I tend to be not surprised when I hear abut a Muslim killing people. In the USA this was unknown expect in international terror incidents that were in the news.There were not Muslims except for Iranians fleeing from the Islamic revolution over there. But then I was in a country where there were Muslims. Then it was common to hear about Muslims blowing up buses all the time. At least a few times per week. To I got used to hearing about this. I guess it was a shock to me the first times I heard about it but eventually i got used to the idea. Where there are Muslims. you can expect they will kill infidels pretty much on a continuous basis. No surprises here.
14.6.16
Dark Side [the Sitra Achra סטרא אחרא]
There has been a tendency in academia to deny numinous reality.
This can be traced to different sources. I could go through a list, but that would not be helpful.
The problem that I see is that numinous reality has two sides to it. The closer and more seductive Dark Side [the Sitra Achra סטרא אחרא]which mimics holiness. This is what people fall into without being aware of it when they get involved in mystical practices.
The best solution to this problem was decided a long time ago by Lithuanian yeshivas. Learn Ethics and the Oral Law and avoid any and all mystical business. The idea here is that (1) There is numinous reality. (2) The Dark Side is close. (3) Therefore anything beyond learning the Law of Moses,the Oral and written Law is fraught with danger and thus should be avoided.
This is not to say there were no people that by means of their fasting and personal service towards God were able to get a close connection to numinous reality from the side of holiness. Rather it is considered that it is so dangerous as to not be worth it.
In some groups, they think that their sanctioned leader was able to get beyond the danger zone. These are usually the people that are the most deep into the Dark Side.
"Whom the gods would destroy, first they make insane." The first step of the Dark Side is to set up sanctioned accepted leaders that people think are holy.
This can be traced to different sources. I could go through a list, but that would not be helpful.
The problem that I see is that numinous reality has two sides to it. The closer and more seductive Dark Side [the Sitra Achra סטרא אחרא]which mimics holiness. This is what people fall into without being aware of it when they get involved in mystical practices.
The best solution to this problem was decided a long time ago by Lithuanian yeshivas. Learn Ethics and the Oral Law and avoid any and all mystical business. The idea here is that (1) There is numinous reality. (2) The Dark Side is close. (3) Therefore anything beyond learning the Law of Moses,the Oral and written Law is fraught with danger and thus should be avoided.
This is not to say there were no people that by means of their fasting and personal service towards God were able to get a close connection to numinous reality from the side of holiness. Rather it is considered that it is so dangerous as to not be worth it.
In some groups, they think that their sanctioned leader was able to get beyond the danger zone. These are usually the people that are the most deep into the Dark Side.
"Whom the gods would destroy, first they make insane." The first step of the Dark Side is to set up sanctioned accepted leaders that people think are holy.
13.6.16
Mind Body Problem. Beyond the Veil of Perception.
. But my own impression is "empirical realism" excludes a simulation. But your question has lots of different aspects to it. And I am not sure how to condense a simple answer. Mainly we know reality even on the most physical plane is radically different than what we see. We have intellect that enables us to survive, not to perceive reality. So we have to deduce it. On the quantum level things in fact are just possibilities until perceived. So there is no preferred frame of reference. Schopenhauer put it in the best way: representation is half subject and half object. So the simulation is a bit too simplistic. What is going on is the observer depends for his character on the observed, and the observed depends for its character on how it is observed or measured.
Evolution of the mind came about because of the need for reproduction and survival. The mind is good at that. It would not be good if what it perceived was unrelated to what is really there. In any case your question is along the lines of two things: How do we know things? What is really there?
These are objects of discussion in Plato. And in fact he has two areas of reality like Kant. What are called the "world ideas." To Kant that is called unconditioned reality. Still there is a connection.
