In any debate, question, or critique, we first have to set up a modus operandi or an agreed means of communicating and understanding. For that we need to set up what may be termed: "standards of evidence". This is absolutely essential in any discussion. The debate/discussion can end up going on mindlessly without goal or conclusion because a standard on which to judge evidence, facts and opinions was not set up initially.
For example, for the proposition that G-d necessarily exists, we need to:
a.) Define what is meant by G-d.
b.) Define what is meant by Existence.
c.) Define what is meant by G-d Existing
d.) Define what is meant by evidence
e.) Define what one would expect to encounter as admissible evidence for c.)
f.) Propose that if indeed that the definition of evidence in defined in d.) and analyzed in f.) were to be found then definition c.) must necessarily be true.
This means of establishing a standard of evidence is not simply for this kind of debate, but for many different applications and ranges. We judge the standard admissible in a court of law as reasonable evidence for a conviction, or beyond reasonable evidence. What is meant by evidence is also a pre-condition to establishing facts and propositions being true.
Often in many debates, we find that the arguments run counter-intuitively precisely because different standards of evidence are being employed. Often the undercurrent of the argument is "accept our standard of evidence".
The first question in any debate is simply: "What is the standard of evidence being applied to here?" In Torah Judaism, the standard of evidence is defined by the Torah - the Torah itself provides us with a standard of evidence by which to judge evidence, facts and opinion. The Torah itself provides us with a model on how to judge prophecy, on how to establish veracity. The Torah also defines precisely what is meant by a revelation narrative, and how a revelation narrative is to be verified as true.
In this respect we must be careful in our usage of terminology. What do we mean by "proof" or "true". Is proof: "100% veracity"? We don't live like that, we don't demand 100% proof, so when we judge evidence we have to be careful as to what is meant by 'proof' - do we expect or infer 100% proof which is impossible or virtually impossible to achieve, and isn't meaningful, since we don't act or behave or rely on extremes which require 100% proof of certainty? We don't, and therefore to expect it in other areas is to require logic to its absurdity.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Going back to Basics
In the article "Its a Matter of Interpretation" I outlined the means for understanding the Jewish position on understanding the text of the Torah and the Tanakh as a whole. In it, I discussed how G-d gave the Written and Oral Torah as a single indivisible unit, that one is incomplete without the other.
I would like however to make some salient points. The claim made by many groups is that the Judaism of the Torah is entirely different to that of the Oral Torah. We see a world of Sacrifices, a Holy Temple, the Jewish people united in the land of Israel under a just Monarchy which is from the house of David. In terms of the Oral Torah, it seems that the Oral Torah is a Judaism that is about Jews worshiping in prayer in the Synagogue, in various parts of the world, without a Temple, disunited in the four corners of the world, it is largely a Rabbinic Judaism, governed and run by Rabbis who are modern inheritors of the judges and teachers of old. The picture is a stark difference from that of the Torah.
A Closer Look at the Oral Torah....
This is entirely a view that is premature, a straw-man, and superficial. We have to look deep into Rabbinic Judaism, and ask them a very clear and obvious question: "Where is what you do, mandated by the Torah?". The response is usually - the Oral Torah. But the sum total of the Oral Torah is really the Talmuds, Midrash and Kabbalah the three major aspects of the Oral Torah. These are rooted in Biblical Exegesis and are firmly implanted in the Written Word of G-d.
The Talmud's pages are replete with references to the Torah. In fact, it would be a fair estimation that on an average page of the Talmud, there are at least three to four Biblical references, that guide the process of exegesis.
The first Tractate of the Talmud - Berachos - blessings, starts with the mandate to recite the Shema "Deuteronomy 6:4-9", twice daily, and is discussed in absolute detail. The literal meaning of the verses is analyzed, dissected and addressed in the subsequent folios.
Torah Judaism is in essence going back to the Word of G-d, and more precisely the directly spoken words of G-d directly to Moses as embodied in the Torah. Every nuance, every action is predicated on a Biblical injunction in some form or another.
