The Seat of Man's Intellect: What Says Your God?
August 29, 2015 at 1:47 pm
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2015 at 1:58 pm by Mudhammam.)
In the ancient world, there was some confusion as to the precise location of the intellect, or the “ruling faculty.” Is it, they pondered, to be placed in the head, as Plato thought, or more specifically the brain, as insisted Hippocrates? In the heart, as Aristotle and the Stoics believed? Does it float about somehow throughout the entire body? The 2nd century physician Galen of Pergamon admitted that he “blushed to quote” Aristotle on the topic, who wrote:
“And, of course, the brain is not responsible for any of the sensations at all; it has no more power of sensation than any of the residues. People adopt these erroneous views because they are unable to discover the reason why some of the senses are placed in the head; but they see that the head is a somewhat unusual part, compared with the rest, so they put two and two together and argue that the brain is the seat of sensation. The correct view, that the seat and source of sensation is the region of the heart, has already been set forth in the treatise Of Sensation…” (Parts of Animals, 656a)
And again, to cite but a couple of the multiple examples from the otherwise reputable philosopher and naturalist:
“So in sanguineous animals the source of both sensitive and nutritive soul must lie in the heart…” (On Youth and Old Age, On Life and Death, On Breathing, 469a)
Given that Aristotle was writing in the 4th century BCE, it’s understandable that he and his fellow naturalists might have to rely on a degree of speculation no longer applicable to us moderns. It’s unfortunate, however, that he didn’t simply ask the Jews, for as Tertullian can boast:
“Better than all others, there are our Christian authorities. We are taught by God concerning both these questions - viz. that there is a ruling power in the soul, and that it is enshrined in one particular recess of the body.” (De Anima, XV)
Well, good for him! Whereas the Greeks and the Romans only had the silly myths and falsehoods of the demonically inclined poets and philosophers, he had the supremely wise creator of the universe whispering such secrets into the ears(?) of the faithful. So, what did God inspire the “Christian authorities” to write so that the matter (or soul?) could be settled once and for all?
“Because God is the witness of the inmost self
and the sure observer of the heart…” (Wisdom 1:6)
“If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?” (Proverbs 24:12)
“Search me, God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.” (Psalms 139:23)
But wait, I know, that’s the Old Testament, when God was still speaking in symbols and allegories and had yet sent the Word to become flesh and reveal the truth about man’s relationship to God, which of course, does not take place in the heart but rather in the brain. Surely he knows how embarrassing such a mistake would appear if it remained uncorrected on the lips of Jesus or his hand-picked mouthpieces, the apostles.
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)
“Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, 'Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?'” (Matthew 9:4)
“For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” (Romans 10:10)
“If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” (1 John 3:20)
Well, I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, right Tertullian?
“Both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul, with which the purpose of God may agree; in other words, a supreme principle of intelligence and vitality (for where there is intelligence, there must be vitality), and that it resides in that most precious part of our body to which God especially looks: so that you must not suppose, with Heraclitus, that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor with Moschion, that it floats about through the whole body; nor with Plato, that it is enclosed in the head; nor with Zenophanes, that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain, according to the opinion of Hippocrates; nor around the basis of the brain, as Herophilus thought; nor in the membranes thereof, as Strato and Erasistratus said; nor in the space between the eyebrows, as Strato the physician held; nor within the enclosure of the breast, according to Epicurus: but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught, especially such of them as were accounted the expounders of sacred truths; in accordance, too, with that verse of Orpheus or Empedocles:
‘Namque homini sanguis circumcordialis est sensus.’
‘Man has his (supreme) sensation in the blood around his heart.’” (De Anima, XV)
Of course, Tertullian, or rather the Bible, won’t be up to snuff for our "intellectual" theologians, so they’ll find some other means for interpreting this “non-literally” as they always do when it suits their needs. But it sure is strange how the “wisdom” of the Bible seems to be - and only be - updatable when the inquiries of men, questioning the so-called authorities, discover information that everyone else can see flatly contradicts the most straightforward reading of such “sacred texts.” Perhaps in reference to these scriptures and the author(s) behind them, our religionist friends should take Tertullian's conclusion to heart (pun intended):
"Let all those (worthies), too, who have predetermined the character of the human soul... be quite sure that it is themselves rather who are alive in a heartless and brainless state."
