Beit Midrash “Apikors Lishma” under the presidency of Rabbi Michael Avraham

Salmanowitz, your assessment and its loss are certainly fascinating and significant topics for all of us (although of course not like the question of whether you, in your true sense of taste, prefer pickles in vinegar or salt), but rather now you will be able to judge the arguments on their merits without the common ad hominem bias. Assessment helps (only) not to reject outright arguments that on a superficial reading seem flawed, and then in trying to clarify for yourself the flaw in the argument you discover that it is actually solid or at least leads to sharpening definitions, diagnoses and insights. In my experience, the best arguments seem, at first glance, to be absurd on their face. In a way that when I feel the feeling of absurdity rising in me quickly, then I know that this is a good opportunity to think and formulate my opinion in an orderly manner and perhaps reconsider and correct it. If it is indeed absurd, then it is easy to sharpen and focus the absurdity and then forget about the matter. When you declare a loss of appreciation, then apart from an excited announcement to the nation about your rating of personalities in the world, the meaning (according to my hypothesis) is that you declare that you will not bother to think or respond to arguments on the site. And there is, of course, no harm in that.

I may have met three smart people in my life like Michael Avraham, the logic, the thorough analysis, he exhausts the arguments while leaving his opponent with his tongue out.
I simply fell in love with the man and his opinions.
But from post to post (especially as he began to receive wider exposure and many entries to the blog) I began to feel how he was confusing us and taking us all to a dance of demons with idle arguments that if he himself wanted to catch the other side, he would do it better than all of us.
You can see a little of his article in Let's Make a Noise, where he basically conveys a hidden/overt message about how sometimes we can be confused by idle discussions full of nonsense with a lot of content that means nothing. (I identify with his message) But exactly what he did in Let's Make a Noise, you can definitely see in Michael Avraham how he is confusing us.
(This is without regard to the matters of pure heresy that He imparts to us morning and evening. I especially disliked the political columns that He wrote)
The absurd claims He made in His posts would have been raised by any of His critics. He would have turned us around and turned us around.
He does not strive for the truth, he strives for noise to occupy Himself with (He enjoys being attacked more than anything - attack me, the main thing is to talk to me!) He is a man of provocations.

This is definitely not the same Michael Avraham as he was seven years ago (when his videos began to be uploaded on YouTube, where he looked and sounded honest, genuine, and wise. Today he is wiser, not dishonest, nor genuine)

And just to clarify: I haven't voted for any party for nearly 14 years (let's not start a company here to complain that I was harmed in the name of my representation in the Knesset)

You say nothing. You just make empty declarations. Give examples of mixed claims of the above type that support your claims and then there will be some weight to what you wrote. If you don't do this, you are just being a slanderer.
The fact that the rabbi represents Ifka apparently does not prove that he is looking for a fast. This may be an expected result since all of us do not think clearly, as no one sees anything but the reflections of his heart.
Formulate something relevant or save us all, and especially yourself, from embarrassment.
Interestingly enough, Spinoza writes at the beginning of a theological and political article that a person defends his positions with the same tools with which he bases them. So if your positions are supported by the same tools with which you criticized the rabbi, you are in a very bad situation.

Salmanovitz, write less about what you met and loved and felt and voted for, and write more arguments to the point. This is not an autobiography here and not a study of roots. Try to point out in a reasoned manner one argument (or two or three) that is fundamentally flawed (as opposed to the fact that your opinion, by chance or not, is different and you have objections) and that it is the body – as opposed to formulations here and there – in your assessment, it was written for a single person named Provo in the name of Ketzia Yehuda Shalim (and how can we know what the writer's motivations are?), and let us judge for ourselves the credibility of your theory and generalization. It is amazing to see that after you went through all the columns on the site with your words, you still missed the second central thread that runs through them all: a commitment to orderly reasoning and a clear and exhaustive vote on the way to reaching a conclusion.

I am not the one asking, but I will give you a quote from the last columns.
For example, regarding the issue of the Grail Shteinman Ztuk.

I really like Michi's thinking, learn a lot from him and am impressed by his rare brilliance and sharpness. On the contrary, I think there are very few philosophers today (most are researchers) and Michi is a true philosopher. I was humbled by him. Having said all this, there is one thing true in our friend's complaint. Michi does tend to “mix up” us sometimes. I feel it again and again in our debates (I don't need to give examples, they are abundant in these correspondences).
However, our friend here is a bit over the top in my opinion in his criticism.
The ”mixing up” from Michi's school does not stand alone. It is accompanied by a tremendous effort on his part (even if he sometimes fails) to demonstrate intellectual honesty. Sometimes he simply doesn't succeed.

Specifically regarding you, Doron, I actually feel that if you are already the one confusing the readers. If you choose an example debate in which you participated, I will try to demonstrate (if I do indeed think so about it) the problematic nature.

I fear that much of the feeling described here is felt due to the rabbi's behavior, which sometimes borders on rudeness.
And since we were educated on the merits of the sages, we have a hard time with this.
Maybe it's just a strict Beit Shammai, but sometimes it gives bad feelings.
In my opinion, if Rabbi Michael were a little more careful about respecting the dictations that respond and ask questions, except when there is no choice, of course, we would all be better off.

Homunculus, I think you got a little confused (“got mixed up”?). The claimant made a claim against Miki's conduct, not against me, and I, the little one, partially agreed with it.
If you have an opinion on the subject, be respectful and express it.
I don't even understand what you get from the opinions of a personless person like me, even if he really is “mixing up”.

Exemption for nothing is impossible. I have written a lot here about the Torah model from heaven and its shortcomings (see The Status of the Torah in Possible Worlds) and in my opinion Miki's responses were not relevant. Maybe you will succeed where he failed and correct me for my mistakes.
Sha Bracha

Doron, since you partially joined in and even volunteered, unlike the first honorable claimant, Yerom Hodo, to finally issue an example that you can sink your teeth into, I volunteered to examine the example (based on my casual impressions).
Assuming that you did not come here just to make statements about your impressions to the audience that follows your Instagram stories, but also to provide a factual basis on which they are based, it seems only natural to me to reproduce the experiment and check whether your conclusions are valid.
To refute your mixing hypothesis, it is not necessary to put you on your mistakes (if there are any), but only to check whether the most likely explanation for Michael Avraham not being able to agree with your opinion on the subject or convince you (what you call for some reason a “failure”) is mixing and evasion.
Of course, I may also agree with your opinion, as in many other disputes in which I disagree with Michael Avraham's opinion. Many times I discussed with him and he finally signed that in his opinion my words were strange or nonsense, etc. Do I see this as a "mixing"? No. That is his opinion (and out of respect for it, I think twice before deciding not to accept it). In his opinion, the reasons were sufficient and what I claimed did not change anything significant or require a response and he sees no point in further pressing the issue as a willow stake, and in my opinion, probably, at least in cases where I was not convinced, my claims were more successful. So what?

Regarding the example you gave – "The Status of the Torah in Possible Worlds" – I found this link: https://tinyurl.com/umqrtbd. You wrote there that this question was based on previous discussions, but I did not find them (please provide a link). I have read the discussion now (and I read it at the time). If you would like to go into detail with me – please. If not – then here is the story I am posting in response to my Instagram: the answers there were excellent in my opinion.

Exemption for nothing is impossible, so I will write briefly. [Of course, I only represent myself and it is certainly possible that what I describe as Michael Avraham's opinion is not in line with his own opinion]. In a completely different world, God might give a different Torah, but in the current world (there is room for the argument that, and for the sake of the matter, let's assume the argument that) the Torah is necessary. So far agreed.
Now there is a separate question whether the Torah “reveals” to us its opinion on the subject or whether it “claims” that it is necessary in all worlds. Even if our Torah does indeed say so (this is something that has not been clarified), it is still quite possible that in another world, God could give a different Torah, and that Torah could of course also reveal its opinion that it is necessary in all worlds. The fact that in a particular world it is necessary to give a certain Torah does not mean that this Torah is necessary in all worlds, even if in this particular Torah it is claimed that it is indeed necessary in all worlds.
If a certain logical argument is necessary in all worlds, then indeed in all worlds it will be necessary in all worlds. In the Torah, or in any other source of commandments, this is not so. I understand that even up to this point it is agreed (although perhaps the distinction between logical arguments and Torah is not agreed upon?).
From here on out it is difficult for me to distill a distinct argument from what you wrote there (below). If you bother to do it again here, after you express your opinion on whether you agree with my summary of what is agreed upon, then I will try to address it.

1. Okay, I understand that you have never encountered a case where Meki tries to denigrate his interlocutor..? I believe you, that is your impression. Really, Meki in most cases maintains a rare intellectual integrity (not cynically). I did encounter one.

