Which questions have one truth and which do not? And how do we know that?

I’ll explain what I meant by why great complexity empties the concept of truth:
In the question I meant the concept of truth in the sense of what is the correct way to act in various situations. Truth, as I understand it, is a reflection of a rule / statement according to which one should act. The more we say that the answer changes depending on different situations (because of the complexity), the less we succeed in formulating a uniform rule that would be correct, and therefore there is no “truth”—or alternatively there are infinitely many truths, each one suited to a different case. (I wanted to illustrate this with a moral question and something else too, but there’s a word limit here…)

I don’t have a criterion. If I see two reasonable paths and I have no way to decide between them, then I conclude that there are two correct answers here.
I distinguish between truth on the level of reasons/justifications and truth on the level of the practical decision. I’ll illustrate with the chocolate example. The reasons on both sides are true (the chocolate is both tasty and healthy), but it may still be that in the practical question of whether to eat it or not (does pleasure outweigh health or not? a question of a value scale) there is only one correct answer.
Of course, under different circumstances the answer may change, but that does not touch on the question of the uniqueness of truth. For example, if there is a person who doesn’t gain weight because of his metabolism, then for him taste will outweigh health, whereas for another person it’s the opposite. That is not a multiplicity of truths, but one truth that is applied in different ways according to the circumstances. Think, for example, of the prohibition of murder. It is obviously forbidden to murder, but it is also obviously permitted in war to kill enemy soldiers. Does that mean there is no single truth regarding whether murder is permitted? Obviously there is one truth; it is just that in each set of circumstances it is applied in the way that suits them. This has nothing whatsoever to do with postmodern narrative-ism.

By the way, as far as I know there is no word limit. Sometimes the “Reply” button disappears after you’ve written a few lines, but you can keep writing as much as you like. When you finish and want to send the comment, press TAB, and then the “Reply” will appear for you at the bottom and you can click it and send the comment. (That’s exactly what I did in this very response.)

If truth is applied in different ways depending on the circumstances, in what sense is it one truth? (Maybe only in the sense that it strives toward the “good,” but even then the question enters of what the good is, and here too there will be different answers.)

Regarding postmodernism, it was said in the lecture: if something is both possible and impossible in the same respect, then that’s nonsense. What does the Rabbi think about “dialectics,” and about the unity of opposites or bearing opposites in this context?
Very often you can see that the very same thing itself leads to opposite things. For example, sadness and joy at the same time over the same event, or, for example (an example I just read), that a person’s contemplation of nature can simultaneously cause him to feel “I am but dust and ashes” and also “the world was created for my sake.” That is, we need to hold contradictory conceptions in life at the same time (in the same respect).

Yes, the “Reply” really did disappear for me… thanks for the guidance! (The examples I wanted to give are no longer important, because the examples you gave illustrate the same idea…)

I gave examples, and I don’t understand what the problem is. Did you think that if there is a principle, then its application under every kind of circumstance will be uniform? Does paying income tax not depend on the level of your income and your personal situation? So there are no principles of income tax? I really do not understand the difficulty here. When one says there is not one moral answer, the intention is to say that in the very same person and under exactly the same circumstances all answers are correct. If for every person in a given situation and set of circumstances there is one answer, that is indeed one truth, even if the circumstances can be varied.
The unity of opposites and similar expressions are exactly the nonsense I am talking about. I explained this at length in the new article that just went up now (and in several previous places as well): https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%98%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%95%d7%98%d7%a2%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a1%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa%d7%99
Sadness and joy at the same time over the same event are not connected to postmodernity but to complexity. There is no multiplicity of truths at all in the claim that a certain event saddens me because of reason X and makes me happy because of reason Y. Exactly like loving chocolate because of its taste and hating it because it makes you fat.

Thank you, the article looks truly fascinating. I’ve already had occasion several times to think about the connection between quantum theory and postmodern ideas, and I hope to read it soon. But meanwhile I’d be happy to raise a few more questions following the discussion here.

