Logic – analytical or synthetic
Hello Rabbi,
I tried to arrange for myself the move that the rabbi makes in order to prove that analytical thinking by itself is not sufficient and therefore synthetic thinking is also required.
In my mind, this move leads to another move by the Rabbi, the arguments for the existence of God. Since analytical thinking is not enough, one can rely on logical leaps that are not necessary (non-analytic) in order to believe in God. For example, the physico-theological argument is in some way induction. Every sophisticated thing I see in the world was created by some “architect”, and in any case the world itself, since it is complex, was created by an external factor, namely God. From this it follows that logic is representative of synthetic thinking.
On the other hand, in the Rabbi’s notebooks on matters of faith, the Rabbi emphasizes the emptiness of logic itself! That is, every logical move assumes what is sought, and therefore is essentially empty of added content, like analytics.
I think the question is clear. How is it that the logical tools we have, which are synthetic – meaning that they try to add meaning and make uncommitted claims about reality, are actually of an empty and analytical nature?
I would appreciate the Rabbi’s clarification on this matter.
Thank you very much,
Hello A.
What is traditionally called logic is necessary deductive inferences. These are empty by their very nature. Other inferences, such as analogy and induction, add information to us and therefore have a speculative, uncertain dimension. An argument that proves a claim of fact (such as the existence of God), as well as any scientific argument, is by its very nature not empty, and is therefore always synthetic. Whether or not to call synthetic inferences logic is a semantic and unimportant question.
In the notebooks I present all types of inference. The first deals with a deductive-analytic argument that attempts to prove the existence of God. Because such arguments are supposed to be empty, it is indeed a problematic argument. And yet I tried to show there that its problematic nature is not trivial. The arguments from the second notebook onwards are not deductive and therefore not empty. Synthetic arguments are not empty.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
