Kobi,
perhaps Rabbi Kook meant Friedrich Hegel’s philosophical-historical idea that philosophy is dialectical. In his view, it is a union, a synthesis between thesis and antithesis. You can see an expansion of this in Yirmiyahu Yovel’s book Kant and the Philosophy of History.

Hi,

I’ve been wrestling for some time now with the issue of logic, its limits, and the ability to break through them. It seems to me that this is also connected to the question in this discussion (whether God is beyond logic).
My basic intuition says that someone who holds a consistent dualistic position (what you call “syntheticity”) must assume the existence of a reality outside logic.
Such a reality includes different entities, and even forms of cognition like those of the senses and of intellectual insight.
In fact, it seems to me that the argument for the relevance of that “extra-logical” reality is not only entailed by the dualistic position, but is itself logically stronger than the competing argument (that is, stronger than the “analytic” argument that denies the very possibility of going beyond logic).

What do you think?

I’ve already written my opinion several times.

If you’ve written your opinion, then perhaps you’ve also addressed the criticism I raised against your position (briefly: it is a position that falls into “analyticity”).
Could you direct me to where you dealt with this specific point?

I don’t see any argument here that needs addressing. You suggest that there is something beyond logic, and I say that talk about what is beyond logic, spiritual or physical, is nonsense. That’s all.

1. What do you mean you don’t see an argument to deal with? I wrote that it seems to me your position may lead to the analytic view. That is the argument.
2. The reasoning: it follows from what you said above that logic is the be-all and end-all. There is nothing besides it.
3. In any case, we have to consider the possibility that the move beyond logic is dictated to us by logic itself (or perhaps by some other element in our consciousness?).
4. In the end, perhaps we will have to choose between two “strange” options, and if that is the case, I would prefer to choose the less strange one and therefore also the more rational one.
5. Let me give you an analogy that occurred to me (I already gave it to you in the past): space.
The proposition:
“Space exists”
stands in apparent contradiction to the proposition:
“Space does not exist.”
In my opinion, if you examine the concept of space deeply, you will reach the conclusion that there is no contradiction here at all, but only a paradox.
6. This is an example of a dualistic-synthetic position, according to which logic is not the be-all and end-all.

Doron, this time we got more quickly than before to the point of no return. Your message sounds to me like a Zen Buddhist koan (see the next column, which will go up in the coming days).

Michi, thanks for your response.
I’m very fond of koans and I’ll be happy to read your article.
As you know, the main purpose of those parables is therapeutic.
So I infer from this that if you interpreted my words that way, then they did you some good.
My modest contribution to society.

By the way, it’s very interesting to examine why cultures that are not “logocentric” (in the language of Derrida, may his memory be for ill) such as Far Eastern cultures, are driven to such an urgent engagement with logic and its limits.

It will be clarified in the next column. They do not resort to it; they flee there.