Knowledge Before Extraction

On Scent, Language, and the Boundary Between Them. 
Written by Adill Ali. Read time 25 mins. 

Abstract

This essay asks what kind of knowledge olfaction provides, and how. The Ontology of Olfaction concluded that scent is atmospheric, temporal, and relational rather than substantial. This essay advances three claims drawing on the epistemological framework of Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī. First, that the gap between language and scent is not a deficiency of vocabulary but a difference of order: language can describe scent, compare it, name its source, even develop rich vocabularies for it, but it cannot construct a scent in someone who lacks the bodily encounter, in the way it can construct an image or a sound. Second, that each person carries within them a reference library of olfactory encounters, a latent capacity built through encounter rather than language, and that the relationship between scent and emotion within this library is layered: a thin biological substrate of valence and salience, on top of which culture, history, and exposure build the dense regularities the perfumery industry has mistaken for necessity. The third claim, structural, is that the unfolding of olfactory recognition is illuminated by Ghazālī’s image of the date pit and the palm tree. The borrowing is not categorical: olfactory recognition is not fiṭra (فطرة), which concerns the heart and the recognition of truth. The borrowing is structural: latent capacity activated by encounter, language arriving only afterwards to categorise. The essay concludes by examining the perfumer’s position as an agent who modifies shared reality from within.

I. Two Orders of Reality

The question is not what scent is. That question, ontological, concerned with scent’s mode of being, was addressed in The Ontology of Olfaction, which argued that scent is not a substance possessed by materials but an atmospheric, temporal, and relational phenomenon. The question here is different. If scent is atmospheric, temporal, and relational, if it is not substance but event, not object but field, then what kind of knowledge does it provide, and through what structure does that knowledge arrive?

The argument requires a distinction this essay will draw and defend. There are two orders of reality from which knowledge can be taken. The first is derivation. Knowledge that operates through distance and representation. A painter sees a tree and produces an image. A scientist observes a regularity and produces a law. A poet encounters silence and produces a line. In every case, the encounter is re-presented in a different form, and a gap exists between the original and the representation. That gap is the space in which derived knowledge operates.

Language, though given as a capacity (al-Baqara, 2:31), functions as the supreme instrument of this first domain. It operates through distance, through the separation of the named from the namer, through the re-presentation of what was encountered in a form that can be transmitted.

The second order is not derived. It exists. The air is not a human invention. Gravity is not a human invention. The electromagnetic spectrum is not a human invention. These are conditions that precede human activity and persist independently of it. Humans can study them, measure them, represent them in mathematical language, but the representations are not the things. The map is not the territory.

Scent belongs to this second order. Not the perfume; the perfume is a deliberate composition, a human act of derivation within the medium. But the olfactory medium itself, the air, the molecular environment, the atmospheric conditions within which all terrestrial life exists, is given. It precedes every human act of observation. We do not create it. We do not step into it. We are already inside it, from the first breath to the last.

This identifies the source of the gap between language and scent. The gap is not a failure of descriptive adequacy. It is not a problem that better vocabulary could solve. It is an ontological boundary between two fundamentally different orders of reality.

This does not make the attempt worthless. Each mode of expression that reaches toward scent (language, mathematics, visual art, chemical analysis) fails to occupy the centre, but each produces something in the failure. A chemical analysis of oud discloses molecular structure. A poem about oud discloses what it is like to encounter the material. A mathematical model of oud’s relational behaviour discloses the formal structure of how it acts. None of these is the scent. But each is a different knowledge, generated precisely because the gap is unclosable.

II. The Asymmetry Between Language and Olfaction

Every other domain of human knowledge can be defined, at least partially, by something external to itself. Language defines visual art. Mathematical notation defines musical structure. Chemical formulae define pharmacological action. The capture is always incomplete, but it is genuine. A musical score is not the music, but it is not nothing. A trained reader of musical notation can hear the sound internally. A person who reads the name of a colour can see it in the mind’s eye. Imagination crosses, imperfectly and partially, from the symbol into the sense.

The asymmetry with scent is not a difficulty of degree. It is structural, and it is sharpest when the comparison is made carefully.

