Tertia Pars
Lecture 34: Christ's Acquired Knowledge and the Active Intellect

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

I'm up to Article 4. Whether there was in Christ some experimental knowledge acquired. Now, experimental there doesn't have the sense of experimental in the modern sense. It means rigidly experience, right? To the fourth, therefore, one goes for it thus. It seems, then, that there's not in Christ some knowledge acquired by experience, right? For whatever belongs to Christ, he had in the most excellent way. But Christ did not have most excellently acquired knowledge. For he did not, what? Insist upon study of letters, right? By which knowledge is most perfectly acquired. For he said in John chapter 7, the Jews wondered, saying, Where does he know these letters, right? Since he is not, what? Learned, right? Therefore, it seems that in Christ there was not any acquired knowledge. The man was unlettered. Moreover, to that which is full, there cannot be added anything. But the power of the soul of Christ was filled through understandable forms, divinely. It's like we say about the angels, right? That their mind was filled with forms, right? Therefore, there could not arrive to that soul some, what? Acquired species, right? Of course, these acquired species would be of a different kind than the ones. Moreover, in the one who has the habit of science, to those things which he gets from sense, he does not acquire a new habit. Because in this way, there would be two forms of the same, what? That species at once, and in the same. But the habit which was there before is confirmed, and what? Priest, yeah. Since, therefore, Christ had the habit of infused knowledge, it does not seem that to those things which he perceived by sense, he acquires some other, what? Science. That kind of complement that. Yeah. But again, this is what is said in Hebrew 5, verse 8. When he was, what? God. Since he was a son of God. Since he was a son of God. He learned from those things which he suffered, what? Obedience, huh? And the gloss says, huh? That the expert to exist, right? Really? Yeah. There was, therefore, in Christ some experiential knowledge, which should be the acquired science. I answer it should be said that from the things above it is clear that nothing of those things which God planted in our nature, right, was lacking to the human nature assumed by the word of what? God, huh? Now it is manifest that in human nature, God planted not only the possible understanding, but also the, what? Acting upon understanding, huh? And there you can see Aristotle's influence by Plato because Plato thought that the universal thoughts that we have, right, come from the forms, right? And that the forms are what's universal, but they exist in separation from the singulars, right? Aristotle, when he realized that what a man is doesn't exist by itself apart from individual men, then he has a problem, right? How does our mind get this, what, universal knowledge? And therefore he recognized there was another power or another ability in us, right? The ability to separate the universal from the, what, singulars, right? So that this universal can then act upon the undergoing understanding, right? And so he posited then in the spiritual part of our soul an undergoing understanding, right? And an acting upon understanding, huh? Not like art and matter in a sense, right? Except in the spiritual order, huh? So he's pointing out, well, Christ had this, what, acting upon understanding, the age and intellect, as they call it in the Latin. Whence it is necessary to say that in the soul of Christ not only was there a possible understanding, an undergoing understanding, but also on the acting upon understanding, on the age and understanding. If, however, as in other things, God and nature do nothing, what, in vain, as the philosopher says in the first book about the universe, much less in the soul of Christ was there anything, what, in vain, huh? But that is in vain that does not have its own, what, operation. Since, as we said before, everything is an account of its, what, operation. That's something Aristotle teaches, of course, in the ninth book of wisdom, huh? The abilities for the sake of, what, act, huh? As is said in the second book of De Chelo Mundo, huh? So it's taught there, too. But the age and intellects, the acting upon understanding's own operation, is to make the understandable, is to make, what, understandable forms in act, right? Separating them from the, what, images. As is said in the third book about the soul, right? We studied that once, didn't we? Look at it again. Okay. That the acting upon understanding is that by which all things are made, right? Okay. Souls in some way all things. Thus, therefore, is necessary to say that in Christ there were some understandable forms through the action of the acting upon understanding received in his, what, undergoing understanding. And this is to say that in him there is this acquired science, right? Which some name, what, experiential. And therefore, although elsewhere, huh? I have written otherwise. Now, if you look at, if you have a footnote there in the Marriott edition, references to the third book of the sentences, distinction 14, article 3, question 3, Uncola, five, or three, distinction 18, and so on. Okay? So Thomas might have... Jesus might. Might have grown in that one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I understand. This is a famous example, you know. There's one or two places at least where Thomas says this, you know, although I may have said elsewhere, you know. Okay? An idiot, quam vis aliter, otherwise, alibi elsewhere, right? I have written, right? It ought