2. I still don't understand what benefit you derive by investing so many resources in the ”thoughts”of a mediocre thinker like me. Isn't it a waste of your time?
3. The example I gave in the same place where Meki tried, to my impression, to smear me was regarding the Torah. I pulled it from memory and now that I delve deeper into it, I see that it is not clear. In the next response I will give you a better example.
4. So even in this less successful example, there is a denigration coefficient that is too high for my taste (certainly when it comes from someone I so highly value).
I will also present it in a separate response so that they can see and be seen.

Doron, look, you stated your ‘impression’, you were asked to provide an example (hoping for the strongest example you could find), and you did provide one. Upon examination, it turned out (which I think, and you even admitted to a certain extent) that this example does not in any way substantiate the ‘impression’. That is to say (that for me) the statement of impression is completely worthless. And this is exactly why I asked for an example: making statements is easy (and worthless), standing behind the statements and justifying them is difficult (and very valuable), and in many cases it turns out that the statement is just a subjective and unconvincing judgment that is presented without the reasons in order to convince beyond what it deserves.

To be a little more blunt, in my opinion, the mixing coefficient in the example you gave is a round zero. The coefficient of shuffling and insistence, on the other hand, is not wading in zero water at all. The musing in question really does not interest me in itself (and in my opinion everything written there was either incorrect or trivial) but serves only as a platform for testing the ‘impression’ (which is interesting), and also led to a warning against the proliferation of statements that lack any cover for any spirit.

I did not indeed encounter a slander. In my opinion, what was written is truly representative. Even for me as a questioner/talkbacker, there have been cases in which after one response I responded that the discussion had been exhausted, while in my opinion it had not been exhausted (and therefore I was not convinced. Sometimes I think that this is his final opinion on the subject, and sometimes I reflect to myself that I think if he had thought about it more, he would have been convinced of my rightness, but of course there is nothing unique about this, and it is likely that this is exactly what everyone else thinks about everyone else he debates with). Sometimes, a few other colorful superlatives of criticism were also added, and the special (and typical) point is that the superlatives also carry information and help to understand the respondent's opinion (or help me focus the directions of my repeated thinking). It is clear that one cannot expect a person to voluntarily give private lessons here to every requester until the requester himself confirms the exhaustion of the discussion.

I am a little embarrassed to stand on a person's site and conduct a discussion about himself and even under a pseudonym, but necessity will not be tolerated, and perhaps soon the editor of the site will quickly drown this entire unusual thread in chaos, fulfilling what was said: I covered the abyss over him and stopped its rivers, and measured a thousand streams that I could not cross. A person comes and allocates his knowledge and his analytical ability to certain episodes for the benefit of the whole, for free, there is no money, and in my opinion, people do not use a donated resource with due frugality. I do expect the moderator here, especially if it is prolonged, to think twice and formulate twice before consuming the service offered (although perhaps others will think that I myself do not always meet this requirement). Such willingness and patience to answer all questions (even an answer of “I don't know” is an answer) – some questions that are the same lady who also comes with the same coat over and over again; some are throwing the tail of a wrinkled glove into the arena and expecting the respondent to draw the entire map and considerations himself like a dog chasing a flying saucer; some are trivial chatter; some are a towering tower of assumptions blooming in the air that is signed with declarations; and some, of course, are worthy of the name – is something unique. Others simply do not put their own patience or willingness to the test and do not answer publicly (or at all) except selected questions.

In any case, this is the last time I offer my Gaviha-Ben-Pessa services here. From now on, if the owner of the bull wishes, he can stand up for his bull himself.

You're jumping to conclusions so quickly that it seems to me that you didn't read or internalize what I said in my last response and that you already have firm conclusions about what I said. I explicitly wrote that even my weak example has some substance and it will be presented below (along with a more definitive example). A little patience…

Debate on the third law of avoidance (although I asked a more general question, but the discussion narrowed down to this matter). It is recommended to go to the end of the discussion and to the references that I allegedly found for my claims in Miki himself.

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94

Debate on the perception of Leibowitz
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA- %D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A5-%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%96

A debate on the conceptual status of space in general relativity:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2

Homunculus,

I do not claim that the Torah explicitly “reveals” its opinion to us in the text and says that it is necessary in all worlds. No, I claim that our intellect, observing the theological model that Judaism offers us, is the one that reveals this to us. Especially the intellect used by those who hold a synthetic denominator position.

Ask yourself what the most basic fundamental fact that the Torah reveals to us. My answer is the very fact that it was given at Sinai, of course by God. Now ask yourself how the Torah “educates” us to recognize this fundamental fact? In other words: what is the Torah's preferred “epistemic channel” for us to recognize God and His involvement in history? My answer: The channel that is currently before us, i.e. the text. In any case, according to the Torah, our intuitions should not determine this matter (although I am not saying that the Torah completely eliminates them).

From here, the path to the instillation and cultivation of the analytical norm is short: whenever a theological dilemma arises before us about whom to choose (our intuition on the one hand, or the text and the tradition that relies on it on the other), we are, according to Judaism, first and foremost committed to the text.

And how does this relate to the necessary status of the Torah in all possible worlds? Very simply, the analytical model strives to base everything on logic (in fact, on tautologies). In order to succeed in this, it must deny the existence of the intuitive human ability to obtain content separate from it (objects, meanings, etc.). In the absence of separate contents - such as the content of the concept “God” - from the information that carries them, it becomes only an empty form and is therefore necessary. The Torah, insofar as it is a text that carries “information”, guides us to interpret that information as empty of content.

To this I mention that I added one example, quite famous and quite successful from a historical perspective… of a theological model that is slightly more synthetic than the one offered by Judaism. In any case, you will understand that even if the main point of my argument is philosophical, it can be provided with some support from current reality.

My suspicion is that Simchi understands everything I wrote here perfectly. In addition, he certainly understands that if he wants to be consistent in his synthetic approach (which is correct and rational in my opinion), he should have tried to analyze this theological model in a similar way, that is, to examine whether it meets the criterion of syntheticity. On the contrary, in my opinion, a central part of his entire enterprise is precisely this - to analyze the failures of Jewish tradition and restore some common sense to it. It is not for nothing that his critics “on the right” claim against him that there is only about a step between his path and the path of heresy in Judaism. I think that on this point they are certainly right (but unlike them, I think that the ”heresy” they attribute to him is a positive thing and that he should really move in its direction).

Finally, “Little Man” (As you know, this is the meaning of the nickname you chose for yourself) I would like to deeply apologize to you for the fact that, in parallel with the abundance of praise I showered on Miki, I also dared to claim (with examples and reasons) that here and there he is not only wrong but also whitewashes. I know that there is not much to expect from a Jew as ignorant as I am, but apparently this time even I have filled the void.
Forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness.

Examples are excellent and I respect you for standing up and supporting your argument. I understand that you were unable (rightly) to find “meat” in the previous example you gave regarding Torah in possible worlds, and therefore my conclusion regarding the discussion there still stands. Although I declared that I would not continue on this matter, I am ready and willing to break my word for the benefit of the matter. *With a trivial clarification that I am here only as a pedant and nothing more. If I was right, cheers, and if not, the error depends only on me*.

In conclusion – regarding logic, I think you complained for nothing; regarding Leibowitz, I think you made good arguments (and received excellent answers, but I will try to repeat them); I did not delve into space and time.

*Logic*
I read the entire long discussion. What do I say and what will I say? Labor pains hold me like the cords of a woman in labor, like the fish of the sea clinging to a fortress. And I read about myself a scripture that says (Numbers 33:24) And they traveled from Mount Shepher and camped in fear. If that discussion is in your eyes an example of his deceit towards you, then I wonder and am amazed at his deceit. May my soul die the death of the upright and may my end be like his.
I have never seen a more kind and demanding answer than: “You have not defined what dichotomies are. You have not shown how the three laws of thought stand on it (that is, how they can be derived from one principle that you called dichotomies), and until you have done so, there is no point in the discussion”. If without a clear answer to this, you accuse him of deceit, then remove a toothpick from your teeth and an entire forest of Lebanese cedars from your eyes. I think I have the ability to explain everything that is written there in the answers, but Schottenstein himself is also Schottenstein to Schottenstein and others.

