A basic lack of understanding in the book “True and Unstable”
Hello Rabbi,
I have already read parts 1-4 of your book, True and Unstable,
You argue there that in order to solve the basic questions of how we can understand the world, etc., we need to come to the understanding that we have intuition and that there is no reason to reject it anyway, that truth is not necessarily logical proof but rather reasonableness, etc., etc….
But I didn’t understand one small thing: how does intuition have the power to identify things that are external to us – for example, in nature?! Or is there a concept of induction?
You repeat there that this is a kind of intellectual recognition. But are they things that the mind rejects and that the mind has eyes towards the outside? How can the mind understand that there is a principle of induction? After all, it is not always alive! The only possible argument, as far as I understand, is to claim that it ‘sees’ the idea of the operating instructions of the universe, but clearly this is an answer that raises a slight laugh.
I would be happy if the Rabbi would explain this basic point.
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.
What does it mean that the mind sees? Where is it written in nature that the concept of induction exists, that the world will always continue the same? That the laws of nature are valid throughout the world and forever?
If this is not written, then the eyes of the mind are not a cognitive tool but a kind of ‘basic-calculator’ tool.
And if this is indeed written, the Rabbi is under the obligation of seeing to prove such a strange thing.
I proved it, and I already referred you. Read the book, and if you're not convinced, then don't. If there's a concrete argument, you can bring it.
I accept that what you mentioned about the laws of nature is apparently evidence,
but it is not clear to me how our mind can see that what has existed until today will continue to exist tomorrow? Where did it “read” this?
You assume that there is only “sight” in the eyes. But even the idealists have already wondered about that. How do you know that the eyes really reflect something out there? It turns out that we have other ways of “seeing”, not through the senses. What's the problem? You are looking for a sensory explanation for this sight and therefore you will not find it. But such a search assumes what is sought. Just as we have senses, we have intuition. These are facts that you either accept or not, but you will not find independent indications of it.
I agree that we do have a certain intuitive ability to recognize, for example, the understanding against idealists and solipsism that what we see does indeed exist in objective reality, etc.
But! The claim that there are intellectual cognitions towards the external world (and not towards the internal - the understanding that reality is objective, etc.) is very foreign to ordinary understanding. It is not clear that such a cumbersome explanation is preferable. (A priori null)
B. This requires assuming the reality of ideas as well. Which further complicates the claim.
Indeed. And these conclusions are required from the consideration of the laws of nature and from the perception (certainly intuitive) that moral laws are not subjective. These indications lead to conclusions that at first glance seem foreign, but they are required. You have to decide whether to give up on them or to give up on faith in the laws of nature and moral laws.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