For sight, language can use shared coordinates: colour, shape, size, direction, distance, contrast, brightness, movement. Even when a reader has never seen a specific image, a sentence can build one. A tall man in a black coat standing under a red streetlight in heavy rain. The reader forms something. Not the exact image, but a coherent one, assembled from public visual parts the reader already possesses.

For sound, language can also use shared features: pitch, rhythm, volume, tempo, texture, repetition, silence, harmony, dissonance. A low drone with a sharp metallic pulse every few seconds. The reader who has never heard that exact sound can build an inner one, again from public parts.

Scent does not work this way. Imagine oud, but more animalic, damp, mineral, and slightly medicinal. That sentence functions only for a reader who already has prior encounters with oud, with animalic notes, with dampness, minerals, and medicinal registers. The words do not generate the scent. They point backwards into the reader’s own archive of bodily encounters, and where the archive is empty, the sentence collapses into metaphor.

This is the structural difference. Language can construct a plausible image or sound from shared parts available to anyone. It cannot construct a scent unless the listener already possesses the relevant bodily memory. Scent description is referential, not generative.

This does not mean scent is beyond language. Some cultures have built rich olfactory vocabularies. Jahai speakers in the Malay Peninsula use abstract odour terms with high agreement across speakers; trained perfumers, wine tasters, and incense masters develop technical vocabularies that allow precise communication. Within a community of trained users, scent talk is genuine and exact. But it is exact because the community has accumulated shared encounters that the words can refer back to. The vocabulary works because the archive is shared. It does not work by constructing the scent in the listener from public parts, the way visual or auditory language does.

The empirical evidence supports this. Olofsson and Gottfried (2015) describe difficulty naming familiar smells as a structural feature of the olfactory–language interface, not a deficit of attention or training: even when perceptual processing of an odour is intact and unimpaired, the path from olfactory cortex to lexical-semantic systems is uniquely indirect, producing what they call “the muted sense.” Benjamin Young’s research extends the same point to compositional structure: the olfactory system implements a compositional format incompatible with the semantic conceptual repertoire mediated by vision (Young 2025). Different cultures expand the lexicon to varying degrees, but the underlying architectural mismatch persists.

If language cannot reach across to scent in the way it reaches across to sight or sound, then whatever scent provides must be held somewhere else.

III. The Reference Library

Each person carries within them a reference library of olfactory encounters. The library is metaphorical, but what it points to is not. It is the accumulated structure that allows recognition: the reason an experienced perfumer can identify oud across regional variations whose dominant compounds barely overlap, the reason a child knows the smell of their grandmother’s house, the reason a salmon returns to the stream of its birth. The library holds what has been encountered. It is consulted in every act of recognition, often without conscious awareness that any consulting is occurring.

The library operates before language. The neonatal evidence makes this concrete. The human olfactory system is functionally mature at birth, earlier than vision, earlier than fine auditory discrimination. Newborns orient toward the scent of their mother’s breast within hours of being born. Maternal breast odour activates approach, mouth-opening, and rooting behaviour in infants who have never been taught to respond to it (Schaal et al. 2020). The library is already operating. The infant recognises something it has no words for and could not have words for. Whatever recognition is, it is not a function language performs.

The Jahai evidence shows what the library can look like when culture builds lexical access to it. Majid et al. (2018) compared odour naming between Jahai hunter-gatherers from the Malay Peninsula and Dutch speakers. Dutch speakers relied on source-based descriptors (“smells like lemon,” “smells like chocolate”), referring the scent outward to a known object. Jahai speakers used abstract olfactory vocabulary, with dedicated terms that had no source referent. Crucially, both groups had identical initial emotional reactions to the same odours. Both libraries were operating. The Jahai had built linguistic access to theirs; the Dutch had not. The library is the same; what differs is whether the language of a given culture has developed the means to refer to its contents directly.

Recent neuroscience offers direct evidence for the library’s reality at the level of cognitive architecture. Kehl et al. (2024), recording single-neuron activity in the brains of consenting epilepsy patients, identified neurons in the piriform cortex, amygdala, entorhinal cortex, and hippocampus whose firing accurately encodes the identity of specific odours. More striking still, a subset of these neurons responded not only to the scent itself but to images and words semantically related to it: the same neuron that fires for the smell of an orange fires also for a picture of one. The library is encoded in single cells that hold molecule and concept together. What the essay has been calling a library is, at the level of neural implementation, this convergence: a private archive in which the encounter and the meaning attached to it occupy the same locus.

