Prima Secundae
Lecture 251: Definition, Demonstration, and the Causes of Things

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

in the name of the father the son holy spirit amen thank you god thank you guardian angels thank you thomas aquinas dio gracias god our enlightenment guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds or to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly saint thomas aquinas angelic doctor help us to understand what you have written father son holy spirit amen uh come back a little bit to my aside there last time when i was talking about the order of matthew right matthew the order in peter's profession of faith thou art the christ the son of the living god and then kind of the order in john where he brings out that in the beginning was the word and the word was toward god and in fact the word was god and then uh we find out that the word is responsible for everything came to be and then finally we found the word became flesh right and dwelt among us so he goes in the first order right from the divinity of the word right to his humanity right and so it's kind of contrasting those two orders i mean why they were and um i mentioned you know that the uh going from the humanity of christ to his divinity is following the natural road in our knowledge and the natural road in our knowledge is the what first road in our knowledge so what is the natural road in our knowledge to reason yeah yeah so when you go from the sensible christ right to the one that's not able to be sensed right you're going from the reason into there and of course there are other ways to do this in scripture like for example when you anytime you have metaphors right the lord is my rock right um you're going from what the sensible right something uh understandable right and when moses you know saw the brilliant borsche some of the church fathers say that the this represents christ right in his two natures uh and then the bush is human nature and the fire is divine nature and the fire does not consume the bush the human nature is not swallowed up by the what divine one right yeah and so again he's being led from the what senses into the reason right well you know i was thinking about that in terms of you know the just the order of the gospels too right where matthew mark and luke emphasize in the nexagorean sense um the uh anointed one right and matthew is anointed as king uh mark is anointed as prophet or teacher and luke he's anointed as what priest right and now seeing that three and of course i'm caught up with this idea that sacred doctrine can be divided into two or three right so maybe another division here right and then i'd be the great discoverer of another distinction but then as i thought about a little bit more i said it really corresponds to the distinction of uh sacred doctrine according to faith hope and charity so faith corresponds to the prophet or teacher and hope or prayer right he's there to the priestly and then the um commands of love and ten commandments to uh the king right christ the king but then interesting thing about that is that um you're in that connection of those two right you have the order of what um matthew right or or peter's profession right where he professes that he's the anointed one before he gets to the divine and in mark and i guess in luke too when they the account of that in cesarea philippi they just mentioned our christ right so it's very very much that's primary right the other dimension there right um but then it struck me you know the fact that that uh augustine in his uh ingredient and faith open charity written for you know gentleman who asked him to give him to give him a summary of the christian doctrine this is appropriate to the beginner right and thomas in his katecha katechetical instructions follows the same order right faith hope and charity with faith you expound the creed and with uh hope you expand the our father and with the charity you expound into commandments of love and the ten commandments and uh thomas even follows that order in his compendium of theology written for his companion there but original right who wanted a little you know theology to carry around with him you know so he could you know in his spare time uh fresh his mind up reading this again right but thomas follows the division according to faith open what charity with uh him maybe a little higher level than the katechetical instructions but still basically the same order what's got interesting right the connection between those two right because this is for the beginners right and the method comes first because you're first led from the but humanity of christ and then from that to his what divinity right but the the second order the order in john is used to be you know fixed in our mind when i was a boy there you always at the end of mass you you said the beginning of john's gospel i don't know if you guys are young enough to remember that no that's the end of every mass did you know that yeah yeah yeah you're very familiar with that because we we said at the end of mass it's like the last thing in almost the mass and that's the order it's followed in theology right so that's more the road of what theology right now and uh this is kind of a different order right but this other one is you know a sign that it ties in with the christ being the anointed one which is more proportion to us and this is used for the beginners right so with the truth all things what fit together right then um i was thinking again a little bit of uh uh shakespeare's definition of reason which i think is very good right huh but if you go to these two masters here