Q&A: Truth and Rationality
Truth and Rationality
Question
Hello Rabbi,
On the new site, under the heading “About,” it says:
“Rabbi Michael Abraham is a unique rabbinic figure in our times who maintains a rational approach on the one hand, and on the other hand has not despaired of the truth”
My question: should I conclude from this that truth is opposed to rationality?
Thank you for the thoughtfully made site (it was really needed; I had been looking for a long time for a collection of your ideas and articles, thank you!)
And happy holiday
Answer
That is indeed the obvious conclusion that was supposed to lead to this very despair. But since I am a rationalist and nevertheless have not despaired of the truth, my goal is to show that there is no contradiction and no need for despair. Truth and rationality are not opposed. See the article by my friend Nadav Shnerb, “A Tale of a Sage Who Despaired of Reason”: http://asif.co.il/?wpfb_filepage=zhr-18-23-pdf
The thanks should be directed to the site’s editor and founder (it’s his site, and from me he received only permission).
Happy holiday,
Michi
Discussion on Answer
A. No need to make fun of it too much. The world matured and understood that at the foundation of every outlook lie unfounded assumptions. So they started shouting that everything is relative and not absolute.
B. There are those who speak of a truth that is above the rational (and even identify it with faith). See my book Truth and Unstable, which is devoted in part to this.
C. The Ktav and the halakhic decisors wrote that a foolish custom should be abolished, and the Rema agrees with that too. The question is what counts as a foolish custom. Customs should be given weight (at one level of validity or another), but that too derives from Sinai (“do not forsake”).
Thank you for the reference to Nadav Shnerb’s article. As usual, it’s a pleasure to read him and his sharp comments.
A) I don’t understand why postmodernism is supposedly an expression of “reason.” Any fool can stand on the roof and shout that nothing is absolute or certain.
B) Why is it despairing if there is a contradiction? After all, the moment there is a contradiction between the rational and the “truth”—then that (= that “truth”) is false! And once again everything is fine and dandy, no?
That is, in the language of the Talmud, “if Elijah were to come and say”—if we were to arrive at empirical knowledge of the truth—it would instantly become rational.
C) And from one matter to another on the same subject: I also heard the debate between you and Rabbi Navon (with Sarah Beck). At the end of the conversation there is something interesting: Rabbi Navon places Jewish law on the legs of custom, and you answer him that you base your practices on the revelation at Mount Sinai (that is: a kind of empiricism). Maybe there is also something fundamental here that distinguishes Maran (Rabbi Yosef Karo) from the Rema (who writes several times that “even though this is a foolish custom, I practice it because of the custom”). I would note in this connection that in tractate Menachot 32 and also in Yevamot 102, the Talmud considers custom weightier than Elijah.
D) On a personal note: I too have despaired of the truth. Not of all truth, but of part of it. That is, there are some things that I will apparently never be able to know whether they are this way or that, but from there to despairing of the striving for truth—the distance is still very great! So I too scorn the automatic despair blowing in from the direction of Rabbi Shagar.
Happy holidays