The image Ghazālī offers in his exposition of the intellect describes the structure of how this library grows. He states that the existence of the innate intellect in an infant is like the existence of a palm tree in a date pit (Mohamed 2021, 25). The pit does not describe the palm tree. It does not represent it, depict it, or encode it in symbolic form. The tree is already present, not as information but as latent structure, complete in potential, awaiting only the conditions under which it unfolds. The relationship between the pit and the tree is not one of representation. It is one of immanence.

A clarification is needed before the image can do its work here. Ghazālī’s own subject is fiṭra (فطرة), the innate human disposition toward truth, which concerns the heart and the recognition of what is real. Olfaction is biological and concerns molecular encounter. The borrowing is not categorical: olfactory recognition is not fiṭra. The borrowing is structural. The reference library has the same form as the date pit. It holds latent capacity that unfolds when the encounter activates it, without requiring that anything be transmitted from outside.

When someone smells something, new or otherwise, the library grows without language forming it. The encounter enters first. Language only categorises afterwards, if it can, and culture has built the words for it. The person who smells gives birth to the palm tree from the date pit in a way only the encounter can. Language cannot perform that unfolding. It can only describe what has already unfolded.

IV. Habit, Not Necessity

The library receives without opinion.

This is the key distinction, and it has implications the perfumery industry has not registered. When a scent enters the body, it enters first as encounter, before any meaning attaches. The molecule activates the receptors. The pattern enters the library. The recognition occurs, or fails to occur. None of this carries an emotional valence as a fixed property of the molecule, transmitted with mechanical reliability across persons and cultures. Meaning attaches afterwards, and it attaches by ʿāda (عادة), Ghazālī’s term for habitual co-occurrence sustained by divine will rather than by mechanical necessity.

In the seventeenth discussion of The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahāfut al-Falāsifa), Ghazālī argues that sense perception establishes only concomitance, not causation. The observation is precise: we observe that burning occurs with (ʿinda, عند) the contact of fire, not by (bi, بـ) it. Both events co-occur, but the connection between them is not necessary. It is habitual. God creates the burning upon the contact of cotton and fire, but it remains rationally possible for the burning not to occur upon contact, because the events are concomitants, not cause and effect (Mohamed 2021, 69). Divine causation is real, but it is volitional, not mechanical. The regularity of the natural world is sustained by intentional divine act, not guaranteed by the inherent nature of things (Mohamed 2021, 71). Ghazālī’s position does not deny that regularities exist; it denies that they exist by any necessity inhering in the things themselves.

The chemistry of a material is observation. Linalool is present in lavender. Sesquiterpenes are present in oud. Indoles are present in jasmine. These are observations of molecular structure, like any observation of nature, and they belong to the library as data. The chemical fact is not ʿāda. It is what the material is composed of, observably and reliably.

The meaning attached to that material is something else, and here the relation must be stated carefully. There is a thin biological floor: rotting matter is widely rejected, the smell of mother’s milk is widely sought, certain chemosensory signals carry valence that does not depend on cultural training. Recent cross-cultural work confirms a real but modest universal component to odour pleasantness. Arshamian et al. (2022), surveying 225 individuals from nine non-Western cultures, found that molecular identity explained 41% of variance in odour pleasantness rankings, individual variation 54%, and culture only 6%. Some valence is in the chemistry. The biological floor is real.

Above that floor, however, is where the dense regularities of olfactory meaning are built, and they are built by ʿāda. Lavender does not contain calm. Rose does not contain love. Oud does not contain reverence. These are not biological universals; they are cultural sediment. The molecule is the fire. The emotional register that the perfumery industry markets is the burning. We observe that relaxation occurs with the presence of lavender within the cultures that have made that association, not by it. The association is real, the regularity holds within a culture, but it is ʿāda, sustained by repeated encounter and cultural transmission, not a property inhering in the chemistry.

The cross-cultural evidence makes this undeniable. Chrysanthemum carries associations of death and mourning in much of the Chinese tradition. In European contexts, white chrysanthemums signal youth and purity. Citrus registers as freshness and vitality in the French perfumery tradition, where it has been a dominant aromatic category for centuries; in southern China, citrus is associated primarily with dried tangerine peel, family, tradition, preservation across generations. Both sets of associations are real. Both function reliably within their cultural contexts. Neither is caused by the molecule. What differs is the ʿāda, the convention of association, not the chemistry.