to be said that in Christ there was, what? Applied knowledge, huh? Which is properly, what? Knowledge according to the human mode, right, huh? Okay? Not only on the part of the subject that is, what? Receiving, but also on the part of the agent causing it, right? For such a knowledge is placed in Christ according to the light of the agent, what? Yeah. Yeah, you can understand. Which is connatural to human, what? Nature, right? But infused knowledge is attributed to the human soul according to a light infused from above. Which way of knowing is proportioned to the angelic nature? So it's above ours, right? But the blessed knowledge by which the very essence of God is seen is proper and natural to God alone, as has been said in the first part, right? So he has a knowledge which is what? He's partaking in the knowledge which is proper to God himself, and himself as God, and the kind of knowledge that the angels have, right? Which is not derived from things, and then the knowledge that is what? Natural man. Natural man, yeah. He's got it all. All of the zari, right? All the treasures of what? Wisdom and knowledge, huh? What are you getting for? Quite a man, this guy. You can imagine reading the book, I'm a physicist there, you know, and some of the thoughts. and some of the things that you've got, you know, and some of the things that you've got, you know, and some of the things that you've got, you know, and some of the things that you've got, So as the physicists got Christ in the room, they wanted him to illuminate them about. But he's very sparing about what he teaches us, right? He teaches us the things that are most important, that are necessary for our salvation, right? He doesn't teach us about the electron, the neutron. Curiosity. Yeah. And he doesn't tell us what Caesar was really like or anything like that. Professor, did Descartes somehow short-circuit the understanding of the confused knowledge and human knowledge and how it's acquired in any way? Yeah, yeah, he has a lot of problems. So he builds up his arguments on a very different foundation than the quietness had. For example, Descartes rejected dialectic, right? And the reason he gives is dialectic proceeds from what is probable, right? And if you proceed even necessarily from what is probable, right? What you get is not knowledge, right? So he says, well, then dialectic is useless for knowledge, right? Okay. Well, when I was considering Descartes there, he had kind of a nice little analogy here, which is kind of interesting. Suppose you're looking out at the horizon there, right? And you see something, right? And you call your friend's attention to it. He says, I don't see that. I say, well, do you see that tree out there? Yeah, okay. Now, do you see to the right of the tree of a bush? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, just to the left of a bush, oh, yeah, nice! Now, once your eyes light upon it, right, you see it, right? But the others were not a, what? Well, they led you to see it. But now you, when your eyes fall upon it, you don't have to look at the tree in the bush anymore, right? You see? But they did lead you to see something you didn't see before, right? But you don't see the thing you find you see, like a man there or something, right? Through seeing a bush, you see? Yeah. So, the way in which dialectic leads to knowledge is not that you deduce the knowledge from the dialectic, right? But the dialectic leads you to see something you didn't see before, but not by, what, proving it, right? See? This is my seeing the bush is not that to which I see the man. But it was through seeing the bush that came to see the man, that came to notice it, right? Anyway, a lot of problems in Descartes, huh? Descartes used to make the science of Descartes there when he taught the first framing there to the books of natural hearing, to physics, right? Because Descartes seems to identify, what, certitude with, what, precision, right? It's interesting that the great physicists, you know, starting with Pierre Duem around the 20th century, they began to realize that there's a, as Duem says, that there's an inverse ratio between certitude and precision, right? And he uses the kind of image of the thing where one scale goes up and it goes down. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so I used to come in class some days and I'd say to the students now, how old am I? I'd say, am I over 20? You know, say, yeah, yeah, see? Am I over 30? Yeah, yeah. Over 40? Yeah, see? But now the more precise you've got to my age, right, then? You want to say what decade am I in, right? So you'd be more sure of what decade I'm in. What decade am I in? You see? You see? Am I in my 40s? My 50s? My 60s? No. My 70s? Yeah. See? And maybe you're right about living in the 70s, but now, which year is it in there, right? See? And you get down to the month and the day and the hour, right? Which I was born. Maybe sugar. You know, you know myself when I was born. My mother never told me that. But you're getting less and less, what? Certainly. But you're getting more and more precise, right? Okay. And then I say, what else? You might say, well, okay, but we're scientists, you know. We're going to go look up your birth certificate, right? Okay. But even if you look at my birth certificate, and I said I was born in 1936, are you now more sure that I'm 73 than that I'm not 74? I mean, are birth certificates always, what, correct? I know when my father died, there was some question as to whether he was born in 1891 or 1892. There's some records, is it? And, of course, the newspaper said he was 55. Of course, he's actually 65. So, I mean, the newspaper is not that, you know. So, I