3 ms·
He’s speaking to a popular audience in a poetic fashion. No one believes a pump in your chest is the seat of intellgence, even if it may be involved in some ext
by lo_zamoyski 2y ago
He’s speaking to a popular audience in a poetic fashion. No one believes a pump in your chest is the seat of intellgence, even if it may be involved in some extended and removed manner with the expression of intelligence.
If Francis held Thomistic views on the subject, then even the brain, while needed for human intelligence, does not suffice for its operation, as functions like abstraction require the intellect, which cannot be entirely physical in operation since form cannot exist in matter without also instantiating the form, something by definition opposed to abstraction.
- exe34 2y ago> He’s speaking to a popular audience in a poetic fashion. No one believes a pump in your chest is the seat of intellgence, even if it may be involved in some extended and removed manner with the expression of intelligence. others on this very thread are proposing this exact extension. I'll ignore the supernatural suggestion.
- lo_zamoyski 2y agoYou're misreading what I've written and being intentionally obtuse. I didn't say the heart plays a role in intelligence. I simply allowed for the possibility for the sake of argument. The central claim is that no one (here, Francis and his writers) who uses the word "heart" colloquially is making the claim that the heart-as-organ is the seat of intelligence or what have you. You're committing a vulgar equivocation fallacy that the average person with common sense would recognize. I have a difficult time believing you don't understand something so obvious.