[Avodah] Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin

[H Lampel via Avodah]

On 6/3/2015 7:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:16:59PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> :> You seem to be treating "modeh al ha-emes" as referring to a kind
> :> justification that isn't a proof.
>
> : I thought I was clear that I was taking it to be the same informal
> : kind of proof as R. E. Wasserman's and R. Akiva's. The kind of proof
> : not delineated in formal Aristotelian format, but clearly recognized
> : and accepted by a healthy and unbiased mind.
>
> Then I did understand you correctly.
>
> When I say, "a kind justification that isn't a proof", I believe I mean
> the same thing as your "informal kind of proof". To me, the word "proof"
> implies formality. "Justification" is a general term for how we know
> something is true. (From Plato's definition of knowledge: "a justified and
> true belief.")
Got it.
> :> Whereas I see the Rambam as saying more like: this doesn't work as proof,
> :> but if you already agree to the emes, look how nicely it works out.
>
> : I did not see this in your previous remarks that characterized the
> : "modeh-al-ha-emmess" as a formal proof/argument:
>
> Because that's not what I am saying is the formal proof. I overused the
> word "this", which led to confusion.
I''m even more confused now. What "this" that led to confusion was 
overused? I took you to mean that the ''emmess'' that a ''modeh al 
ha-emmess'' person was modeh to was the conclusion of a formal proof 
stated somewhere in 2:19-20. (And such a person would consider, as one 
of the strongest proofs for Creation ex nihilo, the proof from the 
hierarchy of benefit of entities.)
> In addition "modeh al ha'ames" refers to a person, not an argument,
> so you lost me on that bit.
When I wrote

''I was taking it to be the same informal kind of proof as R. E. 
Wasserman's and R. Akiva's. The kind of proof not delineated in formal 
Aristotelian format, but clearly recognized and accepted by a healthy 
and unbiased mind''


I was responding to you statement:

:> You seem to be treating "modeh al ha-emes" as referring to a kind
:> justification that isn't a proof.

which was in response to my writing:

: My point was that we nevertheless see that the Rambam recognizes that
: there is another approach to verifying truth, namely that which follows
: the non-formal mindset of those who are /modeh al ha-emmess/...

I meant to say I was taking Rambam's remark to mean that someone whose 
thought process is normal and unbiased (i.e. a modeh al ha-emmess) 
recognizes (without the aid of formal proof)  the fact of the hierarchy 
of benefit as compelling the conclusion of a freely intended Creation ex 
nihilo.

Another way to crystallize our differing interpretations: You are taking 
the "emmess'' that the ''modeh al ha-emmess'' is modeh to, to be the 
correct fact.
I'm taking it to be the correct process of thinking.
>   AISI, it refers to the person who accepted
> the proof in 2:20, would find this point compelling. But since the point
> he's making here is not a formal proof, he doesn't expect it to convince,
> only to reinforce belief in those who already accepted the related proof.
>
> : And I don't see how one can possibly interpret (MN 3:13 [not 3:15 as
> : I mistakenly typed previously])  "And know that one of the
> : strongest /proofs/ (min /ha-gedolah sheh-b'ra'ayos/) for Creation ex
> : nihilo, for one who is /modeh al ha-ememmes/, is his understanding
> : the /proof/ (/hu mah sheya'amod alav ha-mofase/)..." as meaning:
>
> :> "this doesn't work as proof, but if you already agree to the
> :> emes, look how nicely it works out."
>
> You are taking a sentence that says "One of the greatest proofs for
> creation for someone who accepts the truth is his understanding the
> wonder..." He is discussing a ra'ayah that someone who already believes
> would find compelling. Not a proof that would convince an unbiased
> seeker.
>
> Because I don't think the Rambam accepted that an informal justification
> other than philosophical proof could be a sounds reason to embrace a
> belief as true.
Your first paragraph is just restating your position and denying mine. I 
am saying otherwise, pointing out that saying that this person considers 
the hierarchy factor ''one of the greatest proofs for
creation'' means '"this doesn't work as proof, but if you already agree 
to the emes, look how nicely it works out"  is incompatible with the words.

And /l'fi ta'amych,/ of your second paragraph:
  If the Rambam considers an informal justification vs philosophical 
proof an unsound reason to embrace a belief as true,
then one would think he would not consider noteworthy a non-ra'ayah 
found compelling only by someone who already believes in the conclusion 
(stated or implied somewhere in 2:19-20, or in that previously stated 
formal ra'aya  which /is/, or is not, compelling--I'm not sure which of 
these you're saying, but my objection applies regardless.)

I think it may be productive for us to examine the 4 or 5 other places 
in MN where the Rambam uses the expression ''modeh al ha-emmess.'' 
(Curiously, the search of the Hebrewbooks.org MN in my Adobe Reader 
skips over the instance in 3:13!)

>
> (I see you consistently double the "s" in "emess". Why? If the sav had
> a dageish, it would be a tav, not "ss".)
It's to duplicate the /sound/ (not the lettering) of the word as it 
would be in English, for a careful English-reading person. (Not that I'm 
sure there are many of those around...) In contemporary English 
spelling, one "s" at the end of a word that ends in ''e'' is pronounced 
hard, like a ''z'' (shines, pines, processes); the soft ''s'' added to 
words that end in "e" is indicated by two ''s'' 's (process, ingress, 
mess). But we digreSS....

Zvi Lampel