Also is the results of the patristic period, and the meditations of many Catholics for centuries, we should be grateful to receive what they transmitted us in the Tradition of the church.
This reminds me that l will always exist. I must beg God for graces. The goal is to be in His eternal presence. Neither presuming or despairing. The sacraments are an inparitive for me. I am weak.
The sacraments are also for the strong, as they are only preserved by that same grace and could lose it in an instant. Both the weak and the strong depend entirely on God's grace.
Dizzying, even in this distillation. You people are nothing short of brilliant. Amazingly helpful, whether reading the Summa or not. God bless your work.
I walked away a very long time ago ~ however this short video brought clarity to meaning of 'soul' and restoration of 'hope' for our greater 'humanity'. Thank you 🌺🙏🌼
On watching this channel's videos we can discover what was the amazing intellect of Saint Thomas and even start to grasp the angels's or even God's. Thank you for passing on this knowledge. God bless
Thanks Fr Gregory, you are way better at explaining these than Fr Ripperger, now I finally understood our beloved St Aquinas. I really like to have this model as a Mind OS so I can deal better with my passions and submit them to reason.
What I have learned and what this particular installment has taught me, is nothing short of a miracle. Not even in a thousand lifetimes could I ever be as cognizant, wise, enlightened and articulate as these men are, no question. Thank you for the categorical explanation of the soul and how such reflects my own pursuits and yearning towards a Godly life. No king but Christ .
A lovely video ,as ever, thanks! I'm still hoping to watch a further teaching on this topic i.e.the lower and upper powers relating to moral behaviour n choices ?
@@ThomisticInstitute Hey, what do you guys think about Artificial Intelligence and Andrew Yang? Andrew Yang is running for USA President. He is the automation aware guy. If you guys can do a video about artificial intelligence or automation it would be so awesome. Thanks. Also I made some cool art, if you wanna see just click my channel. It's a picture of Andrew.
@@daphuc6048 We haven't looked into doing a video about AI yet, but you might benefit from this lecture: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/artificial-intelligence-and-the-soul-anselm-ramelow
@@ThomisticInstitute @Da Phuc It is a while away but The Society of Catholic Scientists are doing a conference in June about “Aliens, Angels, and AI.” so it may be worth a look. (05.02.20)
@ThomisticInstitute 1:12 Why is the fabric of reality neutral? Do you mean it in the sense that it's accessible to every living creature differently? Thanks, I appreciate these videos so much 🙏🏽🙌🏽
Great stuff and like the way Fr Gregory explains things complicated in a simple way - but I really want to know - the story behind the scar on his forehead - hope its something good - maybe like St Pio fighting with demons at night??
at 4:53 you say the "intellect abstracts the forms of things" and so "becomes the things themselves". Have I misunderstood Thomism? How does the intellect "become something" other than the intellect - I have always seen it as distinct from the things (universals) it abstracts? Is this to say the intellect is changing from one moment to another every time it comprehends a universal? Where in the summa does Aquinas mention the intellect "becoming" the things it abstracts?
I've read Kreeft's Summa of the Summa x 2 - Highly recommend "My Way of Life (the Summa Simplified) Father Walter Farrell O.P S.T.M. and Father Martin J. Healy S.T.D. reading for third time @@ThomisticInstitute
So is it right to assume that the spirit, is the experiencing and intellectual mind. And the soul is the animating principle which also has high rationality, and is like the ‘will’? Would this be a somewhat correct understanding? I’m ignorant, so I just want to make sure. Also I’m a bit curious about what you said about the will. Can’t people also have bad will or will to do evil things?
Can't animals recognize trees in general? When a squirrel comes upon a tree it has never seen before but which is similar to other trees, it knows what to do and climbs that tree as though it knew it already.
So Is there a place that I can read up on the Virtues in general and in particular (Cardinal Virtues) I am doing an Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) on Virtues and Films so I am trying to inundate my brain with Aquinas' logic but it is quite difficult. For example understanding why Fortitude and Temperance are in the Appetite (I think the Concupiscence) while Justice is in the Will or where Prudence is and to what is it's end (apparently Virtues are only concerned with the means used to require an end (since any other end would be cunning (however then Justice is interested in the Right or a person's own which suggests our interaction with other people is an end))). This video cleared up quite a bit about where and what each appetite is so Thank You.
Cheers! Glad to hear that it's been helpful. Some of the best introductory resources on the virtues are: 1. The Four Cardinal Virtues - Josef Pieper 2. The Examined Life - Fr. Romanus Cesasrio, O.P. 3. Thomas Aquinas on the Cardinal Virtues: Edited and Explained for Everyone - Christopher Kaczor (Haven't read this one, but other books by Kaczor are excellent) If you're looking for something deeper, let us know, and we can make further recommendations.
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank You are they commentaries on the Summa Theologica because I listed it as one of the resources that I was to use. That as well as Fr Joseph Rickaby S.J. and his Four Square and Moral Philosophy: Ethics, Deontology and Natural Law.
@@westvespers I can only speak to what I've read. Here are a few: On the Passions . . . 1. Thomas Aquinas on the Passions - Robert Miner 2. The Logic of Desire - Nicholas Lombardo, O.P. Commentaries on St. Thomas's teaching on the virtues 1. Various - Marie-Michel Labourdette, O.P. (He has a long course in 17 volumes and a short course in 2 volumes; these are in French; they're available through Parole et Silence 2. The Theological Virtues - Reginald Garrigou Largrange, O.P. - The English translation of this by Reilly isn't the best. I think it was originally written in Latin. It may have been retranslated. 3. Various Commentaries - Both the Blackfriars and the Revue des Jeunes commentaries on the Summa are excellent, but difficult to find at this point. The essays in the back are their most valuable contribution. On Film 1. Shows About Nothing - Thomas Hibbs Let me know what you think about these, and we can do some more in turn. Cheers!
@@ThomisticInstitute Apologies for my delay in reply. Thank you very much for the recommendations, this is precisely what I need. It is enough for now. Thank you again.