I would like to take the liberty of of quoting the PhD thesis of Dr Ross (ch 3 sec 4):
"Since Descartes it has been a serious dilemma why a representation caused by an external object need bear any resemblance to the object or tell us anything about it. Any cause is only sufficient to its effect, and sensations as effects conceivably could have any number of possible causes, including God, the deceiving demon, etc. Kant sought to circumvent this problem by proposing that the forms of objectivity of external objects are not conveyed to us causally from without but are actually imposed by the subject from within. This "Copernican Revolution"[76] stood the traditional relation on its head. " He finds this unsatisfactory and thus comes up with a new system. One great advantage of this is he is quite aware of Quantum Mechanics and yet has not fallen into scientism. His answer is knowledge that we know not by thought and not by sensation.
eruditeknight.
I should admit I am personally involved in the answer to this. I felt deeply in Israel that there was some kind of coming into being of a new level of consciousness into the world. I found the world not ready for it so I pushed it away from my self. Probably a mistake. But i was not able to go back and correct it later.
Evil is contagious. Do not hang out with the wrong crowd.
An example of how there are hidden influences from one person to another is purely biologicl temrs is a woman's period.
Sapolsky {Stanford} says people girls can make their periods simultaneous.
That is when girls live at home they have a certain time frame when they do not see and then a time frame in which seeing blood is possible. anywhere from 30 to 40 days.
When they live together one girl can affect the others so that their periods coincide. This is so well known to biology students that he heard one girl bragging to another that in the summer camp she was at she had all the girls synchronized with her after a very short time.
If you have listened to Sapolsky a little you would know where he is going with this.
That there are lots of hidden biological things that affect people and cause them to act in certain ways.
So what you learn is you have to be very careful with whom you hang out.
If you hang out with bad people or insane people be sure this will get into you eventually.
That is to say evil is contagious.
Sapolsky {Stanford} says people girls can make their periods simultaneous.
That is when girls live at home they have a certain time frame when they do not see and then a time frame in which seeing blood is possible. anywhere from 30 to 40 days.
When they live together one girl can affect the others so that their periods coincide. This is so well known to biology students that he heard one girl bragging to another that in the summer camp she was at she had all the girls synchronized with her after a very short time.
If you have listened to Sapolsky a little you would know where he is going with this.
That there are lots of hidden biological things that affect people and cause them to act in certain ways.
So what you learn is you have to be very careful with whom you hang out.
If you hang out with bad people or insane people be sure this will get into you eventually.
That is to say evil is contagious.
Kant
I spent a good deal of time in philosophical and religious searching. The thing I settled on as representing the most accurate picture of reality is the Kant school . That is in terms of question like "How do we know things?" and in terms of questions on meaning and in terms of the ultimate nature of things. Mainly this was process of excluding nonviable options. That is going through a lot of different thinkers and trying to evaluate if what they said made sense to me.
So I do not take a religious fanatic approach to Torah. Hard to explain what that means. Mainly that only sanctioned religious leaders have the truth. That seemed to me to be utterly false. But on the other hand I felt there is a deep truth in the Law of Moses and in the Oral Law. So I needed some way of making sense of things.
I could go through the whole list of philosophers and thinkers that I went through but their names would not mean much. [Some more thoroughly than others.]
A lot of philosophers hit on some deep aspect of truth. But in many of their systems I found flaws. So that is my basic approach in terms of the question of meaning.
How did I go about this? Here are some of the factors I used: Observation of people, assuming there is some connection between what people do and their world view. Internal observation. Common sense. A good deal of learning in depth so as not to dismiss off hand anything just because at first it seems problematic. A good deal of Physics and Math and Torah.
Appendix: I like the critics of Kant very much because of the light they shed on Kant.
The intuitionists, Prichard, Michael Huemer, G.E Moore have some great ideas but in the long run I think they did not try hard enough to understand Kant. I have a great deal of respect for John Locke and the empiricists and the rationalists, but in each there are serious flaws. Both in each individual school of thought and also as general approaches. Of course Plato and Aristotle are great but still I had to find some approach that made sense to me. I was not able to just depend on ancient thinkers that were dealing with different issues.
