Phenomenology and irrational religiosity
If I hold to Kant’s phenomenological position regarding the inaccessibility of the thing-in-itself, then the only connection with God is through the Torah that came from the thing-in-itself in a deliberately adapted phenomenological way.
For that matter, the philosophical claim that “God does not change” is not relevant at all because He is not perceived in our terminology and this means nothing to Him in reality. And if it is through the Torah that He verbally claims that with the help of prayer He can change, then I have no problem at all. In other words, any philosophical claim that relates to G-d or the way He works does not begin at all with this very concept, does it?
What do you think about that?
Kant’s position is not phenomenological (in the conventional terminology this is attributed to Husserl). You probably mean the distinction between phenomenon and noumena.
I disagree with your argument. The argument about changes in the Godhead also deals with his phenomenon, and therefore there is certainly room for discussion. You probably interpret that a discussion of the phenomenon is not a discussion of the thing itself, and it is not. This is exactly our way of discussing the thing itself. The more precise formulation: a discussion of the phenomenon is not a discussion of the essences but of the characteristics/descriptions. But it is a discussion of the thing itself. Change is a change in the descriptions that reflects a change in the thing itself.
For example, Rabbi Shem Tov Gefen’s claim (in his book Dimensions of Prophecy and Earthliness) that according to Kant, time is only a form of human observation, and therefore there is no meaning in discussing the age of the world. Time did not exist before man. This is a mistake. Time is a pair of glasses through which we observe the world, and now that we have put them on, we also look at the past that was before us. Just as I can ask when my grandfather was born (even though I and my glasses were not in the world), so I can ask when (or how long ago) the world was created.
I agree that discussing a phenomenon is a discussion of a thing in itself, but how is it possible for a person to discuss a divine phenomenon with a human perspective and perception of reality? How does he make this leap and what is he basing it on?
Regarding the Rashi, I think he would argue that you can indeed reach a conclusion about the age of the world based on your perception of reality, but he would add that it does not reflect what is objectively going on, but rather reality after the phenomenal filter of man, right?
Why not? I see the appearance of the Almighty in the world and how I perceive Him. I do this in light of logical principles, observation of the world and the sources and information in the Torah.
Regarding Rasha, you repeat the same perception and I will repeat my perception again. It reflects exactly you reality, except that the reflection of the world is formulated in terms of the language of the perceiver. But this is only language and representation of the thing itself. What is true there is truly true but is formulated in my language.
I think we are talking completely in the air and in slogans. If you have a concrete question or a concrete claim about God, it is better to raise it and we will discuss it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