I think Aquinas would give a short answer of sin. Not only a lack in clarity of intellectual vision as a consequence of original sin, but actual sin, which varies in each person. From Prima Secundae, Question 85, Article 3: "As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already stated (I-II:81:2; so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature." "Again, there are four of the soul's powers that can be subject of virtue, as stated above (I-II:61:2), viz. the reason, where prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of temperance. Therefore in so far as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; in so far as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weakness; and in so far as the concupiscible is deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence." "Accordingly these are the four wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent's sin. But since the inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on account of actual sin, as was explained above (I-II:1:2), these four wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin, the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, the will hardened to evil, goodactions become more difficult and concupiscence more impetuous."
As a occultist, I cannot help but notice that this description of Aquinas resembles the Tetragrammaton, or the Tree of Life, whether one considers the Judaic or Hermetic version. I wonder how explicit this connection is. Are these correspondences a product of the Neo-Platonism that informs all of these systems? Are the friars studying studying 13th century quabalism? For example, the ability to discern the nature of a thing from an instance of a thing clearly corresponds to Tiphareth. The ultimate human understanding being distinct from truth corresponds to Da'at. I am very curious about the context in which these friars are educated. From where do they think these ideas come from?
The ideas come from St Thomas Aquinas who lived in the 13th century and studied the ancient Greek philosophers. Wikipedia says the Zohar, the foundational text of Kabbalah, was written in the late 13th century, so it probably used St. Thomas's work.
I appreciate the content, however I must impress upon those interested with philosophy that there is nothing of greater importance in this video than the unanswered question of locomotion. How the non-physical soul acts upon the brain, which is required for the efficacy of the will, without violating the conservation of energy by imparting energy, or violating conservation of momentum by redirecting motion, is the most important question that could be discussed in regards to the soul.
Didn't St Thomas say we each have power over our own soul that the angels have over all matter? I don't think it depends on the laws of physics, but metaphysics
@@wms72 The question of how the non-physical interacts with the physical is a metaphysical question which goes unanswered. My point being that even if an answer could be devised, any answer would have the non-physical impart energy unto an otherwise closed system. If this affect were to be powerful enough to direct the will, there is no doubt this energy increase would be at least an indirectly observable phenomenon. Every philosopher and theologian agrees that God is not capable of contradiction. God's omnipotence does not enable him to, "Create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift," a contradiction in terms. This is no limitation on God's power; simply a result of the fact that the above sentence is contradictory and therefore meaningless. It is no more coherent than gibberish. For this same reason God is not capable of imparting energy unto a system while not increasing the energy of said system. This is equally contradictory.
aquinas's idea of soul is different from the common modern understanding, which often views the soul as a separate, immaterial substance like Descartes' dualism. Aquinas actually sees the soul as the form of the body . as an aspect of a single substance (think of 2 aspects of the same coin with 1 being form and the other matter). The soul is what animates the body and gives it life. When the soul departs, the body loses its form and begins to decay. Since the soul is the form of the body, it actually enables the body's faculties to interact without contradiction. also God cant contradict only applies to necessary truths like the laws of logic, not contingent sciences like physics, math, etc. which could have possibly been different otherwise I hope this helps.
Aquinas taught; That "following the lead of Aristotle’s De anima in treating the soul as the first principle of life, whatever that may be. Since primary internal explanation for the existence of any substance is its substantial form (§4), it follows that every living substance has a soul that is its substantial form.". Thus human philosophy! Paul's advice "Beware lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY" Col 2:8. We dont HAVE a Soul WE ARE A LIVING SOUL! ( Gen 2:8)
Please, explain to me, how do we know that our cognition is principally different from some other smart creatures like dolphins, elephant, octopus and apes?
Great vid and ending. I'm not sure I completely grasped this line about the intellect? "It has no nature of it's own apart from it's very capacity for becoming the objects that it knows. The intellect doesn't just know this tree and that dog. It knows and is tree-ness and dog-ness" Is this a way of describing how our intellect is a conceptual machine which affects the senses? We think ice-cream: and we begin to savour it in our moth, whilst imagining it entirely? Texture/flavour etc.
Hi Fr. Gregory. So the will inclines us to what is apprehended as good. Do we apprehend what is good using our intellect? If so, doesn't that mean that the intellect apprehends both truth and the good?
Mens sano in corpore sana! A healthy mind in a healthy body! St Thomas Aquainas one of the great doctors of the Catholic Church who wrote the summa theologica!
Dear Fr. Gregory, my understanding of the universalism of St. Thomas and nominalism, as held by William of Ockham, stems from reading Politicizing The Bible, by Scott Hahn and B. Wiker (just to let you know I am but an amateur). While thinking about this I thought that just from observing my dogs, nominalism can be refuted. Namely: my dogs seem to recognize other dogs, even breeds that are a disgrace to the kind :-) and look more like guinea pigs ('lap dogs'). Normally they go after cats, hares etc. like crazy, but when they see a tiny dog from afar, I often observe that they initially hesitate and seem to mistake it for a cat, but then - as they go for it - halt as soon as they recognize (?) it as one of their kind (?). To me it seemed thus, that they are able to recognize dog-ness. But as I understand from your lesson, recognizing dog-ness, requires intellect and that is not supposed to be a faculty of the animal soul. What then can explain my dogs capacity for 'knowing' that they deal with other dogs, even ones that hardly look like themselves, instead of other species, which trigger their hunting instinct? Please excuse me if my examples seems silly, I probably haven't understood the essence of the difference between universalism and nominalism well. But from what I gathered from the above mentioned book, this break (=nominalism) with classical philosophy is the beginning of a long slide towards the bad philosophy that under girds our modern era, so I would like to understand it well. Thank you for your videos and I understand that this may not be the medium to address my question. Thank you for your efforts anyway. Jeroen Mous, The Netherlands
This is probably a dumb question. You say the human cognition can see the abstract- for example, doggiehness. But my dog is very excited when he comes across another dog. He seems to know the abstract category of dog. In like manner, an antelope chased by one lion will be wary of other lions. They seem to have an abstract category of lion. Are you saying animals only use abstraction for survival, while humans use it to reason about choices and to have relationship with God? Like animals abstract enough to be a cog in the wheel, but humans must take dominion in God’s image, so their abstract thought will be more self aware and free?
