Q&A: Logic — Analytic or Synthetic
Logic — Analytic or Synthetic
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I tried to organize for myself the line of reasoning the Rabbi uses in order to show that analytic thinking by itself is not sufficient, and that therefore synthetic thinking is also required.
In my mind, this line of reasoning leads to another line of the Rabbi’s, namely the arguments for the existence of God. Since analytic thinking is not sufficient, one can rely on logical leaps that are not necessary (that is, not analytic) in order to believe in God. For example, the physico-theological argument is, in a certain sense, an induction. Every sophisticated thing I see in the world was created by some kind of “architect”; therefore the world itself too, since it is complex, was created by an external agent — namely God. From this it follows that logic represents synthetic thinking.
On the other hand, in the Rabbi’s notebooks on matters of faith, the Rabbi repeatedly emphasizes the emptiness of logic in itself! That is, every logical move assumes what it seeks to prove, and so it is actually empty of added content, like analytics.
I think the question is clear. How is it that the logical tools we have, which are synthetic — that is, they try to add meaning and make claims about reality that are not necessary — nevertheless actually have an empty, analytic character?
I would be happy if the Rabbi could clarify this point.
Thank you very much,
Answer
Hello A.,
What is traditionally called logic is necessary deductive inference. These are empty by their very nature. Other inferences, such as analogy and induction, add information for us, and therefore have a speculative dimension; they are not certain. An argument that proves a factual claim (such as the existence of God), as well as any scientific argument, is by its very nature not empty, and therefore is always synthetic. Whether to call synthetic inferences “logic” or not is a semantic question and not an important one.
In the notebooks I present all kinds of inference. The first notebook deals with a deductive-analytic argument that tries to prove the existence of God. Since such arguments are supposed to be empty, this is indeed a problematic argument. Even so, I tried to show there that its problematic nature is not trivial. The arguments from the second notebook onward are not deductive, and therefore are not empty. Synthetic arguments are not empty.