The empirical evidence sharpens the point. Bierling et al. (2025), in a dataset of olfactory perception drawn from over a thousand non-expert participants, found that the same single molecule, benzyl acetate, was described by approximately 250 respondents as nail polish remover and by approximately 170 as banana. The molecule was identical. The libraries differed. Each respondent’s encounter with benzyl acetate had been built into a different context, and the description that returned from the encounter reflected the prior context, not a property of the molecule itself.

The Majid et al. (2018) study confirms this from the other direction. Dutch and Jahai speakers categorised the same odours using entirely different linguistic strategies, yet their initial emotional responses were identical. The encounter enters the library before the categorisation arrives. The ʿāda is in the naming, not in the encounter.

The implication for perfumery is severe. The descriptive vocabulary of the industry, the language of evocation, mood, and emotional transmission, is built on mistaking habit for necessity. The note pyramid, the mood board, the claim that a certain accord “evokes” a certain feeling, the marketing copy that promises a specific emotional effect from a specific material: all of these assume a causal connection between stimulus and response that does not hold as a matter of ontological necessity. What holds is regularity sustained by cultural pattern, supported by a thin biological floor that determines almost none of the meaning the industry trades on. Regularity is not nothing. But regularity is not causation. Honest practice would treat the chemistry and the encounter as the real things, and treat the meaning as ʿāda, real within its context, but not a property of the molecule.

V. Knowledge Before Extraction

Sight and sound require distance. Sight cannot occur unless distance already exists between the perceiver and the object. Light reflects from a surface, crosses the intervening space, enters the eye, is converted into a neural signal, processed into an image, and interpreted through learned categories. The distance is not incidental. It is the medium through which the information travels. Without it, there is no transmission, and without transmission, there is nothing to see.

Hearing follows the same structure. A vibration propagates through air or water, arrives at the ear, is transduced into neural activity, decoded, interpreted, categorised. The vibration must traverse a gap. The gap is what allows the sound to reach the listener. In both cases, the perceiver stands at one remove from the object, and the object reaches the perceiver through a medium that preserves the distance even as it bridges it.

The chemical senses, smell and taste, do not work this way. Both require the dissolution of distance, the entry of material from the world into the body. Taste demands that a substance be taken into the mouth, brought into contact with taste cells, and chemically engaged. Smell is stranger still: it can be encountered across a room, but the encounter consists of molecules of the object physically arriving at the olfactory epithelium, dissolving in mucus, and binding to receptors. There is no signal traversing a gap, no proxy crossing space, no representation reconstructed at the receiver. The thing itself enters the body. If distance is preserved, no encounter occurs.

This is what gives olfactory knowledge its distinct structure. Sight and sound extract information from a source that remains at a distance; the eye does not contain the tree, the ear does not contain the sound, they receive transmissions, and transmission requires the source to stay where it is. Olfaction does not extract because there is nothing to extract from. The molecule is already here. The encounter has already occurred. The reference library receives the encounter directly, before language has formed, before interpretation has begun, before the person is consciously aware of what they are experiencing.

This is also what made the asymmetry of §II structural rather than merely difficult. Language can rebuild an image or sound for a listener who has not had the specific encounter, because the image and the sound were always at a distance, always representations the receiver had to assemble from public parts. Scent has no such public parts. It was never at a distance. Its arrival was always the entry of a particular material into a particular body. Language can name the material, describe its associations, point to encounters the listener may have had: but it cannot manufacture the bodily event without prior acquaintance, because the bodily event is what the encounter is.

The gap between language and scent is permanent not because language is weak, but because language is a product of convention, distance, and extraction, and scent belongs to a domain that precedes all three.

Ghazālī issues a warning that bears on what follows. He argues that when a demonstration is sound but the conclusion is rejected, the failure lies not in the method but in the capacity of the person applying it. The one who cannot follow the proof has reached the limit of their own understanding, not the limit of what can be known (Mohamed 2021, 41). The point at which language yields in the presence of olfaction, the moment where description stops and only encounter remains, is not evidence that scent carries nothing. It is evidence that the instrument being applied has reached its structural limit. The method has met its boundary. And the boundary is informative. It marks the edge of derived knowledge and the beginning of something that must be met on its own terms.