In the Book of Genesis written 5000BC God gathered heaps dust from the Earth formed it in His image and likeness Breathed on it to make him a soul spirit humanbeing! I believe that when our mortal body returns from the heaps of earth and dust from dust to dust our immutable soul spirit the Breath of God given to us will be returned back to its source and Creator k!
How can the intellect know And BECOME treeness and dogness? I understand how the intellect knows but I don’t see how the intellect becomes what it knows.
the intellect is only human, the process of becoming that which the intellect knows, for example, goodness, is through living the virtues, these are possible especially through grace, given to all by God. This of course, then only becomes actualised, as in we only embody them, if we freely accept this call to live the virtues. Animals and plants are what they are out of instinct not intellect, they are less perfect beings and do not have freedom.
The information here regarding the soul is inaccurate. it has partial truths however not the complete picture. This is understandable because the information is coming from a Christian flawed slant on the topic. Christians even omitted the teachings of rebirth/reincarnation in approx year 540 on the orders of an Emperor! So of course any teachings regarding the soul will be flawed. The Bhagavad Gita has the accurate teachings, this was taught around 1700 BC . It goes into depth of all three faculties and original qualities that make up the soul. Also goes into the subtle mechanism in how it functions. The writings of Aquinas regarding the soul are childish in comparison. No disrespect to Thomas, he was simply toeing the "Christian line"
And one thing another being a play and a game we actually have to just watch and enjoy..!!.. And being Deception (we thinks we did that we will do that hahahha and then we feels aaah I did it and for a notmal job we feels we did it and also Spray with scent that we did but fairly.Actually this choclaty feelings for Yourself is evil.The Evil serves and enjoys you with desires and then says you are just you.Evil Was came with Human from 1st day and this is free of cost.and the right And real path which goes to the Creator,we have to find the path Initial and take ourself for the journey that never come back.God is the destination for a winner.The Game rule is to defeat evil and Reach to God which is the actual completion of soul peace.BUT DONT think about this human world reality too much I told u a human dont have an own power to do something.And the main problem of this world is time Where the time exists and never stops so that world has no reality..The world of Muddy bodeis..its nothing.. I have alot for conversation with u .But lack of time hahaha.. thank you brother God keep u happy and I wish that he take u to rhe secret of main point
Not sure I understand this correctly, but it seems like a typical Pascal's Wager-type way of thinking. That is, Aquinas already assumes a certain reality - "St. Thomas asks a question because he thinks there's an answer" - and then goes searching for confirmation of it. To me, that is a very major mistake. Yes? No? Also, "Here are the facts: we have bodily and spiritual life". This is not correct. We may BELIEVE that we have a spiritual dimension but that does not qualify it as a fact. There is no way to prove its objective existence. Of course, if by "soul" or "spirit" you are using a metaphor, then that may be different. We also must remember that Aquinas lived 700 years ago and many advances have been made in the sciences since that time, as well as in theology, some that Aquinas could not possibly have even imagined (the infamous "unknown unknowns"). If you are going to teach this aspect of his life, you MUST include the caveats. Again, these explanations only make sense because you already believe it.
So? Aquinas’ philosophy has always been heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought, as is all Western philosophy, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t understand how you can hold it against Aristotle for being born 300 years before Christ and in a different part of the world. Also it isn’t “completely pagan” as Aristotle wasn’t pagan and didn’t believe in the Ancient Greek gods, it comes from reason and observation of the world around us.
@@Seanph25 Aristotle did believe in the traditional Gods and absolutely was pagan. Same for Plato btw. It's good that Christians absorbed Greco-Roman wisdom, but it would be better if we abandoned the Jewish mythology tacked onto it. The main reason I stopped being Christian is because I realized that everything I liked about it was pagan and everything I disliked about it was specifically Christian.
@@mitchelweaver6801 Aristotle did not believe in the Greek gods, he viewed them as fiction. Aristotle’s beliefs were much closer to deism. Plato and Socrates also didn’t really believe in the traditional Greek religion.
@@Seanph25 That is simply false. Nowhere does Aristotle say he believed in only one God. For Aristotle, there were multiple unmoved movers. Plato talks about polytheism all the time. It just isn't true that the philosophers were monotheistic.
@@mitchelweaver6801 I never said they were monotheistic, and there’s a lot more to their beliefs then what your describing. Maybe read up on what you think you know so much about and stop putting words in people’s mouths.
The Babyonians & the Greeks had a completely different TAKE on the 'soul' to the Hebrews! The Torah taught that "God took the dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ( Neshema ) AND THE MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL" ( Gen 2:7) To The Hebrews, humans WERE souls, so were animals, fish & birds! The NT use of 'soul' is the greek 'psyke' which means the SAME THING. We dont HAVE a soul, we ARE a soul! When we die we are a 'dead soul'. We do NOT have 'an immortal soul! Its a PAGAN CONCEPT!
@@awake3083 Paul said about the God that Christians should worship.."Is he not a God of the Jews as well?" (Rom 3:29) Look There has ALWAYS been One true God! He is the Father of our Lord |Jesus Christ! I am in no way a 'judaizer'! that total rubbish! I am a Christian. My Jesus is the one whom God the Father sent to earth to die for my sins & your sins! He came to reconcile us TO God the Father! We dont just come to the Son and STOP there! Jesus is our "Door" ( as he said "I am thee door!) We go THROUGH the door TO God the |Father! "I am the WAY the TRUTH & the LIFE, no one can COME TO THE FATHER ACEPT THROUGH ME" (John 14:6). Have you done that? Jesus is telling you and me "The hour is coming when ther TRUE WORSHIPERS, wil worship the FATHER in Spirit and truth ( John 4:23,24). I stick to the PURE teachings OF Jesus. You, it seems follow the Roman model establsihed in the 4th century! You belong to a 'religion' I dont!
