Logic (2016)
Lecture 32: The Four Kinds of Opposites and Divine Distinction

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

Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, help us, God, to know and love you. Guide you an angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, owing and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you are written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. A terrible thing I was thinking about, huh? So what will we do if we get to heaven, right? What will we be doing, you know? And I said, well, first we'll be seeing God as he is, right? Seeing him face to face. Secondly, we'll be loving him more than we even loved him on earth, because knowledge is a cause of love, huh? And when you see God as he is, you see that he's not only good, but as good as itself, right? You can't but love him, right, huh? That's two things we'll be doing, right? But there must be a third thing we'll be doing, because three is the first number about which we say, what? Oh, oh. Yeah. So what is the third thing we'll be doing? Praising him. Yeah, yeah. Praising him, yeah. So I was finding this idea by Warren, you know, on the phone there in Canada, and so I said, I know the music of Mozart by hearing it, right? I know how good that music is, right? And therefore, I love that music very much, right? And therefore, I end up praising Mozart, and I love to quote Wagner, you know, saying, Mozart is above all the masters in all the arts in all the ages. And I say, with modesty, I say, that's probably right, probably correct, you know? It's that good, right? What's that, huh? And then I said, and I know the works of, of plays of Shakespeare, right, huh? You know, by my imagination, as well as by, you know, reading his words, right? And I love his plays, then, right? And then I spontaneously praise him, right, huh? Okay? And you have it in the, in the, that great prayer there, the anima gusti, right, huh? So the last petition is in horror mortis me, yeah, right? Vokum me, that I might come to you and with your, what? Saints praise you, right? Come sanctis to each sin. Yeah, okay? But it seemed to me that, that just as love is not the same act as, as, as knowing, right? So praise is not exactly the same thing as knowing or what? Loving, right? Okay? But then I wondered if there wasn't a connection between these three and the three theological virtues, huh? Because when you believe God, right, huh? You are kind of rewarded for believing in God by, what, coming to see him as he is, right? And Thomas sometimes compares it to the student, too, in human matters, right? Or if you believe the teacher, if you believe Thomas, and therefore read him very carefully, you'll come to eventually know these things, right? Or I believe, you know, that Euclid's going to demonstrate the Pythagorean theorem, right? And sure enough, you know, I've come to be able to demonstrate myself, huh? And know it now, right? So I'm rewarded for my belief in the great Euclid, right? With knowledge now and not belief, right? Okay? I know the Pythagorean theorem, huh? And so seeing God as he is face to face is in the way a reward of believing in this life, right? And the love that you have of God in heaven, right, is kind of a culmination of the love you already began in this life, right? I said, is there a connection between praise and the remaining theological virtue, which is what? Hope, huh? Well, you know, the great Augustine or the great Thomas, when they teach Christian doctrine according to those virtues, right? They teach the creed with faith, right? And they teach the two commandments of love with charity. But with the hope, they teach the Our Father, right? And sometimes the Hail Mary, too, but basically prayer, right? Well, when Thomas talks about the mode of the Psalms, right? He's talking about the mode of the different books of Scripture, right? They have different modes of ways of receding. Well, the way he describes the mode of the Psalms is orativus and laudativus, prayerful and what? Praising. Yeah, so the connection between the two, right? And that maybe, you know, that's kind of, you know, shows a connection. I mean, that third thing, praise, right? It's got to be a third thing you have to correspond to. It's kind of what St. Augustine says also, right? He would sing praise twice. So singing is like singing praise. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, they say that the main hours are lauds and vespers, right? The principal ones, right? Of course, vespers is named through time of day, right? But lauds is named from praise, right? From the Psalms. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah. Tell me what you're going into in heaven, right? And it seems to me there's got to be three things, huh? Now, Aristotle's this famous text there in the universe, huh? That, I mean, he's talking about the three dimensions and so on, right, huh? And he says that the, we use the number three in praising God, right? And so when they take up this question, you know, in the Zoom and other places, you know, can we know by natural reason that there are three persons in God? And Thomas will say no. I mean, you need faith to know this. But one of the objections is quoted, I think, at Aristotle, right? And Thomas says, well, he says that we use the number three in praising God not because he has an inkling that there are three persons in God, right? But because of the perfection of the number of what? Three. Because three has a beginning and a middle and an end and that signifies perfection, right? So, you have to have that third thing, right? And so we have seeing God as he is, loving him even more than you love him in his life and praising him, right? You can kind of see by just kind of on your text, right? Like, I find it easy to praise, you know, Mozart, you know, praise Shakespeare or something like that, right? Because I know and love is their works, right? Make sense? Of course, I was going to say before I said it, you know, because I don't even live to my next there, right? Leading by the hand. Well, then we use the number three in praising God, right? And then he makes the point to that the three is the first number about which we say all, right? And so, how many straight lines can you make that they're all by right angles to each other? Well, on a flat plane you can have two, right? But then you have another one perpendicular and you can have only three, right? And that's how you determine there's only three dimensions. But you need three, you know? Some people