VI. We Live Within Scent

There is a fact so elementary that it has gone unexamined.

We are always inside scent. There is never a moment of olfactory absence. The air that carries scent is the same air that sustains biological life. There is no position outside of it. There is no moment of departure from it. From the first breath of a newborn to the last exhalation of the dying, every organism exists within a molecular environment it did not create and cannot exit.

This is not limited to air. Aquatic organisms navigate chemically. Salmon imprint on the molecular signature of their natal stream as juveniles and use olfactory cues to return to it years later, crossing thousands of miles of open ocean to find a single tributary (Dittman and Quinn 1996). The medium is water, not air. The principle is the same. The organism exists within a chemosensory field, and that field carries information that leads directly to action.

Scent does not travel between bodies. Bodies exist within scent.

This is a reversal of ontological priority. The common framing in perfumery, in neuroscience, and in philosophy of perception places the person as primary and scent as something that moves between persons, crossing the boundary of the body, entering from outside. But if the medium of scent is the molecular environment itself (the air or water, the breath, the conditions of being alive), then scent is the prior condition within which organisms exist. You do not encounter scent. You are in it. You always were.

The biological evidence makes this concrete. When a plant is attacked by herbivores, it releases volatile organic compounds into the air. Neighbouring plants, undamaged and not yet touched, detect these compounds and upregulate their own chemical defences in response (Heil and Kost 2006). The attacked plant does not send a message to its neighbour across a gap. It alters the molecular composition of the shared medium. The neighbouring plant, already inside that medium, responds to the altered conditions. The defence is mounted before any interpretation has occurred. The plant does not leave the medium to evaluate what it has detected. It acts from within.

Pollinators demonstrate the same structure. A flower does not dispatch a signal to a bee across empty space. The flower alters the molecular conditions of the air it exists within. If the flower does not produce these volatiles, the bee passes it by. The bee’s response (approach, landing, pollination) is an action that follows directly from chemosensory information. No representation intervenes. No learned category mediates. The information is in the medium, and the action follows from the information.

These are not metaphors for human olfaction. They are demonstrations of what olfactory response looks like when it is stripped of language, culture, convention, and conscious interpretation. The word knowledge is being extended here in a particular sense: not propositional knowledge, but a structurally analogous mode in which encounter within a medium directly leads to action without prior extraction. An organism exists within a molecular field. The field changes. The organism responds. The response constitutes action: defence, navigation, approach, avoidance.

The consequence is this. If organisms already exist within scent, within the molecular medium that carries chemical information, then scent is not extending emotion or response outward from the body into space. Scent is where these things are first constituted as something real in the world. The shared molecular environment is the medium through which they become available to any organism with the receptors to detect them.

And this is the bridge to what the perfumer does. Just as a plant alters the molecular conditions of the medium in which it exists, releasing volatiles that change the reality its neighbours inhabit, the perfumer does the same thing, deliberately. The perfumer does not send a message to the wearer. The perfumer changes the conditions of the shared medium. The wearer, already inside that medium, encounters the altered conditions and responds from within.

VII. The Perfumer Inside the System

If the preceding arguments hold, then the perfumer occupies a position without parallel among practitioners of any other art.

A painter stands outside what they paint. A musician can hear their own composition from the position of a listener. A writer reads their own sentences as a reader would. A sculptor walks around the object. In every case, the artist can create distance from the work, occupy an external vantage point, and evaluate what they have made. The gap between creator and creation is the space in which craft, judgement, and revision operate.

The perfumer cannot do this.

The perfumer is inside the medium while they compose. The molecule they select enters their own body at the same moment it enters the space. There is no external position from which to observe the composition as a totality, because the totality includes the perfumer’s own respiratory system, their own neurochemistry, their own body. The air that carries the work-in-progress is the same air that keeps the perfumer alive. There is no opting out, no stepping back, no distance from which to judge.

This means perfumery is not an art of representation. It does not operate by creating a symbolic analogue of something encountered elsewhere. The perfumer does not depict a feeling, describe a landscape, or narrate a memory. The perfumer intervenes in the conditions of shared reality, modifies the molecular composition of the air that other people breathe, alters the olfactory environment within which other bodies exist.

