Love & Friendship
Lecture 6: The Good and Knowledge as Causes of Love

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

You're a better part, right? And she a fair divided excellence whose fullness of perfection lies in him, right? Okay. Now the next passage on the taming of the shrew, you don't have to have all these things in the woman, right? Kindness in woman, he says, not their beauteous look shall win my love. And so I take my leave. He's been frustrated, right? Pursuing the beautiful woman, right? So he's looking for kindness in them, right? But kindness is a good of the, what, soul, right? Beauteous looks is a good of the, what, body, right? Now Othello, when he's describing the courtship of Desdemona, now she fell in love with him. She loved me for the dangers I had passed. And I loved her that she did pity them. That's a good of the soul, right? The mother of mercy, right? Jane Austen, huh? Sweetness makes so essential a part of every woman's worth in the judgment of man that though he sometimes loves where it is not, he can never believe it absent, huh? That's obviously something good in the woman, huh? Your sweetness, huh? Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our light for our sweetness and our hope, right? It's an important thing. I think I mentioned how Thomas has the best explanation of sweetness in the metaphor, right? In the commentary on the Psalms, you know, taste and see how sweet is the Lord. It's a beautiful explanation of that metaphor, huh? But you can apply it. We taught you some times, right? To the sweetness of the woman and sweetness in other ways it's used, huh? It's beautiful the way he explains it. I mean, the metaphor is always based upon a likeness, huh? And the sweet, of course, is what? Pleasant, refreshing, right? And restful, huh? Okay? If you ever travel across the country with little kids in the car, you know, it's good to have a little bit of candy in there when they get out of hand, right? And they quiet down when they get the candy, right? So the sweet makes you restful, right? And it, you know, you're always going down to the machine there to get a refreshment, right? To pick them up, right? And then obviously it's pleasant, right? And that's what the sweet is, huh? It's interesting how Shakespeare will sometimes speak of your sweet form, right? Metaphorically speaking of your beautiful form, right? But we say that about the beautiful, don't we? That which pleases when seen, right? And we speak of something, you know, beautiful seen, how restful, right? People say that, right? And you're a sight for sore eyes. So you're refreshing, you know, to see, right? I used to, you know, study in a reading room that was attached to the library when I was in college, you know, and they had nice painting, you know, a production of a painting there on the wall. So restful to look up at that painting, right? Kind of refresh your eyes when you're tired from reading the printed, word, huh? You see? Okay. Now Ferdinand, of course, falls in love with Miranda. Admired Miranda. Of course, he pays on that, huh? Because it's a idea of wonder. Indeed, the top of admiration, huh? Worth what's dearest to the world. Full many a lady I have eyed with best regard. And many a time the harmony of their tongues hath unto bondage brought my too diligent ear. For several virtues have I liked serve a woman, but never any with so full a soul. But some defect in her did quarrel with the noblest grace she owed and put it to the foil. But you, oh you, so perfect and so peerless, are created of every creature's best, right? So you can't help but love her, right? Okay? Incidentally, in the Summa, when Thomas takes up the goodness of God in the Summa Theologiae, right? In fact, both Summas, huh? When he takes up the goodness of God, it's attached to the consideration of the, what, perfection of God, huh? Okay? In both Summas, that's the way it goes. Okay? Now, in this reading, very interesting one from Richard B. I'm Richard here. He first appears in the sixth place. Now, Richard is a man who thinks he cannot be loved, right? Okay? And of course, there's the same knowledge of what? Opposites, right? Why love foreswore me in my mother's womb, and for I should not deal in her soft laws. Interesting way he speaks of soft laws, right? She did corrupt frail nature with some bribe, to shrink mine out like a withered shrub, right? Okay? So he's, what, deformed in a sense, right? To make an envious mountain on my back, where it sits deformity to mock my body. To shape my legs of an unequal size. To disproportion me in every part. He's ugly, right? Like to a chaos, right? A disordered thing, right? Or an unlicked bear whelp. They help them, the bear licked the little ones, that's how they're shaped up, right? You know, when they first come out, they're kind of, you know, kind of a messy thing, you know? And the mother keeps unlicking them, and they get more and more good-looking, right? And better shaped, huh? So he's comparing himself to an unlicked bear whelp that carries no impression, right? No likeness there. No form like the mother, like the dad. And am I then a man to be beloved, huh? No one could possibly love me, right? Oh, monstrous fault to harbor such a thought, huh? Well, that shows the same point, right? But by the opposite, huh? And, of course, Richard decides then to be a villain, right? Since he came. Now, on the one from Richard III now, Richard is going to begin to plot to, what? Gain the throne of England, huh? And it kind of follows a lot of murders and a lot of terrible things, right? But there's a temporary lull now in the War of the Roses here, right? There's peace in Richard's brother's ruling, right? Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by the son of York. The house of York now is on the throne, huh? And all the clouds that lowered upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths, our bruised arms hung up for monuments, our stern alarms changed to merry meetings, our dreadful marches to delightful measures, grim-visaged war has smoothed his wrinkled front, and now, instead of mounting barbed steeds to fright the souls of fearful adversaries, he capers nimbly in a lady's chamber to the lascivious pleasing of a lute. But now what am I going to do in this peacetime, right? Everybody's, you know, engaging in those sort of things. But I that am not shaped for sportive tricks, nor made to court an amorous looking-glass, I that am rudely stamped, and want love's majesty to strut before a wanton ambly nymph, I that am curtailed of this fair proportion, cheated of feature by dissembling nature, deformed, unfinished, sent before my time into this breathing world, scarce half made up, and that so lamely and unfashionable that dogs bark at me as I halt by them. Why, I in this weak piping time of peace have no delight to pass away the time unless to see my shadow in the sun and discant my own deformity, and therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, to entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days. Very interesting, psychologically, to go through and, you know, study that. It's partly based, I guess, on Thomas More's life, he wrote of Richard III. Now, again, Helena here, who's actually, unlike Richard, she's actually good-looking, right? But the man she loves doesn't seem to see her that way, but some other woman, right? And so she has this, what? Lack of confidence, right? Okay? But again, it's because she thinks she doesn't have the beauty of the other woman, right? In order to attract the man. Oh, I am out of breath in this fond chase, huh? She's chasing a man who doesn't love her, right? And fond means what, originally? See? It means foolish, huh? So to say, you know, the original meaning is saying I'm fond of the girl, it means I'm acting foolishly over her. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And people forgot the original meaning, right? And then fond is meant to have affection for them, right? But you'll find the word fond in Shakespeare, you know, used not to reference to love at all, you know. Just describe somebody as being foolish, right? So she's being foolish, right? Running after a man, huh? The more my prayer, the lesser is my grace, right? The more she begs him, the lesser is her good. Favor, huh? His eyes. Happy is Jeremiah. That's the other rival, right? Where soe'er she lies, for she hath blessed and attractive eyes. How came her eyes so bright? Not with salt tears, if so my eyes are oftener watched than hers. No, no, I am as ugly as a bear. Which is not really true, right? But she's got the slack of confidence, right? For beasts that meet me run away for fear. Therefore no marvel, though Demetrius do as a monster, fly my presence thus. So she thinks Demetrius is what? Well, Demetrius is not. It's fleeing her, right? I must be ugly, huh? Right? Okay? But the fact that she should think that is a sign, again, that what? That it's beauty, goodness of some sort, that it is a cause of what? Love, right? What wicked and dissembling glass of mine made me compare with Hermia's spheryine, huh? Yeah, he's kind of a spheryine. Okay. So that's the monodactio for Thomas' thing here, right? Okay. So let's look at Thomas' question 27, article 1 here, where there's something good as the cause of love. This is the fundamental article on the, first article on the cause of good, of love, rather. Now, he objects, of course, to it, as he always does, huh? It seems that not only the good is a cause of love. For the good is not a cause of love, except because it is the thing loved. But it happens also that the bad is loved, right? According to that in Psalm 10, verse 6, who loves iniquity, hates his own soul. Otherwise, all love would be good, right? If we loved only the good, all love would be good, right? So if some love is bad, right? Some people must be loving the bad. So how can you say the good is a cause of love, huh? Therefore, the good is not the only cause of love, huh? And notice, huh? We have an old saying that's quite reasonable, that contrary causes have contrary, what? Effects, right? So if good is the cause of love, right, then the contrary of good, which is the bad, should be the cause of, what, hate, right? So if the bad is causing love, right, if the bad is being loved, how can you say the good is a cause of love, huh? It doesn't make any sense, does it? Moore, the philosopher, says in Book 2 of the Rhetoric, that, quote, we love those who say something bad about themselves, huh? So people love Socrates because Socrates says, I don't know anything, right? He's saying bad things about himself, right, huh? There's a lot of truth to this, right? Therefore, it seems that the bad is a cause of love, huh? Moreover, Dionysius says in the fourth chapter, the divine names, that not only the good, but also the beautiful is lovable to all, right? There seems to be a special connection between beauty, right, and love, huh? It's interesting, in English, we have a synonym for beautiful, we say she's lovely, right, okay? Lovely now means beautiful, but it's taken from the word love itself, right? So if the beautiful is called lovely, then isn't the beautiful the object of love as well as the good, right? Now, they said contrast, just an authority in the summa, but against this is what Augustine says in the eighth book on the Trinity. Surely nothing is loved except the good, huh? Therefore, only the good is the, what? Cause of love, right? Okay? Now, what's the logical structure of the body of the article