Root of existence
Hello Rabbi, a close friend of mine was diagnosed with schizophrenia. This led me to realize that my five senses are questionable and therefore any intellectual/emotional conclusion is questionable (since the information I receive with the help of the five senses is questionable).
In the context of faith – any intellectual claim (i.e., every creation has a creator) or emotional/experiential feeling {a Khazar king who dreamed of God} is questionable.
The only thing I am certain of is existence, even if the dimension in which I exist is not “real” in terms of reality, it exists in another way (such as a dream, imagination, etc.).
I tried to understand whether it is possible to get to the root of existence and prove that there is a beginning and a God, or whether it is impossible.
I thought about the concepts of beginning and time, whether time is something that exists on its own or not.
I read as much as I could find, but I still didn’t understand what the meaning of the word “nafka” was. We tend to combine the concepts of beginning and time. But, even if time had a beginning, maybe the beginning of existence doesn’t depend on it? (Maybe the world existed apart from time?)
In short, I’m confused. If the rabbi could direct me to some article (of yours) or some answer from which I can proceed, because I haven’t found a clear course of action.
I didn’t understand this conclusion. According to this, a friend who turned out to be blind should raise doubts in my mind about my eyesight. In my opinion, the conclusion is the opposite: if we define a schizophrenic, it means that there is a healthy person. Otherwise, we are all schizophrenics or there are no schizophrenics at all.
I didn’t understand your questions about beginning and time.
We have five senses and they are the ones that provide us with ‘information’, from this information we experience (emotion) or draw conclusions (mind)
Examples:
1. The mind starts working only after it ‘receives’ information from the world’. I cannot understand anything from anything and reach conclusions if I have not heard it or read it.
2. Emotion - a person experiences only after he receives from the world. I see a beautiful woman and then I am stimulated.
However, the information I receive from the world changes depending on the nature of my five senses.
A blind person – does not see (does not receive information through the sense of sight)
A color-blind person – sees one thing
A person ‘like me – sees colors that a color-blind person does not see.
A schizophrenic patient – sees a different reality (sometimes completely)
As I said above, my five senses precede reason and emotion. If the information I receive changes according to the nature of my senses, it means that the conclusions will also be different.
More than that – the five senses cannot indicate the objective truth of what I see (I see a table, but in fact there are atoms here. Maybe we are all schizophrenics and imagining something that does not exist at all?)
It turns out that no intellectual or emotional claim can indicate the existence of any truth because all the information I feed on can change and can be wrong. I will never know. So if I want to find out if there is an entity that runs the world, I cannot know either, because everything is questionable.
So I was left with only existence, and therefore I am trying to find out whether it is possible to arrive at the fact that there is a root to existence/life (and not to arrive at it from an intellectual understanding, which is questionable. I thought I would say that everything that is included within ‘life’ is considered adapted to them, at least in a general way. And if all life thinks or feels, it shows that the tools are correct in a certain way.
That is, like all humans experience and speak in common, and it shows that something is true. Of course, it can always be challenged because it is not strong enough, in my opinion).
Nothing to do with schizophrenia. You are simply troubled by ordinary skeptical questions. Who said that what I experience or think is true. There is and cannot be an answer to that.
But if this is your starting point, I do not understand the rest of your words. You continue to search with your mind for possibilities to bypass reason? Why would you believe them? And even if you do, who said that your beliefs can be believed?
And all the points you have formulated here, you have arrived at them with your mind.
In short, you must decide whether you are a skeptic and then keep quiet, or not and then there is no problem.
1. The rabbi connects experience with thinking, and then, as I understand it, tries to claim that a person is incapable of not thinking, because even thinking that he is right is thinking... and as much as you do not trust it, you cannot conclude anything from it. So anyway, as much as you want to blind yourself by virtue of thinking, this is also a problematic conclusion. And the right thing to do is to remain silent.
But his question, as I understand it (following the second message), was related only to the experience and the thinking derived from it. Not to the actual thinking in which he gives trust due to the necessity of the correlation of the facts...
2.
Isn't this related to the Mufti's column 247, a disagreement with colleagues?
3.
I don't think that someone who experiences schizophrenia completely does not trust his senses, but rather it is a kind of intermediate reality, he adds understandings and things about his senses. The fact that he was your friend. It is not entirely
who claims to be arbitrary. So it's not completely a counter-dog. And it sounds to me like it's much easier to deal with it. And maybe someone who sees the *opposite* completely isn't a counter-dog either, but evidence of the philosophers' chestnut :).
4. Rabbi, in your opinion, how can a person who is schizophrenic or, let's say, imagines an eighth sense and everyone tells him that it's imagination, etc., accept their words? After all, he can never be skeptical of himself according to your words...
But it sounds like there are people who are willing to go to psychological therapy and not just because of social pressure or forced therapy. And on the other hand, maybe this is a sign that they themselves are doubtful about it.
But how can someone who certainly experiences an eighth sense abandon it? For the sake of discussion, let's assume that on a real level it is indeed a false sense.
It was the connection to schizophrenia that made me realize that my instrument of acceptance was lacking.
This is exactly the point I'm starting from - if everything is in doubt, why would you decide to talk about anything?
And suppose you do things like you do everything else in life, although everything can be satisfactory.
But when it comes to things like fighting for the truth, how can you do that? Kill people?
After all, everything starts with satisfactory
I thought about it again,
You said “You are simply troubled by ordinary skeptical questions. Who said that what I experience or think is true. There is no and cannot be an answer to that”.
The definition of true is always relative to the dimension you are in. It is like saying that the world of imagination is ‘not real’, that is wrong. The world of imagination is not real in the world of reality and is real in the world of imagination.
So if you meant to say that I am troubled by ’whether what I experience or think is *objectively* true’ – then no, I am not troubled by that. I know that what I experience or think is subjective.
I will indeed never know what is objectively true, but you have sharpened my understanding that it simply does not matter. Because as I said above ‘true’ is relative to the particular dimension. And if we add to the equation the subjective tools, namely the five senses, that I have to receive information from the world – then we are talking about my plane within the dimension of reality.
Therefore, the fact that there is a different view than mine, does not mean that I am wrong. (That in the laboratory the table is seen as atoms) It simply means that I see on a certain plane (a normal human eye) and they see on a different plane (a laboratory eye).
So the information is correct on my plane and since it is my only information tool, I will choose to use it. And that is the answer.
I really don't understand what the discussion is about (if there is one at all). If you don't doubt, don't doubt, and if you are satisfied, be satisfied (there is no answer to that). That's all.
The question is how a schizophrenic person is supposed to relate to the opinions of his friends who tell him that he is imagining? I touched on this here before regarding the mathematician Nash (in the book/film The Marvelous Mind). I have no answer except the one I wrote to you: If he accepts, he will accept, and if not, then no. I have never experienced what he is experiencing, so I don't know what to say to him.
Regarding the doubts, there is an answer to that as I detailed above.
Thanks anyway
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
