Logic (2016)
Lecture 43: Humility in Philosophy and the Three Figures of Syllogism

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

In two ways, because of pride, a man may attempt to judge something that he's not capable of judging, right? He thinks he's better than he is, and therefore he makes a mistake. Or he's not docile to those who are really wiser than him, right? And Thomas was docile to Augustine and Aristotle and many. He thought we were very wise. And so these creative minds there, they pull us back from many heirs that we're in and on the way to. And so if you don't have humility, you're going to be a bad philosopher, right? And, you know, Ketcheny has a famous remark, you know, that Thomas so reverence the Church Fathers that he seemed to have inherited the mind of all of them, right? And that's what you're doing in a sense, right? I think you say Thomas inherited the mind of Aristotle, too, right? Thomas was, in my experience, the man who was capable of understanding Aristotle, right? So my real thumb is, you know, Aristotle means what Thomas says he needs. Scandalizes, you know. I always remember Thomas talking about some of those stupid interpretations of Aristotle, Aristotle and Thomas says, so great a philosopher and so great a matter, but not saying that. I mean, there's got to be some way of understanding this, and this guy has misunderstood it, right? So, I think you could divide logic into two, you know, in Oswee's old book that we used in college, my oldest grandchild there is studying in Oswee's logic book, right? But the name of the book is Logic, the Art of Defying and Reasoning. They're following what? The distinction of logic that Albert the Great, right? But you can see the reason for that, right? Because reasoning is a way of coming to know a statement you didn't know before. Definition is a way of coming to know, you know, a simple thing, a square or virtue, whatever it might be. But is statement a way of coming to know the true or the false? Well, it has something to do with the true or false, because you know that the affirmative or the negative, one must be true and the other must be false. But understanding the statement and the meaning of the statement doesn't tell you whether it's true or false. So, you have three ways, it seems, right, of coming to know whether the statement is true or false. And one is by the senses, as we said, like I know that you're sitting, right, because I can see you sitting, right? So, I know it's true that you are sitting, and that you are not sitting is false, right? Where you are standing is false, and you are not standing. It's true! I know it! Through my senses, right? And then others, by knowing what the parts mean, right? If I know enough what a square is and what a circle is, I'm bright enough to see that a square is not a circle, that that's true. Or that a square is a quadrilateral if I know what those two are, right? Okay? When you get to God is a philosopher, that's a little more complicated, right? So, you might have in mind, going back to Pythagoras, right? That a philosopher means, well, someone who's not wise, but loves wisdom. Although, if you just take the word of self, love our wisdom, right? You'd say God is a philosopher, right? Some of you find the church fathers, the early ones, they would call theology a philosophy, right? Christian philosophy, right? What is, you know, kind of wisdom, right? When Thomas, you know, says that if you want to give a synonym for philosophy, in Latin would be sapientia, wisdom, right, huh? Well, theology is wisdom even more than first philosophy, right? So, I mean, it kind of might confuse people who call it philosophy, right? Because we're accustomed, and custom is of importance in how things, right? So, we're not accustomed to use the word philosopher for God, are we, right? Soon enough, use it for the modern philosophers. I told you about the text we had from Pius XII about reading the modern philosophers. And in the courses on modern philosophy, they started bringing this text of his, you know? And he says there's three reasons for reading them, right? One is for the scraps of knowledge there is in them, right? One is to, what, be familiar with their errors so you can refute them and not be taken in by them, right? And then the third is so you can know your own position better, right? But it's a contrast with this. There's an obligation to do this, right, huh? I teach Kant and Hegel and Marx, right? My doctorate thesis was a comparison of Hegel, I mean, of Descartes and Aristotle and Ricky Rhodes and so on. So, but after you get through going with one of these modern philosophers, you know, you don't have too much desire to go back to him, you know? When I retired there from Assumption College, I said, I'm not going to take all my modern philosophy books into what retirement is today. I'm going to throw them out. I'm going to be responsible, but you're going to be beside you. I'm just going to think about God, you know? How's my idea? I was going to think about God in my retirement. You have the impression when you study Kant that what you're learning about is Kant, right? What Kant thinks. You read Descartes, you know? Why would I read Aristotle? It's the way things are that I'm learning. I'm not really what Aristotle thinks, particularly, but what things are. Your sense about Descartes that he was an honest, he was honest intellectually or was he sort of playing games? I've heard too, contrasting views on... Well, it could be a little bit of both, you know, huh? The thing about the modern philosophers, you