@@kiwihans100 Thank you for exposing your historical ineptitude. You may believe in Christ, but you have many things wrong with your theology. Read a book on this topic and not spew the common Protestant myths.
Shouldn't you first demonstrate that a soul really exists before attributing all kinds of so called "powers" or properties to it? Since you have not done the first thing the latter is nothing more than a product of your own fantasy.
What is it with modern man and having to reprove everything at every step? The summa likely explains this at an earlier section. This is building on what has already been laid down, it has no need to be proven yet again. Good theology isn't a fifty story high slab of foundation, if you catch my drift.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch "What is it with modern man and having to reprove everything at every step?" I presume you prefer the gullibility of superstitious bronze and iron age simpletons? "The summa likely explains this at an earlier section." When I asked for a demonstration that a soul exists I did mean by using a scientific method and not just by using someones preferred fairytale fantasies. "Good theology isn't a fifty story high slab of foundation, if you catch my drift." No I do not catch your drift. Theology is nothing more than the knowledge about ancient fables, fairytales and myths. Although undoubtably it is interesting, I do not see much good use for it.
@@evilsnowman3231 Alright, you have refuted nothing. All you have done is thrown out simplistic accusations. Why are today's ideas just so superior to the ancients? What about being new makes it better? Why can't I assume that since I have proven something, I can't build on it without having to reprove it at every step. Shall we start every calculus class by proving that 1+1 does indeed still equal two, or shall I wake up every morning and attempt to prove basic logic rules before making ANY decision based on said rules? Why should I have to use natural science (the lowest science in the hierarchy, in any case) to prove something outside the natural order (in fact, how can I)? Did I mention that natural science is the lowest science?
@@PimpMyDitchWitch "Alright, you have refuted nothing." Well, I didn't claim to having refuted anything. You just have not answered my question which was to show me some scientific evidence for the existence of a soul. Why are today's ideas just so superior to the ancients? What about being new makes it better? If you get really sick and need to go to hospital (which I do not hope for you), then ask the staff to be treated by a, lets say, pre medieval method. And I am very sure this will answer your question by that time. "Why can't I assume that since I have proven something, I can't build on it without having to reprove it at every step. " I never said you have to reprove every step. If you think I did so than please show me where I did. But you can not build on a step that has not been proven by anybody. And the existence of a soul has not been shown in any scientific way. It is just that simple. "Why should I have to use natural science (the lowest science in the hierarchy, in any case) to prove something outside the natural order (in fact, how can I)?" I have no idea how you could do that. I do not know how anything can be outside the natural order and be real at the same time. The fictional world of Harry Potter is also outside our natural order. So this has the same value as your preferred superstition. How can you distinguish one from the other? "Did I mention that natural science is the lowest science?" Yes you did, but you did not mention by whom or by what it is considered to be the lowest science. Although I think what you mean to say is that "natural science is the science of which your personal understanding is the lowest". Right? Well I am looking forward to get some references from you of any scientific publications that show the existence of that so called "soul".
To watch other videos with Fr. Gregory, you can check out this playlist! → ruclips.net/p/PL_kd4Kgq4tP8ncNdsa-ItSdGCR_-jzB7e
Amazing. It's great to be catholic.
Thank you St. Thomas.
God bless.
Also is the results of the patristic period, and the meditations of many Catholics for centuries, we should be grateful to receive what they transmitted us in the Tradition of the church.
Amen
This reminds me that l will always exist.
I must beg God for graces. The goal is to be in His eternal presence. Neither presuming or despairing. The sacraments are an inparitive for me. I am weak.
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
The sacraments are also for the strong, as they are only preserved by that same grace and could lose it in an instant. Both the weak and the strong depend entirely on God's grace.
Dizzying, even in this distillation. You people are nothing short of brilliant. Amazingly helpful, whether reading the Summa or not. God bless your work.
Thanks Peter!
I agree with your comment.
I am so grateful for the opportunity to listen to the presentations.
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html
Well said. Just recently discovered these videos. Brilliant at every turn. Who knew there was this much to learn and ponder. Thank you Dominicans.
I walked away a very long time ago ~ however this short video brought clarity to meaning of 'soul' and restoration of 'hope' for our greater 'humanity'. Thank you 🌺🙏🌼
It's a good thing I can rewind and watch again. :)
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
On watching this channel's videos we can discover what was the amazing intellect of Saint Thomas and even start to grasp the angels's or even God's. Thank you for passing on this knowledge.
God bless
Your thoughts dyes your soul! Marcus Aurelius Roman Emperor Stoic Philosopher wrote his personal diary not to be meant to publish The Meditation
Engaging with reality is such a wise thing to do.
Thank you for this channel. I am enjoying it and hope many others will too.
It's our pleasure! Thanks for chiming in!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
that hit the spot, thanks Fr.Mike..Amen to that dude 🙏
I'm so glad l found this channel!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Thanks Fr Gregory, you are way better at explaining these than Fr Ripperger, now I finally understood our beloved St Aquinas. I really like to have this model as a Mind OS so I can deal better with my passions and submit them to reason.
Of course!
Nice last name
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Thank you for this video!
May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
God bless you Friars!
The clarity is very appealing.
Really appreciate this video..
Excellent,!
Many thanks!
What I have learned and what this particular installment has taught me, is nothing short of a miracle. Not even in a thousand lifetimes could I ever be as cognizant, wise, enlightened and articulate as these men are, no question. Thank you for the categorical explanation of the soul and how such reflects my own pursuits and yearning towards a Godly life. No king but Christ .
At the end is the collection of developments of Christian doctrines, that come before Aquinas and after him
Thank you Fr Pine!
Thank you.
A lovely video ,as ever, thanks! I'm still hoping to watch a further teaching on this topic i.e.the lower and upper powers relating to moral behaviour n choices ?
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Amazing. As always!
Thanks for the intro to Aristotle
Excellent!
