28.2.16
You can't use science to prove the existence of God. The only two ways that I am aware of is the one I put on the top on my blog:
Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause.
The other way is by a proof called the Ontological proof. That is God has all possible perfections by definition. If he would lack existence he would lack one perfection. Therefore He exists. This was put into rigorous logical form by Godel. I saw this once in Hebrew University and later someone put it on the internet. This seems to be good but I prefer the basic idea of the First Cause.
The basic question on the ontological proof was stated by Kant that existence is not a predicate. But we know that "is" is in fact a predicate. But what Kant means to ask is really that logic can not penetrate into unconditioned realities. He is asking a question based on his entire way of thinking--not just a minor observation. And we know that people after Kant have tried to bridge this gap.
However I think this goes too far into theology. I do not want to assume characteristics of God. Nor did the Rambam. It was enough for him to borrow from Aristotle's First mover to get to the First Cause and that is enough for me. In fact, I would prefer not to assume any characteristics about God at all. I go in this way like the Book of Job. In that book the friends of Job said God is just and we can not understand his ways. The normal Shabat Table Judaism standard fare. But at the end of that book God comes along and says the friends of Job were wrong. This same point was driven home by Schopenhauer who basing himself on Kant thought that God is the ding an sich--wild, delighting in being unpredictable, with no interest in being considered good. The Will. And the world is just an expression of the Will.
However I think this goes too far into theology. I do not want to assume characteristics of God. Nor did the Rambam. It was enough for him to borrow from Aristotle's First mover to get to the First Cause and that is enough for me. In fact, I would prefer not to assume any characteristics about God at all. I go in this way like the Book of Job. In that book the friends of Job said God is just and we can not understand his ways. The normal Shabat Table Judaism standard fare. But at the end of that book God comes along and says the friends of Job were wrong. This same point was driven home by Schopenhauer who basing himself on Kant thought that God is the ding an sich--wild, delighting in being unpredictable, with no interest in being considered good. The Will. And the world is just an expression of the Will.
The concept of חרם (or excommunication) is not well understood. People tend to this of it as an option whether to pay attention to it or not. But in fact it is a legitimate halachic category. It has a regular classification of an איסר נדר. That is if you say about a sheep or goat "הרי זה קרבן"["This is dedicated as a sacrifice in the Temple"] it gets a classification of being sanctified for the Temple in Jerusalem and one is not allowed to use it for any mundane purpose. It becomes a חפצא של אסיר an object that is forbidden to use. The idea of a חרם gets its validity from this same idea. You can see this in the laws of oaths in the Rambam. In the commentaries on the Rambam there is a debate whether a נידוי or חרם come from the category of איסר נדר or איסר שבועה. But there is no doubt that one that transgresses it is considered as if he transgressed a נדר או שבועה and that is a לאו דאורייתא (prohibition from the Torah itself).
When the Gra made a חרם he was not inventing a halachic category but using one that already existed. The reason he wrote elsewhere. The Gra held the teachings of hasidim are from the Sitra Achra and that its energies are fallen energies--miracles given to them like the miracles done by the Golden Calf. Miracles and powers of the Dark Side.
So why is it ignored. The institutions that would normally be following the Gra were infiltrated and taken over. That is Lithuanian yeshivas. [And this also explains what many people wonder about --why are Lithuanian yeshivas corrupt? Well now you know.]
The answer to all of this is simple. To start paying attention to what the Gra said. It could not be more simple.
The only way now is to be for or against. There is no middle road. I though before I could find one but I see now that was a failing strategy.
When the Gra made a חרם he was not inventing a halachic category but using one that already existed. The reason he wrote elsewhere. The Gra held the teachings of hasidim are from the Sitra Achra and that its energies are fallen energies--miracles given to them like the miracles done by the Golden Calf. Miracles and powers of the Dark Side.
So why is it ignored. The institutions that would normally be following the Gra were infiltrated and taken over. That is Lithuanian yeshivas. [And this also explains what many people wonder about --why are Lithuanian yeshivas corrupt? Well now you know.]
The answer to all of this is simple. To start paying attention to what the Gra said. It could not be more simple.
The only way now is to be for or against. There is no middle road. I though before I could find one but I see now that was a failing strategy.
27.2.16
Sitra Achra A.K.A. The Dark Side
Some people and some groups are possibly wrapped up with the Dark Side.
There is not good reason to eliminate this possibility, while some problems might be in fact from world views gone astray or mental illness. It has been the tendency of the West to minimize or eliminate entirely the effects of the Dark Side in peoples' lives and to deny its existence.
The Gra would not have put that group into excommunication if he if not think that the Sitra Achra had not become mixed up with it in some kind of hidden way.
This is an important topic and I would like to at least explain my own approach.
