Logic (2016)
Lecture 31: The Post-Predicaments: Before, After, Together, and Having

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

When he gets down to affirmation and negation there, it says, It is here and here only indeed that one opposite needs must be two, but the other must always be, what? False. Must I be double or half? Maybe that's enough there. Let's go on to the next post-break minute, which is what? Before, right? Now if you distinguish the senses of before, you've also distinguished the senses of what? After, right? And if you distinguish the senses of before and after, you've also distinguished the senses of order, right? Order means a before and after, right? Sometimes Augustine speaks as if, you know, in the Trinity there's no order of before and after, right? But there's an order of this from that, right? So in the Creed, what do we say? Yeah. I was kind of not using the word order in a different sense, right? Because usually order means before and after, right? And I know it's Thomas himself when he talks about order, he uses it in terms of before and after, right? And it has a formal text in this. So order is a before and after, right? And Thomas says sometimes that order also involves distinction or it's really presupposed order, right? Because what does it mean to say that things are distinct? What does that mean? To say that things are distinct is to say really that one is not the other, right? Okay. And you're distinct, right? Where does the word difference, sometimes use the word difference there, right? What's the etymology of the word difference or diaphora in Greek? Differency on that. Yeah. It's really an idea of carry apart, right? But there again you see the fact that we name things from what? Locomotion, right? Okay. I was saying to one of the students last night there, I was saying, are you me? Am I you? He said, well, no, no. He said, I'm not you. You're not me. And I said, what's the most obvious reason to say that I'm not Michael and Michael's not me? What's the most obvious reason to us? What? He's in different bodies, in different places. Yeah, yeah. In different places? Yeah. He's there and I'm here. Okay. It's because we're spatially apart, right? You know? That's the most obvious reason why I'm not you. Because you're there and I'm here. Isn't that my charm and good love that just thinks of me? Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I was you, if I was you, or you were me, how could you be there and me here? You wouldn't be here if you were all there. You know, Thomas, you know, in that text I was referring to in the De Potencia there, he's taking up, you know, the going forward, the proceeding in God, right? And he has to stop and explain how we name things, first of all, from the continuous, or what is in the continuous, right? And then we carry them over to other things, right? And, but the example he gives all the time, I see him using the example a lot, is we say contrues are the species that are furthest apart, you know? But is it really in a continuous sense that they're furthest apart, you know? But it's taken from what? Place, right? In the continuous in that sense, right? Furthest apart, you know? Okay, so how many senses are there of before? What's the first sense of before? Now, time is a species of what? Yeah, and so the first meaning of before is taken from time, right? The first meaning of to be in, or in, is taken from what? Place. So place and time are a species of what? Continuous quantity, right? So it's taken from the continuous, huh? The word procession, you know, is kind of a Latin word there, but what's the English word for procession? Yeah, going forward. And going forward, first name's what? Yeah, locomotion, right, huh? Going what? Forward, huh? I think I mentioned how in the sixth book there, Natural Hearing, Aristotle talks about the continuity of a line or a road, right? And then, corresponding to that, the continuity of the motion down that road, and then the continuity of the time it takes to go down that road, right? So as you could divide the road that I travel up to this place, right? You could, you know, my motion, right? And then the time, right, according to these things, huh? I got in the habit of saying, you know, I'm eight hours from Quebec and 24 hours from St. Paul. I used to go home to St. Paul, and my mother was still living and so on, you know. And so, I know, it's 24 hours to St. Paul, and eight hours to Quebec to see Mr. Murray. And so, do you see those three in Shakespeare's definition of reason? Discourse is taken from motion, right? From running, right? Okay. But even if you're frightened of the word running there, you could say you're going from one thing to another, right? But that's, again, taken from change of place, which is the motion that is most clearly continuous, right? And then, when he says large discourse, it's taken from what? Pagnitude, right? Which is continuous, right? Large, right? So, I try to explain, you know, large discourse. They say a discourse that covers a large area. It's about the universal, right? It's a discourse about the universal. The universal has said many things, so it covers a large area, right? And then, what's the next