mean, the people who wrote these things, right, wrote the thing down. Like, I might have had a drink that day or I might have been, you know, tired. What it was. So, what was actually the day of my father's thing, you know? So, I'm more sure my father was born in the 1890s than that he was in 1891 or 1892, right? The other example I would take is I'd take weight, and I'd say, how much do I weigh? Now, the more precisely you try to state my weight, the less, what, certain you are. I used to take the example there of, you know, I used to do this at the state fairs in the old days. He can get you through so many, you know, he wins, otherwise you win, right? You get a prize, something like that, huh? And you say, well, let's get scientific and get the thing out. But I don't get the same weight my way home and I go to the doctor's office. And when I was in college there, you know, there used to be a place there where they had the dances, right? But it was near the athletic facilities and there were these, you know, weighing things, right? Well, the guys would always, like a joke, they'd grow up in the thing to weigh. Well, one of the guys would put his finger behind there, you know, and read the weight off more than the girl's weight really wants. You know, it's kind of embarrassed the girl. Oh! You know, that's what I'm saying. You know, so I say there's a lot of stupidity that could, you know, so I mean, you might not get the same weight on different, what? Different machines, right? You see, you might go, you know. So you're still more sure of the less precise, right? So, okay. First objection, huh? Let's look at the first objection. What should we do? We need to know the best one. Okay. Yeah, he's a lettered man. Yeah, okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that there is a two-fold way of acquiring science. To wit, by discovery, right? And then by learning it from what? Another, right? The mode, which is through invention, is chief, right? Because someone has to discover the thing, right? Before you can teach it to somebody else. But the mode, which is through what? Discipline, through learning, being taught, is secondary, right? Whence it is said in the first book of the epics, huh? It's the famous passage that Aristotle takes from Hesiod, right? He says, best of all is the man who, what? By himself understands these things, right? Next best is the man who, what? Lists to the man who's saying these things well, right? Actually, the whole quote says, right? And the man who can either discover it by himself or learn from another, he's the worst, right? He's the least, right? He's useless. And Thomas, in the commentary, says useless as far as acquisition of knowledge is concerned. You know? Might be middle-aged. So I divide the human minds into three. You've heard my names for these? Call them the wits, the dimwits, and the nitwits. Well, the wits can discover something important by themselves, right? The dimwits can't discover something really great by themselves, but they can learn it from the, what? Wits. The dimwits, the nitwits, can neither discover these great things by themselves nor even learn them from those, right? So you have those three, right? So as far as acquisition of knowledge, the best of the first, right? And, okay. So, it belongs to Christ then, right? More to have acquired knowledge to, what? More to have acquired knowledge to, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what or discovery than through what discipline right especially since he is given by god to all as the what the teacher right according to that of joel let us rejoice in the lord our god who gives to us a teacher of what justice that's interesting what aristotle does um i think he has in mind and always works but but he does it in the two what uh culmination works right culmination of looking philosophy is is wisdom right and the culmination of practical philosophy is what political philosophy right and both of them he very explicitly examines what those who come before him have said right to see if he can acquire this from them because if someone else is already wise then the reasonable thing to do if you want wisdom is to learn it from this person right if someone already has political wisdom right um the reasonable thing to do is to what learn it from him right and if you don't want to learn it from the man who already knows it then really you want the glory of discovering it by yourself rather than what the quickness of of knowing right that you can get from someone else um it doesn't mean you can't to some extent try to you know yourself but but you're not going to get too far by yourself it's going to take a much longer time and so if you don't if you're not willing to learn from those who already know something you're not going to know very much you have to discover everything by yourself and niels bohr has an essay just uh what quantum theory how it's not the work of any one man right but max planck saw one thing in 1900 and Einstein something else in 1905 and bohr himself in 1913 and heisenberg in the early 20s you know and then finally through all of them you've got this whole right okay so Aristotle um there's a certain humility in Aristotle there right now if if those before him have arrived at this knowledge right then he in no way is hesitant to learn from them right but uh if they have not it'd be interesting to think that they have not then he has to investigate himself right i was talking last night to the students coming to the house and talking about the eight senses of in there and Aristotle gives the eight central senses of in there in the fourth book of natural hearing but he doesn't there in the text