know, I mean, Aristotle disagrees, you know, with some of the philosophers before him, right, huh? He recalls what they said and why they said it and why he thinks it's not correct, right? Well, I find the modern philosophers saying something just the opposite of what Plato or Aristotle said. But they don't recall that, you know, Aristotle said the opposite and why he said it and why it's wrong. But he said they don't, you know, it doesn't seem like they understand what they should do, right? But they got some insights, you know, all of a sudden that, you know, that nobody else has ever had. And they started to build on this insight that they think they have. I mentioned last week, but it seems like many people, it's a kind of a habitual fault of many people, each of us, in some way, we have some idea. So we set up a strong man and knock it down, and they say, oh, see how great my idea is, how stupid he was before. And somebody else said this, and then, well, of course, that's ridiculous. It seems like a mental. And I remember talking to my friend, Rodney Milkey, and I was starting to read Thomas, you know, and so on. He said, well, I went to my own philosophy, he said. I don't get very far, you know. I mean, you know, I mean, Thomas says that Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers, right? And Plato, as I've told you, thanked the gods for three things. He was born a man and not a woman. He was born a Greek and not a barbarian. And then he had met Socrates, right? He was one of the chief philosophers, right? Plato, right? But without Socrates, there would have been no Plato, right? And without Plato, there would have been no Aristotle, right? So it's really kind of a magnificent buildup there, right? But did Mozart say there's not a master in the art of music whose works I've not gone over many times, you know? And he dedicated his greatest quartets there. Six of them called them the Heiden Quartets, right? And he said, I had to do so because he taught me how to make a quartet, you know? You know, but kind of the humility there, right? And that's when Haydn recognized Mozart as the world's greatest composer. He told his father that he is the greatest one I know, you know? Either alive or that his works, you know? Okay. Now, how do we divide statements last time, didn't we? Do we divide statements into two or three? Do we divide statements into two? Do we divide statements into two? Do we divide statements into two? Do we divide statements into two? Do we divide statements into two? Well, didn't I divide it into the simple and the compound statement, right? Now, the simple statement you can divide into what? The affirmative and the negative statement, right? But the compound statement you can divide into what? What? Two or three. I'm guessing three. Yeah, yeah. At least anybody, you know, the portals, right? You have, I would call it the if-then statement. I don't like the term hypothetical statement that they use in the book sometimes. And the either-or statement, right? Which is sometimes called the disjunctive statement, but I think either-or is more clear. And then the what? The conjunction, right? Okay, but you have the word and there, right? Okay. So, it's St. Augustine's statement. Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rested in thee. Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rested in thee. And I was kind of being playful with it, and I said, you could probably make out of this a good if-then statement, right? If God has made us for himself, then our hearts are restless until they rested in thee. When you're pursuing the end, but don't possess it yet, your heart is in motion, right? It's not at rest until you, until she says yes, right? If-then statement is very important, right? And we spoke of the if-then syllogism, right? Where one of your statements is in the form, if A is so, then B is so. Where A and B are standing for, what? Simple statements, huh? And this, the sentence is called this formal logic, right? Because you're not looking at the matter, right? But you're saying, in an if-then statement, you're saying if this simple statement is true, then this one will be, what? True, right, huh? And then you go out and you look and you find out that sometimes you look at A, and you might find out that A is so, in fact, or A is not so. And then can you say anything necessarily about B? Well, if A is so, then B is so. If A is so, then what? Then you must say that B is so, right? That's a kind of obvious form, right? Because if you understand the if-then statement, right, you're not saying that A is so or B is so, but you're saying that if A is so, then B will be so, right, huh? And then if you're told that A is, in fact, so, then if you hold those two statements, you must admit that B is so, right? If the students in this room are four, then the students in this room are, what? Even number. Is that true? Well, just a minute now, see? I'm saying, if there are four students in the room, then there is an even number of students in the room. What happened to them? He's, I don't know. Whether you're protesting, he's gone, I don't. Yeah. What? Guess how responsibility is probably. Okay. But does a if-then statement to be true have to have its parts be true? The simple statements that it's put together from? And what's amazing is that you can make a true if-then statement out of two false simple statements. That sounds crazy, doesn't it? But does truth mean the same thing in the if-then statement and in the simple statement? In the statement, in the if-then statement, you're not saying that