28.4.18
27.4.18
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.
We do not just know about our (1) sensations or know things by (2) deductive logical reasoning. It does not take a genius to figure out that pain is not the same thing or the same kind of thing as the point of a sword.
Thus Idealism Berkley is a non starter.
What seems to me is that after Descartes, the system of Aristotle about the mind and sensations fell because of lack of credibility. It was hard to know what to replace it with.
At the same time Aristotle was falling in terms of some areas, the Reformation took place.
The Reformation did create a vacuum that was just begging to be filled.
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.
[Thomas Reid did a good job in showing the fallacies of idealism. Hobhouse did a nice job in demolishing the socialist state. But I would not have paid much attention to either writer if I thought there was much good anyway in Idealism or Socialism.]
Allen Bloom dealt with this issue [what is human nature and its connection to politics] to some degree in his book the Closing of the American Mind. I think he was saying the the Enlightenment with its faulty understanding of human nature brought the world to what it is now,
Thus Idealism Berkley is a non starter.
What seems to me is that after Descartes, the system of Aristotle about the mind and sensations fell because of lack of credibility. It was hard to know what to replace it with.
At the same time Aristotle was falling in terms of some areas, the Reformation took place.
The Reformation did create a vacuum that was just begging to be filled.
The Reformation and Enlightenment were the double headed sledge hammer to destroy. What took the place of what they destroyed was Communism and Socialism.
[Thomas Reid did a good job in showing the fallacies of idealism. Hobhouse did a nice job in demolishing the socialist state. But I would not have paid much attention to either writer if I thought there was much good anyway in Idealism or Socialism.]
Allen Bloom dealt with this issue [what is human nature and its connection to politics] to some degree in his book the Closing of the American Mind. I think he was saying the the Enlightenment with its faulty understanding of human nature brought the world to what it is now,
You don't always belong where you think you belong.
A priest in the Temple in Jerusalem has certain jobs that only a priest can do. A Levi has other kinds of jobs that only a Levi is allowed to do, E.g. singing, playing instruments, opening the gates, etc.
But a Levi who does the job of a priest there is no doubt. The punishment is death by heaven.
[הלכות כלי המקדש ג:י] To Abyee even a levi who helps another levi is also punished with death from heaven.
From this it is possible to learn that often a person has a certain place in the world and a certain kind of work that only he should do. It can happen for example that a person loves learning Torah --as all people ought. Still he might not really find his place in the Mir in NY or Ponoviz in Israel. Everyone has their own place that they need to find.
Sometimes a person's place is in the IDF. sometimes it is in Ponoviz or the Mir. You don't always belong where you think you belong.
The American Indians had something called a "vision quest" where one goes out to find their real place in the world.
Sometimes a person's place is in the IDF. sometimes it is in Ponoviz or the Mir. You don't always belong where you think you belong.
The American Indians had something called a "vision quest" where one goes out to find their real place in the world.
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשך איכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
The גמרא writes if there is interest on a loan there is also profit to the lender. The reason is this. If the lender gave a loan of hundred for a hundred and twenty and in the end they are worth the same amount, then if you go by the beginning, there are both נשך and profit. If you go by the end, then there is neither one. If the loan was a hundred for a hundred, and the value of the last hundred increased, then if we go by the beginning, there is no נשך nor profit. If we go by the end, there are both.
רב שך זצ''ל writes אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירות' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן
I think the answer to this is that we do not go by the end. If we would go by the end then in fact משכנתא בלא נכייתא would be דאורייתא. But we go by the beginning. This is similar to the last case of the גמרא. The last hundred went up in value, and yet there is no נשך דאורייתא if we go by the beginning. The law of משכנתא בלא נכייתא is different because the lender gave the field על מנת שיאכל פירות, but since the fruit will not come automatically, there remains a doubt if there will be any fruit. So it is only אבק רבית
[I admit that I still have to think about this to be certain that this would answer Rav Shakh's question.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשךאיכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
הגמרא כותבת אם יש ריבית על הלוואה קיימת גם רווח למלווה. הסיבה היא זו. אם המלווה נתן הלוואה של מאה על מאה ועשרים ובסופו של דבר הם שווים את אותה כמות, אז אם אתה הולך כפי ההתחלה, ישנם שניהם, נשך ורווח. אם אתה הולך כפי הסוף, אז אין אף אחד. אם ההלוואה הייתה מאה על מאה, ואת הערך של המאה גדל, אז אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, אין נשך ולא רווח. אם נלך לפי הסוף, ישנם שניהם. רב שך זצ''ל כותב אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירותי' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור. וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן. אני חושב שהתשובה לכך היא שאנחנו לא הולכים כפי הסוף. אם היינו הולכים כפי הסוף אז למעשה משכנתא בלא נכייתא תהיה דאורייתא. אבל הולכים לפי ההתחלה. זה דומה למקרה האחרון של הגמרא שהמאה עלו בערך, ובכל זאת אין נשך דאורייתא בגלל שהולכים לפי ההתחלה. החוק של משכנתא בלא נכייתא שונה כי המלווה נתן את השדה על מנת שיאכל פירות, אבל מאז שהפרי לא יגיע באופן אוטומטי, נותר ספק אם יהיה כל פרי. אז זה רק אבק רבית
The גמרא writes if there is interest on a loan there is also profit to the lender. The reason is this. If the lender gave a loan of hundred for a hundred and twenty and in the end they are worth the same amount, then if you go by the beginning, there are both נשך and profit. If you go by the end, then there is neither one. If the loan was a hundred for a hundred, and the value of the last hundred increased, then if we go by the beginning, there is no נשך nor profit. If we go by the end, there are both.