A good start would be to give an explanation for the sentence you wrote: “In logic, the first law (tautology) swallows up the existence of the second law (contradiction). The third law that is avoided is nothing more than a combination of the first and second laws”. So much for your language.
“A contradiction contradicts a tautology” This means that if a certain claim is a contradiction, then it is not a tautology. The claim “Proposition A is both a contradiction and a tautology” is itself a contradiction. The claim “If proposition A is a contradiction, then it is not a tautology” It is a tautology (perhaps here we should actually assume the rule of inference modus ponens. In the background, the rules of inference are Ain Godel, Asher Bach, Lewis Carroll, etc.). This does not mean in any way that every claim in the world is either a contradiction or a tautology. For example, a claim like A is B (the ball is green) is neither a contradiction nor a tautology.
The third law of inference essentially states that a double negation is the same as an affirmation (A is the same as No not A) and there is no problem of *consistency* in omitting this law. Consistency means that it is not possible in the inference system to arrive at two contradictory claims (it is not possible to arrive at the claim A and also to arrive at the claim Not A).

Regarding your attempt to find a problem of *consistency* in multivalued logic, it is difficult for me to elaborate because I do not know this logic well enough (it was not in the syllabus in the logic course, what can I do). In any case, it was only cited there as a *counterexample* that proves that your claim (which was not defined) is incorrect. It seems that you claimed that there is a certain principle – what you called dichotomy and claimed that it is equivalent to the three laws – whose acceptance *entails* all three laws of logic that you mentioned, and its non-acceptance *entails* the negation of all three laws of logic that you mentioned. To refute this, it is enough to point to a consistent theory in which one of the three laws does not hold, even without understanding your claim or explaining why it is incorrect. Whether this consistent theory is correct or not is a completely different matter that is not logic.

*Leibovitz*
I read the comments now (I was familiar with the article itself). In this case, I actually think that *maybe* I will be able to explain what Michi said to you better than he himself did there. You basically claimed there that if values are objectively true, then they are facts in the world and there is no distinction between facts and these values. And if they are not objectively true, then the “will” to choose them is nothing but arbitrariness [read and forget that this is a fair summary of your claims there. Or correct me]. What good claims.
The answer is that values are spiritual facts that exist and there is a difference between them and physical facts. Spiritual facts are identified and judged with different tools than physical tools. The naturalistic fallacy in our view applies to physical facts, and so does the ability to prove (as distinct from convincing) spiritual facts. The will to choose them (and obey them) is not arbitrary, just as any other free choice is not arbitrary, even though it is not reasoned. There is still room for further discussion on this subject in several respects (including the relationship between decision and recognition, especially if you have read Two Carts and Man as Hay), but I think what I have written here is sufficient. Do you agree?

You sent your previous response about the Torah while I was typing my previous response (about logic and Leibowitz) and so I didn't see it. Forgive me, but here I join the team of cover-ups and sketching and withdraw from this discussion. I didn't understand how a sentence connects to a sentence there. Perhaps your thoughts went so deep that my mind was exhausted from reaching them.

Apology and forgiveness from whom and for what? I don't think Michael Avraham himself is wasting his time reading the tedious length here (my fault), and what is there to apologize to me for? (I definitely think you should apologize to him if he actually had the chance to read what you wrote). If you convincingly justify your claims, then you are also entitled to claim that I myself am a cold, stupid toad, and I certainly won't stand in your way if you argue about others. I have no emotional influences in this discussion and I am here mainly because, as I mentioned above, I resent the poor use, in my opinion, that people make of a resource that was donated so graciously.

I must say that I too went through a similar process!
At first everything seemed shiny, but later it really became noticeable that they were looking for provocations here ((It is difficult to reissue a truly successful and worth-reading column every week, most of the topics have long been exhausted and therefore are dragged into bad places)

Homunculus, judging by the extent of your indignation at the poor use of resources, you seem to have a very developed social consciousness. Truly an exemplary citizen.
I am afraid that I am a much less good person and citizen than you and in any case I probably do not have the same sensitivities.
Since I am also petty by nature, I will consider addressing your misunderstandings about my own arguments in the future.
Sha Bracha

Addressing failures is not petty.

Doron, you are the one who is confusing things, not Rabbi Michi (perhaps Rabbi Michi as well). It is true that the halakha is structured in a very analytical way, but its object – i.e. reality – is very synthetic. Therefore, alongside the analytical scholars, there are always the synthetic poskim who compare matter to matter and decide which law applies to it. And it is known that poskim generally have common sense that does not stem from the analytical perspective but rather from the synthetic perspective on reality. Part of the problem of ultra-Orthodox Judaism today stems from the disconnection from reality as a result of a conscious decision to shut oneself away in yeshivas, but that does not mean that Judaism is categorically out of touch with reality or without synthetic ability.

In addition, I would like to apologize for once teasing you inappropriately. Forgive me.

This whole thread feels like the darknet of Rabbi Michi's website. So after all the chatter – protest. Salmanovitz, you are hosted on a website designed to provide answers to halachic and faith-related questions, and what bothers you is Rabbi Michi's “heresy”. Let's assume that's the case. I am more repelled by the heresy against God that allows such behavior under the guise of a dispute for the sake of God. You are allowed to apologize – even to the one who caused the doubt that you are mistaken in your considerations towards him. Otherwise, and I write this in all seriousness – you are also really similar to everything you criticized. It is immoral and disgusting to enter a field that is not yours and vomit criticism and whitewashing personally and publicly, all in the name of the Torah. If this is not heresy, I do not know what is.

P.S. The writer of these lines greatly appreciates Rabbi Michi and at the same time disagrees with many of his assumptions and conclusions. I do not promise that I will not go head-on into him when necessary – but in the important difference between “Vahav Sof” and “Oriyta, he is exactly Martacha Bay” – in the bad sense of the word.

May it be so.

gil
In Bactria he lost his manners, or in Rome he behaved like a Roman, I also greatly appreciate the skills of Rabbi Michi, but with a touch of virtue, in…

Dear Y.D. (Are you the same Y.D. who is here regularly?)
It seems to me that you have not addressed the issue I am dealing with at all. I attribute “analyticity” to the Pentateuch itself, that is, to the model that the Pentateuch offers (the possibility of a Torah from heaven).
You are talking about scholars who decide, but that is irrelevant to my arguments.

By the way, as I hinted earlier, I have the impression that a deep and broad part of Judaism is infected with analytical thinking patterns and that it is precisely Miki who is making heroic efforts
to weed them out. That does not mean that it is not infected here and there with the same “disease”.

So I promised some pettiness (from the inexhaustible abundance I have), so here it is.

The Third Law of Avoidance:
First of all, it is not clear to me why you (Homunculus) referred to the discussion of dichotomies. I explicitly wrote that I was “disgusted” only with the part dealing with the third rule of avoidance.

Here I have 3 points to criticize Michi’s words:

1. I brought something that seems to me to be a reference for my words from a renowned logician from Duplin (Suszek). As far as I understand, Suszek makes a fundamental philosophical claim (and not just a technical logical argument) in which he expresses the same fundamental position that I expressed. In his opinion, it is possible to reduce multi-valued logic to two-valued logic. Hence, the idea that multi-valued logic is consistent is an inconsistent idea in itself (it itself relies on two-valued dichotomous thinking). The very idea that there is a multi-valued logic at all is called “madness” by Suszko.
I would be happy if you or any of the readers would correct me and say that I did not understand his words.

2. I have brought a host of references from Michi’s own words in which he supposedly says exactly everything that I argued against him in this discussion.
Again, if someone can explain to me that I did not understand what I am quoting, I would be grateful.

3. Finally, a substantive and substantive argument of my own (to the best of my limited abilities): I argued that anyone who decides to reject the Third Law of Avoidance seriously and consistently will have to do so with respect to the entirety of all claims in the world. In any case, he must also apply this with respect to the claim that the Third Law of Avoidance is not necessary.
If I am correct so far, it turns out that those who advocate this claim (like Lukashevich) hold a problematic position. I raised this problem with Mikhi and he, in an attempt to save the person who made the claim, argued that ”this means that if you prove that this claim is not true, you have not yet proven that it is false, but that perhaps it has a third truth value (for example: not fixed, paradoxical, etc.).”
In response, I replied that the cure he offers for the difficulty I raised is worse than the disease. Those who claim to advocate (like Lukashevich, and Mikhi supports him in this regard) for a ”truth” that is “not fixed or paradoxical” have the burden of proof to explain their intention. What is that “truth”…?

As mentioned, the important part for people of my type and level is the petty and narrow-minded preoccupation with the apparent mistakes of other people. However, on the margins of the discussion I find no small interest in the question of the unavoidable third and in the philosophical and metaphysical foundations of logic. I have a feeling that there is a deep connection between this matter and the “Michi” division between analytic and synthetic. I would be happy if Michi would deal with this in the future.

On the other achievements - later.

From the many possibilities I come up with to understand what each person is saying and what each person understood in the other person's words, my phone is broken. Maybe there really is an insight (some, or new) in what you wrote, I don't know anymore.