this is that or this is not that. You're saying, if this is that, then that'll be that. Okay. So if I'm a giraffe, then I have a long neck. True or false? Is it true that I'm a giraffe, too? No. True that I have a long neck? No. If I'm a mother, then I am a what? Woman. True or false? True. It's false that I'm a mother. It's false that I'm a woman. So truth means something different in the if-then statement, right? But we don't want to go around with those things just all by themselves, do we? If A is so, B is so, if B is so, C is so. So if A is so, C is so, who cares? You know? It doesn't tell you anybody else, right? You want to get back to the truth of a what? Simple statement, right? So in an if-then syllogism, right, it's composed of an if-then statement, but only one if-then statement. And the other statement is a what? Simple statement. And the conclusion is what? So that's amazing, right, huh? You've got from a if-then statement, a simple statement, right? But you had to have a simple statement besides the if-then statement, huh? Okay. Pretty good, isn't it? Now, some people, when they first think of the form, they'll, if A is so, then B is so. If A is not so, well, guess what? Yeah, kind of. Seems right? Seems good. You see? And you know what they say, likeness is the cause of error. Shakespeare's great play, the comedy of errors, right? And you look back to, it has things similar with the Roman comedies, right? But you have two sets of brothers, and they're both what? Twins. Twins, yeah. And so, you know, they say that even twin girls sometimes switch dates, you know, and guys don't know, right? And I say, well, they get, don't tell me they're well enough to get married, they'll tell them apart. They can't, right? You know, we knew a couple in the parish, they had twin boys, right? And my wife couldn't keep them track, and one day she stopped them after mass, and said, you stand right there, you've got to see them, you know, trying to, you know, which name goes with which guy, right? But there's all kinds of comical things, because the two brothers, you know, are being mixed up all the time, right? I don't know, myself, even, I remember acting, so, one of the plays that took me, you know, there were two girls in the same family, and they weren't really twins, you know, but they looked enough, right? And I was congratulating one of them on her performance in the play, and it wasn't the one who performed it, but he just kind of smiled at me, you know, but, you know, the actors that played so well that night, right? So, like, this is the cause, right, then, so, you say, if A is so, then B is so, and then you put down here, A is so, and you derive that B is so, right? If you put down that A is not so, what looks like B is so, over here? Yeah, it's kind of, you know, proportional, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, don't write it down in your notes there, that's the purpose of teaching, right? But it's so easy, you know, you're getting in trouble, right? It's part of it, it's issue of the notes, it's logic, right? Now, it's possible, you see, for both of these to be true, and yet this is not true, right? And you can take infinitive examples, huh? You can have B, or it's... follows from many particular things right something more universal if i am a dog then i am like what animal if i'm a cat i'm an animal right if i'm a horse i'm an animal so if i'm not a dog i'm not an animal or if i'm not a cat i'm not an animal it could still be true right that b is so right even though that might be that b is not so if you had the matter that was convertible right now if the number is two then the number is half of four the number is not two therefore it's not half of four but you know that because of what the matter not because of the what form so this ain't necessarily so it is not so right it might be that b is not so but it might be that b is so right now um you can prove that a form is not a syllogism by examples but you can't prove that it is a syllogism by what examples now why is that well i would probably put in the form of an if-then statement now we're doing statements right you know if something is necessarily so right then it is what that's kind of the uh obviously you stop to think about right so if man is necessarily white then is man just sometimes white no then he's always white that's a true statement man is necessarily white then he's always white the book is always blue covered right it's necessarily blue covered and it's always blue covered right so if you have one example of a man who's not what white it shows that he's not necessarily white you can find a book but here you can't prove this by examples can you so one one black man is enough to show that man is not always white and therefore enough to show that man is not necessarily white but how many white men do you need to prove that man is always white well even that is that enough see i i maintain that all numbers are odd right now how many even numbers do you need to disprove just one how many odd numbers you need to prove that a number is always odd i can give you as many as you want you can go on three five seven nine eleven fifteen one there's no way to do you know how can you deny that you know it seems unfair if you can just take one example to disprove my statement and i've got you know zillions of examples to prove that it's always so much time working up all those examples yeah yeah yeah yeah you kind of suspect the weakness of a reduction right in some sense right so you really have to kind of see in this first case here you couldn't show