here? Hmm? Hmm? What's he doing there? It's a syllogism. Yeah, there's a syllogism, right? Whose conclusion is the main conclusion, right? Okay. And then both premises in that, what? Main syllogism, right? Are backed up by another syllogism, each of them. Okay? Now, if you look the way I divided it into two paragraphs, if you look at the end of the first paragraph and kind of figure this out, it is necessary, therefore, he says at the end of the first paragraph, that what is the object of love be properly the cause of love, right? Well, obviously that sentence, that the object of love is the cause of love, or the cause of love is the object of love, if anybody will say it, is being shown by what's gone before in that paragraph, right? Okay? Now, because he wants to put that premise together with the other premise of the main syllogism, in the second paragraph, he, what, gives the reason for the other premise afterwards. But the proper object of love is the good. Because, and he goes on to give the reason for saying that, right? He said he's done? He's got two statements he wants you to put together to draw the conclusion that the good is a cause of love, and both of those statements he puts together are themselves backed up by an additional, what, argument for each of them. Okay? But he gives the reason for the first, for one of the statements in the first paragraph before he gets, and concludes it to at the end, and then the second one he states the other one and gives the reason for it. Right? But I think, you know, you wouldn't even have to do it that way, but it enables you to put those two that he wants you to eventually put together right alongside each other. Do you see? Okay? So it's okay to release this dot here. Now, syllogism is speech in which some statements laid down, it's usually just two, another follows necessarily, right? Because one's laid down, right? Okay? So, the main conclusion now is that the, let me see, for a minute I can myself, do you want to do it? That the good is the cause of love. Okay? The way you do this is to start from the ultimate thing, right? Which is the chief conclusion, the main thing he wants to show in the body article. And that is that the good is a cause of love, right? Now, what is the link that he has between these two things, huh? Well, it is that the good is what? It's the object of love, right? So he wants to say that the good is the object of love, and the object of love is the cause. Okay? You see that? Now, sometimes you make it the main syllogism, one, or in some cases even both, of the premises may be obvious, right? Or already known, huh? Okay? But sometimes one, and sometimes both of them need to be manifested somewhat, huh? Here Thomas sees the need to manifest both of these, right? Okay? He's going to manifest in the first paragraph, huh? That the object of love is the cause of love, right? So, the first paragraph, which concludes to the statement that the object of love is the cause of love, and that's given out by the words there, right? It's necessary, therefore, right? It follows necessarily that the object of love is the cause of love. And then the reason for the second premise, the minor premise, but the proper object of love is the good, right? Okay? Can't turn around to make it, you know, clearly in the logistic form. Because, he says, right? And he's going to go on and give the reason for that, right? Okay? Now, Um... You could say this about any of the emotions, and analogously of any of the acts of the will, that whatever is the object of that emotion is also what? The cause of that emotion. The reason for that is that the desiring power, as he points out or recalls to our information, is a power that is what? Acted upon by its object. And once you realize that, then you realize that whatever is the object of not only love, but the object of hate, the object of fear, the object of anger, is also a cause of that particular emotion. So if a terrorist came in here, and said, I don't like people studying philosophy or something, with a machine gun or something, we'd start to feel some fear, I think. Unless you've been a braver than I think you are. So, what would be the object of your fear? The terrorist, right? And what would be the cause of your fear? The terrorist, right? See? Okay. Now if I insult somebody, maybe somebody would get angry, right? Now what's the object of his anger? What's the insult, huh? What was the cause of his anger? The insult, right? So Thomas is recalling what we saw before. I answer that, as has been said before, love pertains to the desiring ability, right? To the heart, right? Which is an ability that is acted upon by its what? Object, right? Whence its object is compared to it as the cause of its motion or act. Therefore, whatever is the object of love must be also the what? Cause of love. Do you see that? Okay. And you can say that same thing, right? Anger, right? Or fear, right? Pertains to the heart too, the desiring ability, right? Which is an ability that is acted upon, right? Hence, whatever is the object of fear is a cause of fear, right? Whatever is the object of anger is a cause of anger. You can do it for any one of the emotions that are not just for love, right? Okay? You hate being sick. Well, being sick is the object of your hate, right? And it's also the cause of your hate, right? See the idea? Okay? So that's the way he backs up. I want to put it in kind of sojic form to say the object of love, right, acts upon the heart of its love, right? Okay? And what acts upon the heart of its love is the cause of love. Do you see that? So the way he's backing this up here almost is another, what, sojicism, right? Do you see that? Okay? Now, so you see what I said? The link between object of love and cause