one, huh? Yeah. And that's first time. So, you have all three of them, right? Really. One word is taken from continuous in the sense of magnitude. Another for continuous in the sense of motion in the magnitude. And one for the time it takes, right? Everything goes back to continuous in that way, huh? What about opposites? Take human on the Greek place. It comes from place, right? Position, right? Against something, right? It comes from the continuous, doesn't it? The word opposites, huh? You know, all these things, yeah. All three kinds of continuous, huh? Magnitude, motion, locomotion. Magnitude, right? Time it takes, huh? Okay. So, the first meaning of motion, meaning of before, is in time, right? Time is your master, as Shakespeare said. Time is your tyrant, right? Right, huh? Time is your master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's master's In the Middle East they say time is gold. Yeah, it grows in time, right? And what's the second meaning of before? Yeah, yeah. And you see a similarity between that and before in time. One is really before in motion, right? Because time is the before and after in motion. And the other one is in what? Is in being, right? Before in becoming and before in being. Becoming is coming to be, isn't it? There's some connection to those two, isn't there? Not the same thing, huh? Is becoming being? Well, Thomas says yes. An unsense. An unsense, right? But see that first meaning of being, right? Because becoming is coming to be, right? But notice how you name that. Coming to be, right? Coming is taken from change of place, right? So becoming is coming to be. So there's some connection to being, right? There's some connection to those two, right? Now the connection between the second and the third meaning is what? What's the third meaning? Yeah, before in knowledge, right? Okay. And there are, it seems to be easier to see even the connection there. You say, just as this can be without that, but that can't be without this. So this can be known without that being known, but that can't be known without that being known, right? They're really very much alike, right? And what's the fourth sense? Yeah. Yeah. So that fourth sense of before is really, you know, a synonym would be better, right? So you put the better before, right? Yeah. Now did you put Haydn before Mozart or Mozart before Haydn? Mm-hmm. Well, Haydn was an older man, you know? True. He came before Mozart in the first sense, right? No. But none of that was. But not, I don't think he was before that guy in the second sense. But in the fourth sense, Haydn himself says, you know, your son is the greatest composer you know to me. He said to his father, he's an honest man. Tell those stupid Englishmen, you know, to get Mozart over here right away. You know, listen. You know, I really admire Haydn, you know, by not being offended that the younger man, you know, is so superior to him, right? You know, they say Haydn, you know, in his late symphonies there is imitating Mozart, you know? It's like Albert the Great coming down to Paris to defend the teaching of Thomas, after Thomas had passed away, right? And, you know, it's marvelous to see that, right? Peter coming into the academy, the story told, you know, that only Aristotle was in class that day and he said, well, he's a whole school in himself. But some of them think they've seen some of the clear dialogues, you know, they influence Aristotle already, that Peter has taken into account the objections of this, you know, bright student. Somebody. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you wonder, you know, was anybody capable of doing this with Aristotle, you know? Seeing this distinction of the chief senses or central senses of these words that go by reason, right? Now, what's the third post predicament? Yeah, yeah. And why did it come third? Why does it come third? Why does it come after, before? Is there any reason why it comes? It's the definition you used before and after? Yeah, yeah. Defining? Yeah. And Aristotle's interesting thing in the book of the metaphysics there were, he's talking about equals neither more nor less. As if you know equal by what? Negation, right? Two straight lines are equal when one is neither longer nor shorter than the other. Kind of makes some sense, right? Yeah. So together, or hama, or simu in Latin, right? It's by negation of what? Before and after, right? So that's why you place it after that, right? It's interesting how if you put the genus before the species, the species in which the genus is first divided are what? Hama, together, right, huh? Sometimes they take the first sense of hama as what? The one's opposed to time, right? We arrived together. What does that mean? At the same time, right, huh? Either before or after you when I arrived. Runners do that, and they run a race, and neither one wants to beat the other one, so they hold hands and they cross. I've seen guys do that. One was a coach of another one, and they ran the race together, and neither one wanted to beat the other, so they joined hands and they cross. Still, one of them would have been over. Well, it's going to be technical, but neither one wanted to beat the other one. So is continuous quantity and discrete quantity