The Historical Aspect
However, the critic might argue that this 'version' of Judaism was settled at Yavneh in about 90 CE (90 years into the Common Era), this is the Judaism of the Pharisees, and has little to do with Pre-Yavneh Judaism, which was replete with other sects and groups which in the mind of many could be equally valid. The Sadducees (Tzadokim), or the Barthusians are some of these groups that claimed that the Rabbis right to interpret the Torah and mandate the festivals were incorrect. The Sadducees conducted various attempts to de-legitimate this throughout the period which was about 200-100 years before the Common Era (200-100 BCE). They started to attack witnesses who wished to notify the Great Sanhedrin (Great Law Court in Jerusalem of 71 Judges), of the appearance of the New Moon so that the Months could be established, and the Festivals carried out. They also attacked the runners sent from Jerusalem to inform the population of the New Month. This is recorded in the Tractate of Rosh Hashana 22b.
It seems from the Historical Evidence that there what might be dubbed a "Political Sect" called the "Pharisees" in the later part of the Second Temple Period (from about 100 BCE to 100 CE). However, it is the classical historical interpretation on Josephus that attributes a distinct sect as being politically and religiously based on the Scribes and Sages of the exiles that returned from the mandate of Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire. For the period from about 500 BCE until 50 BCE, historians believe (based on Josephus), that four distinct sects emerged, the two - Sadducee and Pharisee, were borne out of a political, economic, and religious distinctions. [See Wikipedia's article ("Saducees") and ("Pharisees")]
The articles in Wikipedia are built on Josephus' interpretations of the various sects, and comes out that the Pharisee sect is the ancestry of modern Normative Judaism. It should be noted the that sources come from Jacob Neusner, Josephus and others, which are not necessarily supportive of Rabbinic Orthodoxy. The article makes sweeping statements about a period that was shaped by tremendous upheaval in Israel. The Maccabees, while they managed to wrestle the Temple from the Greeks, and managed to re-dedicate the Temple; they did not manage to totally abolish the Hellenistic culture from Jewish life. Many Jews had succumbed irretrievably to the Hedonistic Greek lifestyle, and as a result, had a marked influence on society as a whole. Add to this the Roman conquest by Pompei in 135 BCE, in which many Roman influences had come into the country, the schisms of the elite and wealthy against the backdrop of a people torn from exile, makes the climate very different from the pre-exilic Israel. A country dispossessed of its most valuable asset - its people, coupled with assimilation and the tyranny of foes makes the difficulty of living in such a climate to say the least is inhospitable. Josephus was writing in Rome, under the patronage of the Roman Caesars, to an audience that was far more well-off, in monetary and safety terms than their brethren in Israel. Josephus is also playing a unique history, using the history of the Sadducee sect as a spring board to legitimate his own Pharisaic up-bringing. The Sadducees comprised of the elite and corrupted Priestly Caste. However, we know that the Priests entered into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur and some died and some did not, some were Sadducean and some were Pharisaic. To divide up Israel so neatly into unique and distinct Sects fails to appreciate the subtlety and climate of the time. The Wikipedia article ("Pharisees") claims that not a major sect had the majority, although it claims that the common people were supportive of the Pharisees, if not aligned politically nor religiously. If we understand that each sect was not neat, and that religion was not necessarily indicative of a political view (with the exception of the Sadducees in the later period which by enlarge represented a Priestly elite backed by Hellenized views, and ultimately would be supported by the Romans as a politically motivated sect), and we can view post-Maccabean Israel as filled with scribes and sages as simply representative of Judaism - since they inherited the structure and historical framework from the time of Ezra, then from that position, Ezra - being the last spiritual head of the last vestiges of pre-exilic Judaism, then the Pharisees represent normative Judaism as it was practiced from Ezra until the close of the Second Temple Period. It is Josephus' view and belief in sectarian Judaism and he puts it forward in his works; we need not subscribe to that perspective so readily, given the historical climate.
Historically then, we need not view the Rabbinical Judaism, and subsequently Judaism that we have today as being an outgrowth of Yavneh. We can see Rabbinical Judaism as normative Judaism as it was practiced from the time of Ezra.
Going back to the Torah
We can go back to what G-d says about a particular issue; this is key and fundamental - even if the critic finds difficulty with the historical discussion above, our recourse is to what the Torah teaches, and more importantly what G-d says to His people at Sinai - the Torah itself as the living Words of G-d Himself.
There are many if not thousands of statements in the Torah that are manifold and crystal clear as to what G-d wants. We need not revert to interpretation on these verses, since their meaning is perfectly clear. There might be deeper shades, but fundamentally, the plain, simple meaning is straight forward. We can look to these clear verses in the Torah itself as a direct understanding of what G-d says to His people.
In this respect we can now go back to the article: "I believe with perfect Faith" and review Deuteronomy Chapters 4-5 and take out the absolute clarity of thought and fundamental nature of these very important verses.
