Q&A: Logic and the Principle of Causality
Logic and the Principle of Causality
Question
Hello Rabbi,
First of all, thank you very much for the trilogy. From page to page (and I haven't stopped reading all of them in parallel. I don't know how good it is that this is happening to a student in a yeshiva high school…) it keeps becoming clearer to me just how tremendous a work this is.
In recent days I read in the second book of the trilogy about logical contradictions and God's "subordination," as it were, to avoiding them.
What I didn't understand is this: if logic exists as a necessary entity and not by virtue of a prior cause (= God), and "it is simply there" – how does that not contradict the principle of causality? It would seem from such an approach that logic too is first in the chain of causality, since God is not the one who brought it about.
On the other hand, it's also clear to me that this whole discussion is conducted within the framework of logical rules, and so it seems simple enough to say that this is just a discussion that cannot really be engaged in, because any discussion about logic will always take place within the framework that logic itself determines. But if it's simply impossible to discuss the subject, then one also cannot say that God is "subject to" logical rules, and the only possibility is to say nothing ("Whereof one cannot speak…").
I would be grateful if the Rabbi could sharpen this point for a poor fellow like me, limited in understanding as I am.
Thank you!
Answer
Thank you very much.
There are no rules about who is supposed to read and who isn't. Whoever finds it interesting and relevant to him apparently should read it.
Logic does not exist, because it is not any kind of entity. And similarly, the laws of logic are not laws in the sense that the laws of physics are laws. A round triangle does not exist because the concept is empty of content, not because there is some (logical) law that forbids its existence.
It may be worthwhile for you to search the site for discussions about the laws of logic (for example, about the stone that God cannot lift), where I explain this a bit more. For example here (and there are many others): https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A2-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%9C
Discussion on Answer
Not our world. It will apparently be a different world in which there will be things that cannot happen. In our world those things are apparently important, and God does not want to give them up.
After all, there already once was a world without death (before Adam's sin).
All this is assuming that death is evil. But it is possible that death is not evil, and therefore the decision that there be death is not an unavoidable result of the laws but a planned result. And according to that, in the future it will be evil, and then indeed God will change it.
And all this is written on the assumption that the prophet's words really are to be interpreted literally, that death really will be swallowed up forever.
Thank you
Sabbath שלום
You just also need to study for matriculation exams… and Torah too (as an object, of course).
A question בעקבות the discussion there about natural evil as a necessary result of a world governed by laws –
Seemingly, from the verse (Isaiah 25), "He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears…" it appears that God does have the possibility of establishing a world with laws but without natural evil (and that this is also how it will be at some point). How does the verse fit with the Rabbi's view that conduct according to laws necessitates bad outcomes?