Mainly it goes like this: morality and holiness are tightly bonded. It is as simple as that.
Morality here means common sense morality. When you see a person that does not have that or a group, then they are part of the Sitra Achra.
Common sense morality is what you would think based on the Ten Commandments. Do not steal or lie etc. Once a group is involved in some kind of fraud I assume there is more wrong with it than moral wrong.I also assume there is metaphysical evil inside of it.
There is not good reason to eliminate this possibility, while some problems might be in fact from world views gone astray or mental illness. It has been the tendency of the West to minimize or eliminate entirely the effects of the Dark Side in peoples' lives and to deny its existence.
The Gra would not have put that group into excommunication if he if not think that the Sitra Achra had not become mixed up with it in some kind of hidden way.
This is an important topic and I would like to at least explain my own approach.
Mainly it goes like this: morality and holiness are tightly bonded. It is as simple as that.
Morality here means common sense morality. When you see a person that does not have that or a group, then they are part of the Sitra Achra.
Common sense morality is what you would think based on the Ten Commandments. Do not steal or lie etc. Once a group is involved in some kind of fraud I assume there is more wrong with it than moral wrong.I also assume there is metaphysical evil inside of it.
26.2.16
There is no escape from a cult as a full person. After some time of being involved with it the brain becomes hardwired into that mode of thinking. Trying to escape simply means pulling out all the wires.
Especially if the leader was charismatic. Then one's whole personality becomes absorbed into that framework.
[What happens if you pull all the hardware out of your computer? It does not work anymore. Same here. This is why people hang on to false beliefs even after they know the beliefs are wrong.]
I do not mean to sound negative. After all one can change. But along with change in mental framework comes change in one's life situation.
People leave sometimes from a cult and go into worse things.
My approach is to look at what I think was a proper framework while I was there [Yeshivat Mir in NY.] and even though I can't be there right now, to at least try to be learning Torah and keeping Torah as much as possible in the most straight no nonsense fashion possible.
What is the way of Torah? To be honorable, truthful, trustworthy, capable, strong. It is to be the type of man you would want to be with you in a survival situation. Not what cults are made from.Cults are about making people think they have all these virtues by means of serving their leader and the cult. Service to the leader is what makes a man a man in a cult. It is the opposite of Torah.
To escape from cults the best thing is to learn Jewish Philosophy of the Middle Ages. Philosophy has a drawback of not being able to postulate positive values but it does save from negative values.
To learn Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages however requires a bit of background. That is the Pre Socratics Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But there is also a need to supplement them with Post Middle Ages. And this part is hard. The idea of learning philosophy after the Middle Ages is on one hand dangerous because philosophy went off into post modern and other crazy directions. I had to do a lot of work to sift through it all and find the strands of sense.
Briefly, after the Middle Ages philosophy got divided between England (the Empiricists) and Europe the Rationalists. Kant came along and made a compromise. But his solution was unsatisfactory so the German idealist came along to continue the work of Kant. It is this strand of thought that is important as a supplement to Jewsih philosophy of the Middle Ages,
[Jewish though after the Middle Ages got off track into cults.]
Especially if the leader was charismatic. Then one's whole personality becomes absorbed into that framework.
[What happens if you pull all the hardware out of your computer? It does not work anymore. Same here. This is why people hang on to false beliefs even after they know the beliefs are wrong.]
People leave sometimes from a cult and go into worse things.
My approach is to look at what I think was a proper framework while I was there [Yeshivat Mir in NY.] and even though I can't be there right now, to at least try to be learning Torah and keeping Torah as much as possible in the most straight no nonsense fashion possible.
What is the way of Torah? To be honorable, truthful, trustworthy, capable, strong. It is to be the type of man you would want to be with you in a survival situation. Not what cults are made from.Cults are about making people think they have all these virtues by means of serving their leader and the cult. Service to the leader is what makes a man a man in a cult. It is the opposite of Torah.
To escape from cults the best thing is to learn Jewish Philosophy of the Middle Ages. Philosophy has a drawback of not being able to postulate positive values but it does save from negative values.
To learn Jewish Philosophy from the Middle Ages however requires a bit of background. That is the Pre Socratics Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But there is also a need to supplement them with Post Middle Ages. And this part is hard. The idea of learning philosophy after the Middle Ages is on one hand dangerous because philosophy went off into post modern and other crazy directions. I had to do a lot of work to sift through it all and find the strands of sense.
Briefly, after the Middle Ages philosophy got divided between England (the Empiricists) and Europe the Rationalists. Kant came along and made a compromise. But his solution was unsatisfactory so the German idealist came along to continue the work of Kant. It is this strand of thought that is important as a supplement to Jewsih philosophy of the Middle Ages,
[Jewish though after the Middle Ages got off track into cults.]