The Torah is the source of everything (see the article: "We heard G-d Speak!") thus the message is crystal clear as to what G-d expects of us and how He has mandated to His people how to act and live in this world.
I would like however to make some salient points. The claim made by many groups is that the Judaism of the Torah is entirely different to that of the Oral Torah. We see a world of Sacrifices, a Holy Temple, the Jewish people united in the land of Israel under a just Monarchy which is from the house of David. In terms of the Oral Torah, it seems that the Oral Torah is a Judaism that is about Jews worshiping in prayer in the Synagogue, in various parts of the world, without a Temple, disunited in the four corners of the world, it is largely a Rabbinic Judaism, governed and run by Rabbis who are modern inheritors of the judges and teachers of old. The picture is a stark difference from that of the Torah.
A Closer Look at the Oral Torah....
This is entirely a view that is premature, a straw-man, and superficial. We have to look deep into Rabbinic Judaism, and ask them a very clear and obvious question: "Where is what you do, mandated by the Torah?". The response is usually - the Oral Torah. But the sum total of the Oral Torah is really the Talmuds, Midrash and Kabbalah the three major aspects of the Oral Torah. These are rooted in Biblical Exegesis and are firmly implanted in the Written Word of G-d.
The Talmud's pages are replete with references to the Torah. In fact, it would be a fair estimation that on an average page of the Talmud, there are at least three to four Biblical references, that guide the process of exegesis.
The first Tractate of the Talmud - Berachos - blessings, starts with the mandate to recite the Shema "Deuteronomy 6:4-9", twice daily, and is discussed in absolute detail. The literal meaning of the verses is analyzed, dissected and addressed in the subsequent folios.
Torah Judaism is in essence going back to the Word of G-d, and more precisely the directly spoken words of G-d directly to Moses as embodied in the Torah. Every nuance, every action is predicated on a Biblical injunction in some form or another.
The Historical Aspect
However, the critic might argue that this 'version' of Judaism was settled at Yavneh in about 90 CE (90 years into the Common Era), this is the Judaism of the Pharisees, and has little to do with Pre-Yavneh Judaism, which was replete with other sects and groups which in the mind of many could be equally valid. The Sadducees (Tzadokim), or the Barthusians are some of these groups that claimed that the Rabbis right to interpret the Torah and mandate the festivals were incorrect. The Sadducees conducted various attempts to de-legitimate this throughout the period which was about 200-100 years before the Common Era (200-100 BCE). They started to attack witnesses who wished to notify the Great Sanhedrin (Great Law Court in Jerusalem of 71 Judges), of the appearance of the New Moon so that the Months could be established, and the Festivals carried out. They also attacked the runners sent from Jerusalem to inform the population of the New Month. This is recorded in the Tractate of Rosh Hashana 22b.
It seems from the Historical Evidence that there what might be dubbed a "Political Sect" called the "Pharisees" in the later part of the Second Temple Period (from about 100 BCE to 100 CE). However, it is the classical historical interpretation on Josephus that attributes a distinct sect as being politically and religiously based on the Scribes and Sages of the exiles that returned from the mandate of Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire. For the period from about 500 BCE until 50 BCE, historians believe (based on Josephus), that four distinct sects emerged, the two - Sadducee and Pharisee, were borne out of a political, economic, and religious distinctions. [See Wikipedia's article ("Saducees") and ("Pharisees")]
The articles in Wikipedia are built on Josephus' interpretations of the various sects, and comes out that the Pharisee sect is the ancestry of modern Normative Judaism. It should be noted the that sources come from Jacob Neusner, Josephus and others, which are not necessarily supportive of Rabbinic Orthodoxy. The article makes sweeping statements about a period that was shaped by tremendous upheaval in Israel. The Maccabees, while they managed to wrestle the Temple from the Greeks, and managed to re-dedicate the Temple; they did not manage to totally abolish the Hellenistic culture from Jewish life. Many Jews had succumbed irretrievably to the Hedonistic Greek lifestyle, and as a result, had a marked influence on society as a whole. Add to this the Roman conquest by Pompei in 135 BCE, in which many Roman influences had come into the country, the schisms of the elite and wealthy against the backdrop of a people torn from exile, makes the climate very different from the pre-exilic Israel. A country dispossessed of its most valuable asset - its people, coupled with assimilation and the tyranny of foes makes the difficulty of living in such a climate to say the least is inhospitable. Josephus was writing in Rome, under the patronage of the Roman Caesars, to an audience that was far more well-off, in monetary and safety terms