Logic (2016)
Lecture 46: Definition, Demonstration, and the Art of Dividing

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

Now, is that the kind of demonstration you have when you talk about the existence of God and the Summas? The five ways the Summas could oge that you may be equated with over? Is that a demonstration book for quick? You're going from cause to effect in that? Yeah. The Aristotle calls that the other kind of demonstration, right? They call it a demonstration. You use Latin, Latin, English. Queer, right? Meaning, that it is so, right? But you're going from the effect to the what? Cause. So the first proof is that God goes from what effect to what cause? Into what? The first mover, the unmoved mover, right? So you're going from the effect to the cause, right? Again, your premises have to be seen as necessarily true, right? So, one premise is that everything that is in motion is moved by the other, right? And then the other premise is that there can't be moved movers, right? On infinitum, right? And both of those premises are in the proof, right? But aren't as we supposed to, right? They're proven, right? We're fully, of course, than Summa Contagies and Summa Theologians, right? What's the term? Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. Queer. So if this, the first question was, is this that? If you don't think that this is that, you don't go and ask, why is this that? Unless you think this is that, right? So, why? Those are the four main questions, right? The philosopher asks, right? Not so much it's about who, or where, or when, right? But these are the four great questions. Does something exist? And if it does, what is it? If it's what? Is this that? If this is that, why is this that? Yes, yes. Is it going in a direction? Yes, yes, it's going differently. Why? Why is it going in a direction? Now, I kind of suspect that this is the way Albert the Great came to his division of logic into two parts, right? Because, as you know, if you look at the Thomas' premium to logic, right? And I call the premium to the posterior analytics his major premium because it's more expansive, right? And then it's premium to the periharmeneus. Those are the only two books that he commented on in Aristotle's, what, organized, right? But Albert the Great is a paraphrosis of all categories that the periharmeneus did. But Thomas has just, he didn't even do the whole commentary on the periharmeneus, right? So I'm going to finish it, right? Some student asked in Genesis, so I'll get a comment on it, right? But the most important book, in some ways, in Logic of Posture Analytics, he did, right? I'll count it on the book, right? But in both ones, he divides logic into what? Three parts, right? The logic of the first act, right? The logic of the second act. And the logic of the third act, right? The first act is what? Well, the first two axes are a kind of understanding. But the first act is understanding what something is. I bet you understand what a square is, right? I bet you understand what a circle is, right? I bet you understand what a body of the universe. Mary, Mary, I'm the head of the order, right? I bet you also need to know what it's, right? That's the first act of reason, right? Understanding what something is. And from the father of logic, as Aristotle was called, right? And the second act, right, is understanding the true or the false. It's a type of mistake, right? It's a book that's come down to us in the father's logic, an act which is the peri-hermeneus. And then all the rest of the books are about, what? The third act, which is what? Reasoning, right, huh? You've heard of Hugo's definition of reason, right? What's Hugo's definition of reason? Hugo is kind of plagiarizing, you know, Thomas, right? He says, reason is the ability to understand reason and direct itself in others, right? It's interesting to compare Hugo's definition with Shakespeare's definition, right? There's obviously a connection between Shakespeare saying that reason looks before and after, and that it directs itself, as Hugo says, right? And others, right? Because you have to see order to direct them, right? And there's a connection obviously between reasoning and discourse that Shakespeare talks about, right? Shakespeare doesn't talk about understanding the definition there, but it's understood, right? Just like when you say, looking before and after, it's understood that he has what? He looks for distinction, right? And if you have discourse, right, you've got to have something that you understand about discourse, right? So there are two kinds of harmonies, right? One is Shakespeare's definition, that is Hugo's, right? Hugo is a German word, I guess, originally, huh? He goes there, he meant right mind, right? Or at least understanding, right? The acceptance, you know? So, okay. But my teacher, I first went to Laval there. We were studying the A.C. Loge, right? In Albert's version of the A.C. Loge, right? He's paraphrased, right? And then take a little bit of the categories. So you meet in those books, Albert's division of logic, right? He divides into two parts, out of the three, right? Now, one way of introducing Albert's way of dividing, he says, you know, Why do we