1. Do you see a tension between the fact that a person is a subjective creature (everyone experiences things differently and reacts to them differently) and the claim that there is not one truth?
2. And on a similar matter, if we define the human being as a non-rational creature, is it correct to say that sometimes one must act non-rationally in order to be rational? (It feels to me connected also to postmodern ideas, all sorts of ideas that contain tension within themselves…)

3. In your opinion, are these ideas (uniting opposites and the like) simply a desire to hold onto what lies beyond, and to feel that there are things that are beyond the laws of logic and beyond what we understand and are capable of understanding? In your eyes, is there nothing in that? Does it only provide some psychological satisfaction, calm, or meaning?
Even Maimonides’ theory of negative attributes (at least according to some interpretations) goes in that direction, that there are things beyond human reason…

4. Intellect and emotion are, in my eyes, another expression of these ideas: they oppose each other and yet also complement each other at the same time.

5. In your opinion, is the aspiration to neutralize irrationality and remain with pure intellect? Why is that the one and only truth? If we say that it is the only thing we can prove and attain—but after all, the way to prove it is through that very same system itself, the logical-intellectual system.

Thanks in advance,

1. No. We experience things differently, but my assumption is that this is the same truth perceived by different people in different forms. Exactly as the same truth appears in different forms under different circumstances. Think of someone looking at reality through red or green cellophane: they see different pictures that represent the same reality.

2. I didn’t understand why to define a person that way. Indeed, unfortunately there are non-rational people, but are you assuming that this is the definition of the human being? As for your question, it is a matter of definition. If it is rational to behave that way, then that is rational behavior.

3. There are no such ideas. There are such words. The question of why people mutter meaningless things should be directed to a psychologist. As for the theory of negative attributes, I too tend to think so. See my book No Man Rules the Spirit.

4. To me this is a meaningless sentence.

5. Definitely. The striving for truth is precisely rationality. Rationality does not mean proof. But again, these are general statements, and if you want to discuss, bring an example.

1. But what is the meaning of that truth if nothing can be done with it? It loses its meaning, because no person is capable of removing the cellophane through which he observes. Or do you think he can?

2. I didn’t mean it as a definition that includes the whole essence of the human being, but a definition that expresses part of the definition of the human being. It seems to me that by the very fact that we are human beings (and not God, for example), we do not behave perfectly, and if so, isn’t it correct to say that we behave non-rationally?
And then my claim is that the way to make peace with the “lack” (and act rationally) is specifically to take it into account and not go against it. This is expressed in the tension between intellect and emotion. Suppose I want to watch a movie and I know that rationally I should study now for an exam. It may be that I will nevertheless choose to watch a movie not out of weakness of will, but out of the knowledge that if I stop the movie now I won’t be able to concentrate on studying. That is a non-rational decision, but it stems from a deficiency that exists in a person who cannot always act rationally, and therefore it seems to me that in the end it is indeed rational. Do you agree, or should we always try to neutralize this natural emotion and act only according to rational intellect?

3. Are the things that are beyond human reason also beyond logic?
What is the difference between saying that there are things beyond human reason and saying these ideas? Is it only the concreteness? Meaning, that they take specific meaningless things, and you claim that by the very fact that they are above reason one cannot speak about them at all?

4. What I meant in the sentence is that on the one hand sometimes emotion and intellect contradict—emotion says to act in way A and intellect in way B—and on the other hand it is good that we have both of them; otherwise why did God create us this way? Though then one could ask more generally why He did not create a perfect world…
Well, maybe really this goes back again to the matter of looking at something from different angles.

5. “Rationality does not mean proof.” I did not understand that sentence. Looking at the Google dictionary: rationality = conformity to reason; reason = logic, common sense; logic = correct organization of concepts, which leads to clear and correct cognition. How does one arrive at clear and correct cognition if not by means of proofs?

Example: the issue of belief in Torah and commandments. It is not rational to believe that God gave Torah and commandments, and that one must observe them with such great precision. A line of reasoning I heard from a great person on this is that indeed this is not rational, but rationality is capable of proving only itself with the tools it itself created (logic), and therefore he argued that when he observes Torah and commandments he does so from within another system that is not rational, because it is not relevant to investigate this rationally or to try to solve the “contradictions” when one is dealing with something that from the outset should not pretend to be rational.

