Cantio

What Chaim Navon probably means is that part of the Critique of Pure Reason called “antinomies” (self-contradictions or paradoxes). Kant tries to show there what happens when pure reason is allowed to be freed from the yoke of criticism and is attributed to ”knowledge” that it produces a theoretical status. According to him, when this mistake is made, reason becomes entangled in its own contradictions and brings us to the confusion in which two contradictory claims seem to be true at the same time.
Regarding the question of whether Kant has a claim that proves that there is no higher power, the answer is a bit complex, in my understanding. Kant claims that it is indeed impossible to prove the existence (or the existence) of that power from a theoretical point of view, but at the same time we have a moral obligation to claim its existence. This obligation stems from what he calls the “practical use” of pure reason.

In the first printings of the book "Life of Man" (Vilna 1578 and 1589, printed during the author's lifetime, as well as in the Krotoshin printing, 1585), it is stated in section 1, section 5:

The meaning of this belief in these commandments is: He should determine in his soul that the truth is so and that it is impossible to change it under any circumstances. And even if he sees a sign that contradicts the contrary, he should believe that the signs are a complete lie, and as in Parashat Ra'eh: "For a prophet will arise, etc., and the sign and the sign will come, etc. You will not listen to the words of the prophet, etc., for God is testing you to know whether you love God.

And a great and famous philosopher from their sages wrote in the year 1755 that all the intellectual miracles given by humans are lies, and they are not to be trusted. And he showed in miracles about the renewal of the world, and in miracles about its reversal, and all the philosophers were led to deny the miracles. And from this he proved that all the miracles are a complete lie, only the truth is what we received from our ancestors, because the first Adam saw the renewal of the world and passed it on to Methuselah, and he to Noah, and Noah to Shemesh and to Abraham until Moses our Lord, by God.

The passage about the philosopher from their sages was omitted from the patterns of the life of man. Starting with the Vilna printing of 1777, where it is printed: ‘… According to the wise, we love the Lord”, and the truth is what we received from our ancestors…’ and so are the words in the printings of ’Chayei Adam’ today.

I do not know whether Rabbi Avraham Danzig, the author of Chayei Adam, read the philosopher's words from 1785 [=1785] in their original form, or heard about them during his annual trips to the Leipzig Fair – in any case, he did not refrain from mentioning them in his halakhic book, because he found them useful, and as Maimonides wrote in eight chapters, he did not refrain from mentioning words from philosophers from all over the world, since ‘Heard the truth from those who said it’

Best regards, Yiftach Lahad Haberman-Bakshi

Paragraph 4, line 3
… And so it appears in the patterns of ’human life’ to this day.

Very interesting. He quotes that Kant's conclusion is that philosophical ideals are vain and the main thing is the tradition from our ancestors? I don't know which Kant he's referring to, but it's certainly not Emmanuel. He probably learned Kant through Korman.

To Ramada”a – Shalom Rav,

The Life of a Man preceded Abraham LeKorman by about 150 years 🙂 I already assumed that he was familiar with the words of the philosopher from 1785 from the second vessel. He probably heard about his words on one of his trips to the Leipzig Fair.

With greetings, Yel”b

Another sage from Eastern Europe, who had connections with Western Europe by virtue of his profession as a pharmacist, is Rabbi Simcha Bunem of Pshisha, to whom I at the time suggested that Kant's emphasis on the purity of intention was consistent with this emphasis in the teaching of the Rashba of Pshisha, and perhaps he was influenced by the spirits that were blowing in the West at the time.

There could also have been a flow in the opposite direction from Jews from Eastern Europe who went to study with philosophers in Germany, such as Shlomo Maimon.

At a much later period, there may be a parallel between the moral theory of the ‘greatness of man’ developed by the ‘Grandfather of Slobodka’ and similar ideas in Nietzsche.

He cites Kant's argument in the Critique of Pure Reason that reason attempts to exceed the limits of reason and Kant's claim that reason's attempt to exceed the limits of reason is destined to fail. Kant proves this claim by presenting the proofs and counter-proofs for the existence of God and claims that the ability to present proof and counter-proof for the same matter itself proves that reason here exceeds the limits of reason. Therefore, Kant called his book Critique because he criticizes the pretense of reason to exceed the limits of reason. According to Kant, all that reason can do is identify or define laws for natural reality. Any pretense to exceed this is doomed to failure.

From this, Zei Adam draws the conclusion that our ability to come into contact with God cannot come from reason, since God is defined in advance as exceeding natural reality, but only from his historical revelation at Mount Sinai, i.e. tradition.

I still don't understand what the proof and counter-proof are for the existence of God. What is the counter-proof?

To Ramadhan and Rabbi Chaim Navon,

The proofs and counter-proofs that the Rabbi mentions, made by the famous philosopher in 1785, are about the “renovation of the world.” Not about the reality of the Creator. Maybe that will help you.

It is also worth searching the Internet for “Kant, the life of man” or something like that. Because if Rabbi Chaim Navon mentions the matter, Apparently they saw it in some article (I learned about it by chance. In my late father's library, there is Chayei Adam, Krotoshin edition [inherited from his brother-in-law, R. Yaakov b. R. Tuvia Mirvis of Amsterdam] where the things appear, and once when I looked at another book in Chayei Adam, I was surprised to see that the things were not there).

Best regards, Yiftach Lahad Argamon-Bakshi

Indeed, Rabbi Google Shalit did not disappoint, in the Rambam [= List of articles in Jewish studies, on the National Library website] the article by the scholar of Yiddish language and Jewish folklore, Prof. Mordechai Kosover (1908-1969), is mentioned, Did the author of Chayei Adam mention Kant?, Hadar Mah (5729), p. 29. An article on the passing of Prof. Mordechai Kosover, in the newspaper Davar From December 4, 1969, the Hebrew Press Archive.

Best regards, Yipla Avk

9