[RooxiaNof]

Intellect – Intelligence – (and) Emotions

For the benefit of those who do not know the history of this thread, I posted a patristic definition on what the “intellect” is in the “censors” thread as a direct response to the discussion about using products, originally designed for use in other religions, even if these are now only being produced commercially.

I am sure, that this post caused a degree of confusion for everyone and a challenge was put forward that there is nothing wrong in using “intelligence” to discern the things of God; which I do not disagree with.

Respectfully, no one should “assume” that because I posted about the “Intellect” (in the Censers thread) that I was implying or proposing that “intelligence” is any less important or should be downgraded or even, not used at all; if that is what some people assumed I meant then that (IMO) is an error made on behalf of each reader …

The purpose of posting about the “intellect” was to remind people, highlight, that “intelligence” is not the only factor that we should use to “discern the things of God” (using the example of the “censors” thread, a poster made reference to the fact that she returned to one of these shops only to feel ‘sick’ from the smells – a clear indication that her body, under the direction of her intellect, was giving her strong warnings that this shop and its products were not good for her).

This is the main issue I think people are struggling with: What does a human being require that gives him the knowledge to discern/know/see the things of God? This is an Intellect versus Intelligence issue though for me it is how do they compliment.

To cover such a BIG and topic I propose that we can explore the following basic questions:

1) What is the definition given to us by our fathers for “reason/intelligence”
Reason (Gr. Dianoia): the discursive, conceptualising and logical faculty in man, the function of which is to draw conclusions or formulate concepts deriving from data provided either by revelation or spiritual knowledge or by sense-observation. The knowledge of the reason is consequently of a lower order than spiritual knowledge and does not imply any direct apprehension or perception of the inner essences or principles of created beings, still less of divine truth itself. Indeed, such apprehension or perception, which is the function of the intellect is beyond the scope of reason

2) What is the definition given to us by our father for “intellect”
Intellect (Gr. Nous): the highest faculty in man, through which (provided it is purified) he knows God or the inner essences or principles of created things by means of direct apprehension or spiritual perception. Unlike reason (Gr. “dianoia”) – from which it MUST be distinguished carefully- the intellect DOES NOT function by formulating abstract concepts and then arguing on this basis to a conclusion reached through deductive reasoning. It understands divine truth by means of immediate EXPERIENCE, intuition or ‘simple cognition’ (St. Isaac the Syrian’s term). The intellect dwells in the ‘depths of the soul’ and it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart (St. Diadochos) – it is the organ of contemplation or the ‘eye of the heart’.

Having established an Orthodox based definition for reason/intelligence and intellect then the fundamental question is (thereby also providing some understanding behind why I put an emphasis on intellect in the other thread):

How is the “intellect” distinguished from “reason”?

To start the discussion, I took the liberty to post the definitions for intellect and reason, as given by the Philokalia, above.

Personally, the definitions in themselves SAY MUCH. I never debated them in the other thread and dont feel I need to in this thread .. since, the definition for reason says it all.

[SigNeewfoew]

In the book "The Ascetic of Love", p 253:

"If course, our mind cannot understand exactly what God is. Because our mind is limited. But our spirit, our soul, is limitless. And the soul is aware of God. We do not see Him with our earthly eyes. We behold him with the eyes of our soul" But to the larger question: yes, there is a great deal of room for intellectual questioning and philosophical reflection in the Orthodox tradition. Our patristic corpus is filled with the writings of individuals who cannot but be considered masters in these arenas See: http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpo...&postcount=107

The reason these fathers excelled in the USE of their reasoning and intelligence was because they had excelled in their spiritual life first and foremost and had come to know God through their intellect, therefore, they KNEW how to USE their INTELLIGENCE correctly. Not the other way around.

[OccumCymn]

[quote=Vasiliki D.;75182]Intellect – Intelligence – (and) Emotions

For the benefit of those who do not know the history of this thread, I posted a patristic definition on what the “intellect” is in the “censors” thread as a direct response to the discussion about using products, originally designed for use in other religions, even if these are now only being produced commercially.

I am sure, that this post caused a degree of confusion for everyone and a challenge was put forward that there is nothing wrong in using “intelligence” to discern the things of God; which I do not disagree with.

Respectfully, no one should “assume” that because I posted about the “Intellect” (in the Censers thread) that I was implying or proposing that “intelligence” is any less important or should be downgraded or even, not used at all; if that is what some people assumed I meant then that (IMO) is an error made on behalf of each reader …

The purpose of posting about the “intellect” was to remind people, highlight, that “intelligence” is not the only factor that we should use to “discern the things of God” (using the example of the “censors” thread, a poster made reference to the fact that she returned to one of these shops only to feel ‘sick’ from the smells – a clear indication that her body, under the direction of her intellect, was giving her strong warnings that this shop and its products were not good for her).

This is the main issue I think people are struggling with: What does a human being require that gives him the knowledge to discern/know/see the things of God? This is an Intellect versus Intelligence issue though for me it is how do they compliment.

To cover such a BIG and topic I propose that we can explore the following basic questions:

1) What is the definition given to us by our fathers for “reason/intelligence”


2) What is the definition given to us by our father for “intellect”


Having established an Orthodox based definition for reason/intelligence and intellect then the fundamental question is (thereby also providing some understanding behind why I put an emphasis on intellect in the other thread):

How is the “intellect” distinguished from “reason”?

To me this is a fundamental question to anyone who wishes to explore Orthodoxy.

Infact, it is SO important it IS the reason why MANY people ask some of the questions that they do and it IS the reason why many people can not "intuitively" think for themselves and need to rely heavily on a SF and on books to help them "grow" in Orthodoxy - for the BASICS!

