Q&A: Phenomenology and Non-Rational Religiosity
Phenomenology and Non-Rational Religiosity
Question
If I hold Kant’s position regarding our lack of access to the thing-in-itself, then the only connection with divinity is through the Torah, which came from the thing-in-itself in a phenomenologically adapted, intentional form.
For that matter, the philosophical claim that “God does not change” is not relevant at all, because He is not grasped by us in terminology, and that does not really say anything about Him. And if He, through the Oral Torah, claims that through prayer He can change, then I have no difficulty at all. In other words, from this very perspective, doesn’t any philosophical claim that relates to divinity or to its mode of action not even get off the ground?
What do you think about this?
Answer
Kant’s position is not phenomenological (in the usual terminology, that is attributed to Husserl). You probably mean the distinction between phenomena and noumena.
As for your actual claim, I disagree. The claim about changes in God also deals with His phenomena, so there is definitely room for discussion. You are apparently interpreting discussion of phenomena as not being discussion of the thing itself, but that is not so. That is precisely our way of discussing the thing itself. The more precise formulation is: discussion of phenomena is not discussion of the essence, but of characteristics/attributes. But it is still discussion of the thing itself. Change is a change in attributes that reflects a change in the thing itself.
To illustrate: Rabbi Shem Tov Gefen argued (in his book The Dimensions, Prophecy, and Earthiness) that according to Kant, time is only a form of human perception, and therefore there is no meaning to discussing the age of the world. Time did not exist before man. That is a mistake. Time is a pair of glasses through which we observe the world, and once we have put them on, we also look through them at the past that existed before us. Just as I can ask when my grandfather was born (even though neither I nor my glasses were in the world), so too I can ask when the world was created (or how long ago).
Discussion on Answer
Why not? I see the manifestation of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world and how I perceive Him. I do this in light of logical principles, observation of the world, and the sources and information in the Torah.
As for Rabbi Shem Tov Gefen, you are repeating the same view, and I will repeat mine. It reflects reality exactly, except that the reflection is always formulated in the terms of the perceiver’s language. But that is only language and representation of the thing itself. What is true there is truly true, only formulated in my language.
I think we are speaking completely in the air and in slogans. If you have a concrete question or a concrete claim about God, it would be better for you to raise it and we can discuss it.
I agree that discussion of phenomena is discussion of the thing-in-itself, but how does a human being have the power to discuss the divine phenomena with a human perspective and human grasp of reality? How does he make that leap, and what is he relying on?
As for Rabbi Shem Tov Gefen, I think he would argue that indeed you can reach a conclusion about the age of the world according to your own perception of reality, but he would add that this does not reflect what is objectively taking place, only reality after passing through the human phenomenological filter, no?