hama, or not? Well, in some sense they're hama, because you're in the same division, right? You divide quantity and discrete and continuous. But you do, but in another way, continuous quantity is what? Defined affirmatively and discrete, but yeah, we're taking the negation of what's in it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you look at Euclid there, where he takes up odd and even, right? He defines the even, you know, as what's divisible in the twinkle parts, right? And the odd is what? Not, you know? See, it's negative, right? And he gives a second definition is that it's a, a number that differs from an even number by one. So if you add one or subtract one from an even number, you get an odd number, right? You're still defining what? Odd number by what? Even, right? Well, then the thing you know through which you know it is more known, right? It's before the third sentence, right? Yeah. You know, which comes first? If you look at equal and unequal, you say what? Well, equal is what? Affirmative and unequal seems to be negating equal, right? But maybe the real meaning of equal is that it's neither more nor less. Right? Very kind of subtle, right? So God the Father and God the Son equal? Hama? Incidentally, what is the fifth sentence that Herstal gave of what? Before and after, huh? Yeah, yeah. And I said that I don't think that's the, what, fifth in order, right, huh? But there's a sentence that... kind of what lead alongside the the second sense huh i remember now they ran into objection thomas had somewhere where the guy was saying you know what's before is the cause of what is after well not necessarily thomas is saying right you know they're different what senses well it seems to um have something relative but is that is it something that has a relation following upon it you know it is my being a cause the fact that i'm towards another that i'm able to produce the effect or am i really an ability to produce you know i'm really a cause because of my power right let's say right and because my power i can produce an effect and then i have a certain relation to that effect because i produced it right but maybe it's maybe it's a uh uh well to secundici right rather than secundamese right and it's fundamentally something other than a relation it comes up with the trinity too you know is is the uh is the father's ability to generate the sun he couldn't generate the sun he wasn't able to do it right but is it his fatherhood that enables him to generate the sun or is it his divine nature yeah and a sign of that is the fact that the sun has the same nature because every agent makes what is like itself right if he generated him by his father when he would have generated another father right he's a father you see what it's like there's some like this father because he has another come from him yeah yeah yeah it gets kind of complicated i mean sometimes they say you know his fatherhood in so far it's the same thing as the divine nature right but not in so far as it's just a relation right it's a very subtle thing so now what's the fourth now this is seems something different i kind of divide the last two against the first three right now obviously uh before and what together go together right because together is is what involves negation of before right now but we see the connection between before and distinction right and order and distinction and opposites right so those three kind of go together those first three right and then perhaps motion and having go together right because potion ends up with you're having something right now what order does he give motion what does he how many kinds of motion does he distinguish yeah so you have what generation and corruption in the genus of what does he mention that first then you have growth and what shrinking you're saying something is shrinking right okay and then you have in quality you have what and then and where you have locomotion right Aristotle takes this up in natural philosophy because that's about motion right and it's in the what the fifth book right he defines motion in the second book but in the fifth and six motion books he takes up the division of motion and one is the division of the kinds right which is what he's doing here right and the other one is the quantitative division because you divide something continuous and so on so motion is not just in one what category right but sometimes i'll speak of motion as a kind of genus right just like we speak of kinds of causes we speak of kinds of motion right that's one kind like it's like one species almost right but you gotta be kind of careful because they they're indifferent what highest gen right incidentally where did the word genus come from do you know if you read porphyry it's actually go game which we didn't really read you know but porphyry um following aristotle right goes back to two meanings of genus before the logical meaning of genus and a genus can be said to be one man from whom many men have descended right or it could be this multitude of men that descended from one man so it has both the sense of something one right there's a source of many right and it can also mean the meaning that are from that one source right and so it's kind of