Q&A: Following “Pluralism, Pantism, and Generality”
Following "Pluralism, Pantism, and Generality"
Question
Hello Rabbi.
My name is H., and I am very secular. I was discharged from armored corps service about half a year ago, and I am currently a student.
During my military service, my opinion of Religious Zionism changed completely. Many long and in-depth conversations contributed to this—with friends, commanders, and rabbis who came to spend Sabbaths with us—and through them I was exposed to a rich and complex movement, one that asks questions, challenges, and casts doubt.
In fact, I was exposed to the existence of a new kind of figure: the “intellectual believer.” To you that may sound obvious, but for me it was a pleasant surprise. I found great wisdom in my friends from Religious Zionism, deep and essential understanding, philosophical as well.
At the same time, I came away from every such conversation a bit disappointed. Despite all the wisdom they projected outwardly, I never managed to get to the root of their position when we spoke about faith and certainty. “We are full of certainty, and it is not arbitrary fanaticism,” they told me, and I myself believed them. I believed them—but I could not accept their claims as they were presented to me. They were always lacking.
Today, this very Thursday, I took a break from my studies and read carefully Rabbi Kelner’s book “Pluralism, Pantism, and Generality,” hoping to find in it a resolution to this troubling gap: how is it possible that such an intelligent, thoughtful, and perceptive population accepts some sort of certainty upon itself?
Unfortunately, I was disappointed this time too, and I even arrived at a new conclusion: the thought of Religious Zionism is simply not well defined.
I read a few articles by Rabbi Kook. Guided reading, I should say. I was certainly impressed—a genius, one of a kind in his generation, with an amazing prophetic sense. At the same time, I cannot deny the unfortunate fact that the Rabbi’s books are not constructed as logical proofs. His style of writing is more humanistic, full of metaphors, images, and descriptions, and very sparse in precise definitions and absolute formulations. In other words, the man is a poet, not a philosopher.
That, in my opinion, is the reason I have not managed until now to understand the certainty of Religious Zionist people: it is not defined precisely enough. It speaks about “the Jewish people” before defining what existence is. It speaks about “history” before proving absolutely that there even is a past. It defines the supreme goal in life, “the purpose of all purposes,” “the aim of all aims,” in the following recursive and unacceptable way: “Truth is the aspiration for truth.”
And yet, I am still convinced that there is some hidden wisdom in Religious Zionism, concealed from view, such that if only I were able, like my friends, to grapple with all kinds of imprecise formulations like “truth is the aspiration for truth,” it would reveal itself to me in all its glory.
I am looking for a “mathematical” proof. Ordered. Beautiful and elegant. One that will leave me stunned and leave me no choice but to admit my mistake until now, beg mercy for my many sins, and immediately run to put on tefillin.
Even if the proof has to rest on one or two arbitrary assumptions, that is also fine, as long as they are well defined. Of course mathematical proofs also rest on arbitrary axioms, and there is no problem with that at all. At least then there would be something to argue about.
But when I try to read Rabbi Kook—even Rabbi Kelner explaining him—to me it sounds like Chinese. It may also be connected to some intellectual limitation on my part. True. But in my opinion there is a sharp and unbridgeable conceptual gap here between different styles of thought and inference.
That is, in fact, the reason I am turning to you.
Could you suggest reading material that lays out the ideological foundation of Religious Zionism a bit more precisely? Without assuming arbitrary assumptions? Without recursive definitions and without analytic statements?
You will most likely bring up one of your own books. I have avoided them until now for two reasons: first of all, many reports say they are especially difficult (though perhaps there is no choice and I need to overcome that). Second, because many believers I have spoken with somewhat denounced your books and claimed that there is more Westernness than Judaism in them.
I am, of course, perfectly fine with that, except that right now my goal is not necessarily the pursuit of truth (indeed, if the search for truth were the central issue, I would start with Kant rather than Rabbi Kook), but rather to try to understand more precisely—precisely enough to form an opinion—this vague thing that I feel when I read Rabbi Kook or when I speak with intellectuals from Religious Zionism, which seems full of wisdom yet completely incomprehensible.
That is, for present purposes I am not necessarily looking for the truth, but for the truth as Religious Zionist people perceive it. To understand their certainty—that is my question. Therefore I am not sure whether your books represent that and can provide a good answer.
With regards and thanks
Answer
Hello H.,
First of all, I do not understand why you are turning to me if the “Westernness” of my books (in your terms) makes it clear to you that they are not the answer to your difficulties. I do not understand how you split between the author and his books.