Book on Bava Metzia Book on Talmud
One idea I think to add is in Bava Kama on page 3a. The gemara at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrants 3 and 4 [אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים] and the 3rd part of the Gemara which brings both tooth and foot from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the Mahrasha says the reason for the last part of the Gemara is שקולים הם. Why question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the Gemara? Why is the first approach of the Gemara we don't say the same? In the first part of the Gemara we do not learn both foot and tooth from one verse --But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them.
________________________________________________________________________________
The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you roll the dice, you end up with the fact that the last part of the Gemara does not need four verses and the first part does need four. And between tooth and foot in the end of the Gemara we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש So no matter what you say for the end of the gemara you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three verses.
(1) The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you look at it, you end up with the fact that the last part of the גמרא does not need four פסוקים and the first part does need four. And between שן and רגל in the end of the גמרא we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש. So no matter what you say for the end of the גמרא you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three פסוקים.
__________________________________________________________________________________
בבא קמא ג' ע''א The גמרא at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrant שלישי and רביעי אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים and the third part of the גמרא which brings both שן and רגל from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the מהרש''א says the reason for the last part of the גמרא is שקולים הם. My question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the גמרא? Why in the first approach of the גמרא we don't say the same? In the first part of the גמרא we do not learn both רגל and שן from one verse. But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them
בבא קמא ג' ע''א הגמרא בתחילה דורשת שני פסוקים נוספים להוסיף רביע שלישי ורביעי (אזלא ממילא ולא נאכל השרשים) ואת החלק השלישי של הגמרא מביאה שן ורגל מפסוק אחד ואינה מחייבת פסוק נוסף כדי להוסיף את רביע האחרון. המהדורא בתרא של מהרש''א אומר כי הסיבה של חלק האחרון של הגמרא היא ששקולים הם. השאלה שלי היא למה לא אומרים את אותו הדבר עבור החלק הראשון של הגמרא? למה בגישה הראשונה של גמרא אנחנו לא אומרים את אותו הדבר?הגם שבחלקו הראשון של גמרא אינם לומדים שניהם רגל ושן מפסוק אחד. אבל אנחנו עושים השוואה ביניהם ואומרים שקיים היקש ביניהם.
One idea I think to add is in Bava Kama on page 3a. The gemara at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrants 3 and 4 [אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים] and the 3rd part of the Gemara which brings both tooth and foot from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the Mahrasha says the reason for the last part of the Gemara is שקולים הם. Why question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the Gemara? Why is the first approach of the Gemara we don't say the same? In the first part of the Gemara we do not learn both foot and tooth from one verse --But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them.
________________________________________________________________________________
The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you roll the dice, you end up with the fact that the last part of the Gemara does not need four verses and the first part does need four. And between tooth and foot in the end of the Gemara we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש So no matter what you say for the end of the gemara you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three verses.
(1) The force of this question to me seems great. No matter how you look at it, you end up with the fact that the last part of the גמרא does not need four פסוקים and the first part does need four. And between שן and רגל in the end of the גמרא we have to say שקולים and in the first part we say there is a היקש. So no matter what you say for the end of the גמרא you have to say for the beginning and if you say that for the beginning then you only need three פסוקים.
__________________________________________________________________________________
בבא קמא ג' ע''א The גמרא at the beginning requires two extra verses to add quadrant שלישי and רביעי אזלא ממילא ולא נאכלו השרשים and the third part of the גמרא which brings both שן and רגל from one verse does not require and extra verse to add the last quadrant. The מהדורא בתרא Of the מהרש''א says the reason for the last part of the גמרא is שקולים הם. My question is why not say the same thing for the first part of the גמרא? Why in the first approach of the גמרא we don't say the same? In the first part of the גמרא we do not learn both רגל and שן from one verse. But we do compare them and say there is a היקש between them
בבא קמא ג' ע''א הגמרא בתחילה דורשת שני פסוקים נוספים להוסיף רביע שלישי ורביעי (אזלא ממילא ולא נאכל השרשים) ואת החלק השלישי של הגמרא מביאה שן ורגל מפסוק אחד ואינה מחייבת פסוק נוסף כדי להוסיף את רביע האחרון. המהדורא בתרא של מהרש''א אומר כי הסיבה של חלק האחרון של הגמרא היא ששקולים הם. השאלה שלי היא למה לא אומרים את אותו הדבר עבור החלק הראשון של הגמרא? למה בגישה הראשונה של גמרא אנחנו לא אומרים את אותו הדבר?הגם שבחלקו הראשון של גמרא אינם לומדים שניהם רגל ושן מפסוק אחד. אבל אנחנו עושים השוואה ביניהם ואומרים שקיים היקש ביניהם.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)