anticipating what you're going to find the genus right because a genus in the logical sense is something one but something said of what many right now while in the previous senses is something one from whom many have descended right now so you take some famous man and you say you the kennedys right you're from joe kennedy that one villain right and uh and uh so uh he's one man from whom many kennedys you might call the kennedys right have descended right huh so you have uh those previous meetings of of genus the idea of one and many and something connection between the one the many right but then you get this odd thing you know that it's one that's said of many right it's interesting expression that that one's said of right now thomas says this is the way of logic to consider the way something is said of something he says natural philosophy precedes paramotor motus sound by way of motion and logic precedes by a way of predication right something is said of something okay now what's the last post predicament and i notice in a way it's connected a little bit with motion now because the result of emotion is that you have something right so when i was a little boy i was growing i guess for a while and now i have this height right there's some connection between my growing and my having the height that i now have right yeah yeah so it's kind of connection between those last two right so i kind of put those two together and separate them into the first three right but now i think it's kind of interesting to see this have right now how many senses of have does aristotle distinguish there in that last seven senses right now um i kind of put the first three senses together right because they tend to what take off from three of the categories before right and he first says uh one is said to have a what a virtue or knowledge right some quality right of course you do use the word have seem to be almost in the word habit right you have something um but you're having an accident which is in the genus of quality right huh okay that's one sense of half right now and then he goes to the genus which is before but maybe less using the word have and that is to have a certain size or have a certain height or some quantity right huh okay and then the third sense of have is what what he gives what yeah one of the categories right yeah yeah which i think in the greek is called right to have right huh okay so i have shoes on my feet today right i have pants on my legs i have shirts on my chest right i have these right and we use the word have there right huh okay you guys wear a habit yeah but is that habit in the sense of the species of quality well it's his name of his other genus right huh so he seems to in the first three meetings right he takes senses of have right which are tied up with three categories right huh a little bit like we did with motion where he tried you know okay then the fourth sense i'd say let that stand all by itself that fourth sense right and what's the fourth sense yeah yeah like i say my mouth has a tongue and teeth yeah yeah yeah or my you know certain part that have a stomach and i have a heart and i have a lungs and that knows what else you know but you have parts right okay now he's talking here about how whole has what parts right but this reminds me of what aristotle says in the i think it's in the fifth book of wisdom that the senses of the word have to some extent correspond to the sense of the word in right right so um you know one sense of him was what part in the whole right another sense of in was um genus in the what species another sense of in the species in the what genus right now and uh uh these are all senses of all senses of part in the whole right well then you have a sense of half corresponding to these right so the whole has parts right um the um the species has a what genus and the genus has species right so that is a kind of you know extended senses i mean not the first sense of uh right i don't know how he puts it in the middle but it kind of stands out like a sore thumb right and uh but uh it touches upon a number of senses right that might correspond a bit to those three senses of what in right now now there are other senses of yen which are not whole in part but you say that the form is what in the matter right it's in their original potency right okay we can say the matter has a what form yeah and then i've got you in my power i have you so you're in my power yeah yeah yeah yeah so it does touch upon all the other senses of in right but he doesn't expand it right he says that as a wise man you know that the connection here between the senses of in right and have right okay so when shakespeare says time has you right it's your master your retirement huh okay okay so um you say well this is something that's found in every genus right because in every genus every genus every genus has what species right and every species in every genus has has a genus right so there's all kinds of you know things that's touching upon right but it doesn't unfold it there right now you can see this right you can see how insignificant is the word has right and what are the last three senses they kind of go together too right what's the the fifth sense that's the sixth