[Avodah] FW: Worth thinking about

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:22:58AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: From R' Broyde on R' Rackman
:> (1) Jewish law is a truth seeking venture which must live by the
:> currency of logic and analysis, always living in the present and being
:> driven by the data, both Talmudic and scientific.

Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought
into a human life, mapping divrei E-lokim Chaim to one of many possible
halakhah ke-... The problem isn't finding the truth; the truth can't be
grasped. It's finding how we can model a path to that truth based on who
and where we are as limited imperfect beings.

(At least, that's how I understand the Maharal's model of machloqes,
and I personally find it compelling.)

:> 	Judaism's antinomies are important for an understanding not only
:> of its theology and ethics, but also its Halakhah...

It might help to have a little more context telling me what those
antinomies are.

To help those who don't know the term, here's an entry from the free
portion of the Encyc Britannica web site:
> antinomy
> philosophy

> in philosophy, contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles
> or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified; it is nearly
> synonymous with the term paradox. Immanuel Kant, the father of critical
> philosophy, in order to show the inadequacy of pure reason in the field
> of metaphysics, employed the word antinomies in elaborating his doctrine
> that pure reason generates contradictions in seeking to grasp the
> unconditioned. He offered alleged proofs of the two propositions that
> the universe had a beginning and is of finite extent (the thesis) and
> also of a contrary proposition (the antithesis). Similarly, he offered
> proofs both for and against the three propositions: (1) that every
> complex substance consists of simple parts; (2) that not every
> phenomenon has a sufficient "natural" cause (i.e., that there is
> freedom in the universe); and (3) that there exists a necessary being,
> either within or outside the universe. Kant used the first two
> antinomies to infer that space and time constitute a framework imposed,
> in a sense, by the mind. Kant's "Copernican Revolution" was that
> things revolve around the knower, rather than the knower around things.
> He resolved the four antinomies by drawing a distinction between
> phenomena (things as they are known or experienced by the senses) and
> noumena (things in themselves; see noumenon). Kant insisted that we can
> never know the noumena, for we can never get beyond phenomena.

:>                                                  Unfortunately,
:> however, many who are presently called upon to resolve questions of
:> Jewish law are often oblivious to the antinomies which are implicit in
:> their subject. Altogether too frequently they seize upon one or
:> another of two or more possible antithetical values or interests
:> between which the Halakhah veers, and they assume there must be an
:> exclusive commitment to that single norm. The dialectic of the Talmud,
:> however, reveals quite the contrary. Implicit in almost every
:> discussion is a balancing of the conflicting values and interests
:> which the Law seeks to advance. ...

This appears to be (guessing what the antinomies are by context) exactly
what I was talking about when I said that halakha must be a creative
process of weighing pros and cons, because objectivity has no tools for
dealing with antinomy. In an objective world, "antinomy" is called
"paradox".

Which is how Kant used his antinomies to show that many of the most
fundamental features of the universe are really subjective, imposed on
how we perceive the universe, not what objective thing out there.

Kant's antinomies may not be real (many more recent philosophers have
tried to resolve them), but that gives you a feel for what the term
means.

...
:> 	(me-type 1 and type II errors)

I may have clipped too much, because I don't know where the error were
made.

Here's the terms as I understand them:
Type I error / false positive: We see a difference that isn't there.
Type II error / false negative: We fail to see an existing difference.
Type III error: We give the right answer to the wrong question.

I don't see the applicability of finding something (or not) that is real
(or not) to this discussion.

Please elaborate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha at aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"