of love is the idea that it acts upon, right? The heart, right? Do you see that? The object of love acts upon the heart, right? Moving it, right? For love and so on. And whatever acts upon the heart what it does is the cause of love, right? Okay? Now, what does he see as a connection between the good and the object of love? What does he see as a connection between those two? Yeah, yeah. He goes back to the idea that the good is what fits the thing, you might say, right? Okay? And then going back to the definition of love, that love is nothing other than the agreement of the heart with its object, right? It's almost like saying what? It's the fitting of the heart to that object, right? Okay? So, this idea of fitting or agreement that shows the connection between good and what? Love, right? If love is nothing other than the conformity or fitting of the heart to an object, right? And it sees what fits the thing, right? Would be loved by it, right? Okay? And people commonly do say that, don't they, right? It's not for me, right? It doesn't fit me, right? Okay? So, they have to see something as fitting them, right? Before they love it, huh? So, And what fits a thing is good for it, huh? The shoe fits where, they tell you. Good, right? Do you see that? Okay. So that's the way he... That's like the middle term there. Do you see? The good is what fits a thing. Okay? And what fits a thing is what is loved by it, right? Do you see that? There's a line from a song that I've heard many years ago. It makes this comparison. The singer talks about a sound that I love, and it fits me as well as a hand in a glove. That was the line that just sticks out when I was listening to it. He's talking about the sound that he loves to hear, but it fits. That's why I love it. The Greek word harmony, you know, is a sense of the Greek word fitting together, right? That seems to be good, right? Okay. Now he's going to reply to the first objection, which is perhaps the most serious one. To the first, therefore, it ought to be said that the bad is never loved except under the notion of the good, right? To wit, insofar as it is in some way good, however imperfectly it may be good, right? And is grasped as what? Simply good, huh? Now, notice that distinction he's making there, right? It's a kind of distinction that you find all the way through philosophy. And there corresponds to that kind of distinction, that kind of mistake that's made everywhere. And when Aristotle talks about this in the book on Ceres of Reputation, the distinction could be described as the distinction between what is so simply, right, and what is so not simply, but in some limited, qualified, imperfect way. And the kind of mistake that is made is the mistake from mixing up what is so simply and without qualification with what is so only in some, what, very limited, qualified, imperfect way. Okay? When I explain this in class, you know, I usually take a young lady and I'll say to her, and she's going to contradict herself, right? I'll play the sophists, see. I say, can you listen to her? She's going to contradict herself, huh? And I say to her, now, do you know my brother Marcus? And she'll say, no. I say, no. You all heard what she said. She doesn't know my brother Mark. Okay? And then I say, now, I say, do you know what a man is? She says, yeah. Do you know what a brother is? And she says, yeah. Well, that's where brother Mark is. So you don't know my brother Mark, don't you? See? Now, she really contradicts herself? No. No. See, I'm mixing up what is true simply, right? She doesn't know my brother Mark, right? With, in some very imperfect way, in knowing what a man is and what a brother is, she knows in some way my brother Mark and every other brother in the world, right? Do you see? Okay? Me know in the dialogue, well, let me give you another example like this, huh? A little kind of reverse thing here, see. And so I call to my little young lady, and I say, now, do you know your mother? She says, yes, right? Okay? And I say, now, you all heard what she said. She knows your mother, right? Okay? Okay. Now, suppose you have the door over there, huh? That door that's closed. Now, suppose there's suddenly a knock on the door now, right? And I say to you, do you know who's knocking at the door? And she'd say, no, right? If you go, you open the door, it's your mother. See? Okay? Now, listen, you've got a solicitor here, right? A parent, but, huh? You say, you don't know the person knocking at the door. The person knocking at the door is your mother. Therefore, you don't know your mother. You poor kid, you don't know your own mother. See? Well, notice in this case now, I'm doing this to be very similar to what I did with the other student, right? See? Because here she does know simply her mother, but in some way... She doesn't know her mother. She doesn't know her mother as the person knocking at the, what, door, right? In that qualified way, you see? Now, in the great dialogue called the Mino, Socrates is asked by Mino, you know, whether virtue can be taught. And Socrates says, I don't know. Furthermore, I don't even know what virtue is. Well, Mino says, I know what virtue is. Well, tell me, Socrates says, right? And then in this examination conversation that Socrates conducts, it becomes clear that Mino doesn't know what virtue is. Then Socrates says, you don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. Let's put our heads together and investigate what virtue is. And Mino says, well, how can you go looking for something you don't know? And how would you know if you had found it? You don't know what you're looking for. Now, if that objection to Mino is good, then one couldn't direct his thinking to finding out something you don't know. And it would seem, you