sense that they have a part yeah yeah and the fifth sense is what yeah yeah and that has some connection with with where doesn't it right you see where is the wine it's in the wine bottle right now where is the water it's in the where's the milk it's in the milk carton or something right okay it's a little bit tied up right you know with that category of where right now a little bit like that right now okay now what's the next sense yeah having a possession right okay now albert the great in his paraphrase the categories calls this uh that's proper most proper he says and you're wondering if he's thinking of that as being the fundamental sentence you know and uh i was talking with warren murray about this expression we have in english the has and the have-nots and what are you talking about your possessions right you have and the have-nots okay and then finally he takes a sentence he says it's an odd sentence that a man said to have a wife right okay now albert the great remarks you know that uh it's mutual because the husband has a wife but the wife has a husband right now okay so the sense in the marriage ceremony the husband in the way gives himself to the wife and the wife gives herself to him right now and so if you give yourself to someone and they have you and uh there's something there's something similar between having a possession and having a wife right now his possession is something outside of you right it's not a part of you like the middle sense it's not like what um an accident of you right now you see and how do you have that right it's kind of strange sense right but maybe it's the fundamental sense that they have right and the uh having a wife or having a friend right yeah or having a son right it's something outside of you in a sense right you know but you i said to have it right yeah that's the first thing you sense now you're struck by the fact that to have has a what um sense of uh implies a distinction between you and what you have and it's more clear in the case of me and my house that we're distinct right than me and my knowledge or me and my size or me and my me and my enclosed right huh you know the house is very distinct from me right maybe uh i don't know maybe i hope it is hitting a bit that thing a fundamental sense right so you got to be kind of careful when you say that god has wisdom right because you might say that you know might imply that that these it's something distinct from him right why he really is wisdom itself right i guess i kind of run over here aren't i oh it's at four o'clock okay i was thinking i was thinking it was 5 20 or something okay it's four o'clock okay that's good okay okay um so you see this kind of similarity among those last three senses right because uh the wine you know bottle or whatever you can gain that um is uh something really what like yeah it's kind of like the place right now the place is you're not really a private place right now and if it's your you're not uh your possession right now you're not even your wife or your son or your friend or what it is right now that's right um why the first three senses there and especially the first two you have an accident right now now i was thinking of another kind of odd sense of have right do you have a name what does it mean to have a name do you have a name a name is a sound right a vocal sound and uh probably probably uh you guys might have been given a name when you came into the order right but someone gives your you know parents give you a name right you know and then you're going to what you saw maybe you're given a new name right what does it mean to have a name right now see it's like those last senses isn't it or you know something kind of what is my name a part of me? Or is it like my having a house or having a? Because with the scripture of being given a name, which in that sense would be a sort of state of name in this. But the sense of have, that you have in mind when you say I have a name, right, is very important in the categories, isn't it, right? Because everything that we talk about in the categories has to have a name, right? And the genus has a name and the species has a name, right, and so on, right? And, you know, there are practical reasons why we have to have names, I suppose, but there's also theoretical, you know? We were talking earlier tonight, today, about having what we have to have even names that are equivocal by reason, right? I began by talking about things are named equivocally, that have, but they all have the same name, but not the same, what, meaning of the name, right? But the logician would like to say, you know, well, things have a name and sometimes they have a definition, right? But it's, well, it's a strange sense of have, but it's very important to talk about in our thinking, isn't it? I'm always struck by, and it wasn't in the book of Genesis that didn't God kind of have the animals parade in front of Adam? Yeah, I was calling it to my wife and saying, you know, we have a terrible fight about, I call it the thing, an ice box, and she calls it, no, it's a refrigerator. I can argue, well, all I see is, you see, you know, that it's Adam that was given the right to name things, but it's not an ice box, she says, it's a... There's something significant about that now, that man had to name all these things, right? It's almost like a having that's related to knowledge, probably. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then you have the ones that attach that to, like, to have a definition, right, huh? Does a word have to have a meaning? It's a half-significant answer. You know, there's a guy on Fox News, or the interview, these people that are marching, you know, all the time now, you know? And they don't seem to know what they're marching for in some cases, you know? Beginning of the second Gulf War, I was in New York City, Grand Central Station, there was a huge protest. And there was an obvious refugee from the 60s protests, he was having the time of his life, and he has a, he's dressed like a hippie, you know, so he hasn't changed for decades. And he runs up to me, and he's like, you know, like, you know, come join us. You know, it's like the time of his life. It's just he lived to protest. Yeah, yeah. It didn't matter what. Now, you know, I mentioned before how Thomas, in his consideration of the goodness of God, right, huh, in the Summa Cano Gentiles, there's five chapters, right? In the first chapter, he's showing that God is good. The second chapter is showing that God is goodness itself. Third chapter is saying that there can be nothing bad in God. See, if God was good, but not goodness itself, there could be something bad in him, right, huh, see? He can probably find something good to say about me, but more easy than find something bad to say about me. Well, why can he say something good and something bad about me, right? Well, it's because I have some goodness, but I'm not goodness itself, right? So, in the original meaning, isn't there a real difference, right, between the haver and the had? And especially in that sense that Albert de Bates says, it's most proper, he says, you know? I said, why does he say that? You know, it doesn't expand upon how he says it, right, huh? This is proper and most so, you know, as if, you know, this one of having property, right? Having a house or having property, right? Because there it's very clear that the haver and the had are not the same thing, right? You're even further away than you are when you have some knowledge or you have a virtue, right? Because at least that's in you, right, huh? Or you have a size or something like that, right? Or even you have clothes that kind of cling to you and take on the shape of your body and so on, right? And so, you see, what is the difference in signification of health and healthy, right? Why do you say that I am healthy but I'm not healthy? Why do you say that, right? And even if the things are intrinsic, it's the idea that there's a distinction between the form or the accident and what has the form and what has the accident, right, huh? You see? Well, now, would you say that I'm a little bit wise? You can see that. Yeah, okay. I'm a little bit wise because I have a little bit of wisdom, right, huh? Well, is God wise then because, you know, her style says that either we should say that God alone is wise or only God is fully wise, right? So should we say that God is wise because he has some wisdom? Or are you speaking, are you stuttering because you're using a kind of distinction that we would make in creatures, right? So what would you say? Is God, you know? See? We say both, but we have to say that there is a, what, imperfection, right, huh? We say God is wise because he really is wise. Maybe he alone is wise fully, right? But there's something imperfect about saying he's wise because it seems to imply that he has wisdom rather than that he is wisdom. He's like me who is a little bit wise because I have a little bit of wisdom, right? Well, that little bit of wisdom that I have is in me, you know? Now, you see, wisdom signifies that through which or by which you are wise, right, huh? Well, if God is not, if God is wisdom itself, then he must be, you know, in a unique way wise, right, huh? But then you say he's wise, then you're kind of implying that he has wisdom and therefore that he's not wisdom, you know? But if you just say that God is wisdom itself and is not wise, then you say, what good does it do for him to be wisdom if he's not wise? That's a good, right? What good would it be for me to have a virtue if I wasn't virtuous by having a virtue, right? You know, if I was virtue itself, wouldn't I be that by which one is virtuous, but I wouldn't be virtuous. I'd be that by which one is virtuous, right? But you see, in us, though, I mean, the haver and the had are not the same, right, huh? In me, there's something to what Albert the Great says, right, huh, that since having possession is proper and most so, he seems to emphasize it, right? I don't know how much to, he doesn't enfold himself there at all, it's very brief, but I can show you the text sometimes. But, you know, there's very much a distinction there between the haver and the had, right, huh? He takes the one where they're most distinct, right? Then you get this more subtle sense, you know, and you say, well, pretty Greeks would think I'm just substantially in my body, as I am, you know? I would say, you know, that's whole and part, I