We are repeating ourselves. Beyond that, it is hard to conduct a discussion in such general terms. I suggest that if you want to continue on something, raise a specific example.
1. It certainly can be used for things. It must be applied in the circumstances and to the person in question. What is the problem with that?
The matter of the cellophane is an example. Think of a scientific perception. Everyone can understand it subjectively differently, but everyone agrees on the same laws of nature and also derives conclusions from them. So too regarding the philosophers’ chestnut (that everyone perhaps sees the world in a different color—for example, what I call red for you is called green and vice versa). We would still agree about every claim that is made.

2. True, sometimes people behave non-rationally. So what? Let them overcome it. They also sometimes speak gossip. Should we make peace with that too? Your description regarding the movie is a deliberation between two options and a rational decision between them. Emotion and drives and our entire non-rational dimension are a given that certainly must be taken into account when making decisions. That does not mean that it itself will make decisions. I have written here more than once that people asked me regarding choosing a spouse whether to follow the heart or the mind. I answered that of course one should follow the mind. But the mind has to factor in what the heart says too, because chemistry between spouses is an important factor in marriage. All this is thoroughly rational consideration.

3. Logic in its accepted sense is logical arguments (proofs). But common sense too is rational and reasonable. Think: where do the premises of your arguments come from? Do they too have proofs? So why do you rely on them? Because that is what common sense says (intuition). This is an inseparable part of the rational mind and reason. I wrote on this point two books (Two Carts and Truth and Unstable).
The unity of opposites is nonsense exactly like talk about a square circle or the claim that the good virtue is wet. What psychological reasons cause people to move their lips without saying anything—that is a question for a psychologist.

4. See above the example of spouses.

5. See above where I explained that rationality also includes elements beyond arguments and proofs.

It is very rational to believe that God gave Torah and commandments, and it is very rational to observe them. The things you brought here are from a confused person who moves his lips without saying anything. I again refer you to my above-mentioned article.

1+2+4 — thank you very much. Interesting and convincing.

3. Common sense (intuition) differs from person to person, and then regarding ideological and moral questions (and not objective scientific ones), it is not clear to me how one can decide what the truth is.
And then even if we assume there is such a thing, how can one reach it?

5. I read the wonderful article mentioned above, and it solved and explained several questions for me. (By the way, I wondered how physics uses complex numbers, which seem to include a logical contradiction in their very definition?)
Regarding the unity of opposites, I accept the fact that one cannot accept things that contradict logic, but still (beyond the ideas you suggested—that this is metaphorical, or things that are not really a contradiction), it seems to me that there is an idea here trying not to give up the good in both worlds, because indeed in both opposites there is (sometimes) something good, whereas choosing one of them or choosing a balance between them reduces the good. Practically this is impossible, but in the realm of ideas it seems possible to me. It becomes not holding X and not-X at the same time, but holding the good in X and the good in “not-X.”

6. And further on the same matter, for example the trait of mercy: it is a good thing, but it also has a bad side, because one who is merciful to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the merciful. Likewise with the trait of strict justice. This is not a logical contradiction and not complexity either—because it is not that from aspect A it is like this and from aspect B it is like that, nor that in different situations one should act differently, but rather that the very same thing itself contains potential for two different directions. This connects to what you defined in the article as “ambiguity.”

7. This connects for me (even though the connection is slight) to the fact that many times in reality things work the opposite of what we might have thought / expected. For example (an example I recently read): “Excessive preoccupation with issues of modesty causes other important issues to be pushed aside… and paradoxically often leads specifically to a state of immodesty…”
This is connected because it shows that the two extremes of the same thing (a thing and its opposite) are actually not so far apart. I’d be glad to hear your opinion on this.

Thank you very much for your answers—they are very helpful to me.

3. Quite apart from me, how do you think disputes are decided in various fields? The fact that there are disputes does not mean there are many truths, but that there is an argument and one is right and the others are wrong. True, it is not always possible to persuade, but that has nothing to do with the question of a multiplicity of truths. Even someone who believes in logic—every logical argument is based on premises. And if there is a dispute about the premises, what will you do? Usually, the decision in such arguments is made by rhetorical rather than logical means. People think rhetoric is synonymous with demagoguery (because they assume that only logic is reasonable). But that is nonsense. A discussion about first premises is always rhetorical. To understand how rhetorical means work, think how you yourself adopt a first premise: by intuition. In my opinion intuition is a kind of non-sensory cognition (with the eyes of the mind, but not pure thought). Rhetorical means take your interlocutor to look at the issue (with the eyes of his mind) from another point of view, and perhaps to be persuaded regarding the premise under dispute. Sometimes, of course, it doesn’t work, and then one remains in disagreement.