need logic, right? You don't know anything, right? You know everything, you will need logic, right? God doesn't need logic, does he? Angels know everything that they actually know, right? So, you need logic to come to know what you don't know, right? But you come to know what you don't know, to what you do know. But there are two kinds of unknown. The simple unknown and the complex unknown, right? And you come to know the simple unknown by definition and the complex unknown by argument, right? So logic has, or by reasoning, right? So logic has two parts. The argument of defining and the argument of reasoning, right? And that's why I sometimes give us the rule of two or three, or both, right? To bring out that it might be you should divide into two. Sometimes you should divide into three. Sometimes you should divide one into two or three, right? I take my third example there from the book on the poetic art of Aristotle, right? Where Aristotle does what? When he praises to the sky Homer. He calls Homer the poet by Antoinette Messiah. Homer is the poet, right? And he says Homer taught all the other Greeks in what the unity of a plot consists of, right? It's not about everything that happens to them, right? Because they might not be any good. But together, right? There's got to be a course of action that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, right? So Homer taught all the Greeks how to make a good plot. A course of action is the beginning, middle, and an end. So he's divided the plot into how many parts. Makes sense, right? But then in another place in the book on the poetic art, it says a plot consists of two parts. Tying the knots and then what? Untying the knots, right? People are astounded by the symbol, right? As to how many knots did Shakespeare unties in the last act, right? I keep on taking higher and higher numbers, right? Incredible that, right? This is magnificent way to divide the plot, right? Tying the knots and what? Untying the knots. So is Aristotle correct to divide the plot into the beginning, middle, and end? Or just a division into three? Or into two? Tying the knots and untying the knots. Both, right? Alright, take an example. there from logic you know uh somebody comes along and says did you know that one name is sometimes said of many things did you know what isn't man said of all you guys isn't chair sitting now when i say chair of this and this and this i had the same meaning in mind by call that a chair and this a chair and this a chair right yeah that was the chair of my department you know i had a chair yeah so sometimes when a name is said in the committee like these two chair is said in these two and instead of this the chair kind of the chair of the congressional committee now you know he's got to accuse himself what else that's going on but uh sometimes it has one meaning sometimes it has different meanings right more than one meaning right now i'm going to argue with come back and say now when name is said of many things with more than one meaning right this could be sometimes by what chance right and sometimes because there is there is a what connection your body is healthy right your diet is healthy is it what's helping you the same thing no is it pretty truly equivocal no so we distinguish it's equivocal by chance and equivocal by what reason yeah i kid this uh student comes to my wednesday night class right his name is richard and i say hey what my older brother's name richard why do you think that the same name there's any reason why you both call richard did someone look at you look healthy and you are healthy it doesn't mean the same thing just laying the perch there i said you're looking one i'm looking one but now sometimes thomas will divide names said of many into what three sometimes he says a name is 70 things with exactly the same meaning instead of each of them sometimes with entirely different meanings instead of each of them right and sometimes they are partly the same the same but partly the same that makes sense doesn't it i haven't said what shakespeare's plays some are tragedies right and some are comedies and some are in the middle right and on subdivide them into forgiveness plays right so it makes some sense to say sometimes the name is exactly the same instead of both chair chair right sometimes it means something entirely different right now but sometimes it means things that are partly the same so should you divide it into two or into three for both so i think that l with the grace division makes some sense right but since he divides into the art of defining and it kind of corresponds to the logic of the first act right and then he's got to put the the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he's got to put the first act right and then he Now, when you say that a definition of speech signifies what a thing is, you're talking about the purpose of what? A definition, right? And purpose is one of the four kinds of causes, right? And I'm reasoning from this cause of a definition to kind of the matter, you might say, of the speech that is put together from a genus and differences, right? Now, why does speech signify what a thing is? Why does that be composed of a genus and