think that there's a connection though with the Trinity, right? Three is the number of first number which you say all because all is the idea of perfection, right? But it comes up again and again, you know? There are three parts of logic, right? Then, okay? Now, do you have your copies here of the things here? Okay. Now, there's a text here from the fifth book of metaphysics, huh? It's in the post-predicaments, the short texts, okay? And that text was actually found in the post-predicaments readings and in the four kinds of opposites short text readings, right? We've got to put the two together because something's left out in one that's not left out in the other and vice versa, okay? He's going to do penance, he's going to do penance for this. One paragraph is missing, one paragraph is missing on the post-predicaments reference and another paragraph is missing on the four opposites reference. So, you have to put the two together. Yeah. But, no, I've just been talking about three, right? And we've talked about the rule of two or three. Okay, well, let's notice the first thing in the text here. In the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, in the text here, contraries because they both have contour in them right okay but he's going to order those three first three in a what different way right now okay because contradictory and contraries will be the extremes and privation will be in between but now does thomas divided it into four right away huh he gets four ones but when he tries to unfold it he what divides the four into what two right okay something is placed against on contra opponent right placed against another or as opposed to it either by reason of dependence right by which it depends upon the other and thus they are what opposites that are relatives or by reason of what removal right huh because one of them removes the other okay but some remove more than others yeah which happens in three ways huh in the first way is the kind you find in contradiction for one wholly removes leaving nothing right and this is negation right and this is what the contradictory right so man and non-man right or man and not a man right what does not a man leave a man nothing right okay now the second one which is not in that first text there if you have the other text down from the same passage there or it leaves the subject only huh okay and thus it is privation right now privation is the non-being not simply like contradiction is but it's a non-being of something in a what subject right that is able to have something right and perhaps even the strict sense should have it right huh but doesn't have it yeah okay so the example of this would be the opposition of sight and blindness right now blindness doesn't take away everything that pertains to sight because it leaves the subject right that is able to have sight and should have it but doesn't have it right okay so when they compare contradiction with uh privation or to use the english word lack and um and having they point out that one of two contradictories must be said of everything right so to take the same example of seeing the contradictory seeing is doesn't see right everything sees or doesn't see it's got to be one or the other right so you could say you know not only that some men don't see but you could say that a square a stone doesn't see right or the tree doesn't see right but now would you say that the stone is blind like a man who doesn't see is blind would you say that no because blind leaves a subject that is a subject that is by nature able to have sight and maybe should have sight right in the full sense huh okay so if i give my wife a beautiful diamond now but the diamond doesn't see is there something lacking in my gift because the diamond is not able to have sight right and it's what therefore not and it's not something you should have right now now the third kind of opposite here of the kind of called removal is what contraries right and that leaves both the subject and the what genus right so black and white are both colors right and they sometimes say contraries are the species that are furthest apart within the same genus so you have the same subject surface which can be black or white and you have uh things that are in the same genus like color right so they're less supposed right okay so virtue and vice are opposed as what yeah virtue and vice have a common genus which is habit right so you have three kinds of opposites there where one is removing the other but then the relatives one kind of what doesn't move the other does my being taller take away someone else being shorter you know it demands that there be someone who's shorter i can't be taller unless somebody shorter right i can't be a father without having a son or a daughter right okay so the father doesn't take away the son the son doesn't take away the father right but now the other three kinds of opposites right um it's very clear in the case of contradiction that one of them is none being right man and not a man privation lack lack is a kind of done being too but none being is something in a subject right that is able to have this and maybe should have it right and if you know the text of vera style there in the first book of natural hearing so-called physics um he talks about in contraries one contrary seems to be lacking something right in comparison to the other huh like black in comparison to white black seems to be lacking in some color right okay or health and sickness right whose sickness seems to be lacking something that should have right so we've talked before about the importance of opposites for formal distinction right we had a distinction last time didn't we between what formal distinction and material distinction okay so if i cut a straight line in half i get two lines now right but that's a material distinction right it's from the division of the what continuous and that's how the science of numbers arises right number arises from the division of the what continuous material but things that don't have matter right don't have quantity there's what we call formal distinction and that's by what opposites right okay we talked about how uh seeing a distinction comes before seeing it before and after right so in god right then we believe that there is a real distinction of persons and it's going to be a formal or material distinction formal yeah because god doesn't have is not a body it doesn't have quantity but come back to the four kinds of opposites right and which kind of opposite must it be yeah because god is i am who am right so if