Q&A: On Philosophical Caution
On Philosophical Caution
Question
Hello Rabbi, I identified (in my humble opinion) a certain flaw that seems to me common to Descartes, Berkeley, and the Rabbi.
What exactly does Descartes prove? He does not prove that an “I” exists; rather, only that I cannot think a thought that presupposes the nonexistence of the self. A thought that negates the self is outside the bounds of cognition. And likewise Berkeley: he only says that we cannot conceive of existence outside of being perceived, because if we conceived it, then it has by definition entered the mind…
And likewise with the Rabbi: the Rabbi’s principle that “everything is logic” (synthetic, of course) says nothing about reality. It only claims (and correct me if I’m mistaken) that we cannot think in a non-logical way…
Why am I digging into this seemingly minor point? Because then things that we posit as outside our cognition are not subject to the laws of our cognition. Just as an example: God is outside our cognition, and therefore the laws of logic do not apply to Him. Of course we cannot grasp in Him the unity of opposites, because from our perspective that is nonsense, but that says nothing about Him; it only says something about the concept of Him as perceived in our minds.
And then, even if some person comes and claims non-logical thinking (see a beautiful passage on this in Shemonah Kevatzim, collection 7, section 41), we should indeed listen and examine it on its own terms, because the logical limitation is only in our cognition, and it is not unreasonable that the boundaries of cognition can be expanded by certain techniques…
With the blessing of “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,” I would be glad to hear his honored opinion…
Mario
(P.S. How the mighty have fallen! Congratulations on the new quote from Rabbi Kook. Apparently this is how the redemption of Israel unfolds; but in the end, the light of Rabbi Kook’s Torah, of blessed memory, appears even in the details of the most narrow-minded websites in Judaism…)
Answer
Hello Mario.
Your statement at the end is also nonsense, since within our cognition and our language it is impossible to speak about what lies outside them. Therefore the statement that there is such a thing is also nonsense. Personally, I do not lend an ear to nonsense, but that is of course a matter of taste. Here, for example, I did lend an ear to your words, which are complete nonsense (because they deal with what is outside thought) — I just did not understand a thing, of course (and neither did you, of course).
Beyond that, you need to distinguish between “outside our cognition” and “outside our thoughts.” “Outside our thoughts” is an oxymoronic expression, since it itself raises in our thought that which is supposedly outside it. And with this you will understand why the Rabbi’s words appear on the front page of the Dili site (even though it is one of the most narrow-minded sites in Judaism).
Discussion on Answer
Let me give a more concrete example so I won’t be accused of speaking empty nonsense and gibberish…
A person claims that it is clear to him that he chooses; on the other hand, it is also clear to him that God is all-knowing including everything (that is, including the future — meaning knowledge of the future exists). If the laws of logic are something that God Himself is also subject to, this is a paradox, and you have to choose a side (see the entry on Rabbi Michael Abraham). But if this is a limitation of my cognition, then I throw up my hands and admit my limitation: I cannot cognize-know-grasp the unity of opposites, but that does not mean I have to choose a side.
(And regarding outside-cognition and the definition of divinity, see the article “Afflictions Cleanse”: “Any definition applied to divinity leads to heresy”…)
The laws of logic are not cosmic entities and not entities in cognition. They are not entities at all. See here:
Just one last question — can the Rabbi define for me what the laws of logic are (or is that the foundational concept that the Rabbi does not define)? A simple sentence-level definition.
That which is necessary a priori (more accurately: analytically).
I assume this depends on another question: is expanding cognition impossible?
Because if I do not define the laws of logic as cosmic entities, but as cognitive entities, then if I recognize techniques that make it possible to expand cognition (and I mean mystical means — even if the Rabbi is not suspected of, and is innocent of, all the nonsense that pretends to present itself as mystical, I am sure he will not let personal considerations interfere in the logical discussion), then I can at least believe a person who claims that he apprehended in a way separate from our cognition (belief of the kind of believing a prophet)…
Does the Rabbi have rational arguments (beyond a healthy Western-scientific intuition) to reject every claim of supra-cognition? (Such as Zen, Buddha, Tao, revelation of Elijah, and prophecy?)