On the origin of the validity of values
Hello Rabbi.
After you referred me to your book, Truth and Unstable, I read it and things became clearer to me, especially about the concept of “intuition,” which I was surprised I hadn’t understood until now, as it is a central theory of yours. So first of all, thank you very much.
I made a claim in a conversation we had about morality (although you denied it in the conversation, I think it should come from the book.) that we don’t have to assume that there is a mitzvah (from intuition we understand that we are obligated to his words) in order to establish valid morality, it is enough to intuitively expect that morality is binding. We all “observe” this.
I think you also wrote this in one of your messages to me:
“From a religious perspective, values are binding both in themselves and because God commanded them. Although in my fourth notebook (and I think also in our conversation) I explained that without God there is no morality.”
I’m a little confused because you wrote “values are binding in themselves,” so why do you have to say “and also because God commanded”?
And in the end, you even wrote, “Without God, there is no morality.”
The intuitive observation that morality is binding is the starting point. Now you come to the conclusion that in your opinion morality is indeed binding. But when you think about why you really think it is binding (since without God binding morality is not possible), the only answer is that you implicitly assume that God commanded it. This is what I called in the fourth book “theological evidence” (as opposed to philosophical). See there the explanation of this logic in detail.
———————-
Asks:
I already understood that as a result of the naturalistic fallacy, it is impossible, according to your method, to talk about morality without God. But I don’t understand why it is obligatory. I suggest that just as we say that causality is different because we observe it intuitively, so too with regard to morality we observe that there is something “proper” and that it is something primary-axiomatic. And I don’t need to ask “why do I think it is obligatory” it is simply so, no further explanation is needed. It is strange to me that you don’t see it that way, because you wrote below “a value is a value like this” just like the axioms in geometry.
———————-
Rabbi:
I’ve already explained exactly this and will come back to it again.
There is a difference between noticing that there is a binding morality and wondering why it really is binding. Just as I see that there is a gravitational force exerted on some body, and that does not exempt me from asking who exerts it. Or I see that there is a world and I wonder who created it.
———————-
Asks:
One more question for you.
Lately I have been open to existential philosophy, as a result of many people I have spoken to claiming that the existence of God is clear to them. Their scholars even had difficulty describing the entirety of their experiences, I really understood them, especially since I also experienced this “mystical” thing during my two years in the yeshiva. (By mystical I do not mean such an explosive ecstasy, but perhaps it is also included in that overall experience) Perhaps the word experience is even too weak to describe how they spoke. They described it as an authentic experience of most people (“they talked less about the Jewish God”)
And anyone who doesn’t have those experiences is a baby who has been born.
These descriptions reminded me a lot of your parable about the blind man and the seeing man. The person who sees simply sees, and the blind man will not convince him otherwise because he does not understand.
I also started reading the book “I and You” and “God Searches for Man” by Martin Buber and Schell, and I think they describe a different experience, but very similar in the direction they reach.
I didn’t go into too much detail because I appreciate that you know this approach better than I do.
I saw some of your allusions towards existentialism, but I didn’t exactly understand your attitude towards them.
I would love to hear your thoughts on these arguments. (They might not like to call it arguments.)
———————-
Rabbi:
Someone who has such an experience can believe without arguments (it is indeed the parable of the blind man). But there is no philosophical subtext in it. You feel – for health. When you turn it into a philosophical subtext, it is usually psychology and not philosophy, or the existentialist cloak covers a regular philosophical subtext. In my opinion, existentialism is not philosophy (precisely because there are no arguments there, only descriptions).
———————-
Asks:
1. In the end, do we all believe the same experience?
In your language, maybe you could call it intuition.
You wrote in a book of truth and unshakable truth a sentence that stirred me:
…So the bottom line is, faith in God is based on intuition, one that gives rise to the faith itself or one that gives rise to assumptions that contain the faith and therefore can be derived from them using logical tools. This is also the meaning of proofs for faith in God…
So maybe the descriptions they describe are the same intuition in “watching” G-d?
2. I also wonder if perhaps we don’t need a philosophical change and it’s enough to delve deep into our souls and reach these authentic experiences…
Perhaps we deny ourselves the authentic experience (which I believe most people have) by engaging in philosophy.
I’m really confused. I’d love some help… and thank you for always answering my questions. It’s really important to me.
———————-
Rabbi:
In my book I explain this in detail (Truth and Unstable, Two Carts). Faith is intuition, and it is intuition that also underlies our axioms in all fields.
Delving into our souls requires caution. You need to think about whether what you find there is the will to believe or the faith. It is important to distinguish between intuition and emotion.
As mentioned, there is no obligation to need philosophy. If you can manage without it – for your health. The one who does need it is the one whose intuition does not directly give him faith, but rather assumptions from which faith can be derived.
In any case, to the best of my judgment, feelings do not stand on their own. It is advisable to subject them to logical-philosophical criticism. But as mentioned, there are no rules in this.
———————-
Asks:
1. I would be happy if you could give examples from the physiotheological view and the cosmological view where they assume axioms that are based on an intuition of faith.
2. Can logical criticism be a “safety tool” for thought; is what I find within me the desire to believe or the belief?
3. If a person like me came to you asking questions about faith, would you try to awaken in him the intuition of faith in God?
———————-
Rabbi:
1. Every valid argument has its conclusion hidden in its premises. I detail all this in the notebooks on the site. In the physico-theological view, the assumption that every complex thing has a creator necessarily presupposes faith.
2. I already wrote that yes.
3. Yes. I would try with the different arguments from the notebooks.
We are repeating ourselves and mixing things up. All of these things have been discussed extensively in the notebooks, see there.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
