Skepticism – certainty

chock

Greetings!, Rabbi Michael Avraham,

I wanted to ask you a question about skepticism-certainty, in light of reading your trilogy and the articles.

and your other videos, but first I wanted to say that I really appreciate your honesty and the substantive discussion.

Yours on many and varied topics, as well as the fundamental way in which you say things.

But precisely from this assessment – when I read something like this –

"As I make clear there and have made clear many times in the past, the goal is not to reach certainty. To the best of my understanding, a person has no way of reaching certainty in any area, including belief in the existence of God, and certainly not the status of Mount Sinai or anything else (perhaps except for this principle itself: that nothing is certain, and even in this he is successful). The goal is to reach the conclusion that these are completely reasonable and rational conclusions, and in my opinion much more logical than the alternatives. Anyone who is looking for anything beyond this is wasting their time. They should not read and should not stop searching at all. If they found a way to reach such certainty, they were probably wrong (for sure! ")"

So according to this it seems that we have reached the root, from which it is not possible to go any deeper. That is, if you try

You won't be able to reach certainty because skepticism is not completely resolved, at most you can reach plausibility, etc.

But it seems to me that the discussion on this topic, for some reason unlike other topics you discuss, does not receive

Enough of the in-depth and exhaustive discussion.

After all, in philosophy there is ample room for genuine skepticism – even more extreme than that of Descartes, since he did not

was content with the principles of logic, while other philosophers (such as the Indian Nagarjuna) were also content with truths

The logic itself. And honestly it doesn't matter who settled for what, why not question the logic itself

And in all our intellectual capacity – including the most "simple" rules such as:

The rule of genesis, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the third derivative, etc.

It's "true" that the moment we question this style – we've essentially broken our own playing tools.

In other words, we have no ability to answer – because we have no tool (and in fact this sentence itself is also lacking). ) And by the way, skeptically

Similarly, the concept of "reasonableness" is also irrelevant – because there is no standard whatsoever! (And of course

The same applies to this sentence itself.)

But how can we get out of this? After all, we don't have to assume that the logic is correct and that the sentences

What I am writing now makes sense at all, and if the answer is – we simply assume that the logic is correct

And continuing from there – it seems that the discussion is very lacking – after all, it is as if to say this:

Or you can use your intelligence – i.e. logic – by assuming that the logic is true and moving forward from there.
Or don't let logic go – and get stuck in eternal skepticism.

But why reduce the whole person to – does he use his mind or does he not use his mind –

If there is more to a person than just reason/emotion, perhaps there is another source from which certainty can derive.

And reason is not the relevant tool for certainty/probability.

The proposition I hold – and I assume that you are aware of it – is that there is something in man beyond reason and emotion.

Even the soul – something that cannot be defined in words – something about which every word is a borrowed word – can be said

It is about us experiencing it directly – but these are just words and they cannot constitute

A definition of the very thing we call – soul. And this experience is (at least for me) as real and certain as anything else.

And I do not experience any doubt within it, even when I want to cast doubt on it, I immediately return to casting doubt.

Doubt about doubt itself – something formulated – how can I be satisfied at all? After all, if there is no law

Non-contradiction – all existence of doubts or thoughts in general falls away (as does this sentence itself) )

In other words, I am trying to say what the hermit Rabbi said in his commentary on beliefs and opinions.

"All the heresy, all the distance, comes from this, that we have distanced ourselves from the Hebrew, the Shamite logic, and have become enslaved to the logic of

"Greek, pagan, western" (the book is not before now but the quote is literally almost word for word)

And this is not about a person who did not know philosophy, and who did not have an appreciation for reason, but there are things

Others in a person beyond his reason/logic, and the source of truth and certainty may be different from what the method admits.

Scientific writing has been around for 2000 years, from the time of the Greeks until today?

I would love to hear the Rabbi's opinion on the matter.
Thank you very much!