albert the great and thomas aquinas huh they both divide logic right but albert the great divides logic into two parts which are uh yeah he divides logic into the art of defining and the art of reasoning okay now if you compare this with shakespeare's definition right these the two main kinds of discourse right because our definition there of discourse right discourse as thomas often says has a uh two senses right one is the going from this to that but then the the stricter and more profound sense of discourse is coming to know what you don't know to what you do know right huh so i asked students you know what is a perfect number and they don't know but they come to know through the definition of what a perfect number is a number equal to the sum of its parts that is that what measures it evenly right so six is a perfect number and 28 against the second perfect number and so on but six is measured only by one by two and by three but not by four or five and one plus two plus three equals six right now you know what a perfect number is right okay and now you know a perfect number is always a composite number and not a a what prime number right what's interesting right because it shows the harmony between albert there and shakespeare's definition of what reason right because he puts the most fundamental thing he says is that reason is the ability for discourse which can you break down into the two main kinds of discourse coming to know the simple unknown as albert says right by definition coming to know the complex unknown a statement right by what reasoning huh father to miss this but anyway Now, Thomas, of course, divides logic into what? Three parts, right? And it's because when he begins his premia to logic, he's dealing with the works of Aristotle, right? And so he goes back to what Aristotle does in the Dianna, where he distinguishes the first act of reason and the second act of reason. The first act of reason being understanding what something is. The second act, understanding the true or the false by composing or dividing the things you understood in the first act. And then for that, you can add a third act, reasoning, right? And so Aristotle's got, he's the father of logic, Aristotle, because he's the first guy to write the basic books of logic. So he has the categories, which deals with the first act of reason, and para hermeneus with the statement, right? And then the rest of the books are all about reasoning, some stronger than others, right? Now, in the part on reasoning, in the posterior analytics, right, Aristotle then shows how you define, too, even though it's in the third act. But because definition, he says, is the beginning of what? The syllogism, right? Beginning, especially, of demonstration. And that's why he said Socrates wanted to syllogize, because a sign of which is he wanted to define. And so Aristotle points something out very interesting about this, and that is that there's a connection between definition and demonstration, and that a complete definition differs from a demonstration by position only. Now, what does that mean, right? Well, he points out that when you try to define something, you want to understand what the thing is, you've got to understand what makes it to be what it is. And that means to understand its what? Causes. So even in answering the question, what is it? Which you do when you define, right, huh? You're going to be making use of the causes of the thing you're trying to, what, define, right? While in demonstrating, you answer the question, why, right? And that's very clearly, right, a knowledge of the cause, right? It's more obvious that the question, why, asks for a cause than the, what, you know, than the question, what, right? Okay? But the question, what, asks for a cause, too. So I was reminded of this, you know, when Thomas was reading the sentences, I've been doing recently, and he has an article there on Augustine's definition of infused virtue. And it's kind of interesting objections against, you know, that you have against Augustine's definition. And one objection is, you know, well, there are other definitions of virtue besides Augustine's, you know? So Augustine's definition must be lacking something. And Thomas says, well, there can be many incomplete or partial definitions of the same thing. And, but a complete definition would bring in all the causes, huh? Now, the example I've always given class was, you know, suppose someone asks you what a knife is, right? And I'd say, what is a steak knife? To take a favorite example of mine, you know? Okay. Well, it's a tool for cutting a filet mignon, right? You know its purpose already. Yeah, yeah. So, now this is a definition of the knife by one of its causes, the most important cause, the end or purpose of the steak knife, right? Or in general, the end of the knife is to cut something, right? But now, you might also give a definition of the knife by its parts, right? It's a tool composed of a blade and a handle, right? And these are like the parts of the knife, right? That tells you where a knife is in a sense, right? But it's more in terms of the matter, if parts are like matter, right? And you can bring in the form that the blade should be inserted in the handle, right? Okay. So on. Well, what do you have in Augustine's definition of infused virtue? You've ever heard that or say anything? Well, it's something like this. Bona qualitas, a good quality, right? Mentis of the mind, right? But which one lives rightly, right? And one can only use to be, right? And which God, what? Pours into us without us, right? Okay. Without our doing, they need to acquire it. It's not by repeated