Some critiques on Kant simply miss the point and do not understand the issues between the rationalists and the empiricists which lead him to his conclusions. A lot of modern philosophers are simply innocent when it comes to Physics, so what they say in that area and conclusions they draw by what they think they know are usually "off." Some have been overly awed by science. Some have "Physics envy." I do not want to go into it all right now. My point is my approach comes mainly came from eliminating other possibilities
So I do not take a religious fanatic approach to Torah. Hard to explain what that means. Mainly that only sanctioned religious leaders have the truth. That seemed to me to be utterly false. But on the other hand I felt there is a deep truth in the Law of Moses and in the Oral Law. So I needed some way of making sense of things.
I could go through the whole list of philosophers and thinkers that I went through but their names would not mean much. [Some more thoroughly than others.]
A lot of philosophers hit on some deep aspect of truth. But in many of their systems I found flaws. So that is my basic approach in terms of the question of meaning.
How did I go about this? Here are some of the factors I used: Observation of people, assuming there is some connection between what people do and their world view. Internal observation. Common sense. A good deal of learning in depth so as not to dismiss off hand anything just because at first it seems problematic. A good deal of Physics and Math and Torah.
Appendix: I like the critics of Kant very much because of the light they shed on Kant.
The intuitionists, Prichard, Michael Huemer, G.E Moore have some great ideas but in the long run I think they did not try hard enough to understand Kant. I have a great deal of respect for John Locke and the empiricists and the rationalists, but in each there are serious flaws. Both in each individual school of thought and also as general approaches. Of course Plato and Aristotle are great but still I had to find some approach that made sense to me. I was not able to just depend on ancient thinkers that were dealing with different issues.
Some critiques on Kant simply miss the point and do not understand the issues between the rationalists and the empiricists which lead him to his conclusions. A lot of modern philosophers are simply innocent when it comes to Physics, so what they say in that area and conclusions they draw by what they think they know are usually "off." Some have been overly awed by science. Some have "Physics envy." I do not want to go into it all right now. My point is my approach comes mainly came from eliminating other possibilities
12.6.16
Who has that authority to interpret Torah?
I had a blog a few years ago where dealt with different ways of interpreting the Torah
But I did not deal with the question who has that authority?
Mainly I considered the question settled by the approach I saw in the yeshiva of Rav Freifeld in Far Rockaway. That was Shar Yashuv. Later at the Mir Yeshiva in NY I saw the approach was the same so I did not think much about it afterwards.
The idea is mainly that we depend on "סברא" logic along with the Oral Law. That is in order of precedence: The two Talmuds, Rishonim[mediaeval authorities], Achronim [authorities after Rav Joseph Karo].
There is a mixture of faith mixed in with this. That is though the Gemara does not claim Divine inspiration we give it more authority than if it would be simply a product if human minds. We assume it is inspired to a lesser degree than the Bible, but still that it is inspired.
This is a settled question--or it should be. Recently I have seen many people to grab authority from the Talmud and claim it themselves. Usually-with intention to legitimize some kind of idolatry of some individual.
Appendix: I imagine an expanded essay on this might be in order. Mainly because of the amount of confusion I have seen on this issue. The actual Oral Law is the two Talmuds. But they do not actually state a legal decision except rarely. Also it is sometimes hard to resolve contradictions. So we go by rishonim, Rif, Rambam, Rabbainu Tam, all the authors of Tosphot, etc. There is an assumption that rishonim are never wrong on any point of logic. This is always in fact the case. Achronim can be wrong and often are. Especially on points of logic. But in any case, they do not have the authority of a rishon except for the Gra. The main use of achronim is to understand the rishonim.
As far as Halacha goes achronim have no authority except in so far as they can help understand the rishonim.
The achronim that wrote on the Shuclchan Aruch [Shach, Taz, Ketzot, etc.] are very valuable if you have learned the subject in the actual Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.
The Achronim that wrote on Shas like Rabbi Akiva Eiger are great --but again -only because they shed light on rishonim.
.
Mainly I considered the question settled by the approach I saw in the yeshiva of Rav Freifeld in Far Rockaway. That was Shar Yashuv. Later at the Mir Yeshiva in NY I saw the approach was the same so I did not think much about it afterwards.
The idea is mainly that we depend on "סברא" logic along with the Oral Law. That is in order of precedence: The two Talmuds, Rishonim[mediaeval authorities], Achronim [authorities after Rav Joseph Karo].