Cheers!
@@ThomisticInstitute Hey, what do you guys think about Artificial Intelligence and Andrew Yang? Andrew Yang is running for USA President. He is the automation aware guy. If you guys can do a video about artificial intelligence or automation it would be so awesome. Thanks. Also I made some cool art, if you wanna see just click my channel. It's a picture of Andrew.
@@daphuc6048 We haven't looked into doing a video about AI yet, but you might benefit from this lecture: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/artificial-intelligence-and-the-soul-anselm-ramelow
@@ThomisticInstitute @Da Phuc It is a while away but The Society of Catholic Scientists are doing a conference in June about “Aliens, Angels, and AI.” so it may be worth a look. (05.02.20)
Fantastic video!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Mens Sano in Corpore Sana! A healthy mind in a healthy body. St. Thomas Aquainas
Very informative and edy to understand.Thanks.!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
@ThomisticInstitute 1:12 Why is the fabric of reality neutral? Do you mean it in the sense that it's accessible to every living creature differently? Thanks, I appreciate these videos so much 🙏🏽🙌🏽
Amazing!
Great stuff and like the way Fr Gregory explains things complicated in a simple way - but I really want to know - the story behind the scar on his forehead - hope its something good - maybe like St Pio fighting with demons at night??
Would you please cite in the summa where Aquinas talks about the concept of the intellect being Trinas? Thank you for the example and the citation.
Treeness
Could you guys produce a video about original sin?
It's coming out in several weeks. Stay tuned!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
It's so hard to any thomistic works other than the summa.
Good stuff,👍 cool graphics by the way 🤔
Thanks!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
at 4:53 you say the "intellect abstracts the forms of things" and so "becomes the things themselves". Have I misunderstood Thomism? How does the intellect "become something" other than the intellect - I have always seen it as distinct from the things (universals) it abstracts? Is this to say the intellect is changing from one moment to another every time it comprehends a universal? Where in the summa does Aquinas mention the intellect "becoming" the things it abstracts?
God bless you fr Gregory. I wish St Thomas was more readable.
Start with Kreeft's Shorter Summa, and you'll be sure to make progress!
I've read Kreeft's Summa of the Summa x 2 - Highly recommend "My Way of Life (the Summa Simplified) Father Walter Farrell O.P S.T.M. and Father Martin J. Healy S.T.D. reading for third time @@ThomisticInstitute
Aos 5:39 tem um erro grave na legenda português: escreveram "razão" ao invés de "liberdade" (freedom).
So is it right to assume that the spirit, is the experiencing and intellectual mind. And the soul is the animating principle which also has high rationality, and is like the ‘will’? Would this be a somewhat correct understanding? I’m ignorant, so I just want to make sure.
Also I’m a bit curious about what you said about the will. Can’t people also have bad will or will to do evil things?
Which powers of the soul produce phantasms?
Imagination? Define "phantasm"
This is an excellent content! If possible, could you please add subtitle. Thank you!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Can't animals recognize trees in general? When a squirrel comes upon a tree it has never seen before but which is similar to other trees, it knows what to do and climbs that tree as though it knew it already.
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Instinct, but I agree with you that it seems animals have more intellectual capabilities than Aquinas thought
So Is there a place that I can read up on the Virtues in general and in particular (Cardinal Virtues) I am doing an Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) on Virtues and Films so I am trying to inundate my brain with Aquinas' logic but it is quite difficult. For example understanding why Fortitude and Temperance are in the Appetite (I think the Concupiscence) while Justice is in the Will or where Prudence is and to what is it's end (apparently Virtues are only concerned with the means used to require an end (since any other end would be cunning (however then Justice is interested in the Right or a person's own which suggests our interaction with other people is an end))). This video cleared up quite a bit about where and what each appetite is so Thank You.
Cheers! Glad to hear that it's been helpful. Some of the best introductory resources on the virtues are:
1. The Four Cardinal Virtues - Josef Pieper
2. The Examined Life - Fr. Romanus Cesasrio, O.P.
3. Thomas Aquinas on the Cardinal Virtues: Edited and Explained for Everyone - Christopher Kaczor (Haven't read this one, but other books by Kaczor are excellent)
If you're looking for something deeper, let us know, and we can make further recommendations.
@@ThomisticInstitute I am interested in the more advanced recommendations. Please let me know, thank you.
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank You are they commentaries on the Summa Theologica because I listed it as one of the resources that I was to use. That as well as Fr Joseph Rickaby S.J. and his Four Square and Moral Philosophy: Ethics, Deontology and Natural Law.
@@westvespers I can only speak to what I've read. Here are a few:
On the Passions . . .
1. Thomas Aquinas on the Passions - Robert Miner
2. The Logic of Desire - Nicholas Lombardo, O.P.
Commentaries on St. Thomas's teaching on the virtues
1. Various - Marie-Michel Labourdette, O.P. (He has a long course in 17 volumes and a short course in 2 volumes; these are in French; they're available through Parole et Silence
2. The Theological Virtues - Reginald Garrigou Largrange, O.P. - The English translation of this by Reilly isn't the best. I think it was originally written in Latin. It may have been retranslated.
3. Various Commentaries - Both the Blackfriars and the Revue des Jeunes commentaries on the Summa are excellent, but difficult to find at this point. The essays in the back are their most valuable contribution.
On Film
1. Shows About Nothing - Thomas Hibbs
Let me know what you think about these, and we can do some more in turn. Cheers!
@@ThomisticInstitute Apologies for my delay in reply. Thank you very much for the recommendations, this is precisely what I need. It is enough for now. Thank you again.
Those Domini Canis swallowed their torches. Silly observation aside, thanks Fr Pine.
Cheers!
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
I still think of soul in terms of emergent behavior. Can you explain how soul is not mere emergent behavior?
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
The Will inclines us to what is apprehended as good. What makes some people see God as good and others not see God as good?