acts like the virtues Aristotle talks about. Well, Thomas says, you've got all four causes of the infused virtue, right? And the bona qualitas, a good quality, is like the form, right? Of the bona qualitas mentis of the mind, right? Of the part that is reason or shares in reason. That's got the matter in which it exists, right? And then, but which one lives well, right? Is the end, right? And which God pours in us without us. That's all the causes, right? It's a beautiful thing, right? Okay. But I was thinking again, you know, about how, you know, if you look at the beginning of Aristotle's work there and the eight books of natural hearing, right? The very first reading, huh? And a little question there about the Latin and Greek text there, but Aristotle says, any understanding and epistastiae, right? Comes from knowing, you know, the beginnings, the causes, the elements, right? And so on. And Thomas, of course, explains what this means, right? He's saying understanding what or understanding why is either one, is by the causes, as Aristotle shows in the, what, fourth, in the second book of the, what, postural ethics, right? Okay. You can see that with these definitions, right? You could say, and you can make a kind of demonstration, say, a knife is a tool for cutting. A tool for cutting should have a blade and a handle and so on, right? And then you could syllogize, therefore, a knife has a blade and a handle, right? Okay. Or like he does in the, in the postmodernics itself. He gives a definition of demonstration by its end. A definition is what? I mean, a demonstration is a syllogism, making us know the cause and that of which it is a cause, and it cannot be otherwise. But then he reasons from that to what the matter must be, that a syllogism that's called a demonstration is made of, right? And it's got to be made from statements, you know, that are necessary, and so on and so on. And so he syllogizes the definition for matter from the definition by what? In, right, huh? They can do the same thing with definition and say, you know, definition is speech making known what a thing is. And speech making known what a thing is is composed of a genus and what difference is, right, of the thing you're defining. And so you could demonstrate the definition by matter for the definition by end, right? Or you could combine them all and say, definition is speech composed of a genus indifference, this sort of thing, right? Making known what it is, right, huh? You could bring in the whole picture, right, huh? Well, that's the other part of Shakespeare's definition, isn't it? Because it's looking before and after, and the crowning sense of before is the cause is before the, what? Effect, huh, you know? It's kind of marvelous, huh? Wasn't I talking last time about the order of the soul and the powers of the soul and the, what, acts of those powers, right? And there's, what, maybe two orders of that, of those three? And they're just the, what, reverse, right? In one sense of before, the soul is before its powers, and the powers are before the acts of those powers. In another sense of before, the acts of the powers are before the powers, and the powers are before the, what? Soul, right, huh? What two senses are those? Which of the five senses of before that you have from the mortal chapter on the before there? Well, I don't know if you have a soul in time before you have, you know, reason, right? Maybe if we have the use of reason. Maybe the use of reason yet. But the soul is before its power is in what sense always? The fourth sense is better, right? Yeah. But the more obvious sense is what? But the powers of the soul are like properties of the soul, right? They follow from the nature of the soul, right? So the soul is a cause of its what? Powers, right? And some powers of our soul, right? You know, have the soul even as its subject, right? The other ones are joined in the body, right? And then the powers are the causes of their what? Acts, right? Because I have a reason. Because I have a reason I can look before and after. As I'm doing the hoxy today. Okay? So the soul is before its powers and the powers before their acts as a cause is before an effect. But that's the so-called fifth sense. Now, not fifth in order, but the fifth sense is, you know, put alongside the second sense, the different sense. But it's mentioned by Aristotle, that side sense, because it's so important for philosophy, right? In general, for the mind, right? If you don't believe me, let's ask why. Why is it so important? But it's by asking this question that we eventually go to God, right? I just think, you know, of how, when you say a perfect definition, you know, it's by causes, right? Can God be defined then? He has no causes, right? But now the other sense of, another sense of order, in which the acts of the powers are before the powers, and the powers are before the soul, would be what sense? That's what I thought of. Because I don't have the act of reason before I have the power of reason, right? Well, Aristotle, when he, you know, teaches us about the powers, you know, he says that we know the powers through their acts. How do you know that you have the ability to look before and after? How do you know that there's such an ability, as the great Shakespeare speaks of the ability to look before and after? Yeah, if you never look before an actor, you know? So, you know the power by the act, and you know the kind of soul you have by the, what, power, right? So, when Aristotle investigates, you know, the famous question with the human soul, right? The understanding soul, as Shakespeare calls it, whether that's immortal or