difference, right? Well, if I was, you know, proceeding a little bit dialectical, right? I'd say, you recall a long time ago we defined what the speech is and logic, and we defined what a name is and we spoke about how both our vocal sound, right, signifying by a custom, right? What is the difference between a name and a, yeah, at least two parts that signify something separately, right? So a definition or a statement we saw was a speech, right? But a name doesn't have parts that signify by themselves. So a name, but a names, but a speech is composed of what? Names. Now, if a speech signifies what a thing is, must you not have a name that signifies what the thing is? How could a speech, which is composed of names, right, tell you what a thing is, if you didn't have a name that signifies what the thing is? And now I'm going to tell you socks, they say, you have a stupid request, right? Because if I ask what is a man, right, I've got to use a word that signifies what a man is. And what are you? You're a man, right? So a man is a man. What the hell does that tell me? You know? So if I use the name that signifies what the thing is, right, how he's saying a rose is a rose, huh, a square is a square, a man is a man, huh, a syllogism is a syllogism, that's what it is. But if I don't use the name to signifies what it is, how will the speech tell, how will the definition tell you what the thing is? I'm not going to treat me, you know, dumbfounded. Either one, I'm in trouble, right? You agree, man? We admit that a definition is composed of what? It's a speech that's composed of names, right? But how could it tell us what a thing is, if it's not composed of a name that signifies what the thing is? And if I take the name that signifies what a square is, I'd be defining the square by square. And what did the poet just say, a rose is a rose is a rose? He came up with him to try to define a rose, right? He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. He came up with him. So this is called a demonstration. I'm giving you the cause, and that of which it is a cause, and it can't be otherwise. It must be made out of the genus of differences. Now, Aristotle says, hey, if someone asks me, what is a what? A definition, right? A very complete definition. Say, it's a definition. Speech signifying species is, right? Why it's what? Genus. And this is a more complete definition than this definition, definition, right? It gives you both the purpose of the definition and what it's made out of, right? I can do the same thing with a knife, right? A knife is a tool for cutting composed of a what? A blade and handle, right? So a perfect definition, most complete definition, right? It's almost the same thing as a demonstration, right? But differing in position, right? Because here, speech signifying what a thing is, is the middle term, right? The major term is speech composed of genius and difference, and the definition is a minor term, right? That's a position, right? But here, it's what? In the form of a what? Definition, right? So a complete and magnificent definition of definition, right? It's kind of a what? It's kind of a what? Same thing as what the demonstration is, right? But it's in a what? Different form, right? It's kind of a beautiful hairstyle, doesn't it, right? You know? You seem to be united with the two kinds of questions, right? But he sees that, right? That's because there's many, what kinds of causes, right? You can define a thing by its inner purpose, or you can define it by its what? Matter, right? See, if there was a definition, I could say, what definition is speech signifying what a thing is? Or it's speech making known what a thing is, right? That's the definition, period, right? Or it's speech, right? Or it's speech, right? Imposed to the genius and differences of a species, right? That's my other definition. Which definition is correct? Oh, yeah. And now it's a grand definition, which includes everything, right? It's speech signifying what a thing is, right? Or what a species is through its what? Genius and differences, right? That's perfect, right? That's perfect, right? Like, everything in the sense that you have in the, what? Demonstration, right? But in the form of a definition, right? But here it's in the form of a, what? Syllogism, right? You know, I'm in my doubting mood, right? I wonder, you know, I was reading my students when I talk about the rule of two or three or both, right? And sometimes they say that you can't understand a distinction of more than three, except through distinctions of two or three, which I add for the most part. I go to these famous distinctions, like what the early philosophers called, you know, the Book of Porphyry, the Isogogate, the Book of the Five Names, right? The category is the Book of the Ten Names, right? Well, how do you understand this distinction of the five names in the Isogogate? Well, it seems to me that genus and species and difference go together, right? As being what, involving the nature of the thing itself, right? They're very tied together because the genus gives you the nature of the thing in general, right? And the difference in particular, right? And the species combines both of them, right? And genus and species are