![[Image: heart-shaped-brain-conceptual-artwork-pasieka.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=images.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large%2Fheart-shaped-brain-conceptual-artwork-pasieka.jpg)
“And, of course, the brain is not responsible for any of the sensations at all; it has no more power of sensation than any of the residues. People adopt these erroneous views because they are unable to discover the reason why some of the senses are placed in the head; but they see that the head is a somewhat unusual part, compared with the rest, so they put two and two together and argue that the brain is the seat of sensation. The correct view, that the seat and source of sensation is the region of the heart, has already been set forth in the treatise Of Sensation…” (Parts of Animals, 656a)
And again, to cite but a couple of the multiple examples from the otherwise reputable philosopher and naturalist:
“So in sanguineous animals the source of both sensitive and nutritive soul must lie in the heart…” (On Youth and Old Age, On Life and Death, On Breathing, 469a)
Given that Aristotle was writing in the 4th century BCE, it’s understandable that he and his fellow naturalists might have to rely on a degree of speculation no longer applicable to us moderns. It’s unfortunate, however, that he didn’t simply ask the Jews, for as Tertullian can boast:
“Better than all others, there are our Christian authorities. We are taught by God concerning both these questions - viz. that there is a ruling power in the soul, and that it is enshrined in one particular recess of the body.” (De Anima, XV)
Well, good for him! Whereas the Greeks and the Romans only had the silly myths and falsehoods of the demonically inclined poets and philosophers, he had the supremely wise creator of the universe whispering such secrets into the ears(?) of the faithful. So, what did God inspire the “Christian authorities” to write so that the matter (or soul?) could be settled once and for all?
“Because God is the witness of the inmost self
and the sure observer of the heart…” (Wisdom 1:6)
“If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?” (Proverbs 24:12)
“Search me, God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.” (Psalms 139:23)
But wait, I know, that’s the Old Testament, when God was still speaking in symbols and allegories and had yet sent the Word to become flesh and reveal the truth about man’s relationship to God, which of course, does not take place in the heart but rather in the brain. Surely he knows how embarrassing such a mistake would appear if it remained uncorrected on the lips of Jesus or his hand-picked mouthpieces, the apostles.
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)
“Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, 'Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?'” (Matthew 9:4)
“For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” (Romans 10:10)
“If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” (1 John 3:20)
Well, I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, right Tertullian?
“Both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul, with which the purpose of God may agree; in other words, a supreme principle of intelligence and vitality (for where there is intelligence, there must be vitality), and that it resides in that most precious part of our body to which God especially looks: so that you must not suppose, with Heraclitus, that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor with Moschion, that it floats about through the whole body; nor with Plato, that it is enclosed in the head; nor with Zenophanes, that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain, according to the opinion of Hippocrates; nor around the basis of the brain, as Herophilus thought; nor in the membranes thereof, as Strato and Erasistratus said; nor in the space between the eyebrows, as Strato the physician held; nor within the enclosure of the breast, according to Epicurus: but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught, especially such of them as were accounted the expounders of sacred truths; in accordance, too, with that verse of Orpheus or Empedocles:
‘Namque homini sanguis circumcordialis est sensus.’
‘Man has his (supreme) sensation in the blood around his heart.’” (De Anima, XV)
Of course, Tertullian, or rather the Bible, won’t be up to snuff for our "intellectual" theologians, so they’ll find some other means for interpreting this “non-literally” as they always do when it suits their needs. But it sure is strange how the “wisdom” of the Bible seems to be - and only be - updatable when the inquiries of men, questioning the so-called authorities, discover information that everyone else can see flatly contradicts the most straightforward reading of such “sacred texts.” Perhaps in reference to these scriptures and the author(s) behind them, our religionist friends should take Tertullian's conclusion to heart (pun intended):
"Let all those (worthies), too, who have predetermined the character of the human soul... be quite sure that it is themselves rather who are alive in a heartless and brainless state."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