I referred to dichotomies because you use the avoided third as a way to prove your claim about dichotomies. Are you saying that every claim can only have one of two values, true or false (as Pesita suggested), and then you claim that the correctness of the three laws (tautology, contradiction, and the avoided third) is a natural consequence of thinking (and that's why you chose these laws)?

1. I didn't understand what Suszko was trying to do (and I suspect you didn't either). Maybe I'll try to delve into it only if it's the last point in the argument.
2. The references say that indeed every claim judged by reason is either true or false. The claim that a certain verse has a truth value X is either true or false. If this reflexive claim is put *into* the inference system, then it can again accept any of the possible truth values in the system (and in the mind of this nested claim it will have a binary truth value).
3. Rejecting the Law of the Third Averted can be just like that (it is simply pulled out of the inference system, without justifying it), and can rely on the fact that there are more than two possible truth values for each claim. Are you asking what comes to mind of someone who says that the negation of the negation of a claim is not a proof of the claim? There is no point in pointing out paradoxes here, but a simple question about the very novelty of that opinion. I did not understand what you found special in asking this question about the Law of the Third Averted itself. I do not understand multivalued logic, but I do understand that there are formal inference systems that do not use the Law of the Third Averted, and I am not sure I understood whether and what you are claiming about it. The Law of the Third Averted is not a law in the system, just as the Law of the Green Balls is not a law in the system. I don't see any circularity here.

I have long suspected that Mikhi is a disguised Epicurus.
What reasonable person would believe that God does not intervene, does not give reward and punishment either in this or that world, does not prepare the world for redemption, and at the same time gives man the duty to die and not to transgress his commandments?
In the language of psychologists, I would say that Mikhi subconsciously does not believe in God at all, and because of his frustration (and in modern terms: jealousy and disappointment) that others do believe and cannot free themselves from their childish image, he invented a new religion for himself in which he can keep the commandments, while in reality he believes in a philosophical god from the Middle Ages (and it is very likely that this is explained by the fact that he wants to appear wiser and more noble than others and at the same time say: I can keep the commandments just like you).
This is also the reason that instead of working on his own qualities (which need improvement) and his love for Israel and humanity (which does not exist in him at all), he prefers to watch sports and read. Books by anti-Semitic philosophers like Kant
Has Miki ever tried going to a psychologist?
I am sure that after he explains to you that it is perfectly fine to undergo a transformation and change your lifestyle even at the age of 60, you will be able to bring us the next book in the trilogy
that will explain to us about the religion of pure reason from your masters and teachers in Western culture. You will explain to us that the initial existence of God is indeed very possible - but the pure rational move after
that he does not intervene today as you have already proven to us in the past - indicates that his command is supposed to be categorical and universal, more ritualistic, probably an occupation with the life of the Walker, the study of nature
there you will try again to upgrade Judaism to an even more rational version. There is no revelation today, so there probably was not in the past either. The existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the prophets is claimed to be explained as great philosophers who through reason reached very great insights, but you do not buy the stories of their miracles and prophecy. A person can be mistaken and the revelation was not divine at all, but their hypothesis.

The commandments with you will be perceived as binding even today. Simply because we have pledged to uphold them and it is reasonable to assume that God wants every nation in the world to worship Him in some way
But the irrelevant halacha?
We will change
From now on, we do not pray because God does not answer prayers
Study Torah alongside other philosophical and scientific books - the essence of worship of God!
Maintaining contact? Not relevant today
Prohibition of meat and milk? Not relevant
We should relax the observance of niddah out of respect for human beings
And of course there is no need for primitive things like giving a woman a divorce
And having sex with a man? A prohibition that is not relevant today

We should also recognize the value of autonomy - pagan religions like Islam and Hinduism are also important philosophies, so why not respect this and open up these options to the boy? Maybe this is what God wants for him?

Our Ishmaelite brothers have generally succeeded in reaching a unified faith like us. The Quran will be considered canon in the Holy Library.

Pagan religions like Christianity and Hinduism sorry
Muhammad was a philosopher no less important than Moses

And I hope you understand that I am being cynical ..but don't be surprised if a response like this comes soon in earnest

There is satire that puts a magnifying glass on a correct point, and there is satire that simply reveals a lack of understanding and superficiality. Claims like “the prohibition of meat and milk is irrelevant” or referring to the granting of a divorce as something primitive are in no way related to the other claims, and they simply float in the air. Every isolated action in the world is primitive if one does not consider its motives. There is nothing primitive about treating a relationship as a metaphysical bond that can only be severed through a certain procedure, on the contrary.

Hi
The word primitive is indeed misspelled but I think there is a connection - if the form is just a philosophy book for trying to worship God correctly, prohibitions written from the service of philosophies that do not match modern times - it is likely that there is no point in keeping them

Indeed, a not so successful satire but I had to

Torah*

Where is the relevance to modern life? The reason for keeping the commandments today is exactly the same reason the sages had: because it is a commandment, and it has metaphysical or physical reasons that are not necessarily known to us. Interpretation that expands or limits the scope of a particular commandment beyond what appears from a simplistic reading of the text is something that has been done throughout the ages, all the time. The “not so successful” satire reflects the fact that you have one big lump of butter in your mouth from all those who do not fully accept the common Orthodox position.
Let me put it this way, why do you think a woman should be given a divorce, and why do you think that its repeal is somehow a continuation of Michael Avraham’s views? (I think, by the way, that in his books he actually gives a theoretical basis for “essential” explanations of the laws and commandments.)

I made 3 small comments and answered them, but I didn't find what I was looking for in your answer.

1. Regarding Soszek's view: I don't understand the logical-technical issue and I don't pretend to understand. That's not what the discussion is about.
At the same time, he has, as far as I understand, a relatively simple philosophical statement about logic and specifically about the law of the avoided third. He claims that any attempt to deviate from traditional binary logic is made on a binary “substrate” itself.
Very simple in my opinion.
Whoever denies this (binary) truth, condemns his “truth” - that is, his claim that it is possible to deviate from binary - to the status of “unstable or paradoxical”, as Michi says.
It seems to me that everyone understands that if someone expresses a position that, even in their own opinion, is logically "unconsistent or paradoxical", the burden of proof is on them to clarify their intention.
2. Regarding the references I cited from Mikhi: There is a simple yes or no question here. And that is what you have to decide. In these things, does Mikhi contradict the position he expressed in his argument with me or not? If so, then that is what I have been claiming all along. If not, then why not (reason)?
3. Point 3 was actually explained above when I tried to explain Suszko.

Within the system, you can use several truth rules. When you judge the system's claim with reason (what I call meta-language), then there are always only two truth values. There is no contradiction and you did not explain what is not good for you in the explained explanation I wrote in section 2. Every claim can be looked at formally from within the system and with reason outside it. Did all you want to say is that the perception of only two truth values naturally gives rise to the three laws?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, and in any case, I think you're complicating things for no reason.

To the best of my judgment, there can only be two answers to section 2 - yes or no.

Is Mikhi contradicting his words or not?

And the fundamental question is also very simple: when someone attributes a paradoxical or “unfixed” status to a particular claim (as in the case of Lukashevich and his ilk, at least according to Mikhi), he undermines what he says, that is, condemns his words to ambiguity.
Yes or no?

I think that what you call “within the system” is that logical-technical layer that I don't discuss at all, and in any case, even if “within” several truth values can be used, this use depends on the more basic layer (which you call here “reason”).

Leibowitz:

Homunculus In my opinion, your answer regarding Leibowitz also deviates from the main point and from the main difficulty that I posed to Michi in his article. This difficulty is the attitude towards dualism.
The main question is whether Leibowitz was a dualist or only “pretended” to be one. I believe that ”pretended”.

According to Michi, Leibowitz was a positivist (or at least was very influenced by this school). I think Michi is right about this. As is known, positivism is a-metaphysical or even anti-metaphysical and apostate in the sense of discussing ”spirit”. Therefore, it is not dualistic.
Isn't that right?

I will not go into Leibowitz's practical philosophy (i.e., the attitude towards values and morality) right now. His anti-dualism seems more blatant to me.

And here is also an interesting discussion.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a9%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%94%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%96%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95-%d7%aa%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%92%d7%99%d7%aa

I will try to explain again with your permission. Let's assume that each statement p1 can have one of 5 possible truth values: x1,x2,x3,x4,x5. That's how we decided in our system.
If we have the statement p1 in the formal inference system, then it can have 5 possible values. Let's assume that in the inference system, the statement p has the value x3.
That is, we say the statement p2 “the statement p1 has the value x3”
The statement p2 is not a statement within the inference system (otherwise we reach an infinite regression of statements) but is already stated outside the inference system, in the human mind. And this statement p2 has a true or false value only.