רב שך זצ''ל writes אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירות' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן
I think the answer to this is that we do not go by the end. If we would go by the end then in fact משכנתא בלא נכייתא would be דאורייתא. But we go by the beginning. This is similar to the last case of the גמרא. The last hundred went up in value, and yet there is no נשך דאורייתא if we go by the beginning. The law of משכנתא בלא נכייתא is different because the lender gave the field על מנת שיאכל פירות, but since the fruit will not come automatically, there remains a doubt if there will be any fruit. So it is only אבק רבית
[I admit that I still have to think about this to be certain that this would answer Rav Shakh's question.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
הנה בריש פרק איזהו נשך איתא דאין נשך בלא תרבית ואין תרבית בלא נשך דאי אוזפי' מאה במאה ועשרים מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה ועשרים בדנקא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת הרי נשךאיכא ואיכא תרבית ואי בתר בסוף אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא וכן אי אוזפי' מאה במאה מעיקרא קיימי מאה בדנקא ולבסוף קיימי מאה בחומשא אי בתר מעיקרא אזלת לא נשך איכא ולא תרבית איכא ואי בתר בסוף אזלת הרי נשך והרי תרבית ורב שך כתב הראשונים כתבו שאין ספק וודאי בתר מעיקרא אזלינן שהרי הדין דסאה בסאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ואי בתר בסוף אזלינן הרי יש כאן נשך ותרבית ומדאורייתא הי' צריך שתאסר ובהכרח דבתר מעיקרא אזלינן
הגמרא כותבת אם יש ריבית על הלוואה קיימת גם רווח למלווה. הסיבה היא זו. אם המלווה נתן הלוואה של מאה על מאה ועשרים ובסופו של דבר הם שווים את אותה כמות, אז אם אתה הולך כפי ההתחלה, ישנם שניהם, נשך ורווח. אם אתה הולך כפי הסוף, אז אין אף אחד. אם ההלוואה הייתה מאה על מאה, ואת הערך של המאה גדל, אז אם נלך לפי ההתחלה, אין נשך ולא רווח. אם נלך לפי הסוף, ישנם שניהם. רב שך זצ''ל כותב אבל דעת הרמב''ם קשה שהוא כתב מפורש בפ''ו מהלכות מלוה ולוה ה''ז המלוה את חבירו ומשכן לי' שדהו על מנת שיאכל פירותי' שאינה אלא אבק רבית ומשום שאין ברור. וזה קשה מסאה בסאה ומאוזפי' מאה במאה והוקרו שהוא רבית קצוצה אי בתר בסוף אזלינן. אני חושב שהתשובה לכך היא שאנחנו לא הולכים כפי הסוף. אם היינו הולכים כפי הסוף אז למעשה משכנתא בלא נכייתא תהיה דאורייתא. אבל הולכים לפי ההתחלה. זה דומה למקרה האחרון של הגמרא שהמאה עלו בערך, ובכל זאת אין נשך דאורייתא בגלל שהולכים לפי ההתחלה. החוק של משכנתא בלא נכייתא שונה כי המלווה נתן את השדה על מנת שיאכל פירות, אבל מאז שהפרי לא יגיע באופן אוטומטי, נותר ספק אם יהיה כל פרי. אז זה רק אבק רבית
26.4.18
German Idealism
German Idealism really depended on Descartes and that whole train of thinkers from John Locke and Hume. However it was mainly Berkeley who brought out the major conflict between notions and sensations. [Thoughts and states of mind are not like sensations.]
But largely ignored was Thomas Reid who blew the whole boat out of the water.
Still people wonder about the epistemology of Thomas Reid.
To me it seems clear that it must be like Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Also there is the point of Kelley Ross that he made in his PhD Thesis "Ontological undecidability." That neither axis is primary--not the subject nor object.
So how do thoughts and sensations interact? Kelly Ross suggests by the pole of intentionality.
Maybe you could say this is looking backwards. After you read Kelley Ross [the Kant Fries system] and then you look at Thomas Reid you can see how Reid was already implying those ideas. But still to me these ideas look to be really from Reid.
As Reid says: we do not need to consult with Aristotle or Locke in order to know that pain is nothing like the edge of a sword. And it is not by logical deduction that we understand what the edge of a sword is. And if so the whole theory of idealism falls.
Plato has the idea of recognizing universals by remembering our state before birth. This is in fact like Reid that there are plenty of things we know not based on reason and not based on the senses.
Some people complain about Thomas Reid that he did not explain how we know them.