know, that if you're going to aim at something, if you're going to direct your thinking towards something, you've got to know it, right? If I go into the gasoline station, I say, how do you get there? What's he going to say to me? I've got nowhere you're trying to go, buddy, if I can direct you there, right? So it seems that you cannot direct your thinking towards what you don't know. And therefore, you shouldn't be paying these people to do, you know, try to find out the cause of cancer, right? Because he doesn't know what he's looking for. It's his hit and miss, right? See? Well, if this objection was good, there'd be no logic, right? And there'd be no art of counting or calculating. There'd be no art that helps to direct you towards what you don't know. Well, the point is that what you don't know, you can know in some way, right? And now he's giving a very simple example in class. I say, how many students are in class today? I don't know, okay? But I know exactly how to get there. And so I count them, right? Let's say I arrive at the number 22, right? I directed myself to the number 22 with the greatest of ease, I said. Now, how was I able to direct myself to 22 when I didn't know I was looking for 22, right? How did I do that? Well, like, you know, this girl knowing my brother Mark in some way, right? In some way, I knew 22, didn't I? Because 22 is, in fact, the number of students in class today. And I knew I was looking for the number of students in class. And that was enough to tell me to take the road called counting. Do you see? Okay? And, you know, if someone asked me, you know, what is the size of the top of this table here, right? I would know I'd have to multiply the length by the width, right? And when I multiply the length by the width, I get the area which I didn't know before, right? But in some way, I knew what I was looking for, didn't I? Okay? So, in order to direct yourself to what you don't know, you have to know in some imperfect way what you don't know. So the man who's looking for the cause of cancer or some other disease, right, he knows in some imperfect way what he's looking for, the cause of cancer, right? Without knowing simply and without qualification the cause of cancer, because then he's going to have to go searching, wouldn't he? You see? Okay? And the same when I ask the question, what is virtue or what is something else? What is love, right? I know in some way what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the definition of these things, right? And therefore, I've got to take the road of definition. You see? So, Mino is making this mistake, huh? For mixing up these two, huh? And Socrates, when he tries to reply to that, he makes the same kind of mistake. So, he says that maybe we already know what this is. And it's only a question of recalling what we already know. It's a famous statement that learning is recalling. And Socrates says, you know, And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. And so, we're going to be talking about what we're going to do now. I've heard from the priests, you know, that the soul existed before it was in the body. Maybe it picked up all kinds of knowledge that it's, what, temporarily forgotten because of the shock of being shoved into this bodily prison, right? Maybe it's just a question of recalling. Well, Mino says, that's an interesting idea, but you got any evidence for this? And so Socrates takes the slave boy of Mino, right, who Mino acknowledges has never studied, what, geometry in his life, and he proceeds just by asking the slave boy questions, huh? And eventually a theorem of geometry comes out of the answers to the slave boy. And Socrates said, why, I didn't teach him. It came out of what he said, came out of what he knows. He must have been recalling it, right? Well, was the slave boy, under Socrates' questions, recalling something that he already knew, how to double a square? Because when Socrates first asked him, how do you double a square? He said, you double the side. And that would give you a square, what, four times as big and not just twice as big. And so Socrates says, maybe Socrates' questions are, what, leading the slave boy to recall things that the slave boy knows, and by putting those together, he can come to see for the first time in his life the way to, what, double a square, huh? That's the fact he's taking place in the dialogue. But Socrates gives the appearance to Mino that the way to double a square is coming out of the slave boy's knowledge, right? But I take a sentence as a simple example to illustrate the point. If I know the length and the width of this table, do I know the area? Well, if I haven't multiplied yet the length by the width, I don't know the area, do I? I'm able to know it, right? I know it in ability, but is that to know it simply and without qualification? No, no. If I know the major premise of a syllogism and I know the minor premise, but I never put them together, I don't yet know the conclusion, do I? So Socrates is making the same mistake, right? He's saying because the slave boy knew it in ability, he was able to know it, right? But therefore he already, what, knew it and is just recalling it. He's not recalling the way to double a square, he's recalling things through which, from which, by which he can come to know it. But know it for the first time, huh? If you have a man and a woman, you've got a baby, right? I tell him, no. Maybe you're able to have a baby, right? But that's not the same thing as to have a baby, is it? You see the mistake you're making there? And then I apply it to their life, I say, huh? We're always doing something bad because it's good in some way, huh? Or we're not doing something good to do because in some way it's bad, right? There's nothing