There is a mixture of faith mixed in with this. That is though the Gemara does not claim Divine inspiration we give it more authority than if it would be simply a product if human minds. We assume it is inspired to a lesser degree than the Bible, but still that it is inspired.
This is a settled question--or it should be. Recently I have seen many people to grab authority from the Talmud and claim it themselves. Usually-with intention to legitimize some kind of idolatry of some individual.
Appendix: I imagine an expanded essay on this might be in order. Mainly because of the amount of confusion I have seen on this issue. The actual Oral Law is the two Talmuds. But they do not actually state a legal decision except rarely. Also it is sometimes hard to resolve contradictions. So we go by rishonim, Rif, Rambam, Rabbainu Tam, all the authors of Tosphot, etc. There is an assumption that rishonim are never wrong on any point of logic. This is always in fact the case. Achronim can be wrong and often are. Especially on points of logic. But in any case, they do not have the authority of a rishon except for the Gra. The main use of achronim is to understand the rishonim.
As far as Halacha goes achronim have no authority except in so far as they can help understand the rishonim.
The achronim that wrote on the Shuclchan Aruch [Shach, Taz, Ketzot, etc.] are very valuable if you have learned the subject in the actual Gemara Rashi and Tosphot.
The Achronim that wrote on Shas like Rabbi Akiva Eiger are great --but again -only because they shed light on rishonim.
.
"Torah with Derech Eretz."Shimshon Refael Hirsch and Rav Cook.
When I have doubts in life about the proper path it helps me to look back to the basic approach of my parents. This path was what could be called "Torah with Derech Eretz." Which means the Law of Moses along with learning a vocation and good character traits. The way I try to go about this is to have small sessions daily in each area of value. That is a little music, a little Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, and Musar, a little Physics. etc. That is I strive for balance. I strive for the center.
I admit this is limited in so far as when some doubt about a specific issue arises, there still is no advice but to go to God directly in prayer.
This Torah with Derech Eretz was is in the Mishna, Pirkei Avot and the Rambam was decided the halacha like this. This path became known as the path of Shimshon Refael Hirsch and also of Rav Cook. But Rav Cook had a extra emphasis on the Land of Israel also.
I admit this is limited in so far as when some doubt about a specific issue arises, there still is no advice but to go to God directly in prayer.
This Torah with Derech Eretz was is in the Mishna, Pirkei Avot and the Rambam was decided the halacha like this. This path became known as the path of Shimshon Refael Hirsch and also of Rav Cook. But Rav Cook had a extra emphasis on the Land of Israel also.
There have been times when I experimented with different kinds of review in learning. I can not say what works best for everyone. But I wanted to mention something that I found helpful. I a have mentioned that the Gemara in Avoda Zara has this idea of one should just say the words and go on. And I think that is right. But a few years ago with a text in Quantum Physics I did a slightest variation on this. I would get to the end of a chapter, and then instead of gong on to the next chapter, I would go back over the last one in reverse order, section by section. This I think can be helpful for others, so I thought to mention it here. The idea is let's say chapter 2 has ten sections. I would (after reading the whole chapter straight), go back to section ten. Then nine, then eight. etc.
You could do this with the Gemara itself. When I was in Yeshiva in NY the emphasis there was how many times you finished a chapter. There was one store-owner I remember who did chapter three of one tractate a whole bunch of times.
You could do this with the Gemara itself. When I was in Yeshiva in NY the emphasis there was how many times you finished a chapter. There was one store-owner I remember who did chapter three of one tractate a whole bunch of times.
Communism, socialism and labor theory of value.
I do not like Communism nor socialism. While I am no expert but I am slightly familiar with some of the relevant books [Marx et al. ] and societies that were operating on socialist principles. I was in Israel during the time the Socialist Labor party was in power. The money there at that time had a half life of about four months. If you loaned someone $100 worth of shekels at the end of the year they repaid you what was then 1/10 of the original value. This is my major observation about socialism. It is a way to get power by making people think they will rob the rich. But then society under those principles does not work very well.
