[Avodah] The Knowledge Conundrum

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 08:08:21AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> In any event, doesn't the most rational of approaches still require a
:> leap of faith?

: Yes. But the smaller the leap the better - in my view. 

One can reduce the leap in two different dimensions -- the amount one
can't prove, and the level of proof. There is no such thing as absolute
proof. I could always be mistaken and part of my error is thinking that
my reasoning makes sense. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was a
Copernican Revolution in philosophy over this point.

A difference between Yahadus and Xianity (from which we get the idiom
"leap of faith") is that Xians value blind faith. We speak of emunah,
from the shoresh meaning trust. We construct and value justified belief
over leaping. The question isn't the width of the gap, but of how much
justification one has for believing.

>From my blog:

A basic problem when approaching Jewish philosophy is the appropriateness
of studying it altogether. As Prof. Sholom Carmy wrote on Avodah:
    The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things
    about G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that
    devising these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. Now if I know
    a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as a purely
    intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence.

Focusing on the Philosopher's G-d makes it difficult to see the Personal
G-d. On the other hand, without theology, our picture of G-d is blurry,
and often wrong.

So the question is, what is the appropriate balance between the two?

I found a variety of opinions:

1- The Rambam seems to belittle emunah peshutah. Yedi'ah is the key to
olam haba. The hoi palloi may have to settle for the vague approximation
of emunah peshutah, but the philosopher's machshavah amuqah is superior.

2- The Baal haTanya invokes a mystical resolution. The conflict is a
function of pursuing machshavah amuqah from a source other than the
Yechidah Kelalis. (The one sage each generation who is like "Moshe in
his generation".) Through the unity of the national soul's yechidah,
a single view of G-d emerges even at both planes of existance.

3- At the other extreme, Rav Nachman miBreslov discouraged the study of
theology, placing all value on having a relationship with HaQadosh barukh
Hu. The philosopher's G-d, while logically sound, is cold, transcendent
and incomprehensible -- very unconducive to this natural parent-child
style relationship which is at the center of his definition of "deveiqus"
and man's tafqid.

4- The Brisker approach is to avoid the whole subject. As Rav Moshe
Feinstein put it, it's a hashkafah of not studying hashkafah. It differs
from Rav Nachman's position not so much in that they feel it's wrong,
but that it's pointless. The ikkar is learning halakhah and man's duty
in this world.

R' YB Soloveitchik puts forth this position in his essary Qol Dodi
Dofeiq: The Jewish question [of tragedy] is not "Why?" but "How am I
supposed to respond?" Rabbi Soloveitchik simply wasn't curious about
theological questions. His philosophy has an existentialist agenda. It
doesn't deal with questions of how G-d is or how He runs the world, but
rather he presents a detailed analysis of the human condition and the
world as we see it. Because our dilemma is part of the human condition,
he discusses it as a dialectic. Rabbi Soloveitchik has no problem with
the idea that we simultaneously embrace conflicting truths. However, he
leaves little record of his own personal confrontation with the tension
of this particular dialectic. I believe it's his Brisker heritage.

The problem with positions 3 and 4 is that they do not have the support
of either the scholastic rishonim (eg: Rav Saadia Ga'on, the Rambam,
R' Albo), the antischolastic rishonim (eg: R' Yehudah haLevi), the
kabbalistically inclined (eg: the Ramban), nor the Ramchal, the Besh"t,
the Gra, R' Chaim Vilozhiner... Their nature is that only an explicit
discussion of our particular problem would turn up antecedents. One can't
argue from silence that some rishon agreed with them because perhaps he
simply chose to commit his time to publishing in other areas.

5- When thinking about this further I realized that I assumed a different
stance when writing AishDas's charter. I think it warrants mention
because I believe it's the position of the Mussar Movement. It reflects
the approach I see utilized by Rav Dessler in Michtav MeiEliyahu.

R' Lopian defines mussar as dealing with the space of an amah --
getting ideas from the mind to the heart. We often think things that
don't reflect how we feel and many of the forces that influence our
decision-making. Akin to RYBS's dialectic, we embrace different ideas
and motives in different modes of our consciousness.

As for our contradiction, the question is one of finding unity between
mind and its ability to understand and explain, to philosophize about
G-d and His governance of the universe, and the heart and how we feel
and react toward Him.

Emunah, bitachon, ahavas Hashem, yir'as Hashem, etc... are middos.
They are not acquired directly through study, but through the tools of
tiqun hamidos. (With the observation that constant return to a subject
operates on both levels.) There is a reason why the kiruv movement is
built on the experience of a Shabbos, and not some ultimate proof of
G-d. (Aish haTorah's "Discovery" program, the only counter-example that
came to mind, is intended to be a hook, to pique people's interest to
get them to that Shabbos, not kiruv itself.)

Rather than seeing this as a dilemma, I saw it as a need. We can embrace
both because each involves a very different component of self. And since
avodah must be bekhol nafshekha, we actually MUST study both machshavah
and mussar. Meaningful avodas Hashem must require involvement of both
mind and heart.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?