one of them was contradictory then right yeah yeah okay maybe some lack of being right so um the only kind of formal distinction that can be in god is by reason of what relatives right and that's what the great augustine saw right now the great wathias saw right now and thomas sees following him too right these great minds see how important this is right i was reading thomas there in the day very talking which is my current reading you know and he's talking about uh in the uh image of god in man right he says do you have an image of god of the trinity rather the image of the trinity in man insofar as he knows god or insofar as he knows himself or insofar as insofar as he knows material things well not in his knowing material things at all he says right you okay and most of all in knowing what god himself right if you remember god and then you understand him and then you love him you have a certain what like this the trinity and that's the most because god is most like god right you're most like god and you know god right the knower and the known are in some way what one okay the old definition of knowing is receiving the form of another as other while retaining one of your own right so you take on the form of another right they come in a sense that so he says in a secondary way you have an image of the trinity when the soul knows itself and loves itself right or you can say when reason knows what reason is right what's his name about shakespeare's definition of reason right okay well reason is like the father and then the definition that reason brings forth right is like the word and then you see how wonderful the reason is then there's love right that's an image of the trinity but it's because knowing a better thing is always better knowledge time this always goes back to the uh sits upon there he goes back back to the to the uh premium to the uh three books on the soul right where astylus says all knowledge as such as good but knowledge of a better thing is better so knowledge of the soul is what better than knowledge of the body because the soul is a better thing than the body and knowledge of an angel is even better than knowledge of the soul because the angel by nature is a better thing than the soul and the knowledge of god is even better than knowledge of an angel right and so when we study the soul we do so not only to know the soul but there's a what way of knowing a new material thing is like and helps us to know what the angel right and knowing the angel is good not only to know the angel but it helps you to eventually know god right so sometimes i like to read the summa backward you know read about the soul first and then ascend to reading about the angels and then find the god right then so i think about the soul to think about the angels and i think about the angels think about god that's where it stops so let's look at some other texts here about the opposites uh let's take in the first thing here the short text of the post predicament it's on page three right no still on the four it's in the post predicament it may be elsewhere too but the short text page three now scriptum super libra one sentence here yeah page three right okay he says affirmation and negation are said to be what maxime a pony right now why why quia and ace because in them there's not implied in a what coming together right it's in the case of what uh lack and having to come together and having the same subject right you can't be blind without being a thing that's able to have sight right and and should have sight in the strict sense right and what contraries right and the same subject but also the same genus oh so even yes it's even less yeah opposed right okay and then relations are you might say least opposed right you know in fact not really opposed hardly at all right it's kind of amazing aristotle so it's a kind of opposite signal that's right and you see one of these texts here may say you know that if i am your father i can't be your son i can't be my son if i'm a father okay so and of course he opposed that to the other three right because it's not by removal but by reason of positing it right so his affirmation and negation then are said to be maxime a pony right because in them there's not implied any what coming together in things that are opposed primitively lacking there is implied a certain coming together as regards a subject because they're apt to come to be about the same thing right in contraries and relatives right there's also as regards the what genus right because they are in the same genus right now once in both kinds of opposition of the extremes right they're signified by way of being in a certain nature right this is talking about contraries right and relatives okay because species are something it's not a lack or non-being right this particular kind of the genus mostly goes on to say here that in which there is found something not mixed with this contrary right is maximum huh most of all right and it's going to be first in that what genus and the cause of all the others it's amazing thing right and therefore the opposition of affirmation negation to which there is not what mixed up any coming together is the first and the greatest opposition right and the cause of all opposition right and the cause of all distinction right so thomas is really profoundly describes and therefore in any other opposition there is included some affirmation negation the father is not a son right virtue is not vice sight is not blindness right and obviously being is not non-being something is not nothing right just as the first is found in the posterior right because more things are required for the other oppositions than for the opposition of contradiction because they all have themselves by addition to it okay once it is not necessary that if contrariety is not found except in things that are diverse really really really different things right but affirmation negation are found in things that are diverse really difficult thing i'm going to get into right now right now but the essentia known as generons right but the pot was generations therefore they're not the same neither suffices a distinction of reason for affirmation negation since what any distinction includes affirmation negation and there's such a distinction of reason between the essence and the what person right so is there a real distinction between the father and and god is god one thing and the father something different others all together the same thing right yet there's a distinction of reason between father and what yeah but things