Just for the record I might mention what is wrong with communism-it is the labor theory of value. The idea that labor makes something valuable. It is from this that Marx can derive the theory of exploitation and the power differences of class. If more physical labor makes it more valuable then why do not the workers get all the benefits? Exploitation. But if you start in the opposite direction something has worth according to how much people want it then it does not matter how much labor went into making it. What matters is getting it to the people that want it. And that is the organizers and managers. and thus there is no exploitation and And thus communism falls away as false theory.
Just for the record I might mention what is wrong with communism-it is the labor theory of value. The idea that labor makes something valuable. It is from this that Marx can derive the theory of exploitation and the power differences of class. If more physical labor makes it more valuable then why do not the workers get all the benefits? Exploitation. But if you start in the opposite direction something has worth according to how much people want it then it does not matter how much labor went into making it. What matters is getting it to the people that want it. And that is the organizers and managers. and thus there is no exploitation and And thus communism falls away as false theory.
Sapolsky makes a point that to lock away dangerous criminals does not depend on their having free will.
He is obviously coming from a chemical aspect so you would expect him to see things in the light of his own field. Still the point should be well taken. Maybe someone's genes and DNA comes from some Muslim or Tartar background. So they think theft and murder are nice and pleasant things in one's free time or for recreation. Or as he suggest Toxo-plasmosis. Like he says who know how many more things are out there like that that take over one's mind.
[See his ideas on stress]
The whole concept of courts trying to determine if one is responsible for his actions makes no sens e to Saplosky. You stay away from crocodiles even if you do not think their are morally culpable for their actions.
And we can go further to put equate evil with death as the Torah itself does in Deuteronomy.
Thus Adam and Eve did not need to have free will in order to do evil. And they could not have known what they were doing was evil.
The most important ideas on Adam and Eve are Rambam and Avot Deravi Natan.
Mainly we have from Rambam (Maimonides) the allegory idea plus the sin of not going after the tree of life which was knowledge of truth as opposed to falsehood and instead went to the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Avot DeRavi Natan says one should not make a fence for his words as Adam did. And it refers to this as a debate between the sages of the Misha. Some said one should make a fence.Others said one should not. And it compares the fence of Adam to the fences make as rabbinical decrees. That is to say that some sages did not agree with the idea of making rabbinical decrees at all. I have not mentioned this on my blog here much. But it does give you an idea of why I look mainly to fulfill the commandments of the Torah and not to add or subtract.
He is obviously coming from a chemical aspect so you would expect him to see things in the light of his own field. Still the point should be well taken. Maybe someone's genes and DNA comes from some Muslim or Tartar background. So they think theft and murder are nice and pleasant things in one's free time or for recreation. Or as he suggest Toxo-plasmosis. Like he says who know how many more things are out there like that that take over one's mind.
[See his ideas on stress]
The whole concept of courts trying to determine if one is responsible for his actions makes no sens e to Saplosky. You stay away from crocodiles even if you do not think their are morally culpable for their actions.
And we can go further to put equate evil with death as the Torah itself does in Deuteronomy.
Thus Adam and Eve did not need to have free will in order to do evil. And they could not have known what they were doing was evil.
The most important ideas on Adam and Eve are Rambam and Avot Deravi Natan.
Mainly we have from Rambam (Maimonides) the allegory idea plus the sin of not going after the tree of life which was knowledge of truth as opposed to falsehood and instead went to the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Avot DeRavi Natan says one should not make a fence for his words as Adam did. And it refers to this as a debate between the sages of the Misha. Some said one should make a fence.Others said one should not. And it compares the fence of Adam to the fences make as rabbinical decrees. That is to say that some sages did not agree with the idea of making rabbinical decrees at all. I have not mentioned this on my blog here much. But it does give you an idea of why I look mainly to fulfill the commandments of the Torah and not to add or subtract.
11.6.16
PhD thesis of Dr Kelley Ross
in these two sentences. [in chapter 3 of his thesis.]
"A less powerful version of that is just the notion of "initially credible" belief.[86] But both these alternatives are unacceptable both on the general Platonic principle that the "regress of reasons"[87] must end in knowledge which is different in kind from "true belief"[88] and on the specific Friesian doctrine that, apart from analytic propositions of logic, the regress of reasons must end with immediate knowledge, which is similarly different in kind from belief states (which are mediate representations)."
