Q&A: A Basic Misunderstanding in the Book "Truth and Not Stable"
A Basic Misunderstanding in the Book "Truth and Not Stable"
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have already read parts 1–4 of your book Truth and Not Stable.
You argue there that in order to resolve the basic questions of how it is possible to understand the world and so on, one must arrive at the understanding that we have intuition, and therefore there is no reason to reject it; truth is not necessarily a logical proof but rather plausibility, etc., etc….
But there is one small thing I did not understand: how can intuition have the power to identify things that are external to us—for example, in nature?! Or that there exists such a concept as induction?
You repeat there that this is a kind of intellectual cognition. But these are things that the intellect rejects, and does the intellect have eyes directed outward? How can the intellect understand that there is a principle of induction? After all, it has not lived forever! The only possible claim, as I understand it, would be to say that it “sees” the idea of the operating instructions of the universe, but clearly that is an answer that provokes a slight laugh.
I would be glad if the Rabbi would explain this basic point.
Answer
I argue that intuition is a cognitive tool. In my book I brought proofs for this (for example, from the validity of scientific generalizations). This means that the intellect indeed “sees.” Not with the eyes, but with the “eyes of the intellect” (in Maimonides’ terminology).
Discussion on Answer
I proved it, and I already referred you there. Read the book, and if you are not convinced, then not. If you have a concrete argument, you can present it.
I accept that what you mentioned regarding the laws of nature is ostensibly evidence,
but it is still not clear to me how our intellect can see that what existed until today will continue to exist tomorrow. Where did it “read” that?
You assume that there is only “seeing” with the eyes. But the idealists already wondered about that too: how do you know that the eyes really reflect something out there? It turns out that we have other ways to “see,” not through the senses. What is the problem? You are looking for a sensory explanation for this seeing, and therefore you will not find one. But such a search begs the question. Just as we have senses, we have intuition. These are facts that you either accept or do not, but you will not find independent indications for them.
I agree that we do indeed have a certain intuitive capacity for cognition—for example, the understanding, against the idealists and solipsism, that what we see does in fact exist in objective reality, and so on.
But! The claim that there are intellectual cognitions directed toward the external world (and not inward—such as the understanding that reality is objective, etc.) is very foreign to ordinary understanding. It is not clear that such a cumbersome explanation is preferable. (Its a priori plausibility is nearly zero.)
B. This also requires assuming a reality of ideas, which makes the claim even more cumbersome.
Indeed. And those conclusions are necessitated by the consideration regarding the laws of nature and by the perception (which is definitely intuitive) that the laws of morality are not subjective. These indications lead to conclusions that at first glance seem foreign, but they are necessary. You need to decide whether to give them up or to give up trust in the laws of nature and the laws of morality.
What does it mean that the intellect sees? Where is it written in nature that the concept of induction exists, that the world will always continue the same way, that the laws of nature are valid throughout the world, and so on?
If it is not written there, then the eyes of the intellect are not a cognitive tool but rather a kind of “computational-basic” tool.
And if it really is written there, then the burden of proof is on the Rabbi to prove something so strange.