talked about, first of all, because they correspond to another father and son, right? So, and we define the difference by saying it's what the species has in addition to the genus, right? It's what separates species under the same genus, right? That's the oceans of the difference that we have, right? Speech signifies how it is what it is, huh? I put those three together, right? And then property and accident is something outside the nature, right? So inside the nature, outside the nature, right? An accident has no connection with the nature, right? You mean triangle, right? That's an accident and the Isogate, right? Or a disconnection with the nature, right? And then it's a, what? Property, right? Yeah, it makes sense now. I understand it, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And how many distinctions were there? Inside and outside the nature, a distinction of two. And then you have the distinction of two again, property and accident, right? Falling upon the nature, not falling upon it. And a distinction of three, genus, species, and what? Interference, right? You've got to have all three, right? The species is something more than humans, and that's the difference. See? So, how do you understand the distinction of five in porphyry? By a distinction, one distinction of two, one distinction of three, and one distinction of two again. Three distinctions of two or three, right? Then I go to this guy, Aristotle. He's kind of a, you know, a soul-wit guy. And he enumerates ten of these, you know, highest January, and exemplifies them. That's, your word is true. Then I go to my teaching between Aristotle and me. Aristotle means what Thomas says he means. That's my, that's my, my slogan. And, uh, so I go to Thomas, and I find two places, at least, where Thomas explains the ten, right? And one is in the fifth book of Wisdom, where Aristotle says, This is one of the parasite divisions of being, into the ten highest, according to the figures of predication. And then, in the third book of the natural theory, right, the physics, so-called, Aristotle's talking about motion and how it involves acting upon undergoing. Aristotle puts motion, though, not in some other category, from acting upon undergoing. It comes, well, we've got to start with a category in many ways. It makes sense of what Aristotle's saying here. But in both places, what does he do? He divides the ten into what? Not into ten, but into what? Three, right? He can also divide it into two. Substance and accidents, right? Which Aristotle, that's for us, right? But Thomas divides it into three, right? These are distinguished by the way that something can be said of individual substances like myself. And something can be said of me for reason of what I am. And that's the category of what? Substance. Or by reason of something in addition to what I am, but that is inside of me, right? Or by reason of what? Something what? Outside of me, right? The first one is not subdivided, right? Substance is just one genius. But the second, right? You make the distinction between the absolute towards another, right? And the absolute, which seems to be matter and form, right? Corresponding to matter and form, right? Or matter, quantity and quality, right? The third, right? The third, right? So you're dividing the middle into two, maybe, and then two, right? And then, what about the last five, right? Well, man is kind of, yeah. When you suddenly divide man's category, as we call it, which is a habit, or being clothed, because the other animals don't go around, what? Putting on clothes, or armor, or things of those sorts. They come with their clothing, right? It's part of their body, right? Or their armadillo, right? They come with their armadillo, right? Even though they're, you know, the turtle is the house of this matter. And so you divide that against the other, what? Five. There's six. Oh, there's six, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, so there's five, right? And then the five, you can't understand the distinction of five, but you have the one based upon what? Motion, you know, acting upon undergoing, right? And the one's based upon what quantity, right? Where we're in a position, right? The Thomas will have used it. Place and time, and then subdivide place, you know, because he has the position of parts and place, right? He's always dividing by what? Now, when you come, though, you know, when I'm in my doubting mood, right? I'm always wondering about, you know, what about these eight meanings of in, right? How do you understand the distinction of eight, right? Well, if you think deeply about it, right? You could say that the first three meanings have been something, that it's actually something that's said to be in it, right? So I'm actually in this room, aren't you guys actually in this room, too? I doubt that I am. You're actually here, aren't you? Okay. That's the first meaning of end, right? The second meaning of end is, I've got teeth in my mouth, right? They're actually teeth in my mouth. So the sense of actually the action. And then you have what? The genus is in the species. Well, that's actually in there, too, right? So the first three meanings, that's just three, right? Something is