5. Complex numbers do not include any contradiction at all. They are well-defined, and the ways of handling them are unambiguous and perfectly clear, just like ordinary numbers. The fact that this definition is far from intuition changes nothing. Their properties allow us to use them in various areas of science. That is exactly why it was worthwhile to define these entities (because it is very fruitful).
Trying to take the good from two contradictory worlds is nonsense. The desire is nice, but it is impossible. If they are contradictory, you cannot adopt them both together. Sometimes one can create a non-contradictory combination, and that of course has nothing to do with a multiplicity of truths but with a complex truth.

6. This is just one example among many of the fact that the same truth itself is applied differently in different circumstances. As I explained above, as long as we are speaking of different circumstances, there is no multiplicity of truths here. This is not connected to ambiguity, since ambiguity is one state not clearly defined under specific circumstances (and not two different states/circumstances).

7. That is completely true, but it is not connected to the question of a multiplicity of truths. Under different circumstances, the applications of the same one truth need to be different. It only means that truth is complex, just like the chocolate.

I understand. Thank you.
1. I think the unity of opposites is mainly a way of saying not only that truth is complex, but that sometimes the doubt, which stems from the opposites within us, should/can remain, and then in that sense there is no decision between the opposites and we are actually holding both of them.

2. I also think that the confusion you presented between complex truth and the uniting of opposites stems from the definition of the “aspects.” You can break everything down into aspects, but you can also see things as one thing. For example, the human being as one aspect, and then say that there are opposites within him; for example, that he has both selfishness and care for the other (and this is not from different aspects, just viewing the human being as one aspect that contains opposites within it). Sometimes the two opposites also go together, such as in a situation where concern for myself is also what will be better for others.

3. Beyond that, the definition of opposites seems slippery to me for two reasons:
1) Opposites in language are not always X and not-X (in which case it is obviously a contradiction, if we are not talking about different aspects); sometimes each opposite contains, beyond the negation of the other, qualities of its own.
2) Everything is defined as the opposite of something else by its very definition, like the example that if there were no evil in the world then there would also be no good (and vice versa). That is, if we were to imagine a world in which there is only what we now call “good,” reality would again be divided into good and evil (today we would call it good and better), and if so the opposites depend on definitions and are relative, and if so the whole matter of uniting opposites can exist.

1. Doubt is not the unity of opposites. If you are in doubt, then be in doubt. What does that have to do with a multiplicity of truths? If two sides contradict each other, then even if you are in doubt you cannot hold both of them. That is an internal contradiction.
2. I didn’t understand. What is the difference between different aspects and what you are proposing? It is exactly the same thing.
3. About this you should read my above-mentioned article (and also my article about belief in logical contradictions).

1. If I am in doubt, that is a sign that all the possibilities have reached equality for me in the final weighing, and therefore either I have not investigated enough or there really is a multiplicity of truths in this case. I indeed cannot hold both opposites, but contradictory truths exist simultaneously in reality, even if I as a human being cannot hold them. As in the example brought in the article about the creeping creature: if theoretically the reasons for impurity had not outweighed, the creeping creature would be both pure and impure at the same time.

2. It is not a proposal, only an explanation of why some people claim a unity of opposites, because they see things as one aspect and do not divide them into many aspects…

3. I read the above-mentioned article (with God’s help I’ll also read the second one) and I did not see a response to the second claim in section 3.

1. If you are in doubt, then you are in doubt. Still, it is impossible to hold two contradictory positions. Either a woman is divorced or she is a married woman. If there is doubt, then there is doubt between those two. No connection whatsoever to the unity of opposites and other nonsense. And the creeping creature of course would not have been pure and impure at the same time, but doubtfully pure and doubtfully impure. That is a completely different state.
2. I still do not understand what the difference is. I assume that even if I understand, it is one of two things: either one truth or nonsense. There is no third possibility.
3. I don’t understand the second claim.
It is hard for me to conduct a discussion at such intervals, and it is also repeating itself.

Okay, thank you very much, and happy holiday!