And the first body altered is the perfumer’s own.

Recent research suggests that olfaction and empathy recruit overlapping brain regions. Spinella (2002) found a correlation between olfactory identification and the emotional component of empathy, namely feeling another’s emotions rather than merely comprehending them. The brain regions implicated in both functions overlap: the orbitofrontal cortex, the mediodorsal thalamus, and the amygdala. Smelling and feeling with another person draw on shared circuitry.

Prehn-Kristensen et al. (2009) extended this with a striking finding. Chemosensory anxiety signals, collected from the sweat of subjects awaiting an academic examination, were presented to participants via an olfactometer. The stimuli were perceived at very low intensity; approximately half were not consciously detected at all. Yet fMRI showed that the anxiety signals activated brain areas involved in processing social-emotional stimuli (the fusiform gyrus) and in regulating empathic feelings (the insula, precuneus, and cingulate cortex). Emotional contagion occurred through olfaction below the threshold of conscious awareness.

These findings suggest, rather than prove, a structural parallel. Just as the empathic person feels with the other from inside a shared condition rather than receiving a message across a representational gap, the perfumer composes from inside a shared molecular environment that the wearer also inhabits. The bottle is not a message. It is a set of conditions for co-presence.

Here the question of intent becomes most difficult. When a perfumer composes, they intend something. A mood. A quality of attention. A particular kind of encounter. But the intent must pass through a medium that does not transmit intent in the way language does. Language carries meaning through convention: the word denotes, the sentence asserts, the paragraph argues. Olfaction carries nothing through convention. It pervades. What arrives at the other person is not the perfumer’s intent but the conditions shaped by that intent, conditions within which the other person’s own experience arises.

The perfumer, who breathes the same air, who cannot step outside the composition, who is altered by their own creation in ways they did not predict, is the first participant in this co-presence. The first person the scent changes is not the wearer. It is the maker.

Consider what this means for the act of composition itself. Every evaluation the perfumer makes (this accord is too sharp, this balance is wrong, this drydown lacks depth) is made from inside the system being evaluated. The perfumer’s nose adapts to the materials it has been exposed to. The perfumer’s emotional state shifts as the composition enters the body. The judgement is not disinterested in the Kantian sense. It cannot be. The instrument of evaluation is being altered by the object of evaluation in real time.

This is not a limitation. It is the condition of the art. A perfumer who could somehow step outside the composition and evaluate it objectively would have left the medium in which the composition exists. The distance required for objectivity is the distance that would destroy the phenomenon. The perfumer must judge from inside, with a body that is being changed by the thing it is judging. This is practically impossible to circumvent and epistemologically necessary to accept.

Ghazālī’s framework, applied here, suggests that this is not a problem to be solved but a structure to be recognised. If the deepest knowledge does not require extraction, if it unfolds within the conditions rather than being observed from outside them, then the perfumer’s position inside the system is the epistemically correct one. The perfumer knows the composition not by creating distance but by never having left.

VIII. What Remains Open

This essay has argued three things. That olfaction belongs to an order of reality prior to derivation, where language can describe but cannot construct, because scent is known by bodily encounter with no public parts from which a description could rebuild it. That the relationship between scent and emotion within the reference library is layered: a thin biological floor, on top of which culture and history build the dense regularities the perfumery industry has mistaken for necessity. And that the structure of olfactory encounter is illuminated by Ghazālī’s image of the date pit and the palm tree. The borrowing is not categorical: olfactory recognition is not fiṭra. The borrowing is structural: latent capacity activated by encounter, language arriving only afterwards to categorise.

The strongest single statement of the position is this: scent is not indescribable, but it is non-transferable. Language can name its source, describe its associations, map its effects, train its categories within a community. But it cannot place the scent itself inside someone who lacks the relevant olfactory encounter, in the way it can place an image or a sound inside a reader who has never seen or heard the specific thing. The boundary is not silence. It is the line at which language stops constructing and begins pointing back into a private archive.

What remains open is the nature of the knowledge itself.

