Unity of opposites

Kobi,
Perhaps Rabbi Kook is referring to Friedrich Hegel's philosophical-historical thought that philosophy is dialectical. In his opinion, it is a union, a synthesis between thesis and antithesis. You can see an expansion on this in Jeremiah Yuval's book ‘Kant and the Philosophy of History’.

The Elohim

I have been grappling for some time with the issue of logic, its limits, and the ability to break through them. It seems to me that this is also related to the question in this discussion (is God beyond logic)
My basic intuition says that those who hold a consistent dualistic position (what you call “synthetics”) must assume the existence of a reality outside of logic.
Such a reality includes various entities and even forms of cognition such as those in the senses and in the mind's vision.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the argument for the relevance of that “extra-logical” reality is not only required by the dualistic position, but is itself more logically sound than the competing argument (i.e., more sound than the “analytic” argument that denies the ability to go beyond logic).

What do you think?

I have written my opinion several times already.

If you wrote your opinion, you may have also dealt with the criticism I expressed about your position (in short: it is a position that is ”analytical”).
Can you direct me to this specific challenge?

I don't see a claim that needs to be addressed. You suggest that there is something beyond logic and I say that talking about what is beyond logic, spiritual or material, is nonsense. That's all.

1. What do you mean you don't see an argument to deal with? I wrote that it seems to me that your position may lead to the analytical view. This is the argument.
2. The reasoning: It is implied from your words above that logic is the appearance of everything. There is no exception.
3. In any case, we must consider the possibility that the deviation from logic is dictated to us by logic itself (and perhaps by another element in our consciousness..?).
4. In the end, we may have to choose between two “strange” options, and if that is the case, I would prefer to choose the less strange and therefore more rational one.
5. I will give you an analogy that occurred to me (I have already given it to you before): space.
The sentence:
“space exists”
It seems to contradict the sentence:
“Space does not exist”.
In my opinion, if you examine the concept of space in depth, you will come to the conclusion that there is no contradiction here at all, but only a paradox.
6. This is an example of a dualistic-synthetic position according to which logic is not the face of everything.

Doron, this time we reached the point of no return faster than before. Your message sounds to me like a Zen Buddhist koan (see the next column that will be up in the coming days).

Thank you for your response.
I really like koans and would love to read your article.
As you know, the main purpose of these parables is therapeutic.
In any case, I conclude that if you interpreted my words in this way, you benefited a little.
My modest contribution to society.

Therefore, it is very interesting to examine why cultures that are not “logocentric” (in the language of the ill-remembered Derrida) such as the cultures of the Far East are required to engage so passionately with logic and its limits.

It will be clarified in the next column. They are not in need, but rather flee there.