Critical analysis
Hello Rabbi, what I will write is somewhere between a question and a problem, I hope the Rabbi can help.
Until I encountered the things the rabbi writes, my perception was ‘classical’ religious, from home and in the yeshiva. That is, to nod at the entire world of faith without examining it too much. I will point out that I did not feel that I was suppressing things, and I did not feel oppressed. Even though I knew that it did not really hold water. It was a kind of world separate from all the views outside (I am not sure that I was able to explain it well enough, but it is not that fundamental).
However, when I came across your words, I felt that they straightened my mind. Suddenly I really identify with the things and also feel that I stand behind them. So far, everything is fine.
The question/problem is that I notice that since you generally impressed me greatly and, as I said, ‘you made sense to me,’ I notice that I return to the same problem from then on, only from the opposite direction, meaning that I accept your words with nods, etc. I don’t mean that I currently have a dog for something specific that I share and ‘swallowed,’ but the way you read your words is such that I am not alert enough to formulate my own personal position.
So I understand that the problem is first and foremost with me, in my ability to shape my worldview. I will note that I am not intellectually weak, whether in secular sciences, etc., or in studying Gemara Iyun, and in the 27th century on the subject of opinions and worldview I feel lost.
I will try to portray the situation as I analyze it. In Gemara, as well as in other secular studies, there is a certain way of thinking, and it is acquired and can be practiced. In the exact studies it seems simple to me (at least as I know them – at the high school and undergraduate level), and in general studies there is an acquired style, so that after a while you know how to identify key directions in the genre, etc., as well as which questions will lead to the unraveling of the matter.
In terms of designing a worldview, I think this is not the case, or at least I was unable to grasp the style, and it is not clear enough to me what point I am missing. It may also be that the difficulty stems from the fact that I have been accustomed for a long time to basing myself on a worldview that I did not really stand behind, and this has dulled my ability to think about this matter.
Bottom line, I would be happy if the Rabbi could comment on such a situation, and what he thinks is right to do in the place where I am. I think I described where I stand pretty well, but if it is not clear, I would be happy for the Rabbi to ask me to clarify. I also saw that some time ago the Rabbi was asked if he could give classes on critical reading, and I of course agree with the request.
Sorry for the length and thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Greetings,
I would like to reassure you a little, from my experience.
Many times in life we encounter a new way of looking at or a new worldview, and the admiration and admiration for it completely captivates us to the point of blindness.
After a while, when the admiration subsides, the weaknesses of the new way are revealed, and we begin to confront the two perceptions, the new and the old.
Sometimes we manage to build a synthesis, and take the right points (objectively or subjectively correct, meaning correct for us), from any angle.
You simply have to let the new information digest, and time will do its thing. Just be patient.
Another thing, regarding the tools for judging worldviews.
In my opinion, the very study of another worldview beyond what you have known so far, gives you cognitive tools for judgment. Often, in order to judge, you need a contrast, a ‘contra’. When you only know one way, it is difficult to determine whether it makes sense, whether it is correct, because it cannot be attributed to another perception.
Only when you encounter a new perception can you judge any perception (both the old and the new) from a broader perspective.
I am now opening a course (paid) for critical reading/thinking. Those interested can join the WhatsApp group as soon as possible at the link attached to the ad (from tomorrow the course dates will be determined in coordination with the participants who registered for the group):
B"D
Critical Thinking and Reading – Initial Syllabus
Michael Avraham
The course will be held on Zoom during ten sessions of about an hour for registered participants only (if necessary, there will be additional sessions). It will deal with critiquing arguments (not necessarily written ones). In fact, this is critical thinking and not just critical reading. The course includes homework assignments (not for submission), and also a final paper for those interested.
In the meantime, the recordings will not be accessible, but only to those participants who missed a class.
Registration by joining the WhatsApp group: <a href="https://chat.whatsapp.com/LrEY99fgJmXB1kseMJgGHk" rel="nofollow">https://chat.whatsapp.com/LrEY99fgJmXB1kseMJgGHk</a>
The cost of the course is 250 NIS per participant.
A. Logic
Theorems and claims.
Validity and truth: arguments and rules of inference.
Programmatic and formal logic.
Assumptions and theorems.
The emptiness of the analytical. Pluralism and narratives.
Deduction, induction, abduction and analogy.
B. Principles in the criticism of arguments
Assumptions, validity and conclusion.
Counterexamples.
To complicate and to settle with difficulty (the meaning of the starting point).
"The new criticism": postmodernism.
C. Definitions
Through scope and content.
Circularity of definition.
The importance of definitions and their origin.
Definition and truth.
D. Paradoxes
Definition of paradox.
The attitude towards them and their conclusions.
What is a solution to a paradox?
Paradox as proof by negation.
E. Logic and everyday language
The principle of grace.
Completing arguments (anthems: incomplete arguments and "soft" arguments).
Revealing hidden assumptions.
F. How to deal with assumptions
Intuition.
Logic and rhetoric.
Cognition and thinking.
Examples and counterexamples.
G. Overcoming dichotomies
Dilemma arguments.
Compromise.
The third way.
H. Fallacies
Ad hominem, populum, etc.
The naturalistic fallacy.
The desired assumption: is it a fallacy?
Examples of the desired assumption in analytical arguments.
Refutability: Science and argument. Confirmation and confirmation.
Failures of correlation: Simulated correlations. Correlation and causality.
The magic of using numbers and data: Statistical failures.
I. Practical guidelines for critical reading
Suspension of judgment.
Complete and empathetic formulation of the argument under review.
Clarification of the relationship to the premises.
Validity testing.
The relationship to the conclusion (paradoxes).
J. Examples
Critical reading of articles and philosophical issues
J. Final paper – for those interested
Each participant receives or chooses an article (preferably one that contradicts their initial perception), and presents a critical analysis of it.
On what date and how many times a week?
Once a week. Will be determined in coordination with those who subscribe to WhatsApp.
And those who don't have WhatsApp (due to filtering)?
Send me a private email and I will contact him separately
Mikyab@gmail.com
WhatsApp is not working.
Is there a direction for the hours? It really depends on me
You can contact me by email and I will contact you to confirm. It will probably be one evening, Sunday-Wednesday, at 8:00 PM or 9:00 PM. The time will be determined in coordination with everyone.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
