13.12.15
12.12.15
I thought Schopenhauer took care of the problem of Evil by simply saying human good is not on the agenda of the "Will." And later he had some kind of second thoughts in which he added that the Will has some kind of higher agenda in which the Good is the goal.
Personally I think the Rambam did the best job by having השגחה פרטית "Divine watching out for" be directed towards higher intellects. It is an elegant solution which is Neo Platonic in showing how gaining the higher intellect is important. (This was the basic idea during the Middle Ages and was abandoned I think for poor reasons.)
God and Job obviously agreed with Schopenhauer as is seen from the end of the book of Job. In fact that is teh whole point of the book. Also I saw this in Psalms. I forget where but one obvious place is Psalm 72 [in the Hebrew and English numbering. In Russian and Ukrainian it would be Psalm 73.]
I wrote about this before but I saw a certain Mark Friedman also wrote what looks like a good treatment of this problem so I thought to mention the issue again.
Mark Friedman says: "Many philosophers, especially those working in the Kantian tradition, hold that persons have dignity as a result of their personal autonomy, and that respect for this attribute is a paramount value. At least for them, a world with free will is “better” than almost any possible world without it."
This seems to me to be a good answer to this question. I think Leah a friend of mine mentioned this answer once when she was talking with her mother in Safed. At the time I did not think much of it but now it makes a lot more sense to me than it did then.
Personally I think the Rambam did the best job by having השגחה פרטית "Divine watching out for" be directed towards higher intellects. It is an elegant solution which is Neo Platonic in showing how gaining the higher intellect is important. (This was the basic idea during the Middle Ages and was abandoned I think for poor reasons.)
God and Job obviously agreed with Schopenhauer as is seen from the end of the book of Job. In fact that is teh whole point of the book. Also I saw this in Psalms. I forget where but one obvious place is Psalm 72 [in the Hebrew and English numbering. In Russian and Ukrainian it would be Psalm 73.]
I wrote about this before but I saw a certain Mark Friedman also wrote what looks like a good treatment of this problem so I thought to mention the issue again.
Mark Friedman says: "Many philosophers, especially those working in the Kantian tradition, hold that persons have dignity as a result of their personal autonomy, and that respect for this attribute is a paramount value. At least for them, a world with free will is “better” than almost any possible world without it."
This seems to me to be a good answer to this question. I think Leah a friend of mine mentioned this answer once when she was talking with her mother in Safed. At the time I did not think much of it but now it makes a lot more sense to me than it did then.
An interesting essay about Israel I do not comment on this for many reasons. One is that people's minds are either pro Jewish or anti Jewish before any argument. And immune to argument. This divide has little to do if the person is actually Jewish or not. Being Jewish is perfectly compatible with being anti-Jewish, and being gentile is perfectly compatible with being pro-Jewish. These are independent variables.
Another reason is I am trying not to look at news anymore. It just makes me upset. Also I think it might be forbidden.
I should mention that I try to judge people based on their actions. The groups they are apart of can provide some initial data, but that is not determinate.
Another reason is I am trying not to look at news anymore. It just makes me upset. Also I think it might be forbidden.
I should mention that I try to judge people based on their actions. The groups they are apart of can provide some initial data, but that is not determinate.
11.12.15
against science
And to some degree this was an attitude that was common to yeshivas in NY when I was there. Rav Miller wrote a few books attacking evolution that showed that he felt comfortable attacking science though he certainly did not understand it. And that attitude is still common among philosophers of science.
Other people threw in the towel and developed strong cases of Physics Envy. So they created pseudo science that go by the name of real science like psychology or economics.
I am not comfortable with any of these attitudes. And yet this anti science approach did help me stay in yeshiva and learn Torah. That is this attitude gave me a kind of justification that i needed to concentrate on Talmud and later on Luriac kabalah.
Still at some point I started suspecting that this attitude was not Torah based.
This may have started when I saw the frum world is crummy. I thought then that it must be they are not really keeping the Torah properly. The attitudes of the frum no longer interested me unless they could be shown to be derived from the Torah.
I learned in Israel that this anti science attitude was not a part of the Lithuanian yeshiva world there.