Second, if you had nevertheless bothered to read them instead of deciding a priori that they would not help you, I think you would have found in them an answer to your question. You would not have found there a logical proof of Religious Zionism, but you certainly would have understood the silliness and folly in looking for such a thing (a beautiful and elegant mathematical proof that will leave you astonished, etc. etc. Come on, really!). There is no logical proof—in the naive sense you attribute to it—for anything, and not only for Religious Zionism, at least if you correctly understand the meaning of such a proof (that is what I explain in Two Carts and in Truth and Unstable).
And in general, looking for logical proofs for Religious Zionism points to a lack of understanding of the concept of Religious Zionism (which I myself do not fully belong to), and not only of logic. Fine, one might ask for a logical proof of faith itself—but what logical proof do you want for a particular interpretation of it? Would you also want an elegant logical proof that leaves you amazed that one must recite Grace after Meals, or that Grace after Meals must contain three components, or that one must take specifically four species on Sukkot?
Discussion on Answer
All the best.
And still, I hope you have not yet closed the discussion with me.
I read the following wonderful post—
https://mikyab.net/Writings/Articles/Abraham Our Forefather and His Hat: In Praise of Begging the Question/
Honestly, I do not believe in the existence of a creator who created the system. I do not believe in the certainty of the senses, I do not believe in the laws of logic, I do not believe in anything.
I say this seriously. There is no lack of inner honesty here. I truly see these things as potentially illusory.
There is one thing I am certain of, and that is the Cartesian cogito in its narrowest possible sense. A point-like solipsistic existence, without dimension, without direction, without size. Beyond that—nothing.
And yet, I am under the illusion—perhaps true and perhaps not, certainly very doubtful—that I want to be happy. What is happiness? What is the path to happiness? There are several possible answers, but none of them is precise or certain. In order not to go physically or mentally insane, I choose of my own will, in full and clear self-deception, to adopt the illusion and live by it. That is why I get off the train. That is why I move and act and behave. But it is only an illusion, meant to feed another illusion, to which I turn in order not to lose my sanity. Broader certainty is definitely not present here. At least, I have not yet found it.
According to your view, from within that very narrow certainty, is there any tool that can expand my certainty? Anything at all? Or is this where our paths diverge, I receive the label “mentally ill,” and your precious and already-overloaded time is better devoted to those who do accept additional certainties?
Hello Hen.
I have to tell you that I have already heard people make such declarations, and I tend not to believe them. Heaven forbid, not because I suspect they are lying, but because in my opinion they probably do not understand themselves.
1. If you do not believe in anything, then why are you writing to me? Do I exist? Is this an internal dialogue within you? If so—I have no interest in taking part in it.
2. If you have no trust in the laws of logic, then what answers are you expecting from me? After all, no valid logical argument will help you. Moreover, in your previous letter you declared that you expect a logical proof that will leave you speechless and convinced. But you do not accept logic, so how could that even happen? Your search does assume trust in logic. You are preventing yourself a priori from ever being able to accept what you are looking for, and yet you keep looking. That is absurd.
3. If you do not believe in the laws of logic, then Descartes’ cogito is also irrelevant, since it too is a logical argument. Which means that you do not believe that you yourself exist, and then our whole conversation loses all meaning.
4. By the way, the laws of logic do not claim anything, and therefore there is no issue of believing or not believing in them. The term “law” used in their context is very misleading, because it makes them sound like laws of nature. But a law of nature claims something, whereas the laws of logic do not. I have dealt with this in several places on my website. See for example here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/
and also here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99/
So if you want to talk, I would be happy to (assuming that both you and I exist), but you need to clarify for me (and for yourself) what I am allowed to assume in this conversation. The laws of logic? Common sense? What one sees with one’s eyes? The laws of science? Before that, there is no point in a conversation between us (or in any conversation at all).
I will just note one thing that may help you. You are looking for an expansion of certainty, and implicitly you assume that knowledge is acceptable only if it is certain. On that point I am entirely with you. There is certainty about nothing at all. But I do not agree that what is not certain is therefore unacceptable (that is, arbitrary). That is a common mistake, identifying knowledge with certainty. But it is not so. Knowledge is information about the world. Whether it is certain or not is a subjective question. There is information at varying levels of certainty (never full certainty).
I elaborated on this in my book Truth and Unstable. If these things matter to you, I recommend that you read it.
Have a good week.
1. Among all the things I cast doubt on, there is of course also doubt itself. Therefore, perhaps you exist, perhaps not; in any case it is not self-evident, and at the moment I do not know how to decide the issue philosophically. I am writing to you because I very much want to be able to do so, and I have a vague feeling that perhaps I may discover something new and amazing during this exchange.
2. Logic is, as you often explain, a means of developing and formalizing knowledge that already exists beforehand in thought, but by its very nature it is not capable of generating new knowledge on its own. In the previous letter, which may itself have suffered from imprecision, I explained that I am looking for a “logical proof”; in fact I meant an “orderly proof,” which definitely did not appear in Rabbi Kelner’s book, and certainly not in Rabbi Kook’s writings, insofar as I can understand them. I have no problem with primary definitions that are not logical, but they need to be precise and not “sparkling with the supreme radiance,” “the essence of the holiness of Israel,” or “perfection is the aspiration for perfection.”