I think Aquinas would give a short answer of sin. Not only a lack in clarity of intellectual vision as a consequence of original sin, but actual sin, which varies in each person. From Prima Secundae, Question 85, Article 3:
"As a result of original justice, the reason had perfect hold over the lower parts of the soul, while reason itself was perfected by God, and was subject to Him. Now this same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parent, as already stated (I-II:81:2; so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature."
"Again, there are four of the soul's powers that can be subject of virtue, as stated above (I-II:61:2), viz. the reason, where prudence resides, the will, where justice is, the irascible, the subject of fortitude, and the concupiscible, the subject of temperance. Therefore in so far as the reason is deprived of its order to the true, there is the wound of ignorance; in so far as the will is deprived of its order of good, there is the wound of malice; in so far as the irascible is deprived of its order to the arduous, there is the wound of weakness; and in so far as the concupiscible is deprived of its order to the delectable, moderated by reason, there is the wound of concupiscence."
"Accordingly these are the four wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature as a result of our first parent's sin. But since the inclination to the good of virtue is diminished in each individual on account of actual sin, as was explained above (I-II:1:2), these four wounds are also the result of other sins, in so far as, through sin, the reason is obscured, especially in practical matters, the will hardened to evil, goodactions become more difficult and concupiscence more impetuous."
Education, formation, original sin
As a occultist, I cannot help but notice that this description of Aquinas resembles the Tetragrammaton, or the Tree of Life, whether one considers the Judaic or Hermetic version. I wonder how explicit this connection is. Are these correspondences a product of the Neo-Platonism that informs all of these systems? Are the friars studying studying 13th century quabalism? For example, the ability to discern the nature of a thing from an instance of a thing clearly corresponds to Tiphareth. The ultimate human understanding being distinct from truth corresponds to Da'at. I am very curious about the context in which these friars are educated. From where do they think these ideas come from?
The ideas come from St Thomas Aquinas who lived in the 13th century and studied the ancient Greek philosophers. Wikipedia says the Zohar, the foundational text of Kabbalah, was written in the late 13th century, so it probably used St. Thomas's work.
I appreciate the content, however I must impress upon those interested with philosophy that there is nothing of greater importance in this video than the unanswered question of locomotion. How the non-physical soul acts upon the brain, which is required for the efficacy of the will, without violating the conservation of energy by imparting energy, or violating conservation of momentum by redirecting motion, is the most important question that could be discussed in regards to the soul.
Didn't St Thomas say we each have power over our own soul that the angels have over all matter? I don't think it depends on the laws of physics, but metaphysics
@@wms72 The question of how the non-physical interacts with the physical is a metaphysical question which goes unanswered. My point being that even if an answer could be devised, any answer would have the non-physical impart energy unto an otherwise closed system. If this affect were to be powerful enough to direct the will, there is no doubt this energy increase would be at least an indirectly observable phenomenon.
Every philosopher and theologian agrees that God is not capable of contradiction. God's omnipotence does not enable him to, "Create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift," a contradiction in terms. This is no limitation on God's power; simply a result of the fact that the above sentence is contradictory and therefore meaningless. It is no more coherent than gibberish. For this same reason God is not capable of imparting energy unto a system while not increasing the energy of said system. This is equally contradictory.
aquinas's idea of soul is different from the common modern understanding, which often views the soul as a separate, immaterial substance like Descartes' dualism. Aquinas actually sees the soul as the form of the body . as an aspect of a single substance (think of 2 aspects of the same coin with 1 being form and the other matter). The soul is what animates the body and gives it life. When the soul departs, the body loses its form and begins to decay. Since the soul is the form of the body, it actually enables the body's faculties to interact without contradiction.
also God cant contradict only applies to necessary truths like the laws of logic, not contingent sciences like physics, math, etc. which could have possibly been different otherwise
I hope this helps.
Aquinas taught; That "following the lead of Aristotle’s De anima in treating the soul as the first principle of life, whatever that may be. Since primary internal explanation for the existence of any substance is its substantial form (§4), it follows that every living substance has a soul that is its substantial form.". Thus human philosophy! Paul's advice "Beware lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY" Col 2:8. We dont HAVE a Soul WE ARE A LIVING SOUL! ( Gen 2:8)
St Thomas is talking about the relation between an observable living substance and its soul, not negating St.Paul.
A great video so clearly explained .I keep searching for a development of same n exhausted ,each in the very effort? Can you help me succeed?
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Please, explain to me, how do we know that our cognition is principally different from some other smart creatures like dolphins, elephant, octopus and apes?
We have heuristic notions. Animals do not. See Fr. Robert Spitzer's "The Soul's Upward Yearning"
Great vid and ending. I'm not sure I completely grasped this line about the intellect?
"It has no nature of it's own apart from it's very capacity for becoming the objects that it knows. The intellect doesn't just know this tree and that dog. It knows and is tree-ness and dog-ness"
Is this a way of describing how our intellect is a conceptual machine which affects the senses? We think ice-cream: and we begin to savour it in our moth, whilst imagining it entirely? Texture/flavour etc.
I didn't understand that either.
💝
Hi Fr. Gregory. So the will inclines us to what is apprehended as good. Do we apprehend what is good using our intellect? If so, doesn't that mean that the intellect apprehends both truth and the good?
I’m wondering if it’s grace that helps us apprehend the good correctly verses incorrectly.
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
The intellect apprehends *apparent* truth and good, depending on its formation
How is the soul connected to the body? I mean... why can't a soul return to the body it once animated after that body died, and just reanimate it?
It can, if God wills it.
@@wms72
Yes, I know... but, it's not a natural movement: the soul return to it's body by it's own.
🤔 change the power of soul?
😊👉star🕵🏼️
Mens sano in corpore sana! A healthy mind in a healthy body! St Thomas Aquainas one of the great doctors of the Catholic Church who wrote the summa theologica!