are opposed relatively require a diversity or a distinction that is real and such are the things that distinguish the divine persons but sometimes there's a distinction of reason only as in something is said to be the same as it's i know it's the other text we've got that same text there from the sentences right okay what is worth saying can be said more than once A little text here about men being here, about evil there. This next text here from the sentences, right? Page 3 there. Post-Pregnancy says. In bad things in this way said there is such an order that that which is parisay malum is said first, right? And all others by relation to it. And according to the great it holds malum procedems, which is the subject of evil that is said to be bad from this a parisay which parisay is evil in itself. And in the third grade that which is said to be malum procedems as a cause inducing evil, right? Okay? For this does not have itself a necessity of privation but it makes something having privation. Once first is said absolutely evil, the second order to the first and the third order to the left. Yeah. It should be said therefore that malum nominat what? This way Aristotle, I mean Thomas would say, you know, there's no, what, evil itself, right? But evil is something, what? It's not having something you should have when you should have it, right? Whence that which is per se evil does not place something but it's said to be as a, what, privation. But the evil that is the subject of privation is something, what, positive, right? And not from this that it is evil, just as the eye is something but not from this that it is, what, blind, okay? Because blindness is not in it except as a negation of vision. But what is said to be evil as a cause of evil in itself is considered as something. In order to effect a reason of which it is said to be evil it is said to be what? Said privatively. It is said to be bad from the fact that it induces what? Privation. Okay, you can go into that. That's a, you know, a big study. But when you study evil you find out that it's a kind of what? Yeah. It's not simply non-being but it's more the privation, that sense of it, right? Okay, that is profound, very profound. We won't get into a study of evil today, huh? Yeah. Now, look in the bottom of page four here a little bit about evil. I'll talk a little more about evil here. And that nice objection here, huh? The 19th objection, right? These are really profound, these things, huh? This is the questioner's disputate del malvo, right? The most definitive work of evil that I know. It's the best about the worst. Yeah. They call it a synthesis. Yeah. Moreover, this is the argument now. If goodness was not something, right, nothing would be good, right? Therefore, likewise, if malizia, evil, right, is not something, nothing is, but it stands, yeah, that many things are bad. Therefore, malizia is something. That makes sense, doesn't it? Now, to the 19th, Thomas says. It should be said. And now he's going to the distinction that Aristotle makes of being, right, huh? It ends as said in two ways, huh? In one way, according as it signifies the nature of the 10, what? Genera. Which we've been studying here for some time, right, huh? Substance, quantity, quality, et cetera. And in this sense, neither evil nor any privation, right, is being, right? Nor is it something, right, huh? In another way, according as it corresponds to the question whether it is, right? And thus, evil is, just as blindness is, right, huh? But nevertheless, malum is not something, right? Because to be something not only signifies that it answers to the question whether it is, but also that it responds to the, what? To the question what it is, yeah. Now, this 20th objection. It should be said that evil is not a being of nature or a moral thing, right? But it's a being of, what? Reason. But against this is what the philosopher says in the sixth book of the metaphysics. That good and evil are in things, but true and false are in the, what? Understanding. We're going on to the second act shortly, you know. That's where you find truth and falsity in the second act, right? Therefore, if good and evil are in things, evil is not a being of reason only, but it's something in, what? Natural things, huh? To the 20th, Thomas says, that's the objection 20, he's referring to, that evil to it is in things, but as a, what? Privation. Not as something, what? Real. But it's in reason as something understood. And therefore, it can be said that evil is a being of reason and not of, what? Being of things, yeah. Because it is in the understanding it is something, right? But not of or in the thing. And this, that it is to be understood according as it's said to be a being of reason, is good. For good is something to be understood. I was going to say, evil is good. To know you. To know you, huh? So the professor, I should talk to you about your ignorance, huh? That's good. And what is your ignorance? What kind of an opposite is it, huh? See, ignorance is opposed to knowledge as, and what kind of opposition is it? See, it's just simply a lack of knowledge, right, huh? And the English word for privation is lack, right, huh? Just a lack of knowledge, right, huh? And so, now what would be the commentary of knowledge? Well, it would be a mistake or an error, right? I was going to bring in the comedy of errors of Shakespeare. Because you get the word, you know, error, obviously, the title there, but you also have the English word for error, which is a mistake, right? But interesting things are not played anymore. I have to say to students, now, suppose you're in a political campaign right now. You're trying to get people to vote for your candidate, right? So I find out that you're thinking of voting for the opposite guy, right? And you haven't made up your mind whether you should vote for my candidate or the other candidate, right? I've got a better use of my time to try to convince him or to convince you. Yeah, yeah. He's going to resist my persuasive words, right? Because he's already, in a sense, what, thinking he should vote, right? Which is a mistake. I think he should vote for the other guy, right? While you are just, what, undetermined, right? There's a lack of determination, right? There's nothing positive, you know? So, what's the difference between a mistake and being ignorant, huh? Well, ignorance can mean just a lack of knowledge, right, huh? I've got a four-chambered heart, right? I have a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart. I've got a four-chambered heart.