we have order them right and Thomas says well in the commentary we're going to order these eight senses in the way Aristotle teaches us to order these things in the fifth book of wisdom and he does so right but i don't think anybody else could have done that and uh so you have to learn those things from people like Thomas um and i read you could i say well could i have described it by myself i suppose but i wouldn't have gotten very far you know when is there ever meet these theorems huh yeah i might have been able to do a circle at the beginning if i knew the definitions already and therefore it belonged to Christ most of all you know more to Christ to have acquired knowledge to invention then through what learning from another right now especially since he is given by God to be a teacher for all of us okay let's go on to the second objection now the second objection is saying what what is full you can add to the second should be said that the human mind has a twofold relation one two what superior things things above it and according to this respect the soul of Christ was full through what infused knowledge right but another relation was to the things below it that is to the images right which are apt to move the human mind only through the power of the acting upon understanding it is necessary therefore according to this relation that the soul of Christ be what filled not but that the first fullness was sufficient to the human mind according to itself right but it was necessary for also for him to be perfected in comparison to the what images right so when Aristotle speaks there you know of man's knowledge he says that the the proper object of our mind is that what it is is something sensed or imagined and of course the images are even closer to the senses to the reason and of course even after you understand what a dog is or what a triangle is you will what you try to understand again actually what the dog is or what a triangle is you will imagine a dog or imagine a what triangle right so it's the what it is of something what yeah yeah so this is a different kind of knowledge then that Christ is being what perfected in but it's kind of interesting the way he describes it right from from above or from what below right and of course the reason why you know Thomas sometimes gives why the the visions of the prophets are in the dreams right is because in the dream you're kind of what cut off from your senses right and therefore more open to what yeah yeah and Aristotle had talked about that a bit in the books on dreams huh you know he's got a book on dreams he's got a book on prophesying by dreams right you see and so he admits the possibility right he doesn't know but that there can be a certain what revelation there right certain uh knowledge that one gets uh it's kind of beautiful the way Thomas divides those books of Aristotle because you have following the three books in the soul you have the book on sense and sensible right in the book on memory and reminiscence and then the book on dreams and prophesying by dreams right so it says by the senses Thomas says you know the present by memory and recalling the past and by dreams a little bit of future yeah it's kind of interesting just in human terms you know people said uh they dreamt of meeting some person right huh yeah and then they go out and they meet that person that day and yeah you know or maybe they dream of a storm coming and there's a tornado or something you know and then they do that you know so and uh there seems to be something like that person the animals too right and they seem to be influenced by the uh you know coming storms in a way that we are not you know we can learn sometimes from them a little bit about what's going to take place so watch out for lucy of that cat i was trying i was telling them how cute that dog was to rosalie and he said what kind of dog was it what kind of a dog golden retriever golden retriever yeah you have to put a picture in the newsletter okay now the third objection here this is kind of arguing enough you have the knowledge already you can't get it again right but these are different what kinds of of knowing right okay the third should be said that there is a different reason a different definition of the acquired habit and infused habit for the uh habits of knowledge that are acquired by the comparison of the human mind to images when it's according to the same uh definition the same kind of habit there cannot be a what another habit required right so when i go back and read you again i don't get another habit right but i might get the form i have it more perfectly right but okay another geometry right i don't have a line up my head you know take me in theorem take me in theorem just one theorem up there and and and i understand maybe a little bit better better you know but i used to write on the board when i gave exams the assumption that you get bored they're waiting for them to finish their exam so i put up to the board just i don't forget it okay but the habit of infused knowledge is of a different what definition descending from above into the soul right not according to the ratio of the what images and therefore there is not the same what's reason about each habit okay yeah to try to understand the how these two things are related the infused knowledge um these species that are poured into the soul for the infused knowledge that's perfection of the possible one life right the possible one has to be receding those forms yeah okay so if christ has the fullness of infused knowledge and he has all these forms when he acquires knowledge is anything that's possible in the light going from potency to act well yeah i see but by a