I'm sure that the serpent couldn't have possibly knew the extent of power it was working with in man when the temptation campaign began!🤔
Dear Fr. Gregory, my understanding of the universalism of St. Thomas and nominalism, as held by William of Ockham, stems from reading Politicizing The Bible, by Scott Hahn and B. Wiker (just to let you know I am but an amateur). While thinking about this I thought that just from observing my dogs, nominalism can be refuted. Namely: my dogs seem to recognize other dogs, even breeds that are a disgrace to the kind :-) and look more like guinea pigs ('lap dogs'). Normally they go after cats, hares etc. like crazy, but when they see a tiny dog from afar, I often observe that they initially hesitate and seem to mistake it for a cat, but then - as they go for it - halt as soon as they recognize (?) it as one of their kind (?). To me it seemed thus, that they are able to recognize dog-ness. But as I understand from your lesson, recognizing dog-ness, requires intellect and that is not supposed to be a faculty of the animal soul. What then can explain my dogs capacity for 'knowing' that they deal with other dogs, even ones that hardly look like themselves, instead of other species, which trigger their hunting instinct? Please excuse me if my examples seems silly, I probably haven't understood the essence of the difference between universalism and nominalism well. But from what I gathered from the above mentioned book, this break (=nominalism) with classical philosophy is the beginning of a long slide towards the bad philosophy that under girds our modern era, so I would like to understand it well. Thank you for your videos and I understand that this may not be the medium to address my question. Thank you for your efforts anyway.
Jeroen Mous, The Netherlands
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Dogs recognize by sense of smell. When they smell that a lapdog is a dog, they treat it like another dog.
This is probably a dumb question. You say the human cognition can see the abstract- for example, doggiehness.
But my dog is very excited when he comes across another dog. He seems to know the abstract category of dog. In like manner, an antelope chased by one lion will be wary of other lions. They seem to have an abstract category of lion.
Are you saying animals only use abstraction for survival, while humans use it to reason about choices and to have relationship with God?
Like animals abstract enough to be a cog in the wheel, but humans must take dominion in God’s image, so their abstract thought will be more self aware and free?
Dogs don't abstract, or at least, not very much. They react by sense of smell that triggers instinct behaviors
Genesis and biogenesis and the principles of life as organic and inorganic with the human body and mind and the nature of soul and applications
In the Book of Genesis written 5000BC God gathered heaps dust from the Earth formed it in His image and likeness Breathed on it to make him a soul spirit humanbeing! I believe that when our mortal body returns from the heaps of earth and dust from dust to dust our immutable soul spirit the Breath of God given to us will be returned back to its source and Creator k!
We know
How can the intellect know And BECOME treeness and dogness? I understand how the intellect knows but I don’t see how the intellect becomes what it knows.
ruclips.net/video/fy5ne13zqlU/видео.html praise Jesus
Me neither 😊
the intellect is only human, the process of becoming that which the intellect knows, for example, goodness, is through living the virtues, these are possible especially through grace, given to all by God. This of course, then only becomes actualised, as in we only embody them, if we freely accept this call to live the virtues. Animals and plants are what they are out of instinct not intellect, they are less perfect beings and do not have freedom.
Mic drop🎤
I don't understand how a human intellect is treeness or dogness.
wow this why i dont eat 🤯🤯
The information here regarding the soul is inaccurate. it has partial truths however not the complete picture. This is understandable because the information is coming from a Christian flawed slant on the topic. Christians even omitted the teachings of rebirth/reincarnation in approx year 540 on the orders of an Emperor! So of course any teachings regarding the soul will be flawed. The Bhagavad Gita has the accurate teachings, this was taught around 1700 BC . It goes into depth of all three faculties and original qualities that make up the soul. Also goes into the subtle mechanism in how it functions. The writings of Aquinas regarding the soul are childish in comparison. No disrespect to Thomas, he was simply toeing the "Christian line"
SOOOOO there is a soul because you think there should be one. If there is one prove it.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. You might give this a look and listen: ruclips.net/video/NTSQPDOn0xc/видео.html
And one thing another being a play and a game we actually have to just watch and enjoy..!!..
And being Deception (we thinks we did that we will do that hahahha and then we feels aaah I did it and for a notmal job we feels we did it and also Spray with scent that we did but fairly.Actually this choclaty feelings for Yourself is evil.The Evil serves and enjoys you with desires and then says you are just you.Evil Was came with Human from 1st day and this is free of cost.and the right And real path which goes to the Creator,we have to find the path Initial and take ourself for the journey that never come back.God is the destination for a winner.The Game rule is to defeat evil and Reach to God which is the actual completion of soul peace.BUT DONT think about this human world reality too much I told u a human dont have an own power to do something.And the main problem of this world is time Where the time exists and never stops so that world has no reality..The world of Muddy bodeis..its nothing..
I have alot for conversation with u .But lack of time hahaha.. thank you brother God keep u happy and I wish that he take u to rhe secret of main point
Soul is Myth
Not sure I understand this correctly, but it seems like a typical Pascal's Wager-type way of thinking. That is, Aquinas already assumes a certain reality - "St. Thomas asks a question because he thinks there's an answer" - and then goes searching for confirmation of it. To me, that is a very major mistake. Yes? No? Also, "Here are the facts: we have bodily and spiritual life". This is not correct. We may BELIEVE that we have a spiritual dimension but that does not qualify it as a fact. There is no way to prove its objective existence. Of course, if by "soul" or "spirit" you are using a metaphor, then that may be different. We also must remember that Aquinas lived 700 years ago and many advances have been made in the sciences since that time, as well as in theology, some that Aquinas could not possibly have even imagined (the infamous "unknown unknowns"). If you are going to teach this aspect of his life, you MUST include the caveats. Again, these explanations only make sense because you already believe it.
Read Fr. Spitzer's "The Soul's Upward Yearning" for many objective proofs of the soul, using the latest scientific advances
I have to say, this is pure Plato & Aristotle. It might be consistent with the Bible, but the origins of these doctrines are completely pagan.
So? Aquinas’ philosophy has always been heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought, as is all Western philosophy, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t understand how you can hold it against Aristotle for being born 300 years before Christ and in a different part of the world. Also it isn’t “completely pagan” as Aristotle wasn’t pagan and didn’t believe in the Ancient Greek gods, it comes from reason and observation of the world around us.