While these are points important for philosophers, to me it seems the differences also are in terms of practical matters and application.
Mainly I was going through a kind of crisis in faith--and still am. I found that the ideas of Kelley Ross based on Kant helped provide me with a defense of faith.
in these two sentences. [in chapter 3 of his thesis.]
"A less powerful version of that is just the notion of "initially credible" belief.[86] But both these alternatives are unacceptable both on the general Platonic principle that the "regress of reasons"[87] must end in knowledge which is different in kind from "true belief"[88] and on the specific Friesian doctrine that, apart from analytic propositions of logic, the regress of reasons must end with immediate knowledge, which is similarly different in kind from belief states (which are mediate representations)."
While these are points important for philosophers, to me it seems the differences also are in terms of practical matters and application.
Mainly I was going through a kind of crisis in faith--and still am. I found that the ideas of Kelley Ross based on Kant helped provide me with a defense of faith.
9.6.16
When someone with grace invites you into their home and asks nothing in return and you do not find the accommodations to your taste what do you do? Muslims have invented a new way to deal with this kind of frustration. Burn down the house.
German police arrest 6 refugees after blaze at Dusseldorf asylum home
Police have detained six men, all residents of a large refugee home that went up in flames in Dusseldorf on Tuesday, the Local reports. The cause of the massive fire at the 5,000sq-meter refugee center is still being investigated. Some 130 people were evacuated, while another 30 refugees and rescue workers were left suffering from smoke intoxication. The six men, who were living at the home, have been taken into questioning over the fire, Dusseldorf police said on Wednesday. The Express newspaper reported that one of the men under investigation had boasted about starting the fire, saying it was out of frustration with the circumstances of the accommodation.
It is possible to defend objective morality. Same essay as before but a drop simplified
It is possible to defend objective morality. This would be in two steps. One would be to show universals exist. Then to show moral principles are universals. Next to show they are known or can be known by reason. Yellow is a universal. Yellow is a color. It is not an idea. It is something yellow things have in common. It does exist. For the sentence "Yellow is a color" to be true, yellow must exist. Therefore universals exist. There are many kinds of universals. Moral principles are an example of universals. To know the existence of a universal you do not need a reason. You can recognize its truth.
WHAT IS A UNIVERSAL?
I have here two white pieces of paper. They are not the same piece of paper, but they have something in common: they are both white.What there are two of are called "particulars" - the pieces of paper are particulars. What is or can be common to multiple particulars are called "universals" - whiteness is a universal. A universal is capable of being present in multiple instances, as whiteness is present in many different pieces of paper. A particular doesn't have 'instances' and can only be present in one place at a time (distinct parts of it can be in different locations though), and particulars are not 'present in' things.
A universal is a predicable: that is, it is the kind of thing that can be predicated of something. A particular can not be predicated of anything. For instance, whiteness can be predicated of things: you can attribute to things the property of being white (as in "This paper is white"). A piece of paper can't be predicated of something; you can't attribute the piece of paper as a property (or action or relation) to something else. The piece of paper can only be a subject of judgements;
WHAT IS "A PRIORI"? AND WHAT IS EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE?
By an item of "empirical knowledge" I mean something that is known that either is an observation or else is justified by observations. A priori knowledge is that which is not empirical - i.e., an item of knowledge which is not an observation and which is not justified by observations.
EXAMPLES OF UNIVERSALS
LOGIC IS A PRIORI
By "the principles of logic" in this argument, I will mean exclusively principles of inference: that is, principles stating what is and is not a valid or cogent argument. For example, "Modus ponens is valid" is a principle of logic, and it's one that we know. How do we know these things?
(1) Principles of logic are not observations.
You do not perceive, by the senses, the logical relation between two propositions. You may be able to perceive that A is true, and you may be able to perceive that B is true; but what you can not perceive is that B follows from A. You can also, perhaps, observe by introspection (I take introspection to be empirical knowledge) that you actually infer B from A. But again, you do not thereby observe that it was valid to do so.