different form you see like i was mentioning before when i was talking about deconics putting out there in the calculus right they're striving to be like the angelic infused knowledge the in the infused knowledge by the same form i might i might know dog and cat and horse and elephant right one thought right but the thoughts coming from the images i need a different thought for each one right so my thought of triangle my thought of circle my thought of square they're all different right now see but in the infused knowledge i might have the same thought whereby you know all plain figures right okay you see so so his possible in life is going from potency to act with the acquired knowledge yeah yeah as far as those form yeah thomas didn't mean that right but he didn't admit that apparently in the earlier work the sentences right you see so there's a little bit of you know well it seems a really difficult thing yeah i don't understand the infused knowledge and the nature of your knowledge yeah but so so um yeah let me get a little comparison here too about the different knowledge here you see um you know how all the people who are you know attacking the church and the religion of abortion and so on right they'll say well um that's a matter of faith right you know okay now in a sense what they're they're assuming is that if something is known by faith it can't be known by reason okay and uh vice versa but is it possible that the same thing could be known by faith and by reason in some cases right okay and uh first out you know had two different ways of knowing that the earth was round um but now in trying to explain how that's possible to know the same thing in different ways right uh i always go back to what's more known to us the senses right when you take uh the sense of sight or the eye and touch right okay now the eye knows some things that the touch doesn't know see so if i touch this book over here um i say oh that's blue yeah no i don't know color at all by touch right okay and um when i was a little boy you used to have these little things that looked like skilled ink right but does the eye really know wetness you see it makes you touch it you realize that it's metal you know heated to look like uh ink and spilled right on your mother's nice so now the eye knows things through color right and touch knows it through hardness and softness and so right but i could know through touch here the shape of this right but i'm knowing it through what yeah through through the fact that it gives away or doesn't it right or resists my my touch yeah i can also know it because the color or blue there whatever it is extends so far it stops right so there's some things that by both of these senses i know right and that would be like shape right or the size of something or something of that sort right um and so sometimes you know we say well sight and touch are the only senses that know shape right but they both know them so does uh knowing uh knowing the shape of this by my touch like i do right now does this prevent my eye from knowing it okay but maybe i don't have at the same time two seeings of that thing i don't see it you know that'd be kind of strange right okay um let's kind of principle on the line of thomas is saying here if you know the same thing by the division and by infused knowledge and by acquiring knowledge um you would know it in the same way right and one wouldn't destroy the other right the fact that i know shape by touch doesn't mean that i can't know it by by sight then but likewise you can say that just as there are things known by the eyes are not known by touch and vice versa right so likewise there are things known by infused knowledge that are not known by acquired knowledge and things that don't give you the vision of god himself that's not known by even infused knowledge god as he is that is to say right so um that's the thing you gotta bear in mind right then why there can be at the same time in christ right different kinds of knowledge um whereby he might know some things by all of them right so god might or christ would know what a triangle is by his what acquired knowledge but also by his infused knowledge and even by his what he did vision right why there'd be things he would know by one but not by the what other right then so the knowledge he does acquire he already has right well you see you gotta be careful there right you see um because you might say um you know if if i have my eyes closed and and i figure out the shape of this by feeding it around right so whether this seems to be a rectangle right open up my eyes well did i already have the knowledge there's a rectangle before i use my eyes yes yeah but but uh am i duplicating my knowledge now see i know there's a rectangle in a different way by my eyes than i did by my what touch right i knew through hardness through my touch and through color by my mind what high see okay so we if someone says well when open my eyes i can't know that it's a rectangle because i already know about my feeling yeah that doesn't make any sense see see i i know it by by touch there's a rectangle and now i know it by sight is it you know so he comes to know the same thing by a different way is what's happening yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so i i can know it in another way right there's something like that that's a good example but another example where um as a student right you know you you're taught something you kind of understand it and then you go out and also you meet the example of it right you say it's like you well you already knew it but you're knowing it in another way now you know but you know in the singular right sometimes uh know things