Personally, the definitions in themselves SAY MUCH. I never debated them in the other thread and dont feel I need to in this thread .. since, the definition for reason says it all.

[Abaronos]

V, you have put out so much good info in the past 24 hours that I don't know where to start. Possibly, I can start first by saying thanks again. I guess we all communicate and understand in different ways somewhat, but this is one of the rare times I feel that I have experienced a true online interpersonal communication since I stared with electronic forums about 2.5 years ago.

And, it is not lost on me that this experience includes a heavy dose of "definition" and "straight talk." I don't understand why we can't have more of this. And, on the other hand, it is also not lost on me what a great irony is at play here as we articulate our position about spiritual perception (as well as spiritual speech) as it relates to the Apostles letter 1 Cor 2:1-16. Sometimes I wonder if anyone here has ever read this passage. I am excited about the turn in this discussion because it is very beneficial to determine the difference between such as 1.) abstract thought that is only within the intelligence and 2.) abstract thought that springs forth from the intellect as well as discerning the difference between such as 1.) helps in the form of circular speech up in the clouds with no real meaning and 2.) spiritual wisdom and spiritual words from one with the mind of Christ.

So, I hope that you can see that I am not hostile at all here in this conversation; but, instead, just the opposite, I am grateful and all ears. I know we cannot be direct with everyone because it will short circuit the process and cause some problems for some, but if this thread continues to be a treasure trove I hope you will not confuse any directness on my part with any kind of aggression. Some folks need to be babied or they will throw a tantrum when discussing such matters that might mess with their system, but I do not perceive this to be the case with you.

So with that disclaimer of sorts in mind . . . as a possible starting place (as miserable as it is), I would like to point to the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 2 and to your writing below:

Rick, abstract thinking is merely rational thinking applied to a whole beyond the here and now facts. It is still a subset of rational or intelligent thinking and still has a role to play in our life .. only that it is within intelligence and not intellect.

and, I would like to throw out a question in the form of:

Who determines whether abstract thinking is manifesting itself from the intelligence and not the intellect?

You answered very kindly and very well my question about 'why' you wrote what you wrote in the "Censers" thread the other day. But, I think ultimately, this is the question that I had on my mind the other day when I asked you for some help.

Thanks for demonstrating that we can sit down and articulate our position, there are clear definitions to be found within an Orthodox anthropology, and Orthodoxy is not completely unsystematic.

[Gymngatagaica]

In response to Vasiliki, I would have to say both yes and no. Many of the Greek Fathers were educated in the Platonic academy tradition prior to developing their theological "reputations" so to speak. So I don't know that we can say that one necessarily precedes the other. They went hand in hand. Also, I would have to put a word in for the Syriac Fathers, who tended to be very skeptical of the Greek intellectual tradition. Their theological reasoning is much more concrete, less abstract, less given to extended intellectual treatises and discourse. So when we speak of the Fathers, we should include that tradition along with the Greek, and not suppose that we can only understand Orthodoxy through the Greek intellectual tradition...

[makemoneyonli]

I would have to put a word in for the Syriac Fathers, who tended to be very skeptical of the Greek intellectual tradition. Their theological reasoning is much more concrete, less abstract, less given to extended intellectual treatises and discourse. So when we speak of the Fathers, we should include that tradition along with the Greek, and not suppose that we can only understand Orthodoxy through the Greek intellectual tradition...

Isn't it also true that even the Greek intellectual tradition was not about apprehending God through abstract reasoning and long treatises, but rather communicating what was already apprehended by received wisdom and often specifically defending that which was apprehended?

I don't like the idea that Greeks "discovered" things about God through intellectual discourse. I'm willing to be corrected on this point though. I'm probably missing some subtlety here.

[Indoendris]

In response to Vasiliki, I would have to say both yes and no. Many of the Greek Fathers were educated in the Platonic academy tradition prior to developing their theological "reputations" so to speak. So I don't know that we can say that one necessarily precedes the other. They went hand in hand. Also, I would have to put a word in for the Syriac Fathers, who tended to be very skeptical of the Greek intellectual tradition. Their theological reasoning is much more concrete, less abstract, less given to extended intellectual treatises and discourse. So when we speak of the Fathers, we should include that tradition along with the Greek, and not suppose that we can only understand Orthodoxy through the Greek intellectual tradition...

Respectfully, I dont think this point is relevant to Intellect versus Intelligence and is probably a more appropriate response to another thread/post?

Respectfully, in the other post did you actually see me write anything along the lines of "Greeks" only? The post you refer to needs to be taken in the context it was intended and should not have additional meaning added to it that was never intended in the first intance ... that way, we dont vear off the true purpose of a thread - which is to identify a distinction between intelligence and intellect and/or compatibility and/or dependancy.

This is the point ... if you wish to use Syriac fatherly quotes you should and it is welcome I just dont want implied prejudices tainted against my name that never crossed my mind in the first instance I hope you understand my point ... and we can come back to the theme. Whether Greeks discovered things or not is irrelevant to this discussion - this discussion is about our salvation .. not about jurisdictions

PS. Rick, your post requires time and thought ..again, I need to reply at a time where I can give it the respect it deserves.

[inilbowly]

If reason is defined as a lower faculty of the soul, compared to nous, how are we to deal with the many Fathers who consider the image of God in man to consist of reason, without mentioning this other noetic faculty? It seems to me that sometimes reason and nous are conflated in the Fathers.

[RalfDweflywex]

I am so happy to see Vasiliki back posting that I would love to chime in on this conversation, but unfortunately, it is too cerebral for me! I guess that doesn't say much for my 'intelligence' or my 'intellect'!

Anyway, good to see you Vasiliki!

Alice