...yet nature added [hands] to our body preeminently for the sake of reason. For if man were destitute of hands, the various parts of his face would certainly have been arranged like those of the quadrupeds, to suit the purpose of his feeding: so that its form would have been lengthened out and pointed towards the nostrils, and his lips would have projected from his mouth, lumpy, and stiff, and thick, fitted for taking up the grass, and his tongue would either have lain between his teeth, of a kind to match his lips, fleshy, and hard, and rough, assisting his teeth to deal with what came under his grinder, or it would have been moist and hanging out at the side like that of dogs and other carnivorous beasts, projecting through the gaps in his jagged row of teeth. If, then, our body had no hands, how could articulate sound have been implanted in it, seeing that the form of the parts of the mouth would not have had the configuration proper for the use of speech, so that man must of necessity have either bleated, or "baaed," or barked, or neighed, or bellowed like oxen or asses, or uttered some bestial sound? But now, as the hand is made part of the body, the mouth is at leisure for the service of the reason. Thus the hands are shown to be the property of the rational nature, the Creator having thus devised by their means a special advantage for reason.—St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man (379)
Sunday, December 12, 2010
the reason for hands
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love that 'fingers/hands' is one of the most discussed subjects on this blog!
ReplyDeleteYes, very good! Some common themes are starting to emerge.
ReplyDeleteRe: "hands are shown to be the property of the rational nature," what would St. Gregory have to say about chimpanzees?
I'd also make a distinction between language and thought. If man, being a rational creature, had no hands and was thus, as imagined here, unable to produce what we recognize as speech, but only bleats and baas, would not the bleats and baas form the roots of a reason-based spoken language (different from how animals communicate)? So that through endless combinations of sounds he's capable of uttering, and by varying his pitch, or duration (through repeated short and long bleats as in Morse code), this handless man might invent a grammar to articulate any thought and make himself understood?
Matt, I first read your comment a week or two ago...it's been knocking around in the back of my mind.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of chimpanzees, I certainly cannot, with confidence, speak for Gregory, especially because I am far from being an expert in his thought. Hesitantly, then: even if Gregory were aware of (a) the existence of chimpanzees or similar primates (I have no idea which animals were known in fourth century Cappadocia), and (b) accepted modern scientific theories of evolution (which he obviously knew nothing about), I don't think he would loose sleep over the fact that they have 'hands'. Gregory would perhaps take a teleological approach; other primates were given hands for the sake of human beings. In their outward form they might share physiological attributes with us, but they are deficient in that divine breath which elevates the human body such that our hands can serve our 'intellectual soul' (not just our 'animal soul'). He might (again, if he accepted evolution) think that non-human primates have hands so that we might have hands, and our hands are given so as to serve our mind, which is made in the image of God. Primates might have been given five fingered appendages, but they were not given mind ('intellectual soul'); ultimately, hands are to be at the service of the mind, and perhaps we can say that "hands" without mind are not hands in the fullest possible sense.
Your second question is even more difficult. To respond, I would need to be much more familiar with the philosophy of language...and probably also the tradition of theological reflection on Logos, "the Word". One thought that comes to mind: coded systems, like that of Mr. Morse, are rooted in those complex languages which utilize the human capacity to speak distinct words. Could there be such a system which is not grounded in human language...perhaps that question is inconceivable to us, because we have no idea what form thought or language would take without words? Maybe you are aware of relevant theories in philosophy of language...if so, I look forward to hearing about it! At Alfred's.