so good in this life that you should do that doesn't prevent you from doing something else. You can, in some way, consider it as bad, right? Getting up to go to Mass on Sunday, right, prevents you from sleeping longer, right? And what? Robbing the bank is in some way good, right? And I say to them, you know, if you annoy me, is it good for me to murder you? No. And I say, bad if I murder you, right? But it does get rid of annoyance, right? In my life. So, bad things can seem to be, can be in some way, what? Limited way good, right? And good things can be in some, what? Limited way bad, right? That's what he's talking about, right? For man, what's good simply is the reasonable. What is pleasing to my senses is good in some way, right? But if it's not reasonable to pursue something pleasing to my senses, like adultery or something like that, then simply speaking, it's a bad thing to do, right? Do you see? But I tell them it's good to be studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? Even though it prevents you from going to the pizza party or something, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? It's to be doing some studying, right? So what Thomas is pointing out here is also that there's also a possibility of another mistake here, a mistake which is the first kind of mistake outside of words, which is a mistake for mixing up the through itself with the through happening, right? The per se and the procedence, the phallus of the accident. Well, the point is, the bad as bad is not desired, right? You desire the bad because of the good in it. Like you desire the delicious poison, right? Not because it's poisonous, but because it smells and tastes good, right? You desire the last drink in the party because it seems to be a way of continuing the good time. It's actually a way maybe of ending the good time and starting the bad time, right? You see? So, you know, the guy had been caught robbing banks, you know, and the famous bank robber, and the judge out of curiosity said, well, why do you rob banks? He said, that's where the money is. That's obvious. So you see, robbing the bank is bad because it's taking what isn't your own, right? But in some way, it's good if you don't get caught in it, right? But it increases the money in your pocket, right? So notice, he's not robbing the bank because it's unjust to rob the bank, right? But that's where the money is. That's why. Do you see? So he says, As to the first, therefore, it ought to be said that the bad is never loved except under the notion of the good. Good, right? To wit, insofar as it is in some way good, some imperfect way, and is grasped as simply good, right? And thus, some love is bad insofar as it tends towards what is not simply a true good, right? And in this way, man loves iniquity insofar as he attains some good iniquity as pleasure or money or something of this sort, right? Okay? So I usually apply that to abortion, you know, because abortion, I say, really is murder, right? Murder is, what, taking the life of an innocent human being, huh? So abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being in his or her mother's womb, right? So it's something obviously bad, huh? But it might, you know, save you from an embarrassment, right? It might even continue your career, right? Stay in school or something, right? You see? So what is bad, simply without qualification, right, is chosen because it's good in some limited way, right? You see the idea? It's like my murdering you, well, because you're annoying me. In some way it's good, right? The Chester said, a man who can shoot his mother-in-law at 50 paces, I would say he's a good shot, but I wouldn't say he's a good man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. And so notice, huh, as Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics, how when you choose the bad, you're always, what, mistaken, right? But you're responsible, you're a mistake. Okay? Now, the second objection was saying, Aristotle said we like those who say some bad things about themselves, right? Admit their faults and so on, right? And their defects, huh? To the second, it ought to be said that those who say what is bad about themselves are not loved because of those bad things, right? But on account of this that they say these bad things. For to say what is bad about oneself can be considered good insofar as it excludes lying or what? It's pretense, right? So what we attract it to is a man's humility, maybe, right? Or his honesty or something else that is good, right? Not the bad quality itself that he's admitting in itself, right? Okay? Now, the third objection is a little bit different. The truly beautiful, you might say, is almost, what, a form of the good, right? We have another expression besides the lovely, the beautiful, right? We use the expression good-looking. It shows that you're not really opposed to saying good is a cause, huh? If I'm moved by your being good-looking, I'm being moved by the, what? The good, right? Okay? But I think he brings up the beautiful because rather than health or wisdom or something else, right? Which is love, right? Because there's a special connection between the beautiful. And love, shown by that expression, lovely, the word lovely, right? Which is taken from the word love itself, right? Okay? So it's among good things, it's deserving of a special, what? Mention, right? And it's found in Dionysius, right? As well, huh? To the third, it ought to be said that the beautiful is the same as the good, differing only in definition. For since the good is what all desire, that's the basic definition of the good by its effect, right? It belongs to the definition of the good, that desire rests in it. But it belongs to the definition of the beautiful, that desire