But, we can introduce the statement p2 (it refers to the statement p1) into the inference system and test it
Now the statement p2 can have one of five possible truth values:
It is possible that the truth value of the statement p2 “the statement p1 has the truth value x3” is x1
It is possible that the truth value of the statement p2 “the statement p1 has the truth value x3” is x2
etc’
It is possible that the truth value of the statement p2 “the statement p1 has the truth value x3” is x5

When we say that the statement p2 has the truth value x1, this has already been said in common sense, and this has a binary truth value.
But if we consider the possibility “the statement p2 has the truth value x1″ As a formal claim within the inference system, then again it can take one of five possible values. And each acceptance of a possible value is carried out in the same way.

My questions:
A. Do you understand what I'm trying to say (as opposed to completely agreeing with it), that is, do you think I said anything here at all that you understand what I'm saying or did I write gibberish?
B. If I didn't write gibberish and you understood what I'm saying, do you agree that this is also exactly and energetically Michael Abraham's opinion?
C. If this is Michael Abraham's opinion, is there any contradiction?

When you say dualist, I understand that you mean that he admits that there is an external world of spirit (not consciousness) in which the values reside. Did I understand you correctly? Because Michael Abraham there thought that when you said dualist, you meant the view that there is both matter and consciousness and that they are two separate types of entities.

Regarding the logic: I don't understand you. Sorry.

1. What I do think I understand is this: your answer to me for section 2 is no. That is, in your opinion there is no contradiction between Michi's views in the debate with me and what I brought as references.

Did I understand you correctly?

2. Do you understand my explanation of what Suszko said? Do you at least understand (not necessarily agree) why I claim that there is a very basic and relatively simple idea here?

I must admit that your response arouses in me certain heretical reflections about what I said… if you don't even understand the point I'm making (which seems to me to be a basic and simple point) perhaps something is wrong with my view of the issue and Michi's response.
Although I don't see at the moment what my failure is (and I still don't think it exists anyway), I am definitely willing to think twice about what I said regarding this issue (only).

Leibowitz often spoke in dualistic language: duality between facts and values, between body and mind (what he called the psychophysical problem), between Torah and morality, and more.

In my opinion, he tried desperately (and inconsistently) to defend dualism on all these fronts, not just on the front of matter and consciousness as you mentioned.

Now tell me, please: can a positivist like Leibowitz be a dualist in any sense? I think not.

In any case, the only possible answers to my question are yes or no (and if so, please explain). I did not receive a satisfactory answer to this from you.

Logic:
1. Indeed the answer is no. There is no contradiction.
Instead of me trying to explain, let me pose a challenge to you.
You brought this reference as evidence that Simchi believes as you do and contradicts himself:
“The reliance on Lukashevich's teachings as an explanation for phenomena of logical absurdity is very common, and it is important to clarify that there is no explanation in this. Lukashevich has a formal description of a logical system with three truth values, but there is no explanation there of what the logic behind such 'thinking' is. There is no doubt that the understanding of Lukashevich's logical system is itself done (in meta-language) in terms of conventional (two-valued) logic.”

The two most important words here are “in metalanguage”.
When you bring this quote as evidence that Mikhi thinks what you think and contradicts himself, do you understand what these two important words are doing here?
If you do, please be kind enough to explain it to me. My long explanation was intended to explain it very precisely (before that I wrote a concise formulation, with reference to reflexive and lamentable claims), and this is exactly the solution to the apparent contradiction that you think you found. Do you think that this quote says that Koshlevich's logic is all vanity and melancholy?
Or you can say that you don't understand exactly what the quote says but it seems to you in general to contradict what Mikhi said in the discussion with you.

2. With your description of Suszaki “any attempt to go beyond traditional binary logic is made on a binary “substrate” itself” I completely agree. And not only that, but Mikhi also I agree with that. This ”premise” is exactly the ”meta-language” that Miki spoke about in the quote I mentioned.
But. This does not mean in any way that a formal inference system that does not have the law of the third admissible is inconsistent. Is it possible in such a system to derive both a claim “a” and a claim “not a”? No! It means that the system is consistent. Period, end of sentence. The premise is not interesting. The premise is a property of the human mind and not of the formal inference system.
[Miki in the discussion there brought this up as proof that there is no equivalence between the three laws. If from each of the laws the other two can be derived, meaning that they are all completely equivalent to each other, then any system that holds only two laws will be inconsistent. That is, it will be possible in this inference system to arrive at both the claim and its contradiction. That is the whole meaning of consistency Logically, and that's what the whole discussion is about, and hence all the confusion, as Smichy desperately tried to explain there].

Leibowitz.
Here too the answer is yes. Positivism (at least for Leibowitz) deals with what can be proven and what can be discussed, not with what exists. Values can be chosen, but they cannot be argued about. Is there a problem of consistency in this position?

I thought of something that might help. Are you familiar with this “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles” https://tinyurl.com/twzalyf? I mentioned it in one of the comments above as well.
The idea of metalanguage is very similar. Binary logic is in the background but not part of the system. If you agree that there is an absolute necessity to accept what is written there as the “solution to the problem” then I believe we will be able to reach a common ground regarding our discussion here as well. (If not then the gap between us is greater than I thought).

Rabbi Mikhi's well-known claim regarding the physico-theological proof that if there is a system of laws for the universe that does not necessarily carry flaws, we must reveal it, must be answered with the utmost simplicity that the very definition of an omnipotent being includes the ability to create a system of laws for the universe that does not carry flaws. Whoever claims that an omnipotent being cannot create a different system has the burden of proof on him, not on us.

Doron Tzafra has a nice one. In my opinion, the debate about the conceptual status of space in general relativity emphasizes why Kant was right in saying that it is impossible to talk about metaphysics. You insist there on accepting non-abstract definitions of abstract concepts. And what's more, there are arguments there that really amaze you despite being understandable to me, a tiny one. Too bad. I was about to create a flag for the Michi rebels with you.

Oh, sorry Doron, but there are also bugs in your "dichotomies" in logic. I think Rabbi Mikhi did a good job there and you are simply deaf and blind. He is a cannon and you are the smoke that dissipates after the shelling. I remember at the time I skimmed over it and it seemed to me very much that Rabbi Mikhi was smearing you. After reading it, I discovered that you are not a fool who doesn't lose a drop, but simply an idiot. Interested in applying your principle of dichotomies to this? Even what Rabbi Mikhi wrote to you about your lack of skill in logic and you replied to him that he believed that technical knowledge was not necessary, so at the time I was sure that you had fooled the Rabbi. But now I know that he, for his part, will argue clearly without prior knowledge. The problem was that you failed. And Rabbi Mikhi blamed your failure on the fact that if you were familiar with logic and the concepts were clear to you, then your formulation of logic would also be clear. Take my advice, be honest with yourself that you are making his claim and he is making yours. Try to judge claims without knowing which claim will serve our distorted ego. I noticed that you simply skip over much of what is said to you. Sometimes you write to the judge, "I didn't understand." In my opinion, that is the source of the chaos. That is why you think that Rabbi Michi is rambling. My little brother, when he hears profound things, says that it is nonsense and calls that person a dumb talker.
Have a great day to all the bored people of the court.

a,
I think you are mixing up the levels of discussion. I will try to present things in an orderly manner.
General introduction: A discussion about evil is not related to the physicotheological view but to the goodness of God. The phenomenon of evil proves at most that he is evil and not that he did not create the world. After all, the complexity of the world proves the existence of a creator, and the question that remains is whether he is good or not.
The connection that people see with the physicotheological view is because evil is considered a defect in the world and therefore it is not perfect and complex, and in any case does not prove the existence of an omnipotent being who created it. But this is a mistake. Its complexity is enough to require a creator. The defects do not eliminate all the complexity and perfection that exists in the world that cannot be created alone. For this, I brought up in the book and in the articles the flaw of the defective clock that still requires the existence of a watchmaker.
The question that remains in light of the defects and evil is only whether it is bad or good.
As for the argument:
I:. I claim that a complex reality proves the existence of God. This is the physico-theological evidence.
You: The world is not perfect because there is evil in it.
Me: Even if it is not perfect, it is complex enough to prove the existence of a Creator.
You: Good, but evil shows that the Creator is not good (and you assume that I think he is good)*..
Me: Indeed, I also assume that God is good (not only philosophically because he instilled morality in us and demands that we obey him, but also because that is how he presents himself in the Torah). And yet evil does not refute this.
The reason for this is that there may not be a whole world with a perfectly good system of laws that would do all the work that the current system does (except for evil).
You: The burden of proof is on you, because you claim that God is omnipotent, so why assume that there is a system that he cannot create?
Me: First, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are here to attack me and show that God is bad. I agree that it is good but cannot deviate from logic and make a perfect system of laws without evil (because there is no such system. Like a round triangle).
You: Prove that there is no such system.
Me: Your answer in my translation: 1. Whoever makes it difficult has the burden of proof. I heard about having to be squeezed tightly and not about having to be squeezed tightly. 2. I will explain why it is also reasonable that there is no such system (although I think I do not have to explain). Think about a mathematical function that has one point that does not fit the plans it is supposed to implement. I am looking for another continuous function that will do all the work (i.e. give the entire function) except for the problematic point. It is unlikely in my opinion that there is such a function. In fact, there certainly is no such continuous function (because continuity requires a certain value at that point that is determined unambiguously by the environment).