it by examples that b will be so right now but if this is true and this is true and this will have to be true right because here you're admitting that if a is so then b is so now you're admitting in fact a is so but here you're not saying that a is so are you it seems kind of you know it's kind of similar to me you know the uh the shelly there the thing on poetry you know the first how he says reason always you not have the differences of things but oh do you see the likeness of things right that's true you're saying that poetry higher than the reason right you know you know the imagination is like it's more likely yeah yeah yeah you know they say that uh some scientists that most uh discoveries of any science by seeing proportionate so they see the likeness of ratio is the likeness but likeness is anyway and you can read it there's a term what they look right so this is is not the following necessarily right and so he doesn't follow the b is so right so if i'm not a mother but if you look at the b's instead of the a's when does something follow necessarily you say if a is so then b is so if you look at the b's and you find that b is so it does by reason of the form follow then that a is so good shit doesn't it and it seems what the scientists does and the sciences are the model of rigor rigorous thinking right huh so louis de broix is the french physicist of the 20th century you know louis de broix proposed the idea of way mechanics you know the french head is to the comedy francaise you know the great uh festival you know comedy and that they applied it to this theory it's ridiculous a comedy francaise right what's it called they're making fun of it and einstein said i think there might be something to what do we say so they ran an experiment right and built telephone laboratories in new york i guess and exactly what he protected was so he did the experiment in europe they can't save themselves right so if my hypothesis is so then there'll be an eclipse of the sun at such and such a time but there is an eclipse of the sun in such and such a time have i now proven that my hypothesis is correct that he is so bad like i took an example i was using class right i said the purpose dropped dead last night then you'll be absent from class today and my hypothesis is that he dropped dead last night you guys went now it's a way to see if he shows up it didn't show up right therefore he dropped dead last night because there's more than one reason why he might be absent from class right his car broke down right i missed the class at the monastery you know on monday because rosie had done so much we had two cars but i was in one of them i went to the garage and we let the door open a little bit you know it couldn't close all the way the door and we hadn't driven that car for a couple days you know and the battery's dead yeah yeah oh boy and so i you know i couldn't make that class up there you know and i had to call a triple a you know oh boy come out there and so on i was discussing the life you know but see so those are kind of dropped dead you know because the battery i could be sick i wish i could get fed up there you know So, it doesn't follow that it is necessarily so, right? We have many possible causes of the same effect. We could have something less universal from which something more universal would follow, right? If that more universal is so, we can't see which one of the other ones is so, right? If I am a woman, then I am a human being. I am a human being, therefore I am a woman. If you are an odd number, then you are a number. This is no good, right? The form, right? Some of you divide logic into the formal logic, right? Or use A, B and C, which drives my wife crazy. I don't know about those A, B's and C's. But you can kind of abstract, right? Just consider the form apart from the matter, right? So, Harris Dower wrote these two famous books. The books, the analytics, right? The prior analytics, which is what? Formal logic, A, B's and C's. And then what? Material logic, which would be posterior analytics, right? Okay? But, if B is not so, is something thought about A? Now, it's not as obvious, though, as the case that we saw before, right? So, we use a more obvious case to show that it must be, when B is not so, that A is not so. Because, by the first case that was obvious, when A is so, then B is so. But you're given that B is not so, right? So, A can't possibly be so, when B is not so, right? And therefore, it must be not so. Make sense? So, in these four arrangements of the if-then statements, and the other one, if you say that A is so, you must say that B is so. But if A is not so, you don't have to say that B is not so. Or if B is so, you don't say anything. But if B is not so, then A is not so, right? So, we use those forms over and over again, right? And so, I go into the regular syllogism, I use this form here to show by disproving it, right? Is something false, necessarily? Then it's always so. But it's not always so, as my examples show, right? Therefore, it ain't necessarily so. Therefore, it ain't a syllogism, right? And syllogism is an argument. What's a syllogism in mind? Here we've got the form of a syllogism, right? But it's an argument, right? Or you can say speech in one, you know? It's speech in which some statements laid down, right? Another follows, necessarily, because of those laid down, right? I like to, you know, the words. They say, you know, I can never pose these, right? But in English, you would put it down as laid down, right? And I sometimes, you know, speak of how we speak of the law being laid down. And