Also they do not see how he refutes Hume. But Reid refutes Hume simply by this. Hume assumes that reason only tells us a very limited set of things. Things that are contained in definitions. He never proves this, or even brings any kind of evidence. To refute Hume all you have to do is not accept his absurd premise. Reason recognizes lots of things that are not known by definitions nor by the senses.
[This fact is very important in terms of politics. Communism is built of a modification of German Idealism. If German idealism is based on a mistake, it might be well to drop communism.]
[I really do not mean to deride good points made by Idealists. Rather, my point is more along the lines of emphasis. As Reid himself noted, Berkeley made some important points. But as far as I am concerned, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus are enough for me.
I might mention that today I think the best philosophers are Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer. Not that everything is 100%. Danny Frederick and others have made of good points and critiques. Still over all I think they are about the best thing out there.
Kelley Ross takes the Leonard Nelson approach based on Kant and Fries to it utmost limits. And Huemer does the same with the intuitionist foundational ideas. To me they seem tantalizingly close.
But largely ignored was Thomas Reid who blew the whole boat out of the water.
Still people wonder about the epistemology of Thomas Reid.
To me it seems clear that it must be like Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross--non intuitive immediate knowledge. Also there is the point of Kelley Ross that he made in his PhD Thesis "Ontological undecidability." That neither axis is primary--not the subject nor object.
So how do thoughts and sensations interact? Kelly Ross suggests by the pole of intentionality.
Maybe you could say this is looking backwards. After you read Kelley Ross [the Kant Fries system] and then you look at Thomas Reid you can see how Reid was already implying those ideas. But still to me these ideas look to be really from Reid.
As Reid says: we do not need to consult with Aristotle or Locke in order to know that pain is nothing like the edge of a sword. And it is not by logical deduction that we understand what the edge of a sword is. And if so the whole theory of idealism falls.
Plato has the idea of recognizing universals by remembering our state before birth. This is in fact like Reid that there are plenty of things we know not based on reason and not based on the senses.
Some people complain about Thomas Reid that he did not explain how we know them.
Also they do not see how he refutes Hume. But Reid refutes Hume simply by this. Hume assumes that reason only tells us a very limited set of things. Things that are contained in definitions. He never proves this, or even brings any kind of evidence. To refute Hume all you have to do is not accept his absurd premise. Reason recognizes lots of things that are not known by definitions nor by the senses.
[This fact is very important in terms of politics. Communism is built of a modification of German Idealism. If German idealism is based on a mistake, it might be well to drop communism.]
[I really do not mean to deride good points made by Idealists. Rather, my point is more along the lines of emphasis. As Reid himself noted, Berkeley made some important points. But as far as I am concerned, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus are enough for me.
I might mention that today I think the best philosophers are Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer. Not that everything is 100%. Danny Frederick and others have made of good points and critiques. Still over all I think they are about the best thing out there.
Kelley Ross takes the Leonard Nelson approach based on Kant and Fries to it utmost limits. And Huemer does the same with the intuitionist foundational ideas. To me they seem tantalizingly close.
one kind of false prophet
In terms of one kind of false prophet it is odd that the major point seems to be that he claims a new law of Torah was revealed to him from Heaven. The funny thing is that it seems easy to get out of this problem. He can just claim he is not stating a new law, but a new custom that is important to do.
Or claim what is called רוח הקודש Divine spirit as is very common for people to do nowadays. Or דעת תורה [a "Torah mind"]
There are multiple subterfuges that people use to get out of the fact that they are in fact fulfilling the conditions needed for them to be considered a false prophet.
Or claim what is called רוח הקודש Divine spirit as is very common for people to do nowadays. Or דעת תורה [a "Torah mind"]
There are multiple subterfuges that people use to get out of the fact that they are in fact fulfilling the conditions needed for them to be considered a false prophet.
25.4.18
Things exist but their existence is dependent on God
It is good idea to look at the beginning of Mishne Torah of the Rambam in order to get an idea of what the verse אין עוד מלבדו ["You were shown to know that the Lord is God, there are no others besides Him"] means. The way the Rambam explains it is this שכל הנמצאים צריכים לו והוא ברוך הוא אינו צריך להם ולא לאחד מהם...והוא שהתורה אומרת אין עוד מלבדו.
"For all things that exist need him, and He (blessed is He) does not need them, nor even one of them."
That is the idea is that things exist, but they need God in order to exist. There is no denial of the fact that things exist. But rather that their existence is dependent on God, while his existence is independent.
[This really ought not to be a surprise since the same idea can be found in any number of Musar books and books of the Geonim and Rishonim, e.g. אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Doctrines) of Saadia Gaon and the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart)]
"For all things that exist need him, and He (blessed is He) does not need them, nor even one of them."
That is the idea is that things exist, but they need God in order to exist. There is no denial of the fact that things exist. But rather that their existence is dependent on God, while his existence is independent.
[This really ought not to be a surprise since the same idea can be found in any number of Musar books and books of the Geonim and Rishonim, e.g. אמונות ודעות (Faiths and Doctrines) of Saadia Gaon and the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)