In the margins of my remarks, I will comment that perhaps it depends on the starting point. I am starting from the starting point of a believer. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the burden of proof is on you. You start from an atheist's starting point and therefore feel that the burden of proof is on me. But note that in order to be saved from your attack, what I said is enough for me. How will you formulate your position? This is a question that concerns you.
But beyond that, note the structure I presented here. Faith is not just a starting point in the discussion. There is a physical and theological evidence in the background that leads to the existence of God, and now the discussion begins. Assuming that the only problem with this evidence is evil (this is the premise of this discussion), then you should also accept that as a starting point. And now start discussing. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you and it does not depend on the starting point.. and carefully.

I have never had so many words typed into my keyboard as the Rabbi did to me now. I am proud to be the ultra-ego of the Rabbi called “You” in the monologue quoted.
Clarification: I will refer to the view’ as a proof that there is an almighty Creator, and not as a Creator alone.
A. The flaws are not about evil specifically. Such as the flaw of evolution and these 14 billion unnecessary years (although the Rabbi found a positive point of maintaining the result even after a very long time). An unnecessary thing is a deficiency. Although it shows a certain strength. In simple terms, perfection is immediate and does not require time. And so on.
B. “I agree that it is good but cannot deviate from logic and make a perfect system of laws without evil (because there is no such system. Like a round triangle)” So what is the logical contradiction? Why does the Rabbi see goodness alone as a deviation from logic? If this bizarre assumption were not made, it would be as if the burden of proof were on His honor.
C. ” You are starting from an atheist's starting point and therefore you feel that the burden of proof is on me. ” Where did I come from??
D. Why doesn't the Rabbi dismiss the questions by saying that this is only an imperfect view of the Creator?
E. On the sidelines of the discussion: Those who predict His goodness will be judged, and on the other hand, those who predict His evil will be judged. Why assume that He is absolutely good? We have findings that show both His goodness and the opposite. We are innately moral, but at the same time also have bad qualities. Likewise, in the Torah, God is presented as good but also as evil. “And I was angry and killed you” etc. Would you say that this is evil that serves a good purpose and is therefore considered good? This is my argument in itself. That you assume that what is desired is only good and therefore purifies the creeping evil and considers it good instead of legitimizing the alternative of absolute good on the pretext that it leads to a logical contradiction. Why did God invent the carrot and stick system if He is absolute good? I would expect from absolute good that He would only invent the carrot system.

a
Regarding the debate about space.
1. Kant did not say that it is impossible to talk about metaphysics. You are wrong. Almost the opposite: Kant strove to renew the face of metaphysics by subjecting it to his critical method and moving it from a theoretical use of reason to a practical use of it.
2. Even if Kant had said what you attributed to him (he did not) he would have been wrong. We all talk about metaphysics whether we admit it or not. Since you talk about it endlessly (and usually do so successfully) and you too, especially if you are a believer as I suspect, then when you talk about “God” you are talking about “metaphysics”. Amazing!
3. Regarding the interesting process that took place inside your head in which my status was lowered from ”a secret ” to ”an ignoramus”. Well, I regret to inform you of this unpleasant news: If you truly and sincerely thought from the beginning that a person like me deserves the title of “secret ignoramus”, then your judgment is probably very shaky. It is even possible that you yourself are in the rank of “ignoramus” (although not necessarily a bottomless pit like me). No problem, maybe we can form a new ignoramus brotherhood together and work together to expand its rule.
Additional references below.
Sha Bracha

a, I really don't understand. I answered everything in my words.
1. This is a different argument. You are making a different claim (in my opinion it is also incorrect, but this is not the place) against the physico-theological evidence. But that is not the discussion here. That is why I explicitly stated that this discussion is based on the starting point that the evidence in itself is good, and the question is about evil. Otherwise it cannot be conducted.
2. This is not at all an absurd assumption. I explained why it is even reasonable. But even if it were absurd, it is still enough to reject the question. I extended this in my words.
3. ?? I explained it at length.
4. Indeed, that was also possible. But I wanted to show you that the claim that he is perfect does not fall under the force of this attack.
5. I explained that the assumption about his goodness is not based on his appearance in the world. Here, indeed, there is both good and evil. That is why I bothered to indicate the sources for my claim about his goodness. But again, this does not concern our discussion. The discussion is conducted on the assumption that the believer believes that God is completely good, and the question is whether the world refutes this assumption. My argument is that it does not.
In short, everything has already been answered in detail and at length before, and I see nothing new here. As far as I am concerned, we have reached the end.

Homunculus

First of all, I must warn you that if you continue to argue with me so much, you are doomed to become completely barbaric (from the word “ignorant”, as a nickname was given to me courtesy of a). We have enough of the danger of the Corona virus and there is no need to burden ourselves with additional dangers.

Logic (actually only the third law of avoidance, on which my discussion focuses):

Your penultimate response raised sad thoughts in me. It seems that in your opinion (and probably in mine as well) I think and claim that a formal system - what you both call “language” and I call “the logical-technical layer” - cannot carry more than two truth values (true and false).

If I am right, then it really saddens me, since I have written countless times (both to Mikhi and to you) and have reiterated and emphasized over and over again and in several ways: the nature of the formal system is not the subject of my discussion! On the contrary, I am convinced that such a system can carry more than two truth values, and in any case, a person lacking education and “technical” skill like me cannot express a serious position on this subject. I have written this over and over and over again….

So why are you (and probably Mikhi as well) imposing such a position on me?

But in view of the mental anguish that was caused to me, it suddenly seemed to me that I understood what was going on here. And yes, this is again related to Mikhi's (and probably yours as well) flawed understanding, in my opinion, of the essence of philosophical dualism and, by extension, of the analytic and synthetic perspectives.

So in answer to your question (“Do I understand Miki's use of the phrase ‘meta-language’?”) I think the answer is yes. Yes, I think I understand quite well. And again I apologize for the audacity, but to the best of my knowledge, both of you are mistaken on this point and do not understand the connection between the concept “meta-language” and the question of dualism and its connection to analyticity and syntheticity. To make my explanation easier to understand, I will provide it in a separate response.

The continuation of the third unavoidable law, or, if you will: What is the connection between “meta-language” and philosophical dualism, and the analytic and synthetic views?

So… I get the impression that you and I recognize only 2 levels here: the level of language (the formal system/logical-technical plane) and the level of meta-language (you call it “reason”).

But in my opinion this is a philosophical mistake. There are at least 2 more levels here (in total we reach 4).
I will not expand the discussion on the fourth and highest level for now and will focus on the level that I think is completely missing from your sight - the third.

So what is this mysterious third level that I propose?

Anyone who assumes, like you (and like me!) that there are 2 levels from the start, is involuntarily establishing some kind of relationship between them. This relationship is the philosophical reflection that we are actually having in this discussion. This reflection deals with the relationship between “language” and ”meta-language” and its function is to describe the law that constitutes these relationships, namely the relationship between language and meta-language.
Therefore, this reflection itself should also be considered a level, (the third in number).

In a reasonable description, I would summarize it as follows:
The lower level is “language” and it deals with the formal system
The level above it is “meta-language” (Wisdom in your language)
The level above both is the philosophical reflection that describes the relationships between the two lower levels.

As a side note and as a defense against the accusation of regression to infinity in the model I propose, I will only comment on this: the fourth level serves as an ”upper barrier” and I can also explain what and how, only at this stage I prefer to focus the discussion on the first three levels.

In conclusion,
Do you understand why I claim that there are at least 3 levels here?
Do you and/or Mikhi recognize the existence of the third level and its necessity?

Based on your answer, I can move forward and link this to dualism and what you, at least in my opinion, are missing.

