view

Asker:
I simply see your path of truth-seeking as a courageous one, one that does not hesitate to ask and confront the difficult questions, and does not take things for granted, and therefore your view is also important to me. Since you do not have any books of view that I know of, it is enough for me to know which line you identify with.

I noticed the glaring deficiency of the Maharal, whom many rely on in matters of view, and perhaps also the Gra. Is there a particular reason why you did not mention them?

Likewise, regarding Rabbi Auerbach, I do not know of any books of his that deal with matters other than halakhic matters. Did you mean that you identify with him in terms of jurisprudence? Or also in matters of view?
—
In general, I don't have much faith in books of thought/view.
In any case, they should be treated differently from books of halakhah and reference. The main difference is that in books of thought, we are dealing with the thought that was created by the person himself (with the various influences on him) from his own understanding, and there is no tradition there. The mode of thought of a thinker is one of creation, not of interpretation. So if the things speak to me, great; if not, then no. In any case, these books are not a source of authority in any way. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no difference between books of Jewish thought and books of general philosophy of Gentiles. If I find something that speaks to me, I take it. In contrast, books of halakhah, which of course are also influenced by the ways of thinking of the posak/commentator, the mode of thought is one of interpretation. Every commentator or posak tries to understand what the sources that came to him from Mount Sinai say. Of course, the interpretive product varies between people, but it is still an interpretation. Therefore, in my opinion, whoever studies a halakhic or theoretical text studies Torah in any case, even if it does not speak to him. But whoever studies a text of Jewish thought, if it does not speak to him, then it is simply abrogation of Torah.
So much for the basic distinction. Since there is no authority in Jewish thought, only inspiration, and since I do not broadly identify with any of the writers in Jewish thought (although good ideas can be found everywhere, including non-Jewish literature), I therefore see no point in following any of them. Their words are usually not really useful and/or interesting to me. One reason is that they are outdated, and the influences on them (including the system of concepts) come from ancient philosophy. Today, there are already better tools and more precise conceptual and analytical abilities to formulate things, and therefore I see no reason in the 21st century to follow Aristotle. It sounds crazy to me. Absurdly, the only place where Greek philosophy is still taken seriously (that is, seen as something real and binding, unlike those who study it for historical and scientific reasons) is in yeshivahs. It is simply ridiculous, if you remember what they say there about Greek wisdom. What the Rambam did to Aristotle must be done today to Kant, Wittgenstein, and others. Of course, without the ridiculous authority given to Aristotle.