mean, I have a body and I have a soul, right? But I'm not a body, I'm not a soul, I'm something put together from a body and a soul, right, no? But I'm said to have a body because that's part of me, and I have a soul because that's an even better part of me, right? And so there's some distinction between me and... What I have even there, right? Though it's not as obvious as the distinction between me and that car out there, and how can I be out there and me being here if I'm in that car? How can my house be in Shrewsbury if I'm here in, what's the name of this place? Pearson, yeah. How can I be here and my house be in Shrewsbury if we're the same thing? It's very clear that we're not the same, right? That's what I was saying to the guy last night. I was there saying, you know, what's the most obvious reason to say that you and I are not the same? That you're there and I'm here. You're there and I'm here. So you have to say that, to say that God is good, or to say that God is good as itself, you've got to some extent to say both, right? And if it's through goodness that you are good, and God is good as itself, he must very much be good, right? But then that's kind of, that way of speaking is like saying, what? Good signifies what? It doesn't signify, it doesn't signify to have goodness, it doesn't signify goodness itself, does it? You know, I stutter because of what I'm going to say about that. Thomas says both, huh? The first chapter is that God is good. The second chapter is goodness itself. The third chapter is nothing bad in God. The fourth chapter, therefore, he's the good of every good. And finally, he's a sumbo-don. You know? But just take the first two chapters, though, right? He's good, and he's goodness itself, right? You do the same thing with God. You could say God is wise, right? And you could say, you have another chapter where you say that God is wisdom itself, which is not true of any of us, right? Any of us are wise because we have some wisdom, right? I'm a little bit wise because I have a little bit of wisdom. And I'm not that little bit of wisdom that I have. But God is. Not at all. He is that wisdom. He is that wisdom. So maybe if you say, what shall we say, right? You've got either one, that there's something imperfect in my way of talking about God, right? Thomas, who is it? Which prophet is it that says in that day there will be one name? Zachary? I forget. But, you know, which is because you'll see God as he is, right? And then we'll have to say that he's both good and goodness itself, right? But given that I'm stumped with this human way of thinking, I have to say both and that's the best I can do. He's good but not good in the sense of having a goodness that's other than himself. Thomas often would say, God is whatever he is said to have, right? God is whatever he has. It kind of seems to contradict our way of speaking of creatures, right? Because we're never what we have. Especially when we have a position, right? Even what we have as knowledge or what we have as, you know? The same thing you say about love, right? I have some love, like the love of candy, you know? Love of wine. I have many loves. I'm mad at many loves. But am I love itself? Am I the love of candy? That's what I am. It could be. You know, a little bit in grace, we always say, you know, do you eat to live or live to eat? Even if I live to eat him, am I the love of candy? Like we say, God is love itself, right? It seems about all of these things in God, right? He's wisdom itself, right? He's justice itself, right? He's love itself, right? Incidentally, I've been in the middle of my mind, you know, these two ways of speaking of the our ultimate goal there. See, the face of God seems to be a bit, what, metaphorical, right? Okay. But what's the meaning of that metaphor? See? What is it saying? That seeing God as he is is not saying so clearly, what does it mean? Well, you know, if you think of your friend's face or your mother or father's face, right? You know, all their, what, emotion is seen in their face more than the other part of their body, right? And even their sense of humor or their intelligence, you know, in the way they respond to what you say or ask, right? Their face is up, right? And the head, the face is where all the, you know, the eyes and the ears and the nose and the sense of taste, they're all concentrated there, right? You know, so I was thinking maybe to see God face to face means to see God's understanding and love. Because we see in somebody's face, right, a sign of their understanding and of their, what, love, right? You know, I ask the question sometimes, you know, what's the most beautiful thing in a woman, you know? And they all say, her shape. That's what they say. But I think the most beautiful thing in a woman is her smile, right? And in her smile, you see her love, you see her kindness, right, huh? You see her delight in things and all this, you know, it all comes alive in the face, right, huh? Both her mind and her love, right? So that's why we delight in this about her face, right, huh? And that one of my grandchildren there, her name is Isabella, first name, her middle name is Rose, Isabella Rose. So I call her Isabella the Rose. And she says, no, my