In addition, they need to be minimal. Not dozens of primary definitions, but one or two. From them, the laws of logic, which I do indeed cast doubt on, would presumably have to follow.
As for the primary definitions, since they certainly cannot be logical, they probably have to be intuitive in one way or another. I do not believe you will be able to convince me of their correctness. But if they are precise and minimal enough, I will have a much more specific direction regarding what to look for in a process of inner investigation, which may perhaps involve using means that are not philosophical but experiential-emotional. Art, meditations, Kabbalah, who knows. Everything is acceptable from the moment I know what it is that I need to find.
3. The cogito as originally formulated by Descartes is indeed a logical argument, but I used that title only as a semantic marker. For me, my own point-like existence, without dimension and direction, etc., is the result of an inner intuition and not of a clever logical trick. You do not have to agree; I have no way of proving it to you, because as stated I cast doubt even on the laws of logic. But for me it is the truest of truths.
I simply have no idea how to proceed from here.
4. I understand the statement that the laws of logic do not claim anything… accepted. I think. Maybe they “come into being automatically” the moment there is some reality? Imaginary or not? Either way, reality too has to be defined somehow.
I very much want to talk. In the conversation you may assume whatever you want, as long as it is defined in a way that allows for discussion, and as long as we agree that the goal is to assume as little as possible and prove as much as possible deductively.
I do not know a method for grading levels of certainty. I will read the book.
With regards
Have a good week.
1. Even if you cast doubt on doubt itself, this is still skepticism that does not allow for conversation. You cannot talk with someone who doubts everything. Nothing that is said will be accepted, so what is the point of the discussion?
2. I do not know what an “orderly proof” is. I also do not understand what it means that you have no problem with primary definitions that are not logical. What problem could there be with definitions? What does non-logical definitions mean? It seems to me that you mean definitions with clear content, not precise definitions. Those are two different things.
Even if you kill me, I do not understand how definitions can generate the laws of logic. This whole discussion seems bizarre to me. It seems to me that you need to clarify for yourself much better what you mean, and what you do and do not accept as a basis for discussion.
I do not understand what it means to agree to definitions. Definitions are definitions.
3. There are inner intuitions that you accept and others that you do not? Do the laws of logic not seem intuitively correct to you? Your decisions about what to accept and what not to accept sound completely capricious to me.
I understand that you have no idea how to proceed from here. Neither do I. I think the first step is for you to clarify to yourself your own positions and the foundations on which you are willing to rely. From your words it appears that there is great conceptual confusion on your side (which for some reason you accuse others of). It is clear that you do not really understand what a definition is, what logic is, what certainty is, and what it means to accept or not accept definitions and the laws of logic.
If you want to read an orderly presentation, you can start reading the notebooks on my website. There I try to work in an orderly logical way and arrive at faith (not at Religious Zionism. As I wrote to you, the aspiration to arrive at Religious Zionism by a logical route indicates a lack of understanding regarding logic and regarding Religious Zionism).
All the best
All right.
I will start with your notebooks.
Are they contained within the books you wrote, or is there no overlap?
With regards,
There is no overlap at all. The four notebooks are four kinds of proofs for the existence of God. The fifth takes us from the philosophical God to the religious one.
I do not deal there directly with the meaning of logic (though in the first notebook I touch on it).
I’ll just note that if you are an internal dialogue within him, then the question of whether you are interested in participating in it is not really relevant.
Hello again,
It is possible that I was mistaken in turning to you.
The impression I received from my Religious Zionist friends is that they really do have absolute certainty in the Jewish laws by which they live. For them this is not an “interpretation of faith” but an absolute deductive doctrine, obviously derived from foundational assumptions.
From the little I have read, from the little I am capable of reading (I do not speak Aramaic), I discovered that Jewish law really does aspire to be logical—deductive—from a certain point onward.
When I try to understand in depth what comes before that particular point, I always fail, and that is why I turned to you.
Not so that you would “prove it.” Of course every proof must have foundational assumptions. Rather, I was looking for a more precise and orderly formulation of those foundational assumptions, one that would allow me—if I accept it—to be logically convinced of everything else.
If you are telling me that there is no way to define those foundational assumptions in a narrow and precise way; if you are telling me that one way or another there is no general foundational assumption that yields the conclusion that traditional Jewish law is certain; if you are telling me that the deductive approach is entirely invalid, not only at the beginning—because of course axioms are needed in order to perform deduction—but also afterward,
then I really was mistaken in turning to you.
With regards, and I apologize for the bother