@@Seanph25 Aristotle did believe in the traditional Gods and absolutely was pagan. Same for Plato btw.
It's good that Christians absorbed Greco-Roman wisdom, but it would be better if we abandoned the Jewish mythology tacked onto it.
The main reason I stopped being Christian is because I realized that everything I liked about it was pagan and everything I disliked about it was specifically Christian.
@@mitchelweaver6801 Aristotle did not believe in the Greek gods, he viewed them as fiction. Aristotle’s beliefs were much closer to deism. Plato and Socrates also didn’t really believe in the traditional Greek religion.
@@Seanph25 That is simply false. Nowhere does Aristotle say he believed in only one God. For Aristotle, there were multiple unmoved movers. Plato talks about polytheism all the time. It just isn't true that the philosophers were monotheistic.
@@mitchelweaver6801 I never said they were monotheistic, and there’s a lot more to their beliefs then what your describing. Maybe read up on what you think you know so much about and stop putting words in people’s mouths.
The Babyonians & the Greeks had a completely different TAKE on the 'soul' to the Hebrews! The Torah taught that "God took the dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ( Neshema ) AND THE MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL" ( Gen 2:7) To The Hebrews, humans WERE souls, so were animals, fish & birds! The NT use of 'soul' is the greek 'psyke' which means the SAME THING. We dont HAVE a soul, we ARE a soul! When we die we are a 'dead soul'. We do NOT have 'an immortal soul! Its a PAGAN CONCEPT!
Okay heretic
@@awake3083 Calling someone who doesnt agree with your take on Christianity a 'heritc' is both foolish, arogant & unChristian!
@@kiwihans100 My “take” has been the take for two thousand years, you’re just a strange judaizer.
@@awake3083 Paul said about the God that Christians should worship.."Is he not a God of the Jews as well?" (Rom 3:29) Look There has ALWAYS been One true God! He is the Father of our Lord |Jesus Christ! I am in no way a 'judaizer'! that total rubbish! I am a Christian. My Jesus is the one whom God the Father sent to earth to die for my sins & your sins! He came to reconcile us TO God the Father! We dont just come to the Son and STOP there! Jesus is our "Door" ( as he said "I am thee door!) We go THROUGH the door TO God the |Father! "I am the WAY the TRUTH & the LIFE, no one can COME TO THE FATHER ACEPT THROUGH ME" (John 14:6). Have you done that? Jesus is telling you and me "The hour is coming when ther TRUE WORSHIPERS, wil worship the FATHER in Spirit and truth ( John 4:23,24). I stick to the PURE teachings OF Jesus. You, it seems follow the Roman model establsihed in the 4th century! You belong to a 'religion' I dont!
@@kiwihans100 Thank you for exposing your historical ineptitude. You may believe in Christ, but you have many things wrong with your theology. Read a book on this topic and not spew the common Protestant myths.
Power of universe low👉🕵🏼️
god is very real......
Shouldn't you first demonstrate that a soul really exists before attributing all kinds of so called "powers" or properties to it?
Since you have not done the first thing the latter is nothing more than a product of your own fantasy.
What is it with modern man and having to reprove everything at every step? The summa likely explains this at an earlier section. This is building on what has already been laid down, it has no need to be proven yet again. Good theology isn't a fifty story high slab of foundation, if you catch my drift.
@@PimpMyDitchWitch "What is it with modern man and having to reprove everything at every step?"
I presume you prefer the gullibility of superstitious bronze and iron age simpletons?
"The summa likely explains this at an earlier section."
When I asked for a demonstration that a soul exists I did mean by using a scientific method and not just by using someones preferred fairytale fantasies.
"Good theology isn't a fifty story high slab of foundation, if you catch my drift."
No I do not catch your drift. Theology is nothing more than the knowledge about ancient fables, fairytales and myths. Although undoubtably it is interesting, I do not see much good use for it.
@@evilsnowman3231 Alright, you have refuted nothing. All you have done is thrown out simplistic accusations. Why are today's ideas just so superior to the ancients? What about being new makes it better? Why can't I assume that since I have proven something, I can't build on it without having to reprove it at every step. Shall we start every calculus class by proving that 1+1 does indeed still equal two, or shall I wake up every morning and attempt to prove basic logic rules before making ANY decision based on said rules? Why should I have to use natural science (the lowest science in the hierarchy, in any case) to prove something outside the natural order (in fact, how can I)?
Did I mention that natural science is the lowest science?
@@PimpMyDitchWitch "Alright, you have refuted nothing."
Well, I didn't claim to having refuted anything. You just have not answered my question which was to show me some scientific evidence for the existence of a soul.
Why are today's ideas just so superior to the ancients? What about being new makes it better?
If you get really sick and need to go to hospital (which I do not hope for you), then ask the staff to be treated by a, lets say, pre medieval method. And I am very sure this will answer your question by that time.
"Why can't I assume that since I have proven something, I can't build on it without having to reprove it at every step. "
I never said you have to reprove every step. If you think I did so than please show me where I did. But you can not build on a step that has not been proven by anybody. And the existence of a soul has not been shown in any scientific way. It is just that simple.
"Why should I have to use natural science (the lowest science in the hierarchy, in any case) to prove something outside the natural order (in fact, how can I)?"
I have no idea how you could do that. I do not know how anything can be outside the natural order and be real at the same time.
The fictional world of Harry Potter is also outside our natural order. So this has the same value as your preferred superstition. How can you distinguish one from the other?
"Did I mention that natural science is the lowest science?"
Yes you did, but you did not mention by whom or by what it is considered to be the lowest science. Although I think what you mean to say is that "natural science is the science of which your personal understanding is the lowest". Right?
Well I am looking forward to get some references from you of any scientific publications that show the existence of that so called "soul".
@@evilsnowman3231Read Fr. Spitzer's "The Soul's Upward Yearning" for many objective proofs of the soul, using the latest scientific advances