What characterizes Israeli thought is usually a lack of precision in defining concepts, a discussion of vague concepts with imprecise methods that leads to a word mill that says nothing, although sometimes it sounds very profound.
As for the Maharal, his system of concepts does not speak to me (it is ancient and imprecise), and in my opinion he rapes the sages' teachings too brutally to make them say what he wants them to say.
As a rule, I do not recognize the existence of the field of Jewish thought (“view” is a completely ultra-Orthodox concept, which aims to create a binding system in a field where there are no binding things. In the ultra-Orthodox world,” I have a parallel concept. No less so, where they study “faith”) or Jewish philosophy. There is a right and wrong philosophy, and I do not care where it comes from. If it is the philosophy of a gentile that is correct, then it is my thought. To the same extent, if it is the philosophy of a Jew, no matter how great, that is incorrect, then it does not interest me.
Needless to say, in my opinion you should not follow my path, or anyone else's path, but determine what seems right to you. When you ask, I answer, but it is certainly not a source of authority, but at most a source of inspiration. If it is useful to you, accept it. If not, then not.
A kosher and happy holiday.
— What is important to me in my books on thought/view are the topics that deal with the principles of faith (especially the reality of God, Torah from heaven), the succession of tradition, the resident versus the resident, the qualities that the Torah requires, the manner in which the Torah is transmitted and passed on from generation to generation, inter-religious debates (as in the Kuzari), attitudes towards Kabbalah and the Zohar, attitudes towards biblical criticism, the law of Moses from Sinai, and so on. In my opinion, these topics fall under the domain of Jewish thought because general philosophy does not touch them that much, and therefore they can be called “Jewish thought” or “Jewish philosophy.” Such topics are what give the Halacha its authoritative validity, and in my opinion, obtaining correct opinions on these topics is a prerequisite for intensive engagement with Halacha books. The problem is that the material on the topics is very extensive, and opinions are divided, and I do not currently have the ability to make a correct decision in these areas. Therefore, I wanted to know from you if there are any recommended books on these topics in your opinion, and in fact to rely on your judgment on these topics. I know that the Rambam deals with these topics in the commentary on the Mishnayot (eight chapters) and in the book Moreh Nevuchim. The Rambam, the Maharal, the son of the Rambam, the Rana (Moreh Nevuchim of the Time), Rabbi Kook, and Rabbi Neugerschel also deal with these areas in their books. The question is which books are better to focus on, and which books are closer to the truth? Regarding following someone else's path, I think that sometimes in cases where you recognize your inability to decide on a particular issue, the best thing you can do is to rely on a Bar Samkah on the topic. What remains for you to investigate is who is the most appropriate person to make the correct decision on the issue.
— So I know the books in the genre and think there is nothing particularly useful in them.
— Do you mean there's no point in dwelling too much on these issues? How did you form an opinion on these issues?
— There is definitely a point, but not through books on Jewish thought. Meta-halacha issues should be thought about in light of halachic sources, and on matters of thought, one should think alone.
— Isn't it better to rely on the opinion of some authority than to think for yourself, especially in a situation where you are not an expert (to put it mildly) on these issues? And it may also be that thinking about these things for yourself can take a lot of time and it won't be very practical.
— There are no authorities in this field. If you do not have the time or ability to investigate yourself, you can remain without a proper Mishnah on some questions. Especially when the matters do not concern the fact, there is no need to order a Mishnah on the matter.
— Will this field change from all the fields where there are no authorities? I agree that there are fields where it is more possible to rely on authorities, such as medicine, but why do you think that in this field it is impossible at all?
— It is not based on knowledge. It mainly requires different analytical skills. Similar to philosophy.
— And aren't these analytical skills also a form of knowledge?
— From two main points: 1. It is difficult to find such experts (the fact that someone has written books or articles on the subject does not mean much). 2. The product is open to criticism by laypeople. That is, when you see the analysis, you will be able to be impressed and convinced yourself. There is no need to apply considerations of authority here. This is unlike in halacha or medicine or physics.
— Do you mean by saying that the product is subject to criticism by laypeople?
Can even a layperson decide on the question under analysis?
Or is it that the product of the supposedly authoritative person is subject to criticism by laypeople who decide whether it is authoritative or not, and therefore their determination regarding its authority is not necessarily correct?
— 12;————————————————-
Rabbi:
The first
— 8212;———————————————————-
Asker:
Let's take for example issues such as the reality of God, the providence of God, the Torah from heaven, and the immutability of the Torah. Do you think that even a layman can decide correctly on these issues? If so, then how is it possible that opinions are so divided on these issues? After all, on simple issues to decide, I would expect there to be relative unanimity or a kind of broad consensus, but this is not the case, as we know.
— Because they are simple. But because knowledge does not add value to them and it depends on the assumptions. There are many assumptions. A significant part of them cannot be decided at all, in my opinion.

I would be happy if the rabbi could explain what he meant by the sentence: "In the ultra-Orthodox world, I have a parallel concept. No less than in Maus, where they learn "faith."

In both cases, these are dogmatic concepts, and the terms view and belief replace the term that was and is still accepted in less ideological places, “thought.” To me, this symbolizes the desire not to think but to learn thought, and therefore it is convenient to call it a belief or view. As if you are studying material in which you are told what you should think.

1)Didn't the Rambam “teach thought” in the book "The Teacher of the Confused"?
2) What is your opinion of the Ramach and the Rabbi Kook?
And the teachings of Kabbalah in general?
Thank you very much

1. Taught, so what?
2. Questions are too general. You can search the site.