Question

Rabbi, in the second notebook you argue that the reason an effect has a cause is not due to our experience, but that there is logical reasoning behind it. [And therefore Kant’s words are rejected.] But I don’t understand: according to this definition, why is it only something within our experience that needs to have a cause? If the definition were like Kant’s, this would be understandable, but if the basis of the argument is logical, then seemingly it applies both to things within our experience and to things outside it. Thanks, Dvir