An encouraging response! I think we are starting to get closer. It is difficult for me to understand what the third level is without you giving me an example of an argument made within the framework of this third level. Do you also think that a third level is needed regarding the rules of inference in the above dialogue between the tortoise and Achilles?
If you agree that there is a place for multivalued logic in language, but not in metalanguage, then what is the contradiction in your opinion in Miki's words? Of course, any sentence can also be introduced into language and then it can carry multivaluedness, and this too in metalanguage will be judged binary. Just as it is also possible to introduce the rule of inference into the system and confuse every proof and proof (because in metalanguage the rule of inference is used without it appearing in the proof). You may be saying a new idea that was missed, but where is the contradiction?

Leibowitz.

Surprisingly, the discussion of Leibowitz turns out to be founded on the same philosophical foundations as the discussion of the avoidable third… in fact, there is no wonder here… Here too, my claim is that there is a confused concept of dualism and the essence of synthetic and analytic philosophy behind Michy's argument.

Your claim, apparently on behalf of Michy, is as follows:

“Positivism (at least in Leibowitz) deals with what can be proven and what can be discussed, and not with what exists”

This is a mistake, in my opinion.

Positivism - and here I think we are referring specifically to logical positivism - is a philosophical position that strives to reduce all discourse to scientific language and a meta-language that regulates the relationships within scientific language. In short, the positivist is trying to tell us that there are only 2 levels here and everything else is meaningless (even if it still has some practical value). This is the positivist's way of fighting metaphysics (see early Wittgenstein - I have a lot to say about him in our context but don't want to burden the discussion).

In my opinion, this is Leibowitz's position and Michi describes it correctly.

What the positivist does not understand, and therefore neither does Leibowitz - is that there is a third level here that necessarily exists. This is the level that describes the relationship between language and meta-language. In other words: the unfortunate positivist would like us to think, as you say, that philosophy can only deal with “what can be proven and discussed, and not with what exists”. In practice, even he himself assumes the existence of an additional (probably metaphysical) layer that connects language and meta-language.

Am I understood?

Assuming that is the case, what do you disagree with about what I said?

Doron,
Excuse me, but before you take us up the metaphysical ladder, make sure it is on solid ground. If two different commenters claim that you are not logically accurate, and this in addition to Rav Michi, it seems that there is no escape from a systematic study of formal logic. It will not help that on the one hand you declare your ignorance of the subject at hand and then demand an elaboration here on the subject.

I do not have enough knowledge of formal logic to claim an elaboration here on the subject, but that is why I try not to argue on the subject.

There is a debate here on the site between Rav Michi and Dr. Gadi Alexandrovitz from the Technion (I think about one of Dawkins' theses). It is quite striking how careful Rav Michi is before he goes on the attack and only when it is clear that he is on solid ground logically.

Take the time and effort to learn formal logic and then rephrase your argument in a respectable manner.

And indeed I am Y.D. The old one (not sure if it's good)

Another encouraging response! I do indeed represent Michy's opinion in this discussion as it is perceived by me, and it is also my opinion (which I learned from his words). I understand that now there is an argument between us about what Michy's description of Leibowitz's position is? Before we continue, we need to agree on what the position is (Leibowitz's, even if implicitly and he himself failed to formulate it clearly) on which the discussion was based. That is why I qualified that I am talking about the positivism attributed to Leibowitz and not general positivism. If Leibowitz's position is that what is measured can be argued and discussed, and what is not measured cannot, but there are certainly values and we can choose them, then is there any problem of contradiction within this position? I will answer your direct questions after answering this one (the answer will help me understand whether I understood you or not).

Y.D.

First of all, don't start with me… you still owe me an answer about Torah from Heaven… 🙂

Unfortunately, I think your response is just general… things and doesn't touch on my claims at all. Basically, you're saying something like this: I myself don't understand logic, but that still qualifies me to express philosophical positions on the legitimacy of the discussion about it… that is, the philosophical discussion about it.

A few points (albeit not in order) for thought:

The best philosophical literature (and yes, also a lot of philosophical trash..) was written without any knowledge of formal logic. To the best of my memory, in any critique of pure reason you won't find even 1% of “logic”; Plato wrote a pretty good philosophy even before logic was ”invented”

This approach of mine is greatly reinforced by Mikhi and his method. Mikhi often writes about topics that he admits he does not understand (art, Zen Buddhism…) and all this in order to identify methodological problems in the discourse about them. In these articles, he does not use formal logic at all, but rather the natural language (meta-language?) that is understandable to any thinking person.

Why do good people like Mikhi publish philosophical articles for the general educated public in the first place, articles that deal with the principled side of a technical professional subject? In your opinion, there is no value in such publication. On the other hand, in their opinion (which is correct in my opinion) they understand very well that the non-professional reader can not only understand their principled message but even accept and be convinced, that is, adopt their opinion in an informed manner despite having no “technical” background. Rather, in the discussion I linked to, Mikhi assumes, at least at first, that there is a point in explaining (in an informed and reasoned manner) the subject to an ignorant person (who is completely dreaming) like me. Why does he think so?

See the last (or penultimate) response of Homunculus. He estimates that ”we are starting to get closer”, meaning that even an ignorant person and a countryman like me can “progress” and understand at least the philosophical principle behind it. You might say that he is wrong, but you yourself are required to have ”others say”…

And the most important point: I believe that what I say is correct, simple and logical and really does not require technical skill. In the worst case, I will come off as an “idiot”, not a description that is so far from reality…

Leibowitz

Yes, I think there is a contradiction in Leibowitz. A consistent positivist (of any kind) cannot even claim that values exist. With Leibowitz in particular, the problem is serious because he tries to “sanctify” certain values and show that they direct our behavior in the world or should direct it.
Values are abstract entities, even according to Leibowitz. According to him, claims about them or in their name - like claims about other abstract entities - are meaningless. That is why Leibowitz bothers to glorify the spontaneous human will over and over again. A kind of baseless Nietzscheanism, in my opinion at least.

If there are no values, there is no dualism.

I described a certain position and I don't see that you claim there is a contradiction regarding it. Then we will return to the discussion about Leibovitz the man and positivism in general (that is, about other positions in my opinion). In the specific position that I presented, in which values exist and there is a free choice to choose them (not an arbitrary decision) but there is no way to argue and prove on their subject. (Maybe preaching is possible), do you see a contradiction?

By the way, you wrote: To the best of my memory, in any Critique of Pure Reason you will not find even 1% of “logic”. If it says here that you have read and understood the entire Critique of Pure Reason, then I take my hat off to you in salute. I was unable to keep my head above all the twists and turns there and at a certain point I abandoned it in favor of more recent books that explain Kant’s method (Bergman’s book/pamphlet, and all sorts of books by the Open). I cannot be sure that I fully understood them either, I abandoned them at the stage when I felt that they were starting to become gibberish and subtleties within a method that in any case would not give me an answer to what I was looking for.

To the esteemed Doron, I ask forgiveness. I thought you would take things in a different spirit. By the way, you constantly emphasize that knowledge is not necessary to philosophize. You declare that there is no harm in being ignorant in this discussion. I thought we would be kissing friends.
Regarding metaphysics, I will simply quote a bit from Wikipedia: ” Kant claimed that we can speak about the world of phenomena only in the way we perceive them and not about the things in themselves. Many have claimed that Kant thereby buried metaphysics, but Professor Jeremiah Yuval claims” etc.
Again, forgiveness.

Good evening to Rabbi Michi. Although the Rabbi signed off with “I have exhausted” but I must clarify that there is certainly a problem with the Rabbi's understanding of what was read in section C. "You are starting from an atheist's point of view and therefore your feeling that the burden of proof is on me." Why did you do so?? – I intended to ask why I did so that I start from an atheistic point of view. That's all.
Now I would like if my lord could explain more clearly in language that does not use mathematical concepts how a different set of rules is not possible. His honor wrote “In fact, such a continuous function certainly does not exist (because continuity requires a certain value at that point that is determined unambiguously by the environment).” I take my hat off and say that I did not understand the parentheses at all. If the Rabbi could formulate this in the words of the masses, I would be happy.
Sorry for the rant and again, thank you for the platform and the freedom to philosophize.