not, right? What does it have? An act that is, what, not in the body, right? And Aristotle can show in many ways that the soul has an act. An act, understanding the universal, right? Understanding continuous things in an uncontinuous way. That it is, what, has an act that is not in the body, right? And therefore, it has a power that is not in the body, right? And therefore, it's not immersed in matter, right? The thing that is floating in the water, right? It's only part of it, but in the matter, right? So, it has, and because we know that being is before doing, right? If it has doing that is not in the body, then it is being that is not, what, tied to the body, right? And therefore, the soul will survive death, right? And Aristotle was able to reason from that, too, that the human soul didn't come from your mother and father, your soul. He says that in the book on the generation of animals, right? And so, those things are very interesting, right? See that, huh? What's the third sense of before, huh? In the discourse of reason or in our knowledge, right? Okay. So, yeah, just the reverse order there, right? Okay, let's look at our... Article 6 here. Article 5, rather. To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that all men are obligated to observing the old law. That's something that comes up in the Acts of the Apostles, doesn't it? Some people were maintaining it, weren't they? For some, whoever is subject to the king, it's necessary that he be subject to the law of the king, right? See, he's tying up the law with king here, right? It's subjection. But the old law is given by God, who is the rex omnus terrae, the king of all the earth. As in Psalm 46 it is said. There are other psalms that talk about that. Therefore, all those inhabiting the earth are held to observance of the law. Moreover, Jews are not able to be saved unless they observe the old law. For it is said in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 27, Maledictus, eh? Cursed in a sense. The one who does not remain in the, what? Sermons or the speeches of this law, right, eh? Nor does, what? Perfect them in his work, eh? If therefore other men, without the observance of the law, of the old law, were able to be saved, worse would be the condition of the Jews than that of other men, eh? Ah, when the apostle says the law, none of us could. Let me double, doubled in here. Moreover, Jews, Gentiles rather, were admitted to the, what? Judaic right and to the observances of the law. For it is said in Exodus, chapter 12, verse 48, if one of the, what? One's wandering around, I guess, on the pervignals, wish to, what? Go over to your colony, your city, town, and to make the, what? Passover. Passover of the Lord. Let the male first be, what? Yes. Yeah. And then he can, what? Celebrate the rite, eh? And therefore, be just as one who's indigenous to that land, eh? But, in vain, right? Were some admitted to the, what? Extraneous to the legal observances from the divine ordinance, if without these legal observances, they were able to be, what? Saved. Therefore, no one can be saved unless he observes the law. But against this, as Dionysius says in the ninth chapter, of the celestial hierarchy, that's the one that, what? Albert the Great commented on. Thomas commented on the divinities. To many of us, the divine names, eh? That many of the Gentiles, eh? Were reduced to God, or led back to God, by the, what? Angels, eh? I hope that's Aristotle. But it stands to reason, eh? That the, what? Gentiles did not observe the law, the old law. And therefore, without the observance of the law, someone was able to be, what? Saved. Saved, eh? Yeah. Well, I, Thomas Aquinas, that is to say, eh? I respond that it should be said that the old law makes known the precepts of the, what? Natural law. And then, adds above this, right? Certain private, eh? Precepts, eh? I would translate appropriate there, private myself. A lot of times, I think of the common good and the proper good. I think it's better to say the private good, right? Because common good is the proper good, too. In fact, it's your, you have a great obligation to, to, well, that's one thing the Pope was saying there, today, and the thing that, he's talking about the immigrants, right? And how you have to treat them if you want to be treated yourself, right? And he kind of applied that to, you know, the reproduction, right? Yeah, I thought it was clearly, as fully as he could, but he was, you know? Yeah, he was. And applying it to that, you know, you would not want to be aborted yourself, right? He didn't get quite that explicit, but, it's interesting, that it's an actual law, which has a lot in the commandments, right? It's interesting, Aristotle, when he talks about virtue lying in the middle, right, between two extremes, he's pointing out there's no, what? There's no mean, he says, no virtuous mean, of what is already an extreme, right? So, let's say murder, right now, but one of the examples he gives there is adultery, right? Adultery, he says, is always wrong. So, it's not a question of don't commit adultery too much or too little, but just the right amount. No, no, there's no mean, he says, of the extreme, right? Okay? And, you know, don't get drunk too much or too little, just the right amount. No, to be drunk is already to be in excess, right? So, there's no mean of the, but it's interesting that Aristotle will see, you know, adultery as what? Naturally bad, right? So, as regards those things which the old law contains of the law of nature, all are held to the observance of the old law. Not because they pertain to the old law, right? But because they are of the