when you say laid down, there's kind of a, what? At rest of what's been laid down, right? It's firm, right? And I've laid down the law, I expect you to follow the law, right? Okay. But when I've laid down these two things, I expect something to follow, necessarily, right? So it's beautifully defined, right? It's a speech in which some statements laid down. In other words, they're in the mind at rest, in a firm way. And I could just, you know, if I laid this down, if I just, you know, think of this and then I forget about it, then I think about this, and then I can't syllogize at all, right? I've got to lay them down together, right? They're laid down, they're at rest and firm in my mind. And then I say, ah, if those are laid down, then this problems, right? See, when I laid down the law, I expect you to follow the law, right? You're going to be punished, right? You'll be in here, you'll be home here at 10 o'clock, you know? Whatever the law is, right? My father used to have down in the cellar a little bit of whiskey or something, you know, huh? Of course, we as kids, you know, we go down there with our root beer, you know, a bottle of root beer, and some little, you know, glass, you know, to pretend we're drinking, you know? And of course, one time we dropped one of the glasses, right? Reno, I think you drank your stuff down there. I don't know if she really thought or she just, you know? Scary. Yeah. So there's two ways of reasoning from an if-then statement with necessity, right? But notice, an if-then argument is not put together from two if-then statements, but from an if-then statement and a single statement, right? I mean, if you wanted to, you could, you know, combine these and say, okay, if A is so, then B is so. If B is so, then C is so, right? And then argue that A is so, therefore what? C is so, right? But you're kind of giving two arguments there, right? So one simple argument, one compound argument has got a simple statement. Now, why do you have that, right? Well, truth doesn't mean the same thing in an if-then statement as in a simple statement. And which is the primary meaning of truth? Yeah. The kind of meaning of truth or falsity here in the statement. You're saying that what is is and what is not is not, huh? That's true, right? But if you're saying that what is is not or what is not is, then you're being false, right? So you want to get back to the simple statement, right? Makes sense. And you could have an either-or syllogism too, right, huh? Either-or is not as deceptive as sometimes the if-then thing is, right, huh? How do you argue from an either-or statement? Well, if you're arguing affirmatively, you're going to, what? Eliminate all but one of the, what? Alternatives, right? This straight line is greater than, less than, or equal to that straight line. But it's not greater than for this reason. It's not less than for this reason. Therefore, it is, what, equal, right, huh? But Thomas says, you know, if the Father is before the Son, he's either before in time or duration, or in being, or in what? In knowledge, right? Okay? Or in goodness, right? In the same knowledge of relatives, opposites. And he's not better, right? And therefore, he's not, what? They disseminate all the possibilities, right? He crossed out, right? That's kind of common sense, you know? But sometimes the geometry will argue, you know? You know? No, no, no, no. Now, when we get into the syllogism with, what? All simple statements, right? That's the thing that Aristotle just calls the syllogism, right? He usually calls that the syllogism period. They call, you know, the other side here, ex-hypotheses or something, you know? Hypotheses. Now, Aristotle there, in the syllogism with two simple statements, he divides them into how many figures, two or three. Now, what do you need in a, what? In the two simple statements, right? in order to syllogize, but you've got to have, what, one of the, yeah, each shape has got an ability, I mean, excuse me, a subject and a predicate, right, but you've got to have some, you know, connection, right, okay, so either you have them like this, or you have them like this, or you have them like what, now they tend to call B the middle term, right, now, but it's really in the middle, in the first, what, figure over here, they call this the first figure, right, call this the second figure, and this the third figure, now let's see that Aristotle did not arbitrarily, or just by custom, call this the first, the second, third, there's a reason why they put them first, second, and third, right, so he says the predicate can be above both of the subjects, or below them, right, or, you know, there's three possibilities, right, and you have a combination, so we might say, you know, well, what about the, about that, you know, I want to call that plain checkers, you can arrange, you know, you get, you know, by checkers, you get the black checkers and the red ones, and you can arrange them one more way, right, okay, but this is not apt to be, right, it's really what, this is set up for the set of all, right, so you're going to have to put it like this, right, and this is really the same as that, except you're playing about the things, right, so forget about the fourth figure, but you'll find people, you know, thinking it was the fourth figure, right, not knowing that three is the first number, I don't want you to say all, right, that's all there is, okay, okay, now, in the first figure, right, the second figure, the third figure, the premises can be affirmative or negative, right, and they can be universal or singular, right, so