I did not say that you are personally an atheist, but in this debate you represent his position, since you claim that the evidence is not convincing. Therefore, in analyzing the debate, I presented your position as the position of the atheist. This is a logical presentation of the position and not a reference to a person. Therefore, this is really not a problem in reading comprehension.
It is difficult for me to explain the matter in non-mathematical language. But it is important to consider in common sense, is it likely that there is a system of laws that would do everything exactly as in our world, but only at points where something evil is created will it do something different? In my opinion, it is very likely that there is no such system of laws. Changing those points would also change the results in places where there is no evil, and therefore would not realize the divine plan. Assuming that the system of laws should realize the divine plan, that is, that the world would look as it does today, it is unlikely that these specific points alone could be eliminated without affecting everything else. The mathematical parable only explains this matter further. Think about whether you can establish a law of the relationship between acceleration and force (Newton's second law), which will always give an acceleration equal to force divided by mass, except in the case of a force of 5 units. There it will give a different result. There is no such continuous function, and therefore such a thing would not be a law in the strict sense. I have explained several times that God probably wants strict laws of nature, and yet...

If I may ask: (I thought this remote thread had disappeared from view (I currently have it bookmarked). If I had known that eyes were watching, I might have worded it differently, etc.). It turns out that rigid natural laws + the precise states of affairs in the world (those that contain no evil and that one wants to preserve) are more important to God than suffering. This pricing itself refines understanding and raises questions. Completely ignoring a certain system is not that morally different from underpricing it in the hierarchical hierarchy.

a
You responded to my discussion with Michy and others about space with some general (and in my opinion incorrect) claims about Kant and the futility of metaphysics. It would have been more interesting if you had addressed the question of space that was discussed. In my opinion, Michy's claims there are flawed by a cover-up or at least by confusion.

Homunculus
I have been studying Kant for a good few years, especially the first critique. To say that I understood everything there? You made me laugh! But yes, I can say that his discussions there (even those that I understood and wrote works on) are no less difficult than the topic that you and I are discussing.

If I may in this context release the defense concerning the methodology of the discussion: the origin of philosophical thought is in our intuitions, and these perceive reality (especially the abstract spiritual one) in an immediate, comprehensive and patterned way. The perception of reality is therefore of the structure, of the whole, and not of the details. From this perspective, the world appears to us in a “simple” manner (without complexity). The intellect that comes later already operates in a linear, sequential manner, and thus adds details and ”complicates” the picture.
Against this background, I argue that good philosophy should “remember” its simple origin and try to bring the discussion (which is inherently linear, sequential) closer to intuition and its basic structure. The result (as you dossims say) of this is that one should try to simplify the philosophical discussion as much as possible (and only where possible, of course). This is what I always argue and this is what I tried to explain to Y.D. in my last response to him.

I of course owe you more answers and hope that during Shabbat Kodesh I will find the time for this.

Homunculus,

Leibovitz:

Here is the contradiction (the blatant one, in my opinion):

A positivist of any kind, and Leibovitz also falls into this category, who wants to be consistent with his philosophy must say that there is no meaning in talking about values. One cannot even talk about their existence.
On the other hand - and here is the contradiction - all positivists behave and speak as if there are values and that they are even relevant to human life.

Has my position been understood? Can we move on?

On behalf of the Ministry of Health, I was asked to commend the participants of the ‘Beit Midrash “Epicurus Lishma” in the Presidency…’, who throughout their answers maintained the appropriate distance of two meters between the writer and the writer, in accordance with the instructions from the Ministry of Health 🙂

With best wishes, Shimshon Letz-Man

Your position is understood and I agree with it. I don't see why it is relevant to that discussion about Leibovitz. In the article there, a position was presented (whether Leibovitz held it or not) and in the discussion there you presented it as contradictory.

Homunculus,

Leibovitz:

If you both understand me and agree with my opinion, then you too must claim that Michy contradicts himself. After all, he himself holds a synthetic position that cannot legitimize Leibovitz's "monism" (even if only in this particular aspect) and therefore insists on claiming that Leibovitz is a "dualist".

There is another question here, and it is whether Michy understands that we are both right (I have included you in my camp) and therefore tries to smear us. My feeling at the time was that he is a bit right.

For your convenience, I have included the relevant quotes that conclude my argument with Mikhi:

Miki: “As I explained, in my opinion he does act according to external standards but is unwilling to put it on the table because of his positivism (which does not speak about what is not measurable”
…

Mikhi: “I am unable to follow your line of argument.
He is a dualist, with one side of the dualistic equation (=the spirit) being immeasurable. Therefore, apart from his very existence, nothing can be said about him.”
……

Mikhi: “Hello Doron.
Since we have again found ourselves in a situation of mutual misunderstanding (not for the first time), I am telling you again that I do not understand what the problem is and what is missing in what I told you. I am sorry. In my opinion, everything was explained well”.

And here is my response:
“Strange to me.
All I said is that even according to your opinion, Leibowitz does not allow for the existence of a factor separate from man in the field of morality. For him, there is a human will that is the main (and probably the only) source of morality.
You have written dozens of times in the past about the philosophical limitation of this idea (confusion between the psychological and philosophical levels) and therefore I do not understand what is one day from two days”.

Homunculus,

The days are the days of Corona, and the times are the times of graphomaniacs who are fortified in their homes and are demanding the best of their knowledge from their digital environment.
Here is another interesting knowledge, speaking of suspicion of ”smear”…

(It's a bit long, maybe you'll find the main point at the end…)

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%93%d7%a2%d7%aa-%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%91%d7%93-%d7%94

Homunculus,

Leibovitz:

Here is a link to Zeev Bahler's brilliant, in my opinion, article on Leibovitz. Everything I'm trying to say here in my slurred speech, he formulates in a sharper, clearer and much more profound way. Of course I don't agree with every word there but the spirit of the words - lips will kiss.

https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.736351

(The platform on which the article appears is Haaretz newspaper, maybe you'd like to put on a mask before entering the link?)

Bechler's criticism there is a simple application of the general criticism in his book, which is philosophically identical to the criticism of Two Carts, and therefore it is easy to see that I think that Michi also agrees with the gist of that column (up to the subtitle "The Ethical Significance"). As far as I am concerned, everything written in this column is known background material prior to our discussion here. With that, you will come to argue about Michael Abraham?! How dare you remind me of a scripture that says "And I did not know that thoughts were thinking upon me; the tree was corrupted by its bread, and we were cut off from the land of life." I hope you have read Two Carts and Three Revolutions. In this column, Bechler simply interprets Leibovitz as Sagi and Co. interpreted him, on whom Michi's original article on the subject revolves, and there is no doubt that if Leibovitz's position is interpreted in this way, then it is problematic. We can point our finger at Bechler's statement, "Leibovitz never clarified what the content of such a principle must be, and from this neglect it seems to me that we can conclude that such content was unimportant to him" - this is Bechler's mistake, and this is what Michy argued about in that article, and proposed a different position.
And again I repeat the request that you point out any problem with the particular position presented in Michy's article, and I have already presented it thousands of times in this thread. A direct problem with the position that I presented, not with any other general position (positivism, Leibovitz, and other nonsense). Please refer to this position without any external adjectives and show me any problem that exists within it. You have not done so even once in this entire thread (nor in the original thread).
I will not enter into the new discussion that you brought up as a suspicion of smearing here, for reasons of exhaustion.

Homunculus,

Maybe the problem is that you asked me thousands of times to point out a certain problem with Michi and expected to receive the same answer in the same quantities?

Read again, this time carefully, my previous response (at the beginning) and then we'll talk. There I point out a problem with Michi, with Leibowitz and with the rest of the vegetables. All together the same problem.

‘Holds a synthetic position that cannot legitimize Leibowitz's “monism” (even if only in this particular aspect) and insists on claiming that Leibowitz is a “dualist.”’?
Is that the sentence I should have read carefully?

yes

And in contrast to the sentence with these four general adjectives (synthetic, monism, Leibowitz, dualist), I have put forward this position: values exist, there is no technical possibility of arguing about them, the choice of value is not arbitrary even though it is not reasoned. If in the above sentence and the explanations (agreed upon from the start) that preceded it you expect me to see a direct indication of the problematic nature of the above position, then our situation is difficult.

Your last response really surprised me. It was precisely after we reached an agreement on the main point that you decided to abandon the rational discussion and move on to declarations? “Values exist”? That's it? Just like that? After you initially threw sulfur fire at me for throwing empty slogans without concrete examples, it's a bit strange of you to bring “arguments” like in your last response.
Not to mention that you completely deviated from the topic of the discussion… The debate did not concern the question of the existence of abstract entities (including values), but rather the question of whether Leibowitz's position as represented by you is consistent.
I'll put the question of apparent platitudes aside for now.
Sha Bracha

Okay, I'm afraid we've reached a dead end. I'm just saying this, if your entire argument is included in what I said in the clear, then everything that was written there was known to me from the start and I'm speaking after it. May you be blessed too.

What do I say and what will I say? Apparently my fundamental argument against Michael Avraham's interpretation of Leibowitz was also included in Bechler's article... and he didn't even know it.

A bunch of troublemakers