law of what? Nature. As regards those things which the old law adds above this, right? They are not held to the observance of the old law except the, what? People of the Jews, right? Okay? So, we got it over there, right? You have to obey the natural law there. And the reason for this is because the old law, this has been said, right? Was given to the people of the Jews as they might obtain a certain, what? Preeminence or prerogative of what? Holiness, right? An account of reverence of Christ, who was going to, what? Be born from that, what? People. And as I tell you that there, I think it was on EWTN there, you know, they have the, these people who are converts to Catholicism and so on, right? And, but the Immaculate Conception, right, huh? You know, this made sense to this person, right, who was talking, right, huh? Because if Christ was going to be born from this one, right, how could he be born, you know, the woman who's contaminated with, with sin, right, huh? That makes sense to him, you know, you know, I mean, apart from the fact that you should define it, right, but some people, you know, have a difficulty there, huh? Immaculate Conception was defined in what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, and then they define it or on at the end, assumption, right, huh? Yeah, yeah. I always tell that story that somebody said, you know, if they define it, I don't know if I can stay in the church, and someone said, don't worry, he says, you're already out of the church. now whoever are, what, put in the status, right, huh? For some special, what, sanctification, they, others are not obliged except those, huh? Okay, so I mean, you know, You take the vows, you know, certain vows, right? Not everybody is held to those, right? Okay. Just as some clerics, right, are obligated to some things, right, who are given over to the divine, what, service, to which the lay are not, what, obliged, right? Okay, that's a good way of manifesting it, right? And likewise, the religious, right, are, what, are obligated to certain works of perfection, right, from their profession, to which the seculars are not, what, yeah. So you've got to do with that, be careful of the $20 bill, right, because you're, you're, you're taking the vows. He's more bound by the seventh commandment than you are. Yeah. I remember a Dominican talking to me, he says, you know, if you sign some things, I guess you go in and sign, so that if you receive inheritance, let's say, right, while you're a member of the order, it doesn't go to you, it goes to the order, right? Right. So, so, he's joking, he says, I'm legally dead, he says. It was kind of funny, buddy. I remember when I, when I was preparing for my final vows, I was out. Yeah, yeah. Sort of, sort of with that in mind. Yeah. That's my death at the end of the day, my vows, and my brother-in-law was a lawyer. Yeah. He wrote back, he says, well, legally speaking, that wouldn't take effect unless you happen to die on the day you're taking it out. Because your spiritual death is not the same as your physical death. So, you have to kind of reward that. And likewise, right, this is similar, to some special things, right, are obligated that, what, people, right, to which other peoples were not, what, obligated, right, huh? Whence it is said in Deuteronomy, chapter 18, you will be perfect and without stain with the Lord your God, right, huh? So, we speak of the, the vowel taking is state of perfection, too, right? Okay, so over to that. And on account of this also, they used a certain, what, profession, right, huh? This is clear in Deuteronomy 26. I profess today, right, before the Lord God, et cetera, right? So, that's, that's interesting, huh? Now, to the first objection about obeying the king, it should be said that whoever are subject to the king are obliged to, what, observing his law, which he proposed commonly to all, right, huh? But if he institutes some things to be observed from his, what, familiar ministers, to which others are not, what, obliged, yeah. You know, what about, uh, there being in a worse state than other men, right? The second should be said that man, the more he is joined to God, huh, the more he's in a better condition, huh? And therefore, the more the people of the Jews was restricted, you might say, huh, or tied to, more to the divine cult, right? It was more worth than other, what, peoples, huh? Whence it is said in Deuteronomy 4, what other nation is thus, what, like the, yeah, that has ceremonia, that refers to one of the three kinds of laws, right? Justa judicia, the judicial laws, and then the universal law, right? And likewise, for the same reason, huh? Clerics are of better condition than the lay, and judicious than the, what, secular, right? Who were the nuns telling me they're in grade school there, you know? You're obviously sure to, so they should become a priest, you know, and try to talk into being a priest. You're a shooing! To third, it should be said, huh, that the Gentiles, right, more perfectly and securely, what, obtained salvation under the observances of the law than under the natural law alone, right, huh? And therefore, to that, they are admitted, right? Just as now, the lay are transferred to the, what, clerical state. And seculars, huh? I mean, it's like secular priests, huh, to religion, right? Although without this, they're able to be, what, saved. It's a nice little article, then, huh? I mean, it's a nice little thing, huh? I mean, it's a nice little thing, huh? I mean, it's a nice little thing, huh? I mean, it's a nice little thing, huh? I mean, it's a nice little thing, huh? I mean, it's a nice little thing, huh?