Validity is not something literally visible, audible, tangible, etc.
(2) The principles of logic can not in general be known by inference.
MATHEMATICS IS A PRIORI
Consider the proposition
(B) 1 + 1 = 2,
which I know to be true. Is this proposition based on any observations? If so, what observations?
In order to learn the concept '2', I probably had to make some observations. I might have been shown a pair of oranges and told, "This is two oranges." I might then have been shown two fingers and told, "Here are two fingers." And so on. This might have spurred me to form the concept 'two'. And if not for the observations of the oranges, the fingers, etc., I might never have been able to form that concept.
I mention this, however, only to explain why it is irrelevant. As I previously explained, the issue is not whether observations were necessary in my coming to understand the equation (B) but whether any observation justifies the proposition, i.e., provides evidence of its truth.
How about this, then: I see one orange, over here. Then I see another orange, over there. I put the two oranges together. I count them, and get the result "2". I therefore conclude that 1 orange plus 1 orange = 2 oranges. Perhaps by doing this experiment with a lot of different kinds of objects, I eventually conclude (inductively) that 1 + 1 = 2, regardless of what type of objects are being counted. Thus, observation has confirmed (B). Perhaps by also confirming a lot of other equations, I might also be able to inductively support the axioms of arithmetic.
This idea, of course, involves a confusion about the nature of addition. Addition is not a physical operation. It is not the operation of physically or spatially bringing groups together, and the equation (B) does not assert that when you physically unite two distinct objects, you will wind up with two distinct objects at the end. Indeed, if it did, the equation would be wrong. It is possible, for example, to pour 1 liter of a substance and 1 liter of another substance together, and wind up with less than 2 liters total. (This happens because the liquids are partially miscible.) This does not refute arithmetic.
Addition is solely a mental operation, sc. the mental operation of taking two groups and considering them as one group. Thus, I can take a group of ten people, and another group of seven people that I have identified, and decide to mentally group all of them together. The result is a group of 17 people. That is what it means to say "10 + 7 = 17." I do not physically alter the people in any way.
ETHICS IS A PRIORI
That knowledge of moral principles is also a priori follows from the following two theses:
(1) Moral principles are not observations. The content of every observation is descriptive.
That is, you do not literally see, touch, hear, etc. moral value.
Moral principles can not be inferred from descriptive premises. This principle is just an instance of the general fact that you cannot derive a conclusion within one subject matter from premises in a different subject matter. Just as you cannot expect to derive a geometrical conclusion from premises in economics, or derive a conclusion about birds from premises that don't say anything about birds, you should not expect to derive a conclusion about morality from non-moral premises.
Universals are synthetic a priori knowledge
HUME
Part of the problem comes from Hume. It is possible to sum up Hume's vital
assumptions about reasoning in a single proposition: Reason does nothing except locate the presence or absence of contradictions. Whenever Hume wants to show that reasoning cannot support something, he uses the same argument: the alternative is not a
contradiction.
TO SHOW HUME'S IDEA OF REASON IS CONTRADICTS ITSELF AND IS THUS INCHOHEENT
An Alternative Conception of Reason. Consider the claim: Circular arguments are invalid. Think about it for a while. You can see that it is true, but how? Even
though Hume himself uses this principle in his argument, we could never justify it on his principles. The denial is not a contradiction. We can at least conceive that "Some circular arguments are valid" is true. At this point it will be useful to summon different levels or modes of necessity.
So what we have is we know things that are not known by observation nor by induction nor deduction. But we know them to be true. That is by reason. Hume made a terrible mistake that has eroded the foundations of morality. For the way we know morality is by reason.
Hume wants to show only we can have only empirical knowledge. But that is false. There are well known counter examples and he gives some himself. One example is nothing can be yellow and blue in the same place at the same time. There are many examples. But then he resorts to a trick to claim knowledge not based on observation is meaningless unless it is the kind he claims.
REASON RECOGNIZES UNIVERSALS. AND UNIVERSALS HAVE DIFFERENT DEGREES OF NECESSITY.
What I am saying here is that there are degrees of necessity known by reason. "Ought" can not be derived from an "is" but it is a universal and is one mode of necessity.
Non sensed and not thought knowledge recognizes modes of necessity.
The last paragraph. What I am saying is certain universals are given to be taken up by the mind to make synthesis. This is the basic idea of Kant. The elements of universals have to come from outside. Objects of cognition is I think how he would put it.
Appendix:
I have to apologize for this essay. It would not even have occurred to me to write it if not for the fact that in most USA universities they teach the opposite to freshmen, people not really prepared well to defend traditional Torah values from onslaught and attack.
(2) Kant wants that morality should have formal rules. That it is suggestive that he uses the idea of a universal rule. He is trying to capture the essence of a universal and apply it to morality. Morality is the same as the laws of physics but you just replace the "equals" sign with "ought."
But formal rules miss something about content.
Schopenhauer wants to lose the formal aspect of it and get down to essence.
The Rambam has both these areas interacting.
That is to say: universals have a problem that they are content free. And pure content has another problem that it is individual, not a universal. The Rambam links the two. The rules flow from the content.
Morality is rules but rules that flow from an area not open to human cognition.
I acknowledge my debt to Dr Michael Huemer Bryan Caplan and others for this essay. I am just putting their ideas into simple form. The only thing original is the end of the essay about reason and modes of necessity, I might try to work into this the argument of John Searle about the incoherence of theories about truth being relative.
8.6.16
Even to get to write the ideas on just two chapters of Bava Metzia has taken a long time and tremendous efforts. What I hope to encourage every person to spend the time and efforts on the Avi Ezri and on even just one Tosphot in Shas to start to see the depths of the holy Torah. To write s detailed analysis of every Topshot in Shas I do not expect. But if one could make it a long term goal to write a detailed rigorous analysis of even just one chapter in Gemara I would be very happy. The idea is not to look for new ideas. The idea is to learn just one Tosphot every day for weeks and months until the basic questions and issues become clear. This is like a person that discovered an enormous number of comets. He was just an amateur. But he discovered comets that had been missed by the greatest experts. They asked him how he did this. He said he did not look for comets. He only looked to know the sky as well as possible. By doing that, when something was out of place, he noticed it.
That is the Litvak Gedolim like Rav Shach concentrated on the Rambam. The achronim commentaries before them were not dealing with the kinds of issues that I am dealing with. They all had important things to say. Maybe they thought the simple explanation of Tosphot was so obvious that they did not need to say anything. But I find that there are often questions in the simple understanding of Tosphot that achronim do not deal with and no one I ever ask knows the answer to.Most people simply skim over Tosphot if they bother with him at all. So what I see is most people are simply faking it. They pretend to be experts in halacha without even understanding the most simple things about Tosphot. The so called "learning" is mostly one big charade--except in the few authentic Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch or Brisk.
That is the Litvak Gedolim like Rav Shach concentrated on the Rambam. The achronim commentaries before them were not dealing with the kinds of issues that I am dealing with. They all had important things to say. Maybe they thought the simple explanation of Tosphot was so obvious that they did not need to say anything. But I find that there are often questions in the simple understanding of Tosphot that achronim do not deal with and no one I ever ask knows the answer to.Most people simply skim over Tosphot if they bother with him at all. So what I see is most people are simply faking it. They pretend to be experts in halacha without even understanding the most simple things about Tosphot. The so called "learning" is mostly one big charade--except in the few authentic Litvak yeshivas like Ponovitch or Brisk.
To raise a child to become a "mensch" decent human
The problem is simple. It takes a woman to raise a child to become a "mensch" (decent human being). There is nothing quite like a woman's touch when it comes to that. And because women have given up on this as being an ideal of prime importance therefore people and civilization is decaying exponentially.. The idea here is that a child does not automatically become a mensch (decent person). It takes a tremendous amount of effort on his part and his parents to accomplish this. Since this no longer has value in people's eyes, so the results are apparent. Since when is raising a child less important than shuffling papers at an office? And the point is this is by no means easy or trivial. It takes an amazing amount of talents to accomplish this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)