I also became aware that this attitude was not that of the Rambam either. Then as far as I recall I looked at the Duties of the Heart and saw that his attitude also was one with the Rambam. So I decided this attitude of being anti science was mistaken.
One woman, Chaya Tova told me that her son (who had diabetes and was learning in kollel) on the side had become expert in all the texts relating to diabetes. She was from a regular religious home and her father taught Talmud in Bnei Brak. She was no baalat Teshuva. And she said this anti science attitude was not at all accepted in Litvak communities.
However I should mention that the years of concentrating on Talmud were well spent. Even with the time and effort I put into it I never could have come to any kind of basic understanding until many years later. Talmud is not a four year program. It is more like a twenty year program to become even barely proficient.
And to some degree this was an attitude that was common to yeshivas in NY when I was there. Rav Miller wrote a few books attacking evolution that showed that he felt comfortable attacking science though he certainly did not understand it. And that attitude is still common among philosophers of science.
Other people threw in the towel and developed strong cases of Physics Envy. So they created pseudo science that go by the name of real science like psychology or economics.
I am not comfortable with any of these attitudes. And yet this anti science approach did help me stay in yeshiva and learn Torah. That is this attitude gave me a kind of justification that i needed to concentrate on Talmud and later on Luriac kabalah.
Still at some point I started suspecting that this attitude was not Torah based.
This may have started when I saw the frum world is crummy. I thought then that it must be they are not really keeping the Torah properly. The attitudes of the frum no longer interested me unless they could be shown to be derived from the Torah.
I learned in Israel that this anti science attitude was not a part of the Lithuanian yeshiva world there.
I also became aware that this attitude was not that of the Rambam either. Then as far as I recall I looked at the Duties of the Heart and saw that his attitude also was one with the Rambam. So I decided this attitude of being anti science was mistaken.
One woman, Chaya Tova told me that her son (who had diabetes and was learning in kollel) on the side had become expert in all the texts relating to diabetes. She was from a regular religious home and her father taught Talmud in Bnei Brak. She was no baalat Teshuva. And she said this anti science attitude was not at all accepted in Litvak communities.
However I should mention that the years of concentrating on Talmud were well spent. Even with the time and effort I put into it I never could have come to any kind of basic understanding until many years later. Talmud is not a four year program. It is more like a twenty year program to become even barely proficient.
Concerning the Guide of Maimonides and the letter of the Ramban in defense of it.
My learning partner just received from the USA the book in English of Chaval.
In that book is the letter of the Ramban (Nachmanides) to the sages of France about their ban on the Guide of the Rambam (Maimonides). I don't know what it says but I think it must be very important to see how someone of the stature of the Ramban (Nachmanides) understood the Guide.
What I mean to say is that the Sages of France were the people that were still continuing the work of the original Baali Hatosphot. As soon as the Guide came out in Hebrew a cousin of Nachmanides went to the sages in France and asked them to make a ban on the book. And they obliged. Then Nachmanides wrote to them asking them to rescind the ban.
What makes this interesting is that the Nachmanides has no problem attacking the Rambam constantly in his commentary on the Five Books of Moses. And he had a very different world view. He was in fact the last of the true mystics until the Ari. So how he understood the Guide and why he defended it must have great significance.
The Ramban {Nachmanides} states in that letter that one who separates himself from the Guide or the Sefer HaMada is as one who separates himself from the Source of Life. So even if on individual points the Ram'ban had no problem disagreeing with the 'Rambam still he is clearly as emotional and upset about the ban on the Rambam as one could possibly be. (Chavel writes there that there is nothing in all of Jewish literature the reflects the depth and intensity of emotion of that letter.)
In that book is the letter of the Ramban (Nachmanides) to the sages of France about their ban on the Guide of the Rambam (Maimonides). I don't know what it says but I think it must be very important to see how someone of the stature of the Ramban (Nachmanides) understood the Guide.
What I mean to say is that the Sages of France were the people that were still continuing the work of the original Baali Hatosphot. As soon as the Guide came out in Hebrew a cousin of Nachmanides went to the sages in France and asked them to make a ban on the book. And they obliged. Then Nachmanides wrote to them asking them to rescind the ban.