name is Isabella Rose. I say, no, your name is Isabella the Rose. She has a beautiful smile, you know? And, you know, in teaching, you know, men and women, you know, in class, you know, you can tell anyone who's enjoying what your lecture or something, right? You know, by the expression of their face, right? They smile on their face, right? So maybe, you know, to see God face to face means to see his understanding and his love. That's kind of a, you know, it's kind of a metaphor for that, right? Because you see somebody's understanding, intelligence in their face and their love and so on in the expression of their face, right? You know? I mean, I'm always smiling as little children and so on, you know? You know, there's a family that comes in, master, daily master sometimes, and eight, ten children, you know? And I was walking by and there's arms with a little boy and he says, no, I want to smile. I mean, you know, they're really nice little children, you know, and so on. So you just kind of naturally smile, you know, and you're kind of, but when you understand something, you tend to smile and so on. You know, it's a sign of understanding as well as of love and so on that you have for these things. And so it makes it what? It makes me think, I mean, that's the meaning of seeing God face to face is to see his understanding, his love, rather than so much his nature, so to speak, right? His substance, right? When I think of seeing God as he is, I think of, you know, what he is, you know? You know, he's got a little different side, you know? But they're the same thing, really. I mean, God's understanding and love is the same as his nature, right? I mean, there's a little difference in the metaphor, right? Thomas is a beautiful explanation there in the De Veritati there of the Book of Life, which is what, you know, metaphorical, right? You know, because there are some objections, you know, saying, you know, well, a book, you write upon it, you know? And so God would have some, what, something, some undergoing, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. All these injunctions, you know, but they're kind of, you know, and Thomas has to explain this being said metaphorically, right? But he says, but then there are other injections, you know, which are closer to it, right? But they still don't understand it as a metaphor, right? So Thomas says, you know, God is metaphorically to be a lion, right? It doesn't mean that he has, you know, gloves, you know? You've got to say, for what reason he's called that, right? Yeah, see, or the Lord is my rock, we say, you know, and well, okay, but in terms of the stability, you know, the permanence of the rock and so on, you've got to say it's there, right? Well, then he distinguishes three senses of metaphor, the book of life, and he says in one sense, it can mean, what, the Bible itself, which is the book of life by way of teaching how to live. And then he says in another sense of the book of life, it's Christ himself, and this is by way of his being the exemplar of how to live. So, you know, I have this famous book there, The Imitation of Christ, you know, with Thomas DeCampis, I guess, you know? And I remember reading there, St. Trezor de Sue, you know, she was very much taken up with this book, you know, and trying to, yeah, yeah, yeah. And so he's the book of life, metaphorically speaking, Christ, right? Because he's the exemplar of how to live, see? So he's the book of life, per motive exemplar, you know, that's what he says, exemplar. The Bible is the book of instruction, teaching, right? And then there's this other sense of the book of life where God remembers, right? You know, he has the names of those who are predestined, right? Like the book of life where you have people going to be admitted to the city, right? Very much like Trump now. And people who will be admitted to the heavenly city, right? So it's kind of, you know, beautiful understanding of the metaphor, right? But it seems to me to see God face to face is a metaphorical way of speaking, right? That God does not properly speaking have a face, right? But what is it about the face, right, that we, what, would have in mind as a likeness at the basis of this metaphor, right? Well, it's because the faces where intelligence and love and so on is shown, is manifest, right? So that maybe, it doesn't make some sense to me anymore. I don't know. I haven't seen an explanation of Thomas of what that, you know, what besides that metaphor would be, right? But it seems to make some sense, right? To see God face to face and see his understanding and love, right? With their baby, and just staring with love and understanding of her baby. And the baby's just staring back with love. Yeah. It's such a beautiful, beautiful thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the first thing, you know, when you talk about new parents, right, huh? You know, and you go in the morning there and the baby smiles at you, then you know, hee! You gain his sense. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's kind of interesting to smile with the baby, you know, you kind of, you know, it really sticks in your mind, you know, they kind of smile with the baby because you walk in there. Yeah.