- This topic has 56 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by .
-
Posts
-
Nemesora:
You’re reaching. Saying “that’s your opinion but not mine” isn’t a refutation of Maven’s cogent points. Nit picking on the details doesn’t take away the thrust of the idea.The truth is, that you are drawing the target, and your arguments, around your previously lodged arrow and emotional attachments.
Maven: I’m impressed. Doesn’t happen that easily and almost never on YWN
As far as scripture as literature, the whole idea of sacred literature on all three Abrahamic religion is its immutability for generations. I do not understand the point you are trying to make.
n0mesorah: The cornerstone of theistic religion (to exclude some forms of Buddhism) is a personal God i.e. an omniscient and omnipotent God, and free will i.e. reward and punishment. To claim the contrary seems to me be equivalent of saying that Deism (as it was incepted) is congruent with Judaism (or Christianity for that matter). Hence denying any of these two pillars of faith, one denies the basis for any form of religion. I fail to see how one can defend the contrary. (I do not think it necessary to give sources for such a basic principle, however I’d be happy to provide them).
As to Rabbi Chisdai Cresces, I think you might have misunderstood him to the extreme; God forbid to call him a determinist. In a nutshell, R. Cresces moves free will from the action to the emotion of the action, and hence reward (at least in the afterlife) from the actual performance of the commandments to the attitude one takes towards it. [The exact view of his is still subject to scholorally debate, however it is not germane to our discussion]. Therefore, R. Cresces is by absolutely not a determinist.
MaskilDoresh: Thank you for you kind words.
urs
On misunderstanding.
Well that makes two of us. My point on this thread, is that the anti-Semitism that is found among many communists, is not directly linked to Marx himself. (Or even Marxism for that matter.) Ditto for every philosopher and movement mentioned in this thread. [Though Nietzsche may be an exception to my dictum. Did we mention him?] Please read my posts with some background as getting back to this paragraph. I did not start with any other concrete position. Also, none of this is recent reading on my part. I’m just going off what I know. So I could be completely mixing things up.
And I agree with Maskil. You are very impressive for this site. Which is of the most impressive open forums on the internet.
On religious literature.
I agree that it’s sacredness is because of it’s immutability. I don’t agree that that forces it to be read a certain way. Just the opposite. Because it is enduring, it can be read many ways. I don’t know what this implies for a treatise, that was out of circulation for centuries or that was secret manual that is now publicly available. The Zohar can serve as a loose example of either scenario.
But anyways, just a mere insistence that it can be – or even should be read as literature, is not a denial of it’s metaphysical truths. It is just an obvious reference that Herder was likely not initiated in those same truths.
My point in bringing up Rav Chisdai was to demonstrate how much the goalposts move. There is a bunch of gibberish (that is difficult to refute) that claims that the great Jewish Philosophers were against orthodoxy. Just because the modern philosopher works against antiquated ideas, it does not mean that he disrespects antiquity.
On Deism as an Approval of Free Will.
I have posted on this before, and it is not what I intended to get into on this thread.
To deny both the intervening power and divine consequence, would obliterate this cornerstone. (I have – on other threads, opened the possibility that there is another, unique cornerstone to Judaism that does not involve theistic dogmas.) But what if one goes with an either or approach? It seems impossible, and may very well be the death knell of rational thought on the matter. However, the whole exercise strains our philosophical capabilities to the max. I understand this to be the intention of the Raavad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.