What makes this interesting is that the Nachmanides has no problem attacking the Rambam constantly in his commentary on the Five Books of Moses. And he had a very different world view. He was in fact the last of the true mystics until the Ari. So how he understood the Guide and why he defended it must have great significance.
The Ramban {Nachmanides} states in that letter that one who separates himself from the Guide or the Sefer HaMada is as one who separates himself from the Source of Life. So even if on individual points the Ram'ban had no problem disagreeing with the 'Rambam still he is clearly as emotional and upset about the ban on the Rambam as one could possibly be. (Chavel writes there that there is nothing in all of Jewish literature the reflects the depth and intensity of emotion of that letter.)
10.12.15
The Lithuanian yeshivas are afraid of the Trojan horse effect. They are worried that a newly religious person might contain a hidden virus. Often this is correct. But from what I have seen the effect goes the opposite way also. Often people try to attract rich secular Jews by bearing gifts and seeming nice.
שונא מתנות יחיה It says in Mishlei, "He who hates gifts will live.". It seems to me to be wary of gifts. I also see that the Lithuanian yeshiva world is right for largely ignoring baali teshuva or marginalizing them. The truth is there often is something that is a bit off. Leaving their parents to find the light and the truth and the way seems to by definition indicate something wrong.
Though I am a baal teshuva in the way that I was born into a Reform home and began to learn at Litvak yeshivas. But a good deal of my troubles came from fanatic baali teshuva. But not all my problem were from that direction. A lot came from sanctimonious religious teachers. {U know what I mean.} But by an large they were also baali teshuva that just sucked up to the system.
In any case, it is difficult to understand how to learn and keep Torah. But you know something is off when people ignore the fifth commandment in order to join some cult.
That is not keeping Torah by any definition.
So what I recommend is for people to learn Torah and keep Torah. But not to support groups that ask for money to make people do teshuva [become religious] because by and large they are doing great evil and harming families and lying about what the Torah says. I think these organizations should frankly be banned as being cults.
____________________________________________________________________________
My idea of a proper learning environment is mainly based on the approach of my own parents plus that of the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY. Torah with Derech Eretz (vocation). But Derech Eretz to me does not include any kind of vocation. What I suggest is from the religious standpoint is to avoid religious cults like the Black Plague and as the Gra already noted. Then from the standpoint o vocation I mainly think learning some kind of manual work is important plus natural sciences and outdoor skills. Most of secular education I am against. Only STEM or basic Blue collar work preparation is OK plus survival skills.
שונא מתנות יחיה It says in Mishlei, "He who hates gifts will live.". It seems to me to be wary of gifts. I also see that the Lithuanian yeshiva world is right for largely ignoring baali teshuva or marginalizing them. The truth is there often is something that is a bit off. Leaving their parents to find the light and the truth and the way seems to by definition indicate something wrong.
Though I am a baal teshuva in the way that I was born into a Reform home and began to learn at Litvak yeshivas. But a good deal of my troubles came from fanatic baali teshuva. But not all my problem were from that direction. A lot came from sanctimonious religious teachers. {U know what I mean.} But by an large they were also baali teshuva that just sucked up to the system.
In any case, it is difficult to understand how to learn and keep Torah. But you know something is off when people ignore the fifth commandment in order to join some cult.
That is not keeping Torah by any definition.
So what I recommend is for people to learn Torah and keep Torah. But not to support groups that ask for money to make people do teshuva [become religious] because by and large they are doing great evil and harming families and lying about what the Torah says. I think these organizations should frankly be banned as being cults.
____________________________________________________________________________
My idea of a proper learning environment is mainly based on the approach of my own parents plus that of the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY. Torah with Derech Eretz (vocation). But Derech Eretz to me does not include any kind of vocation. What I suggest is from the religious standpoint is to avoid religious cults like the Black Plague and as the Gra already noted. Then from the standpoint o vocation I mainly think learning some kind of manual work is important plus natural sciences and outdoor skills. Most of secular education I am against. Only STEM or basic Blue collar work preparation is OK plus survival skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)