If olfaction provides knowledge that is prior to language, prior to interpretation, prior to conscious awareness, what kind of knowledge is it? It is not propositional: it makes no claims. It is not perceptual in the standard sense: it does not present objects at a distance for inspection. It is not emotional, exactly: the Prehn-Kristensen study shows that emotional contagion through olfaction occurs below the threshold of awareness, which means the “emotion” is not experienced as emotion by the person undergoing it.

The biological evidence offers a partial answer. We may not yet know what olfactory knowledge is, but we can observe what it leads to. In plants, it leads to the upregulation of defence. In salmon, it leads to navigation across thousands of miles. In neonates, it leads to orientation, approach, and the initiation of the bond that sustains life. In insects, it leads to pollination, predator avoidance, colony coordination. In every case, olfactory information precedes language, precedes representation, precedes conscious awareness, and leads directly to action. Whatever it is, its consequences are real. The palm tree grows. Something was known.

This is a problem that remains unresolved. Ghazālī’s framework offers an image of innate capacity unfolding under conditions, but it does not specify the mechanism by which olfactory encounter becomes knowledge rather than mere stimulus. The gap between “the molecule entered the body” and “something was known” remains uncharted. Closing it is not a matter of better neuroscience or better phenomenology alone. It will require both, working from a starting point neither tradition has fully accepted: that the encounter precedes the extraction, and the knowledge precedes the word.

This essay does not claim to have closed that gap. It claims only to have located it with some precision, and to have shown that it is not where the tradition assumed. The gap is not between language and scent. The gap is between what we already know latently, through the molecular environment we breathe, and our ability to recognise that we know it.

The palm tree is in the date pit. The question is how it unfolds.

References

Arshamian, Artin, Richard C. Gerkin, Nicole Kruspe, Ewelina Wnuk, Simeon Floyd, Carolyn O’Meara, Gabriela Garrido Rodriguez, Johan N. Lundström, Joel D. Mainland, and Asifa Majid. 2022. “The Perception of Odor Pleasantness Is Shared across Cultures.” Current Biology 32 (9): 2061–2066.

Bierling, Antonie Louise, Alexander Croy, Tim Jesgarzewsky, Maria Rommel, Gianaurelio Cuniberti, Thomas Hummel, and Ilona Croy. 2025. “A Dataset of Laymen Olfactory Perception for 74 Mono-Molecular Odors.” Scientific Data12: 347.

Dittman, Andrew H., and Thomas P. Quinn. 1996. “Homing in Pacific Salmon: Mechanisms and Ecological Basis.” Journal of Experimental Biology 199 (1): 83–91.

Heil, Martin, and Christoph Kost. 2006. “Priming of Indirect Defences.” Ecology Letters 9 (7): 813–817.

Kehl, Marcel S., Sina Mackay, Kerstin Ohla, Matthias Schneider, Valeri Borger, Rainer Surges, Marc Spehr, and Florian Mormann. 2024. “Single-Neuron Representations of Odours in the Human Brain.” Nature 634: 626–634.

Majid, Asifa, Niclas Burenhult, Marcus Stensmyr, Josje de Valk, and Bernhard Hansson. 2018. “Olfactory Language and Abstraction across Cultures.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373 (1752): 20170139.

Mohamed, Nabil Yasien. 2021. Ghazālī’s Epistemology: A Critical Study of Doubt and Certainty. Routledge Studies in Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Olofsson, Jonas K., and Jay A. Gottfried. 2015. “The Muted Sense: Neurocognitive Limitations of Olfactory Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (6): 314–321.

Prehn-Kristensen, Alexander, Christian Wiesner, Til Ole Bergmann, Stephan Wolff, Olav Jansen, Hubertus Maximilian Mehdorn, Robert Ferstl, and Bodo Pause. 2009. “Induction of Empathy by the Smell of Anxiety.” PLoS ONE 4 (6): e5987.

Schaal, Benoist, Tamsin K. Saxton, Helene Loos, Robert Soussignan, and Karine Durand. 2020. “Olfaction Scaffolds the Developing Human from Neonate to Adolescent and Beyond.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B375 (1800): 20190261.

Spinella, Marcello. 2002. “A Relationship between Smell Identification and Empathy.” International Journal of Neuroscience 112 (6): 605–612.

Young, Benjamin D. 2025. Stinking Philosophy! Smell Perception, Cognition, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.