The Rabbi’s Perplexity About Descartes’ Method
I read the book Two Carts and a Balloon a long time ago, but from what I remember, the rabbi was puzzled by Descartes’s approach in that he could not create anything and in fact did not contribute to the world (I do not have the book with me). However, the rabbi seems to admit that what Descartes does say, even if it is not useful, is not lacking.
Rabbi Charlap in his introduction to Me Merom A writes, “And I dare to say (about his book) that although the words are like the pedophiles of Me… they cannot be acquired with a superficial understanding, but only after careful study, he has done well in every word and every sentence and every sentence” etc. (I quoted this only to emphasize that the words there were said after much thought)
Then, in the first two openings, he explains a great foundation in the ways of the Master.
According to what he says there, it appears that Descartes did not act wisely at all when he began by saying that he relies only on pure logic, since he is entirely bound by the chains of necessity, and is forced by speech to think this way, and there is an internal defect in this, as he says, in contrast to someone who also thinks beyond those chains. And he emphasizes there, not intuition (even if the person is very pure), but the tradition of deriving the power of reasons as a solution to that internal defect.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As it seems to me, in the introduction to the story of the mathematician in the hot air balloon, you claimed that there is no addition of knowledge through logic. It is only data analysis. Descartes wanted to find everything in logic and dispense with the need for experience or the "inventions" of human cognition.
However, in fact, logic is also the fruit of the invention of human cognition. A necessity that the Creator instilled in man to think this way and not otherwise.
The tradition, the revelation of the Torah, is above and beyond cognition and logic. It does not begin with cognition from within the human being but from a supreme manifestation free from all necessity. And the miracles come only to reveal that tradition. But then the miracle is not a tool for ascertaining the truth but a way in which things come to be revealed. Aisha, Rabbi Harald, and the great issue - that it is impossible to innovate a practical thing ("practical" also includes a clear decision in the order of knowledge) if its origin is not in tradition but only according to the example. Logic cannot spread as a teaching to the practical world because it is bound by the chains of necessity.
Hello.
You bring me back to the basics about which I have already written a great deal (in two carts and in truth and not stable). Look there at the whole matter. Logic does not innovate anything but can reveal to us what we already think/know. Tradition is not a third alternative, and it is certainly subject to logic, just as God Himself is subject to it. Logic is not a human invention, nor is it instilled in us from above. God Himself is also “subject” to logic (because this is not subordination).
See for example here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/
It took me a while to find this.
Appears in eight files of Rabbi Kook. File Z Aut Ma.
This is the claim of the unity of opposites/contrasts, to which I strongly object. In my opinion, this talk and other talk about things that are ”above reason” are nonsense. I am joined in this by the Rambam in the Mo”N and the Rashba in the reply to Ch. D. Si’ Rold (but I would say the same thing even without them).
I corresponded with the rabbi a few months ago about the contrast of opposites. I then began to write a comprehensive article on why this is not empty talk, and what the implications of this are.
The troubles of time meant that the work was not completed. But I am certain of the righteousness of the path. And my rabbi, Rabbi Charalamp, in the high heavens of the springs of salvation, chapter 33.
Congratulations on being perceived as a supporter of confidence in meaningless nonsense. At least that way it's clear that you won't be mistaken. 🙂
And if Rabbi Haralf also writes this, then here's a place where it's clear that he won't be perceived as mistaken.
I'm also considering publishing a collection of meaningless words. But what? I'm sure they'll argue with me about that too, so there's no point. 🙂
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