rests in the sight or knowledge of it, right? So you might say the good is what pleases, right? And the beautiful is what pleases when seen or known, huh? It's interesting how that we use the word beautiful with respect to the object of sight and the object of what? Hearing, right? So we speak of beautiful music, huh? Beautiful girl, beautiful sunset, and so on. But if something tastes good, we don't say it tastes beautiful, do we? No. It smells beautiful. It feels beautiful, right? But it feels good, tastes good, smells good, right, huh? Okay? But because the higher sense is there, right? The sense is sight and hearing. There we speak of the, what? Beautiful, right? The beautiful music of Mozart, huh? Beautiful sounds, huh? Okay? Or beautiful painting, beautiful sunset, beautiful mountains, huh? Whence also those senses especially regard the beautiful, which are most knowing. That's a sign, right? To wit, sight and hearing, which serve reason. For we call sights beautiful and sounds beautiful. In the sense of both or the other sense of the order, we, what? Do not use the name of beauty. We do not call smells or odors beautiful. And thus it is clear that beautiful adds above good a certain order to a knowing ability or power. So that is called good, which simply agrees as desire, but that is called beautiful, which the knowledge itself is agreeable on. What was Augustine saying at the beginning? The confession is too late. If I come to know thee, thou ancient beauty. Interesting, huh? Okay, let's continue before we take our break. We'll continue a little bit, huh? Okay. Now we come to the second cause of love, huh? Which is knowledge, right? Now, and as you like it there, huh? Shakespeare quotes the, what? Dead poet. You know, it's kind of a custom there because all the writing of pastoral poetry in the day, to call poets sometimes a, what? Shepherd, huh? Okay. And some people, you know, think that Shakespeare might, when he started out in the theater, he might have been influenced a little bit by Marlow, you know, and so on. And Marlow got into, what is it, kind of a fight there, a bar fight or something like that? A couple of allusions to it is Shakespeare's plays there after the death of Marlow. But Phoebe has fallen in love at first sight. Okay? And so she says, dead shepherd. Allusion to Marlow. Now I find thy saw, you're saying, right? Of might, huh? And it's a direct quote from the love poem, Hero and Lander, by Marlow. Whoever loved, that loved not at first sight. Okay? Now, when I give the students that particular line there from Marlow, I'll get them arguing, you know, whether that's true or not, right? You know, and some will say, you know, that it's true, and some will say it's not true, right? It can be true love at second sight or third sight or something, right? Okay? And I'll kind of enter into it in a good-hearted way and say, you know, but all these famous love stories like Romeo and Juliet and so on, they're always love at first sight, right? All those great love stories, huh? And so on. But my point is that although they disagree about whether this is true or not, they're all agreeing that it's either at first sight or second sight or some sight that you do fall in love, right? Okay? So I think you can fall in love with somebody that you didn't fall in love with the first time you saw them, right? But it was the second time, the third time, or sometime you saw them, right? So it makes the point I want to make, you see. That knowledge, right, which sight is, kind of knowing, right, is a cause of what? Love, right? You see that? Beautiful, beautiful thing. Now, Ferdinand, he fell in love with Miranda, and it was love at first sight. Hear my soul speak. The very instant that I saw you, did my heart fly to your service, right? Hell in love. There resides to make me slave to it. There is love at first sight. So sight is only a cause of love, isn't it? Knowledge. Now, in Romeo and Juliet, this is back in the days when girls didn't choose their husbands, right? Your parents did, huh? And if you read the story, it's one of the sources for the history of these older times. This is the Pashtun Letters, right? In the Pashtun Letters, they wanted to marry the daughter off to our rich old moneybags, and she wanted to marry some young man, right? So they were beating her every day until she agrees to marry the old moneybags, which would be good for the family, right? And as the historians point out, you shouldn't think that the Pashtuns were monsters, right? In those days, I mean, if your daughter didn't marry the person you had chosen, I mean, well, of course you'd beat her. Your disobedient, selfish, willful daughter, of course she'd beat her until she agrees, right? You know? That would be, you know, ordinary, right? You see? Okay? So, they didn't know nothing, of course, about Juliet's secret, you know, marriage to, what, Romeo, right? And they picked out the, he's called the County Paris, but we'd say the Count Paris, right? Because County now means the land, right? But the County Paris has been selected, a nice young, you know, man for her. And the mother is, you know, kind of sizing out. But speak briefly, can you like of Paris's love, right? And she says, I'll look to like, if looking, liking, moo. Of course, like is another word for what? To love, right, huh? You're not as strong as love, but, you know. So, nice alliteration there, right? I'll look to like, if looking, liking, moo. From looking, liking, moo's, then looking, which is a kind of knowing, right, is a cause of liking or loving, huh? Now, when Romeo sees Juliet, it's like he never loved before. I loved Rosalind before. Did my heart love till now? Forswear its sight, huh? He never loved until