Methods regarding the problem of knowledge and choice
Shalom Rabbi, what is the Rabbi's position on the Ralbag's method regarding knowledge and choice?
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
I do not know his method. In general, I do not think there is room for different methods in this, because there is only one possible method in this issue. Those who review the various methods on each issue are making a fundamental mistake here. It is clear that there is no point in reviewing methods that do not mean anything or are not different from the others or are not true.
And here, where there is only one option, as in the case of Didan (where God does not know in advance the things of choice except in situations where He makes the choice), every method is one of these three categories: either it is identical to the other, or it means nothing (quite a few methods are nothing more than empty wordplay), or they are false-contradictory.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
A. So if I understand the Rabbi's position correctly, he believes that there is no knowledge when the possible choice is present?
on. And what about the fact that I don't know what knowledge is because our minds are limited, and if so, there is no contradiction at all?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A. indeed
on. There's no point in talking about what you don't know. Ignorance doesn't resolve contradictions.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Regarding question B, what does it mean that there is no point in talking about something you don't know? Could you expand on the explanation a bit, since most Judaism relies on this explanation?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I don't know Judaism that relies on this explanation, especially one that is not an explanation at all. I don't understand what needs to be explained here. You write that you don't understand anything, and that this explanation (that politicians don't talk about) is what most of Judaism relies on?
If you don't know what knowledge is, then don't say anything about his knowledge. Neither that he knows nor that he doesn't know. You're talking about things you don't know about, so what's the point of talking? And if you don't know something, does that resolve a contradiction?
If he knows in advance – then there is a contradiction. If he doesn't know – then there is no contradiction. And if you don't know what knowledge is then don't talk about it, neither say he knows nor say he doesn't. Then of course there is no contradiction.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
A. I know that he knows because the Torah and the Mishnah explicitly say, "Everything is foreseen," but I don't know exactly what kind of anticipation, and I know that there is also a choice, as it says, "and permission is given."
on. According to your opinion, if he does not know, then it is known that his knowledge is his essence, and therefore if he does not know, then there is a lack in his essence.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
A. We repeat ourselves. If you know, no matter where, then everything is fine. But if you don't know what knowing it means, then what do you learn from the mishna? You don't understand it, so what is there to discuss? There is a mishna that you don't understand, and from there you draw conclusions and then you have a contradiction. Now you "resolve" the contradiction by saying that we don't understand. Do you understand how that sounds?
By the way, in my opinion this is not what is written there in the mishna either. In my opinion, the simple explanation is that everything is foreseen (= seen by Him) except for that for which permission is given (our actions that result from choice).
on. You know a lot of things from sources that are unknown to me, and you make questions difficult by virtue of them. I don't know what it means that his knowledge is his essence, and I also don't know that his knowledge is his essence. And beyond all that, even if it makes sense, if he doesn't know something, it's not a lack of essence. His essence is the collection of knowledge that can be known and he knows it. Other knowledge doesn't exist at all, so there's no lack of essence. But all this is unnecessary chatter about vague concepts that are based on speculative thinking. I see no point in engaging in this.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer