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 it is 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 sorely 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 you will abandon logic – and be 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!
I asked to transfer it to the website and also to shorten it. Well, no man dies with half his desires in his hand.
As you wrote yourself, you cannot discuss skepticism and not answer the skeptic. That is why I have not done so and do not do so. What I am arguing is that skepticism is also an assumption like any other assumption, and it too has no justification. Therefore, every person should examine himself whether he is a skeptic or not. If he is a skeptic, he should remain silent from now on (and certainly not confuse the mind with tools beyond reason and other nonsense). And if he is not a skeptic, then there is no reason to be troubled by skeptical questions.
All I'm trying to do on this subject is show people that they're not really skeptics, and explain to them that if they are, there's no need to bother with wondering. If someone is truly skeptical, there's no point in talking to them.
There, I've answered both your question and your question about why you didn't find a detailed discussion on this point. It's simply impossible and unnecessary to have one.
First, "I am not confusing the mind" and there is no point in speaking ad hominem.
Secondly – you didn’t answer anything, you just said – I use my brain, period. And even worse, you brought me in.
Even the "O-O" is a mental one, meaning - "If you are skeptical - then you should keep quiet from now on, and if not, then there is no problem."
Why are you forcing me (the skeptic) to the third principle of non-contradiction, as well as the law of non-contradiction? I am not obligated to do so – after all, as a skeptic, I do not accept the law of non-contradiction.
(And neither does modern physics with its wave-kick, and I'm talking about the accepted interpretation of quantum theory, not
(for less common interpretations, such as hidden variables, etc.)
Third – How do you know that skepticism is an assumption? Only if you commit me to intellectual limitations and make me be committed to the same concepts and/or conventions that you assume for yourself can I be a skeptic and not make any assumptions?
As stated above, with this type of skepticism, there is no problem in saying something and its opposite – "Who obligates us to the law of non-contradiction?" as stated above.
Fourth, and this is the main thing – you ignore other parts that exist in reality, such as the soul, and use ridicule to those who claim
That there are other things to examine reality with besides reason/emotion, and this without any reasoning at all (but only ad humanum)
And according to your method, at least for this you should have a reason, because where do you get the idea that "there are no tools above reason"?
And if you are as honest as I see from other surfaces where you write, why use mockery? And logical fallacies
To reject an argument? Even if the argument is based on extreme skepticism, which many philosophers of the past and present raise
And we discuss it until there are contemporary philosophers who "determine" that logic is a product of our physical, social, etc. environment.
Dr. Yuval Steinitz, in defending rationalism from the blows inflicted on it by modern physics, and I am referring entirely to the law of non-contradiction, whose use has been limited to the macro and not the micro world, Steinitz claims that if we blink this law from time to time, who guarantees that it is ever valid? And he tries in the book The Tree of Knowledge to prove that logic must be correct – but the same doubts can be cast there as well.
That's why I was interested in your opinion, the matter-of-fact one!
1. Why hold that there are only intellectual things and nothing else? Just as you believe that there is a God who is above man
And what is beyond the human intellect – for there is no "reasonable" reason to assume that our intellect is the highest possible and that
One should be limited to it – after all, even in the world of humans, the mind changes and shapes itself to more refined levels, so why not say that even in man himself there are various components that are not intellectual? Where does the choice come from in your opinion?
Even if you think there is no ability to find out things except through reason, and there is nothing else, I still have no uncertainty.
And not probability for anything, since everything is based on what we assume in the fundamental assumptions, and there is no one basic assumption that is better than its counterpart, so it is not appropriate to talk about either certainty or probability, everything is equal according to this, right?
And just to clarify Section 2, the fundamental concepts in any field are not definable (they will be circular or infinite).
And so we rely on intuition – no less, no more – where does this concept fit into the definitions of the mind???
(I assume you know that I am referring to the theory of sets and that the fundamental concepts such as a set and an element in a set have no definition and we must understand these concepts intuitively! May God have mercy :)))
Good luck!
2.
Truly an amusing message. All the flaws you pointed out in my words appear in you. Although you are not subject to logic and therefore there is no problem with that of course. So I will elaborate and we will part as friends.
1. I did not use sarcasm anywhere. I wrote that talking about absurdities is meaningless confusion because that is what it is. It was not said to disparage you.
2. If there is an ad hominem here, then it is your own message. The fact that there are brainwashers with well-known names does not mean that it is not brainwashed.
3. You yourself use the principles of the third derivative and non-contradiction, and then claim against me that I am not allowed to use them. Otherwise, there is no problem in claiming something against you even if you think the opposite. Have you forgotten that contradictions do not bother you?
4. Quantum theory has nothing to do with any of this, not even a thread. Although there are indeed some brainwashed people who think it does. If there were a contradiction in quantum theory, any conclusion could be drawn from it. And if it were to refute the Third Coming Principle, then it itself falls because of the way it used this principle.
5. You ask me a question and deny logic as a basis for answers. So what answers exactly do you expect? And if you expect answers of type X, why do you mind if I give answers of type Y? We are not bothered by the law of contradiction, have you forgotten?
6. In short, if you don't get logical answers, I see no point in discussing. I wrote that I see no point in talking to skeptics. It's like asking me questions and telling me that you don't understand any language and therefore there's no way to answer you. Good luck to us all.
With God’s help
All my questions at the end of the message were based on your assumptions that there is logic, not on my assumptions.
so:
1. After all, intuition is at the basis of mathematics. Where is this found on the intellectual and logical plane?
2. Where is man's choice?
3. Why can God be above man and his mind, while there cannot be anything in man that is above his mind?
— And as for the ad hominem — everyone who disagrees with you is "although there are indeed some deranged people who think it is"
I don't think we need to speak like a Richard Dawkins-style restaurant critic.
And regarding quantum theory, if you have an explanation that does not contradict the law of non-contradiction, please present it.
The accepted interpretation does constitute a violation of this principle. Indeed, physicists who are only interested in physics ignore
From the philosophical conclusions of quantum theory, and physicists who do enter the philosophical part are indeed troubled by these questions, who arrive at quantum theory through logic and the moment they get there, they realize that logic is not valid there 🙂
As strange as it is to the human mind, but who can guarantee that it is the ultimate mind? It may be completely limited.
If you speak according to my logic, then there is no discussion. I've exhausted it.
As for my interpretation of quantum theory, this is not the place to do so. I'm just saying that it's not about philosophy, it's about mathematics. Therefore, it has nothing to do with being aware of philosophical aspects. A theory from which any conclusion can be drawn is not mathematically and scientifically consistent.
From my side, the summary of the discussion of your assumptions looks like this:
First argument:
1. There is logic.
2. Therefore there is logic
Second argument:
1. There is nothing above reason/emotion.
2. Therefore there is nothing above reason/emotion.
And as for the cases we see, there are things that contradict the assumptions of these two arguments, such as:
Quantum theory:
In the accepted interpretation, it contradicts the principle of non-contradiction (and the mathematics mentioned above does not help at all, since mathematics does not describe and explain more than what reality describes and explains, mathematics is just a language).
+ Logic and the problem of course is not in language but in the logical part of reality and which is reflected to the same extent
(also in mathematics)
Intuition:
As a basis for fundamental concepts in mathematics
Free choice:
As a root activity, it is not dependent on material.
And more,
The answer is – no answer, which is a shame.
May your strength be exalted.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer