Q&A: Intellectual Depth?
Intellectual Depth?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In your view, is there such a thing as intellectual depth? Or is there only complexity in the intellect?
(The rules of logic are seemingly simple; like mathematics, they can only become complicated…)
When people speak of a subtle line of reasoning or a subtle understanding, is there an element there that is more than just a large number of details that make understanding difficult?
A more advanced stage of the question: suppose that in the Talmud and Jewish law people speak about a “definition” or distinguish between “matter and form”—does that have real existence in the world according to your approach, or is it just a tool to help us understand the assumptions that will lead to the halakhic ruling? (That is, if Jewish law holds that there is such a concept as acquisition of land, then from its perspective is there, say, a spiritual ownership of the area?)
And finally, if in your approach there is intellectual depth (or, one could say, depth in logic), could you explain what it is and what counts as something deep from the standpoint of the intellect?
Of course I’m not talking about emotion; there I think one can call a certain feeling deep, because from the outset feeling is subjective and I give it the definitions…
Thank you very much
Answer
It depends on the question whether every thought process can be formalized logically. In practice it is quite clear that it cannot, but it is possible that on the theoretical level it can, and the difficulty is only technical. Either way, at least in practice, since not everything can be formalized, it is clear that there is intellectual depth beyond mere complexity.
Discussion on Answer
Right now I think that arriving at a good definition of a concept or principle requires intellectual depth. Here it is already clear that there is no direct and systematic path to proceed along; it depends on creativity and depth. Once the concept or principle is presented, your question arises: is it all just a matter of complexity, or is there also depth? But in creating concepts and principles, it is clear that there is also depth beyond complexity.
For example, arriving at the definition of migo as the power of a claim, as distinct from migo of “why would he lie?”—that is a concept whose understanding requires intellectual depth. After I have understood it and conceptualized it, when I present it to some listener, it may be that I can formalize it and present a systematic picture in which there is only complexity and not depth. That is what I meant in my previous comment.
Okay, but that is not some kind of layered depth, is it? (Since in the end it will be possible to understand it as complexity and not as a hidden reality that is discovered.)
And the claim that a certain depth—for example, a line of reasoning of Rabbi Chaim that distinguishes between matter and form—reveals the true reality of the thing, which is not reflected in empirical examination but only in intellectual contemplation: do you agree with that? Or is the distinction between matter and form a nice interpretation that explains (after adopting basic Torah assumptions) the way to arrive at the specific halakhic ruling?
(It may be that I wasn’t precise in the description; I understand abstract reasoning less well, and more want to understand the approach to it. I hope I was clear.)
It is layered depth. Maybe it can be understood after someone explains it to you (and explaining it well is also not trivial). But arriving at it requires depth.
I didn’t understand the question.
Let’s leave Jewish law aside for a moment. In physics, say (and I don’t understand anything about it), is there also a deep-abstract realm, some kind of thinking and reflection on the essence of the thing and not just formal calculation? (I assume so, since its products are very abstract.)
And if so, what makes them scientifically acceptable? Is it also the case there, as in the yeshiva world, that there are physicists walking around with an understanding but not quite managing to define it fully and share it?
Yes and yes. At the base of everything is common sense. The calculations are its applications.
If so, what is something that can be called intellectual depth?
Then even a child could take a fairly simple thought that is hard for him to understand and evaluate it as deep.
I’d be happy for an example. Thank you very much.