now. Why? For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night, right? Okay? Now, as Thomas will be explaining in the Bible article, it's the good as known that is the cause of love, right? So, the knowledge is a cause of love in the way that, what, the good is. It's on the side of the object, huh? That's kind of my condition, right? No matter how beautiful Juliet is, if he had not seen or heard of her beauty, he would never have been, what, moved to like her, right? Right now, I'm emphasizing the role of knowing there. He never loved till now. It seems to him, right? Because he loves so much now, right? But it's because he never saw true beauty. True beauty, right? Till this night, huh? Now, Friar Lawrence, right? He's heard Romeo moping around about, what, Rosalind, right, huh? And you know how the parents of Romeo, you know, they send Benvolio, right, his friend there to find out what's bothering him, right? What's bothering him is he's in love with Rosalind, and Rosalind won't give him the time of day, huh? So, he wanders around at nighttime, right, in the dark, and he comes home in the day, and he pulls his shutters like they have in the Italian houses, right? And he stays in his room in the dark there, and so on, and, okay? Okay, so Friar Lawrence knew about this crush he had on Rosalind, right, huh? And now, of course, after he's seen Juliet, he comes and wants him to marry them, right, huh? Oh, my gosh, what's going on? Holy St. Francis, huh? He's obviously a Franciscan, right? What a change is here! Is Rosalind, Rosalind, that you just love so dear, so soon forsaken? Young men's love, then, lies not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes, right? But notice what you're saying there, right? In their eyes, as if that's what? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? What a change is there, right? The cause, right? The effect is said to be in the power of the cause. I got you in my power, right? It's in my hand. So that's very much emphasizing, right? That knowledge is the cause of love, right? Now, a little more indicative of her, Anthony and Cleopatra, right? And when Anthony accounted to Cleopatra, upon her landing, Anthony sent to her, invited her to supper. She replied, it would be better he became her guest, which she entreated, our courteous Anthony, who ne'er the word of no heard speak, being barbered ten times more. It's kind of funny they're talking about Kerry, Senator Kerry there, right? He flew out his hairdresser from Washington before he appeared on TV to fix up his hair. Private airplane there, you know. I need an airplane or something, you know. By Clinton, yeah, keeping the airplane. So he was barbered ten times more, right? He was just fine. Now he goes to the feast, to the dinner with what? Cleopatra, right? And for his ordinary, right? Now ordinary is a place where you just get an ordinary meal there, you know, but you'd pay for your meal, right? But for his meal, right, you could say, what does he pay? So he's just playing, you know, what the audience would eat in ordinary, right? And pay for your meal, right? And so for his ordinary, for his meal, pays his what? Heart. Okay, he's got the liquor, right? But he pays his heart for what his eyes eat only, right? Okay? His eyes devoured her, right? And he probably didn't eat much of the food, right? And he paid for this with his heart. It's beautifully said, right? But when he pays his heart, it means that he started to like her lover, right? And why? For his eyes eat only, huh? Very clever the way Shakespeare states it, isn't it? Very interesting. Now in this song from The Merchant of Venice, fancy originally means the imagination, right? But because the imagination is so important, especially in romantic love, fancy got to mean you like somebody. Just like the word fawn came to mean you like them, right? See? But fawn comes from what? But originally meaning foolish, right? So if I'm fond of the girl, it means I'm acting foolishly over her. If I fancy her, right? See? Originally, it meant, you know, she strikes my imagination, right? But now fancy took on the sense of what? I like her, right? So you have that in the Mother Goose rhymes. Do you fancy Nancy doll or whatever it is, right? You know? You like her, huh? You fancy her, huh? So it has taken on that meaning. So it's talking about, tell me where is fancy bread? Where is, what? Love, right? Given birth, right? Okay? Or in the heart or in the head, right? It'll be like Friar Lawrence is saying, right? Now in Shakespeare, they didn't say either or, they said or, or. They didn't say neither nor. They'd say nor, nor. Okay? In the heart or in the head? How begot, how nourish it? Reply, reply. It is engendered in the eyes. That's how it's engendered. With gazing fed, right, huh? Okay? So you speak in Latin, you know. Custodia oculor, right? Custody of the eyes, huh? Okay. Now Twelfth Night, which is the, the last of Shakespeare's, what? Sixth Love and Friendship plays, huh? It's a masterpiece, right? Curio says to the Duke, Will you go hunt, my lord? What curio? The heart. Now they're kind of playing on the two meanings of heart. Why, so I do, the noblest that I have. Oh, when my eyes did see Olivia first. His eyes, right? Methot she purged the air of pestilence. And I beautifully said. That instant was I turned into a heart. And my desire is like fel and cruel hounds there have since pursued me. That's an allusion to what you have in mythology, right? For somebody took a peek at the goddess Diana, you know, and what you do? She had the house on her, right, huh? Okay? But it's a little bit what happens to the guy, right? When you fall in love with somebody who doesn't return your interest, right? You're pursued by the hounds, right? Okay? Because Biffy said, right? Okay. Okay. Okay.