Page 4 - Demo

make it a %u201cThou%u201d. Since we cannot develop this theme at length, we will take a character from oneof Dostoevsky%u2019s novels, Nikolai Stavrogin. [8] Romano Guardini argues that Stavrogin is the veryembodiment of evil, because his chief trait is his heartlessness: %u201cStavrogin has no heart, hence hismind is cold and empty and his body sunken in bestial sloth and sensuality. He has no heart,hence he can draw close to no one and no one can ever truly draw close to him. For only the heartcreates intimacy, true closeness between two persons. Only the heart is able to welcome and offerhospitality. Intimacy is the proper activity and the domain of the heart. Stavrogin is always infinitelydistant, even from himself, because a man can enter into himself only with the heart, not with themind. It is not in a man%u2019s power to enter into his own interiority with the mind. Hence, if the heart isnot alive, man remains a stranger to himself%u201d. [9] []13. All our actions need to be put under the %u201cpolitical rule%u201d of the heart. In this way, ouraggressiveness and obsessive desires will find rest in the greater good that the heart proposesand in the power of the heart to resist evil. The mind and the will are put at the service of thegreater good by sensing and savouring truths, rather than seeking to master them as the sciencestend to do. The will desires the greater good that the heart recognizes, while the imagination andemotions are themselves guided by the beating of the heart.14. It could be said, then, that I am my heart, for my heart is what sets me apart, shapes myspiritual identity and puts me in communion with other people. The algorithms operating in thedigital world show that our thoughts and will are much more %u201cuniform%u201d than we had previouslythought. They are easily predictable and thus capable of being manipulated. That is not the casewith the heart.15. The word %u201cheart%u201d proves its value for philosophy and theology in their efforts to reach anintegral synthesis. Nor can its meaning be exhausted by biology, psychology, anthropology or anyother science. It is one of those primordial words that %u201cdescribe realities belonging to manprecisely in so far as he is one whole (as a corporeo-spiritual person)%u201d. [10] It follows thatbiologists are not being more %u201crealistic%u201d when they discuss the heart, since they see only oneaspect of it; the whole is not less real, but even more real. Nor can abstract language ever acquirethe same concrete and integrative meaning. The word %u201cheart%u201d evokes the inmost core of ourperson, and thus it enables us to understand ourselves in our integrity and not merely under oneisolated aspect.16. This unique power of the heart also helps us to understand why, when we grasp a reality withour heart, we know it better and more fully. This inevitably leads us to the love of which the heart iscapable, for %u201cthe inmost core of reality is love%u201d. [11] For Heidegger, as interpreted by onecontemporary thinker, philosophy does not begin with a simple concept or certainty, but with ashock: %u201cThought must be provoked before it begins to work with concepts or while it works withthem. Without deep emotion, thought cannot begin. The first mental image would thus be goosebumps. What first stirs one to think and question is deep emotion. Philosophy always takes place4