Q&A: The Power of a Revealing Argument
The Power of a Revealing Argument
Question
With God's help,
I wanted to ask: it seems that in his writings, the Rabbi gives a tremendous amount of weight to revealing arguments, and I wanted to ask why that is reasonable.
It would seem that a direct philosophical argument actually gives much more ability to examine a person's intuitions directly, with respect to every component and assumption in the argument. So isn't it preferable for a person to remain undecided as a result of a revealing argument, rather than switch entire camps?
For example, for someone who has clearly decided in favor of materialism-determinism, and to whom vitalism seems like vandalism, should we throw out a great many direct intuitions just because it seems reasonable to him that Buridan's man would choose the hamburger pile on the right?!?
Answer
I have no way to answer that. Each person is supposed to decide for himself which intuition seems stronger to him.
Discussion on Answer
I didn't understand the question.
When a person's assumption, following the philosophical horn, leads him to a certain position, while following the theological horn leads him to the opposite position, doesn't it sound more reasonable that the person should remain undecided with respect to the theological horn? (After all, according to your view, on some side or other he will be forced to feel discomfort anyway.)
What was unclear in what I wrote? You keep repeating yourself. Do you want me to decide for you? No problem. Just write to me what decision you want.
Do you think it's possible to remain incoherent in one's position? Or to remain undecided?