how many possibilities is there for each figure? If there's four, if this can be universal affirmative or particular affirmative or universal negative or particular negative, there's four possibilities for this, right, and if this can be what, the same four possibilities, right, 16, right, so there's 16 cases in the first figure, and then there's 16 in the second figure, and then 16 in the, what, the third, 48, yeah, how many states would have, right, huh? Used to. We still got 48 when we had a couple of months. You can't do logic. So Aristotle in the book called the Priority of Litics, right, the before itics, right, why does he put the, you know, formal logic, the Priority of Litics, the Priority of Litics, and the Material Logic, the Priority of Litics come before, before analytics, but the one is dealing with form, right, that's why he talked about the form, the other about the matter, right, why does he put form before matter? Well, maybe taking, you know, the application of form and matter, right, but Aristotle, you know, is aware of the fact that man goes from a, what, confused knowledge to a distinct knowledge, right, and which is more universal, which comes first, then, more universal, but less universal, and more universal is more confused, right? That's why at the beginning of the, of the Eight Books of Natural Hearing, right, he says that we should get two things in general before in particular, right, huh? Because it's more known to us to go from being confused to distinct, right? So I go from name, set of many things, right, to indivocal and equivocal, right? And then I go from equivocal to equivocal by chance and equivocal, right? Well, equivocal means that you have one name, set of many things with different meanings in mind, right? But now you find out that sometimes there's no connection between those meanings, and sometimes there is an order among those. Well, order, it starts to mean the Shakespeare definition of reason, that must be, we'll call that equivocal by reason, right? There's no order, no connection, we'll call that by chance, right? Equivocal by chance, right? So I'm going from the general to the, what, particular, right? Well, sometimes these premises, when you go to the matter, you find out that they are necessarily so right, huh? Sometimes we find out that they're only, what, probable, right? That they have the same form. Well, in dialectic and demonstration, right, in Shensi, I have a statement, right? In one case, they're necessarily true, right? In other case, they're what? Probable, right? But the form is the same, right? So the form is more, what? General than the matter. So we should put the form before, prior to the before analysis, okay? What do you do in your checkbook on when you don't have a checkbook? Some of us don't. Sometimes, you know, sometimes you, or most of the time, your checkbook doesn't agree with the bank, right? So I said, did you make some mistake there? Or something, you know? We check, we check first. Adds the track correctly, right? The number is so sloppy, and it's written number, you know? My father gave my mother her own bank account, right? They had two bank accounts there. And my mother's bank account, you know, out the bank. But she figured, she'd spend the way up, trying to find a thing, you know? People were very virtuous in those days. I say they're all not supposed to work, you know? My brother, Mark, it used to be that the radios and the cars were always very imperfect, right? It didn't work very well. I don't know if you're old enough to remember that, you know? Now they're a little bit better now, you know? But they didn't seem to work very well, you know? My brother, Mark, said, you know, turn the money on. If it works well, you can take it in and get it fixed. So, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. It doesn't work, yeah. It was a problem that it didn't work very well. Now, we can give you the extreme pleasure of going through all 16, but we should at least go through the, what, four universal cases, right? And we'll find out that in the four universal cases of the first figure, there's a case where you can syllogize a universal affirmative conclusion, right? And there's a case where you can syllogize a universal what? Negative, huh? On the second figure, you'll find out there's cases where you can syllogize a universal negative, but there's no way of syllogizing a universal affirmative. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. falling off and what you can do, right? In the third figure, in universal cases, all you can do is get particular conclusions. And it will be very clear in the first figure, by the set of all and by the set of none, which are obvious. I usually state them in the form of a if-then statement, right? It'll be very clear that if the set of all and the set of none apply when it is a syllogist, right? Here, you can't simply apply instead of all and set of none, the way they stand, you've got to like, yeah, and so Aristotle calls these imperfect syllogisms, okay? It doesn't need any help. Yeah, so let's just take the universal cases again. Every B is A, C is B. That's with two universal fermatives, right? And you have the two universal negatives, right? Then you have the mixed ones, where one is fermative and one is negative, right? So you have, let's say, no B is A, every AD, every AD. You have the reverse, right? B is A, C is B. In the other case, we have both premises universal besides these four in the first figure. But it's four, not three, right? Berkowitz, right? So, pay attention. Okay. But if you