Q&A: The Rabbi’s Puzzlement over Descartes’ Method
The Rabbi’s Puzzlement over Descartes’ Method
Question
I read the book Two Carts and a Hot Air Balloon a long time ago, but if I remember correctly, the Rabbi was puzzled by Descartes’ approach, in that he cannot create anything at all and in practice contributes nothing to the world (the book is not in front of me). However, it seems that the Rabbi agrees that what Descartes does say, even if it is not useful, is not lacking.
Rabbi Charlap writes in Mei Marom, vol. 1, in his introduction: “And I dare say of my book that although the matters are like rushing waters… they cannot be acquired through superficial understanding, but only after fine and careful analysis of every phrase and every sentence,” end quote. (I quoted this only to emphasize that what is said there was written after much thought.)
Afterward, in the first two introductions, he explains a major foundation in the ways of demonstration.
From what he says there, it emerges that Descartes acted not wisely at all when he began by relying only on pure logic, since he is entirely bound in chains of necessity, and compelled by reason itself to think this way and no other; and this involves an inner defect, in his language, unlike one who thinks also beyond those chains. And there he emphasizes not intuition (even if a person is very refined), but rather tradition from the Cause of causes as the solution to that inner defect.
Answer
Greetings.
I do not remember anything like that in Two Carts. Descartes tried to ground philosophy and science on pure thought (and not cognition), and thereby save rationalism (and avoid the need for empiricism). I do not recall claiming that he added nothing to the world. There is nothing in tradition that is beyond cognition or logic. It is not a third alternative. At most, it provides the assumptions on which the demonstration is built, but every demonstration is built on assumptions. Admittedly, in the cogito Descartes tried to offer a demonstration that is not built on assumptions, but this is not the place to elaborate. I touched on this a bit in my book Truth and Stability.
Discussion on Answer
Greetings.
You are taking me back to fundamentals about which I have already written a great deal (in Two Carts and in Truth and Stability). See there on the whole matter. Logic does not innovate anything, but it can reveal to us what we already think/know. Tradition is not a third alternative, and it is certainly subject to logic, just as the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself is subject to it. Logic is not a human invention, nor is it implanted in us from above. The Holy One, blessed be He, Himself is also “subject” to logic (because this is not really subjection).
See for example here:
It took me time to find it.
It appears in Eight Collections by Rabbi Kook, Collection 7, section 41.
That is the claim of the unity of opposites/contradictions, which I strongly oppose. In my view, these statements and other statements about things that are “beyond reason” are nonsense. And I have Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed and Rashba in responsum vol. 4, no. 234 on my side in this, though even without them I would say the same thing.
I corresponded with the Rabbi a few months ago about the contradiction of opposites. At the time I began writing a comprehensive article explaining why this is not empty talk, and what practical difference it makes.
The pressures of time caused the work not to be completed. But I am certain of the correctness of the path. And that is enough for me: Rabbi Charlap in Mei Marom, Springs of Salvation, chapter 33.
Good for you, that you have committed yourself to confidently supporting meaningless nonsense. That way at least it is clear you will not go astray. 🙂
And if Rabbi Charlap also writes this, then there you have a place where it is clear that he will not be caught in error.
I am also considering publishing a collection of meaningless words. But what can I do? I am sure people will argue with me about that too, so there is no point. 🙂
If I remember correctly, in the introduction with the story of the mathematician in the hot air balloon, you argued that there is no addition of knowledge through logic. It is only data analysis. Descartes wanted to find everything in logic and give up the need for experience or the “inventions” of human cognition.
But in practice, logic too is the product of human cognition’s invention. It is a necessity that the Creator implanted in man to think this way and not otherwise.
Tradition, the revelation of the Torah, is above and beyond cognition and logic. It does not begin in cognition out of human existence, but from a higher manifestation free of all necessity. And the demonstrations come only to reveal that tradition. But then the demonstration is not a tool for clarifying the truth, but a path by which things come to be revealed. See there in Rabbi Charlap, and the enormous practical difference that follows: one cannot innovate anything practical (“practical” also includes a clear decision in the ordering of opinions) if its source is not in tradition but only according to demonstration. Logic cannot extend as guidance into the practical world because it is bound in chains of necessity.