And the truth will be absent.
Peace be upon you
A former student, now a department head, wrote to me [as far as I’m concerned, he’s the best among my students – very talented, a great teacher, and a kind person]
The attached materials and my short answer.
I am sending you the things because you have dealt with the issue before me and before.
Could you comment in a few lines [we understand the interest] and if you don’t have time, refer us to an article you wrote on the subject?
Regards
And with thanks
R. D. Shalom.
Even my little self, in my book Two Carts, proposed the Midrash of Chazal Besota: And if truth is absent – it will become herds of herds, about the postmodern-pluralistic period. There are many truths (herds of truths). Which essentially means that there is no truth in the classical and traditional sense, and from here we have arrived at the author’s interpretive proposal.
By the way, I cited a source for this from Maharal Netzach Yisrael, who wrote this to the Hadiya:
But ‘and the truth was absent’, meaning that the truth would be merely empty, for this reason he demanded and the truth was absent, that herds of herds should be made and it should be abandoned, lest it be said that the few would lie because of their inferiority, and it should not be said that the truth was abandoned only because they did not desire the truth, because this is not because it will not be found at all even among those who were called good, and it is about this that it is said that the truth was abandoned and the truth will not be found. And this matter is more of an inferiority, because if people, because they are not good, lie, there is no nullification of the truth from the world, only that people are not good and come to lie, and sometimes a person will be found to be truthful and not all will lie. But in the future, the truth will be removed from itself and not found in one person, only the whole person is false, and this is a great inferiority that the truth is not found from itself.
But the rest of his words are a longing for another era, for redemption, in which the truth will be present and not absent (in both senses). And I, the little one, wonder how this redemption will come (just like the same dispute between Rashi and Arul in the Sukkah, the root of Harediism and Zionism, regarding the descent of the Temple from heaven). If it comes to longing, I have nothing to say. Each one has his own realm of longing. Let him write poems for the shelf (or articles for the shelf, like this one). But for God, we need to bring about this redemption with our own hands (I mean the issue here, and not necessarily the building of the Temple). I try to do that in almost everything I write. The question is whether he is also willing to contribute to it, and now I will explain how.
It would be very interesting for me to hear more about the practical implications of this approach in the field of medicine, which he alludes to at the beginning. If he had written them down in an orderly manner with examples and analysis, it would have been a step towards advancing redemption (in the sense of the word). When people are shown the implications of their perceptions, it has a wonderful power to change opinions (even though it may seem dishonest on the surface, and in my opinion it is not), and as the saying goes, hearts are drawn to actions (in a borrowed sense, of course: when you see the practical implications, you realize that there is a problem with the theory, that is, with the abstract and theoretical assumptions).
Shalom Rabbenu.
Thank you for the quick answer Dr. I accepted your offer to bring the redemption closer with explanations. But the main thing is missing from the book. Can you write in short sentences what is the answer to the question of whether quantum theory and more proves that our basic intuition for the perception of reality is not always appropriate to reality? Is it possible to divide and say that our perception of morality or the basic perception that there is a Creator of the world and we have a connection to Him is true, or maybe as I wrote that since this is our clear intuition, what will happen to me if in a world that does not concern us, maybe it is wrong. It does not matter to me. I hope I phrased it correctly. I understand that your books discuss this. Can you write your arguments in a few sentences?
I no longer remember what the question was and what I wrote. So I will address what you wrote here.
First, I have really devoted several books to this matter. I will write briefly.
The fact that our intuition does not always correspond to reality is clear, and you do not need quantum theory for this. Has it ever happened to you that you turned out to be wrong in what you thought intuitively? It has happened to me more than once.
The problem begins when you take this conclusion too far, that is, you abandon trust in intuition. We have no more fundamental tool than it (both logical-philosophical logic and science, including quantum theory, are based on intuitions that we have).
Therefore, as long as no intuition has been proven to be wrong, my assumption is that it is true. It is true that there is never certainty, and therefore it is certainly appropriate to treat our intuitions and conclusions in general with skepticism. As we know, any person can be wrong, and all of humanity can be wrong. But one should not make the postmodern mistake of identifying uncertainty with doubt. Uncertainty means that claim X is not true with certainty (and this is true for any claim, perhaps even this claim itself). But that does not mean that it should not be adopted. It may be 80% true or something like that.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