about people universally you know but then we find out in the singular right scandals you know when we we were doing some of our moral theology about sacraments after we were redeemed and one of the things we were learning about is what can go wrong at mass we learned about well what happens if you pour instead of wine and a little bit of water you pour a lot of water and a little bit of wine for mass and we were all like well how would who would ever do that the next day it happened the next day it happened because when the brother was preparing the chalice it was very dark in church and he couldn't distinguish the two cruets which one had water which one had wine so he just guessed ever since then we put a ribbon on the wine you have to if you realize that beforehand obviously you get a new challenge if it happened after the masters it happened with us because we all went to communion it didn't taste right it didn't taste right so what what you should do is you you basically you start mass or at least you go back to the consecration of the chalice and finish it down there's solutions to get it approved office I was at a mass and a priest and an older priest, and you started the consecration of the wine before the thing, and I don't think you realized, you know, if you went through the consecration of the wine, then you realized you did not consecrate the bread, then what did you do? Then you would just go back to that part, you would just go back to that part of the consecration, just to consecrate the bread, and usually they say, try to do it in a way that doesn't draw attention to itself, so people would be like, what's he doing up there? Sometimes you're distracted and say, gee, did he really do it? Did he really consecrate it? I don't know. That happened with Father Michele once. He went through the mass and he stopped. It was like about the Our Father, he turned to one's servers and said, did I say the consecration? He said, yes, Father. Okay. He didn't remember. He thought he may have just flipped a couple of pages. So thinking about the different, it seems that Christ would know a lot of things by infused knowledge that he wouldn't come to know by means of acquiring knowledge. Yeah. Because acquired knowledge, like, you know, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn He didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't, he are, right, is it redundant to see, hear, and smell, and taste, and touch? But one thing, you know, is a question of what his knowledge is. Well, it depends on what acquired knowledge is, and that's part of the thing that he quoted from Hebrews there about it, he learned obedience from what he suffered, because, for example, you go to, you know when you're going to have your tooth drilled at the dentist, it's going to hurt, but it's not the same thing as it's hurting at the dentist. So our Lord might have known he's going to suffer with passion, but it's not the same thing as suffering with passion. So, and that's what, as God, he couldn't do, he couldn't suffer, so he had to become man, and he had to learn that, through his senses, that's one of the, one of the ways, that's one of the kinds of knowledge you can point out with that. What about even a taste of wine? Knowing, as creator of creation, everything has been made possible through your creation, but as true God, a true man, and you're tasting wine for the first time, tasting as true God, a true man, that would be an example, or would it not? Yeah, well, it's hard to understand God's knowledge is divine knowledge, right? Because it includes what we have by understanding and by senses, right? You see? No way. Well, we tend to think of God's understanding, I mean, like it's, like our understanding, right? And, and you see, God, in fact, the angel in his understanding, he knows the singular directly, right? In a way that we don't, by understanding, know the singular directly. We have to go back to the senses on some way to know the singular. So, they misunderstand, you know, they assimilate God's knowledge too much, his understanding to ours too much. Or he gives a limitation of our understanding, right? So, if I understand what a man is, I don't know what my son is doing. I think I go back to my senses, you know, whether he's behaving or not. But it still seems that there's something that God didn't know before he experienced the passion. I guess that's a point that, but then how is God's knowledge totally, you know, infinite and complete and all that shit? He didn't know that. He didn't know what it was to suffer by, what, experiential knowledge, right? But he didn't know what it was to suffer by some other knowledge, right? But he didn't know what it was to suffer in our body. Right? But they don't know it by suffering in their body because they don't have a body. Then I guess his objection would be that God doesn't know something. So, his knowledge is somehow limited. Wasn't that in that God can't know evil? Because we know evil, but God is all good. And so, there's something God doesn't know. God doesn't know evil. It's not experientially like we do. What Thomas says, if God, in knowing himself, knew only himself, he wouldn't know evil. But in knowing himself, he knows all other good things, right? That partake of his goodness. And in knowing them, then he can know the opposites, which are the evils, right? Christchurch gives that example of the fact that the word good is equivocal, right? That some good things have an opposite, and some good things like God don't have an opposite. So, good can't mean the same thing as said of the two. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done. Smart guy that he has done.