In the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shabat [end of perek 6] there is a story about a person that became "ger" [convert].
Before that he had been an astrologer. He was about to go on a trip but he then saw in the star charts that it was dangerous. Then he rethought the matter. "Why did I join this nation in the first place if not to desist from such things. He went and was in danger of being eaten by a lion. He gave it his ass and he was saved. The Talmud asks why did he fall into danger? Because he checked the star charts. why was he saved because in the end he trusted.
Rav Joseph Yozel Horvitz [the disciple of Rav Israel] brings this event in his book the Level of Man.
So what is the thing about trust in God? When I was in the Mir in NY I assumed it to mean to sit and learn Torah and assume that one's needs will be taken care of. Now I am thinking that that is basically correct except that I would not limit the learning Torah thing to be confined to the basic cannon but to include Physics and Metaphysics as Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold. [You can see this mainly in rishonim based in Spain like Benjamin the doctor or Maimonides who was born in Spain.]
[I am not sure what to say about the Metaphysics aspect however. What would that include? Chesterson noted that almost all philosophy after the 1600's is nuts. [Exact quotation: :Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; it what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."] Now normally that would not be a complaint except that to go against common sense prima facie evidence you need to have some reason. You can not just make some nice statement that seems reasonable at first and then draw conclusion that are clearly off. That is not how science works. The way science goes is you try to explain what it "out there". You do not postulate at the start what is allowed to be "out there."
When evidence comes in that goes against the original common sense, then you change your assumptions. Modern philosophy works in the exact opposite way. It starts with some profound sounding platitude and then derives some nutty result from it. Then it assumes the nutty result has been proven.
So when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics it might make the most sense to stick with the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the scholastics from the Middle Ages.
Before that he had been an astrologer. He was about to go on a trip but he then saw in the star charts that it was dangerous. Then he rethought the matter. "Why did I join this nation in the first place if not to desist from such things. He went and was in danger of being eaten by a lion. He gave it his ass and he was saved. The Talmud asks why did he fall into danger? Because he checked the star charts. why was he saved because in the end he trusted.
Rav Joseph Yozel Horvitz [the disciple of Rav Israel] brings this event in his book the Level of Man.
So what is the thing about trust in God? When I was in the Mir in NY I assumed it to mean to sit and learn Torah and assume that one's needs will be taken care of. Now I am thinking that that is basically correct except that I would not limit the learning Torah thing to be confined to the basic cannon but to include Physics and Metaphysics as Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold. [You can see this mainly in rishonim based in Spain like Benjamin the doctor or Maimonides who was born in Spain.]
[I am not sure what to say about the Metaphysics aspect however. What would that include? Chesterson noted that almost all philosophy after the 1600's is nuts. [Exact quotation: :Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody’s system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody’s sense of reality; it what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense."] Now normally that would not be a complaint except that to go against common sense prima facie evidence you need to have some reason. You can not just make some nice statement that seems reasonable at first and then draw conclusion that are clearly off. That is not how science works. The way science goes is you try to explain what it "out there". You do not postulate at the start what is allowed to be "out there."
When evidence comes in that goes against the original common sense, then you change your assumptions. Modern philosophy works in the exact opposite way. It starts with some profound sounding platitude and then derives some nutty result from it. Then it assumes the nutty result has been proven.
So when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics it might make the most sense to stick with the classics: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the scholastics from the Middle Ages.