try to understand this, it's because you didn't know you have, what, two is there, right? It can be universal or particular, or it can be affirmative or negative, right? So if you take them both, you crisscross, you get four, right? You can't escape that two or three, you know? I was thinking, you know, what I should do for, if I go out and give St. Thomas Day's speech there, you know? And I was thinking of something I worked on before, comparing the two treatises of the substance of God, right? Now, in the two treatises of the substance of God, it has five parts, right? Like in Sune Theologiae, it shows that God is, what, all to get a simple first. Then it shows that God is perfect, right? And hence, good, attached to that. And then it shows that God is, what, infinite, huh? Then it shows that God is unchanging and no way, moving. And then finally, God is one. He has the same five in the summa contingent, that's right? Yeah. And he says, that's quite in the same order, right? And he says, calls that the substance of God, right? Then he talks about what God does, right? Separations, right? Well, um, I was thinking, you know, of why he, in both works, he takes, um, the simplicity of God and the perfection of God, right next to each other. And the simplicity of God before his perfection. And they say, I can't stand this idea, fine, right? I thought it was your favorite number. Yeah, well, I do kind of like it, you know. It's kind of interesting, you know, you know, in the, in this, in both, uh, summa's two, when he takes up, you know, the existence of God before, when God exists, he gives five arguments, and he gives a substance, yes, five, right? Okay. Um, so I was saying, would you divide those five into two or three? I think you could divide them maybe into three, right? And how to get that, right? Well, and Thomas talks about simple and what? Perfect, right? He makes the point in Summa Theologiae that, um, this is just the reverse of what you find in material world. The square, I mean, the, uh, stone is more simple than the tree, but which is more perfect. And the tree is more simple than the dog or the cat, but which is more perfect. And man is more, what? Complicated than even the dog or the cat. And he's, uh, but God is most simple and most, uh, perfect. So Thomas kind of makes the point, you know, that if you take up the simplicity of God, he might say, well, he can't be perfect then. He does simple things in the world I came from. I came from the Terra Road. Did you? Oh, just, uh, this is, uh, one of the, uh, weak points you could say in Dawkins and the other atheists' arguments about God, because they assume that he has to be complex. Yeah. To be perfect. To be perfect in order to help himself. Yeah. So Thomas says it's appropriate when we talk about perfection of God, right? If we talk about the big Summa, right? Because you're negating any kind of composition that you find in creatures, right? But then you think you got to negate what? Perfection too. And, uh, so you got to negate, you got to top of the perfection we got next, right? So it's just kind of tying those two together, right? And in both Summas, they're taken up next to each other, right? And the simplicity before the perfection, right? Okay. And then I thought of a clever thing, right? To ask me to make an ascent like Dante, you know? You know how Dante ascends what? Through hell up through what? Return to heaven, right? So he's descending from the lower to the higher obviously, right? See? And I said, if you go up, if you, if I, you know, uh, my great angel would reveal himself a little bit more, right? Okay. And then he would introduce me to an archangel, and we'd go up the scale, right? As you go up the scale, you find that the angels are getting more and more, but they're also getting what? Yeah. Yeah. So Thomas points out, you know, when he compares God and the angels, right? God, but understand himself, understands everything else. The angels understand themselves very well, right? Their substance is much more than you understand your soul, but they don't, what? Understand everything else by understanding themselves. And so they need some other thoughts besides what they know through the mind themselves. But the higher angels, right, have fewer thoughts than the lower angels, but they understand more perfectly those fewer thoughts. And so as we, in a kind of Dante like recession and sin, right, the angels, what, get simpler and simpler and more and more perfect. So to be more and more simple and more perfect, right, go right together, all the way up from the angels up to the archangels, princes, you know, virtues of the powers, the virtues, and the lords, and the dominions, and the seraphim, right? What do you expect when they get the end there? Something most simple and most perfect. They kind of, you know, it seems to be the same order, right, in the immaterial world. The more simple something is, the more perfect it is, and the more perfect it is, the more, what, simple it is, right? Just like Aristotle said that tragedy is better than epic, because it's more simple. More fiction, right? Kind of an amazing thing, even though he said Homer is the poet, right? But the form of tragedy is better, it's more simple. Even Mark Bannon has a Mozart's famous hotel, how simple it is, right? But the pianist told me you have to practice longer to play Mozart's famous. Okay, so maybe those two belong together, right? The simplicity of God and perfection of God. They're talked about together, right? So, let's do it again. So, let's do it again. So, let's do it again.