actually in something, right? And then you get into the meanings where something is in something, but an ability. And the first one he gives is species and the genus, the reverse. The genus is species. The genus is actually in species, right? So when you define the species, you break it down into the genus and what? The differences, right? But is species actually in the genus? Because an animal means something composed of cat, dog, horse, elephant, etc. And so to say a dog is an animal would be to say something composed of cat, dog, horse, elephant, etc., etc., etc. You know? So it's there only in what? And then form is in matter first in ability, right? So form is to matter a little bit like the genus, yeah? And then the whole is in the parts. Well, whole is like form and what? Parts are like what? And that manages that from when something comes to the existing unit, right? So you get two senses of what? Something being something in the passive sense of ability, right? And then the next sense is what? The seventh sense, right? Something is actually in something, right? And three senses where it's in passive ability. And then you have the sense in which I've got you in my power. And that's in the active ability. Where your treasure is, there your heart shall be, right? Well, there you're doing more of the active ability. So you can divide it, you know? Into what? Yeah. Actually, in there, in your ability. Subbed by ability to active ability and passive ability, right? And you can always divide it into two or three, right? Ah! See? Now, in some cases now, take these famous distinctions that Aristotle has. Aristotle distinguishes four senses of the word cause, right? To begin with, right? Yeah. Matter, form, mover, end, what? End, right? Oh, distinction of four. What can end? I've got to have a distinction of what? So sometimes we divide causes into two, right? The inner causes, right? Outside causes, right? So matter and form are the inner causes, right? And the mover or maker and the end are the extrinsic causes, right? That makes sense, right? Oh, I can understand, right? So I'm using what? Three distinctions of two. Inside and outside. Distinction of inside into two. Distinction of outside into two. Can you divide the four into three and one, too? Couldn't do it on the basis of inside and outside, but... How could you divide them into three and one? Yeah, one is ability in the passive sense, right? And the other three are based upon what? Actuality, right? And that's why God can be said to be a cause in the sense of end, and mover or maker, but also in a way like form, in the sense of exemplar, right? Not the intrinsic form thing, but the exterior one. He can be all three, or two and a half, as I say sometimes, because they're all based upon what? Actuality, right? And he's the first act, the pure act, right? So that's really easy, right? Now, I've usually divided the causes into two, right? Inside and outside, right? Makes sense, right? So when I give an example here, so what does the word cat depend upon for its existence, right? Or coming into existence, right? What depends upon whether it's C, A, and T, right? But then, since the word act is the same letters, you're kind of forced by the truth itself to say, it also depends upon the order of the career. So those are the two intrinsic causes of the word cat, right? But the word cat itself on the board, this purpose is fanatical as cats, right? My oldest daughter, a girl's grandchild there, she's in the college there, right? And she describes going up, we went on to some kind of a help, help some nuns and mice there, kind of, right? And the guys were laying down on the floor, so the girls were helping other things. But she got to talk a lot, you know, to get to know them students pretty soon. And so she invited this one girl up to the house because they ended up not far from the college, right? And she had eight or nine brothers or sisters, right? But this little girl, and that little girl, she's from college, she was petting all the cats that we have there, you know? So I said, I said, Rosie, tell them to ask them to say, you know? Because, you know, I was telling the story of Margaret, you know, my sister, you know, she went out to the farm, she came back with a kitten. I guess her parents didn't like animals that much, you know, but how could they do it with her own little child? And this is like my daughter, you've got her cat from the music teacher, right? The mother cat would get kittens and what do you do with his kittens though, you know? She talks to the little pianist and says, you're probably getting his kittens. Yeah. Now, Aristotle distinguishes the sense of opposite into four too, right? Does he divide the four into two and two or one and three? Yeah. It kind of separates relation, right? From the other three, right? Because relation doesn't really eliminate its opposite, but demands its opposite, right? On the other three ones, you have opposition, right? Or you're being living and you're not being alive, you know, you can't, they're not compatible, right? And you're being virtuous and you're being vicious, they're not compatible, right? And you're knowing and you're being ignorant, right? You know?