Q&A: A Square Triangle and a Self-Sweetened Set
A Square Triangle and a Self-Sweetened Set
Question
Hi. I’m asking a question following up on the book Moves Among the Standing and also your podcast with Dushi.
In the book Moves Among the Standing, you talk about how, philosophically, nothing has validity in and of itself (the validity of the Torah comes from God / the revelation at Mount Sinai, the validity of the universe comes from God, the High Court derives its validity from the laws of the Knesset, and the Knesset from the people who elect the representatives). At the same time, in your latest podcast with Daniel Dushi, you explain that God is omnipotent, but cannot create something that cannot exist / is impossible by definition (an object so big that He cannot move it / a square triangle). These two points lead to a question: if God is defined as the first set / an undefined set / something whose validity comes from nothing else, doesn’t that lead to a philosophical contradiction? In other words, just as God cannot create a square triangle, because by definition there is no such thing, how can God be a set / something with validity in itself (which is also something you claimed does not exist)?
Thank you!
Answer
I don’t know where in my remarks you got the claim that something with intrinsic validity cannot exist. I never said such a thing. Perhaps you’re referring to my claim that it is impossible to validate a system on the basis of itself (like a law that obligates one to obey the laws). That is an entirely different claim.
I also don’t understand what “God’s validity” means. Objects don’t have validity (though cottage cheese can expire—this requires further consideration).