yeah, that's right. But I mean, I think it's in another article, which is whether it's necessary that, and, of course, it goes back to the fact that God is, per se, what? Necessary, huh? Necessary to himself. So everything that's in God is necessary, right? So therefore, it's necessary that the father generate the son. It's necessary that the Holy Spirit proceed from the father and the son, right? So, if you say, it's necessary that God be three persons, the answer is yes, right? But the reason why you say that is because you know God is, what, altogether necessary, right? And because you believe that there are three persons in God, and therefore you can syllogize that it's necessary, right, huh? But the thing is that we don't see the reason why it is necessary. And it came very clear to me now that we're reading this, right? Saying, how is he going to show that, right? See? And I can give you a reason why the triangle has its interior angles equal to right angles, right, huh? Why it must be so, right? But in the case of God, I don't see the reason why there must be three persons in God, so that I believe that there are three persons in God, and because I know that God is altogether necessary, then I can conclude that God is necessarily three persons, then I can conclude that God is necessarily three persons, but why he's necessarily three persons, I don't know, you see? You realize how exactly where we are, right, huh? But when you see God face to face, if you get that far, right, then you'll see why he must be three persons, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And anyway, when Thomas is talking about that, he distinguishes the various senses of the word necessary, right? It's a beautiful text, you know, where he does this, right? I said to myself, I should really copy that text and put it in the fifth book of metaphysics with Aristotle. I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I said to myself, I except the word Necessary, right? And it distinguishes the different senses of it. It's a beautiful text, you know. So I copied it over and I put it in the thing, and then I opened up my thing where I had the fifth book of the Metaphysics, and opened up to Necessary, and looked in there, it's already in there, the text. The first time or the other time when I read the thing, you know. But it's such a beautiful text, right, huh? And I came back to my favorite imitation of Aristotle, you know. Aristotle wrote Introduction to Philosophy Dialogue, right? And it's been lost, right? But there are little fragments of it, you know, that they have. And the main fragment that you have is where Aristotle, in the dialogue, says, should you philosophize or not, right? And if you think you should philosophize, then do so, right? If you think you should not philosophize, you're going to have to philosophize to show why not, right? Well, in my little way, I was imitating him and saying, you know, is it necessary to understand the word Necessary? If you say yes, then you'd better understand the word, huh? You know, that's why they have that in the fifth book of Wisdom, right, where he distinguishes the sense of the words, right, in this beautiful text when he's going to talk about this Necessary for God to, I mean, for the Father to generate the Son, right? And you've got to understand these senses, right? But if you say no, you're going to have to do what? Yeah, yeah. And there are many senses necessary, right? And is it necessary, for example, to know logic to philosophize? Well, I've got to be careful now. Is it necessary that the man who philosophizes knows logic? Do men philosophize sometimes without knowing logic? And my teacher, Albert the Great, one of my teachers, Albert the Great, says, you know, the cause of the era of the early Greeks was they didn't know what? Logic, right, huh? And if you look in the first book of an actual hearing there, Aristotle takes, you know, part leases, right, huh? And it's because partly doesn't know what? Logic, right, huh? And he makes several mistakes that we study, kinds of mistakes that we study in logic, right, huh? So is logic necessary to philosophize, huh? Yeah, yeah. So Thomas distinguishes these senses, right, huh? Okay. But he says that the basic distinction of this necessary is between this absolute necessity that's based upon what a thing is, right, and then this conditional necessity that's based upon extrinsic things like the mover or maker or the what? The end, right? So necessity that comes from the mover or the maker is force, right, huh? Okay. So if the police picked me up and put me into the car, I necessarily go into the paddy wagon, right, but because of their what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's not necessary in the way that it's necessary for the triangle to have its, you know? I necessarily go into the paddy wagon because the police are more strong than I am, at least a group of them are, right? Push me up, right? Okay. Then the other kind of necessity is, is it necessary to eat? Well, if you want to live, right, huh? See? And then Thomas says it's necessary to have a boat. Well, if you're going to make a trip, you know, or a horse, you're going to take a trip, you know? So in that sense, you see, a logic is necessary for philosophy, right? You want to philosophize well and avoid, you know, a large amount of error. Then you need to know what logic, huh? I told you what my teacher, Kasirik, said, you know, I don't know where he got the text if it's there, but he said, Augustine says the only part of logic we're teaching is the part about errors. How you make errors, right? I don't know if you guys have said that, but I mean, that's only a part of logic, right, then, to know these different kinds of mistakes, huh? You're in some difficult matter, you know, and there's an argument that's very convincing, you know, and Thomas pulls out some kind of mistake, and it's obviously this kind of mistake once you understand it, and amazing thing, huh? Would you say that philosophy, if it's done well, will necessarily, your pardon, be using that word lead to logic in order to improve what is philosophizing? Well, you need logic, right, to define well and to reason well, right, huh? But you won't ever arrive at logic without philosophizing, and it will enhance one's ability to be a philosopher. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, Aristotle, you know, he's talking about Socrates there. He says Socrates was trying to syllogize, right? And a sign of this, he was always trying to define, and definition is really the main middle term there in the syllogism, huh? So you see these guys kind of working their way towards this, huh? But sometimes, you know, Aristotle speaks to them as coming to the truth, being coerced by the truth itself, on that, maybe seeing the reason why this has to be so, huh? But you certainly can't apply to people nowadays with this homosexual marriage and all the rest of the stuff, that's right? It's just ridiculous what's going on. Up to Article 5 here in Question 96, I think. To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that not all are, what, subject to the law, right? I get this in some organization and they have their quote. No one is above the law. Thomas is going to distinguish here about that. For those alone are subject to the law, to whom, what? Or for whom the law is laid down. What the Apostle says in the first epistle of Timothy, that to the just one, the law is not laid down. Therefore, the just are not subject to human law. Put that in your paper. Moreover, Urban, the Pope says, has had in the decrees, 19, question 2, that who is led by what? But a private law in no way, what, is restricted by the, what? There's no reason required, right, that he be restricted by the public one, right? But by a private law of the Holy Spirit, all spiritual men are, what? Led. Who are the sons of God, right? According to that of Romans 8, verse 14. Who are led by the Spirit of God. These are the sons of God. So even the devil can quote scripture, right? Therefore, not all men are subject to human law. Moreover, the jurisprudence to a son, the one experienced to the law. It says that the prince is, what, freed from the laws, huh? What's that, organization, judicial watch, you know? No one is above the law, right? They're always examining what the government itself is doing, huh? But who is, what, untied from the law, huh? Is not subject to the law. Therefore, not all are subject to the law. But against this is what the apostle says, Romans 13. Every soul is subject to, what? But higher powers. But no one seems to be subject to power who is not subject to the law, which the power bears power. Therefore, all men ought to be subject to human law, huh? Now, what's Thomas going to say about these things, huh? He certainly can confuse the issue, right? I answer you, it should be said, as it is clear from the things said above, that the law of its definition has two things, huh? Or its notion. First, that it is a rule of human acts, huh? Or it's a measure of human acts, right? It's a rule. Secondly, that it has a power of, what? Coversing, huh? In two ways, therefore, someone can be subject to the law. In one way, as a thing ruled, is subject to the rule. So we get the word regular, huh? The regular person lives by the rules. And in this way, all, right? Those are subject to power, are subject to the law, which the power, what? Brings forth, huh? But that someone is not subject to a power can happen in what? In one way, because he is, what? Simply from all subjection. Whence those who are of, what? One city, or one kingdom, right, huh? Are not subject to the laws of the prince of another city or kingdom, huh? No democracy on this, Thomas' example, so. Just as they are not subject to his, what? Dominion. In another way, according as he is ruled by a, what? Higher law. As if someone is subject to the pro-council, ought to be ruled by his, what? Commandment, huh? But not over in those things where he is dispensed from this by the emperor. For as regards this, he is not, what? Restricted by the command of the lower, right? When he is directed by the command of the superior. And according to this, it happens that someone simply is subject to the law, according as, what? That someone simply is subject to the law, according to, what? Something. According to something, he is not subject or restricted by the law, according as he is being ruled by a, what? Superior law, right, huh? In another way, someone is said to be subject to the law as the one coerced to the one coercing, huh? The one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced The one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced The one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced The one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coer to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coerced to the one coer People say, as long as I force myself to do that. But it's because in some sense it's against their will. Some will they have anyway, right? I force myself to eat some salmon. I didn't know I'm embarrassed. I didn't know I'm embarrassed. I didn't know I'm embarrassed to host this or something. She would serve me something that I detested. So I might be said in that sense to force myself to eat it. One of my little girl's relatives said she made a coffee cake and she put coffee greens in instead of the coffee thing in there, you know. So everybody's pretending to like what they're eating, you know. You know what I've said to the girl, you know. He's trying to please them, you know. Before then she'll cry. They probably didn't pretend to eat something which is really terrible when they try to secretly feed it to their dog and their dog refuses to eat it. So we're a very simple soul from Brazil. And so one of the, she made a special cake for us Americans for some occasion. And we brought it away a ton. And it turned out instead of sugar she put salt in. That's kind of commonplace when we talk about the nuns cooking, you know. It's not the most collectible cuisine, you know. Thus, therefore, the prince is said to be, what, free from the law, because no one, right, can bear a genuine condemnation upon him, right, huh, if he acts against the, what, law, right? L'état c'est moi. You get me better than that. Whence over that of Psalm 50, to myself only I have sinned, right? That's maybe David saying that, huh? To thee. To thee, to thee, yeah. That the king does not have a man who judges his. But as regards the directive power of the law, right? The prince is subject to the law by his own, what, will, right, huh? According to that, said in the Constitution, son, that since all, huh, when the chapter commode is, that whoever, what, his right, law for others, he himself ought to obey his own, what, law. Do what I say now, as I do. And the authority of the wise man says, yeah. And those people are, what, criticized by the Lord, right, who say and do not do, right, and who impose heavy burdens upon others that they themselves do not move their finger, right, to release them, huh? Whence, as regards the judgment of God, the prince is not, what, free from the law, as regards the directive power of it. For it ought to be voluntary, not, what, coerced, he is fulfilling the law. But also the prince is above the law, insofar as if it be expedient, he can, what, change the law, right, huh? And dispense in it for the circumstances of place and time, huh? And it was an interesting point here, in the middle of St. Thomas' answer, about, hence the subjects of one city or kingdom are not bound by the laws of the sovereign of another city or kingdom, since they are not subject to its authority. There's a trend in a progressive branch of the Supreme Court to cite foreign cases, foreign law, statutes, and also common law from other English tradition countries like Zimbabwe, United Kingdom, and other, I gather, non-compatible legal traditions to buttress their, the decision that they want to make, because there is no precedent in our own system to support where they want to go. So when I drive to the left side of the street, I will, ssss, the English law, yeah. Just following the philosophy of the Supreme Court. That was terrible. Yeah, yeah. Experiments against reality. Two, six, one, go.