than their brethren in Israel. Josephus is also playing a unique history, using the history of the Sadducee sect as a spring board to legitimate his own Pharisaic up-bringing. The Sadducees comprised of the elite and corrupted Priestly Caste. However, we know that the Priests entered into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur and some died and some did not, some were Sadducean and some were Pharisaic. To divide up Israel so neatly into unique and distinct Sects fails to appreciate the subtlety and climate of the time. The Wikipedia article ("Pharisees") claims that not a major sect had the majority, although it claims that the common people were supportive of the Pharisees, if not aligned politically nor religiously. If we understand that each sect was not neat, and that religion was not necessarily indicative of a political view (with the exception of the Sadducees in the later period which by enlarge represented a Priestly elite backed by Hellenized views, and ultimately would be supported by the Romans as a politically motivated sect), and we can view post-Maccabean Israel as filled with scribes and sages as simply representative of Judaism - since they inherited the structure and historical framework from the time of Ezra, then from that position, Ezra - being the last spiritual head of the last vestiges of pre-exilic Judaism, then the Pharisees represent normative Judaism as it was practiced from Ezra until the close of the Second Temple Period. It is Josephus' view and belief in sectarian Judaism and he puts it forward in his works; we need not subscribe to that perspective so readily, given the historical climate.
Historically then, we need not view the Rabbinical Judaism, and subsequently Judaism that we have today as being an outgrowth of Yavneh. We can see Rabbinical Judaism as normative Judaism as it was practiced from the time of Ezra.
Going back to the Torah
We can go back to what G-d says about a particular issue; this is key and fundamental - even if the critic finds difficulty with the historical discussion above, our recourse is to what the Torah teaches, and more importantly what G-d says to His people at Sinai - the Torah itself as the living Words of G-d Himself.
There are many if not thousands of statements in the Torah that are manifold and crystal clear as to what G-d wants. We need not revert to interpretation on these verses, since their meaning is perfectly clear. There might be deeper shades, but fundamentally, the plain, simple meaning is straight forward. We can look to these clear verses in the Torah itself as a direct understanding of what G-d says to His people.
In this respect we can now go back to the article: "I believe with perfect Faith" and review Deuteronomy Chapters 4-5 and take out the absolute clarity of thought and fundamental nature of these very important verses.
The Torah is the source of everything (see the article: "We heard G-d Speak!") thus the message is crystal clear as to what G-d expects of us and how He has mandated to His people how to act and live in this world.
A Personal Relationship with G-d
Whenever we speak about having a "Personal Relationship" regardless of the subject (G-d, our spouse, loved ones, friends etc.), we have to clarify what is meant.
"Personal Relationship" is really a code word. We don't want a Personal Relationship, we want an emotional, physical connection. We feel a certain lacking, and we feel pain, distance, difficulty, coldness lack of connection. These are emotional feelings. They are brought about through a variety of factors. Some of them are psychological, some are emotional, some are spiritual. Imagine a child (say her name is Aliza) that was abused emotionally, physically and psychologically. Aliza, if she is able to rebuild her life, will want to feel an emotional attachment, she will want to full the gap that was created by the abuse. She felt hurt and disconnected from her parents or from G-d, or from love itself. That emotional lacking can be replicated in different ways. If she has siblings, she might feel that she would want a closer attachment to her sisters (emotional). Due to her abuse, she might find respite in talking to a close friend (psychological), and she may become spiritually more open and more desirous to seek out having an emotional connection with G-d (spiritual).
Whenever we say we want a "Personal Relationship", we have to be careful as to what we mean. Do we mean that we feel a certain lacking on an emotional, psychological, spiritual level, and as a result that gap we require to be fulfilled? Many people are fulfilled emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually, but they feel a lacking in their spiritual sphere. They go to Synagogue and they feel spiritually connected. Others do not. Perhaps it is due to an over desire to do something spiritually more than others, perhaps it is connected to emotion, intellect or abuse or some other psychological need.
G-d says to His People:
Deuteronomy 6:4-9
Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad:
Vahavta es Adonai Elohecha, b'chol levav'cha, uvchol nafsh'cha, uvchol m'odecha. V'hayu had'varim ha'eileh, asher anochi m'tzav'cha hayom, al l'vavecha.....etc...
4. Hear, O Israel: HASHEM is our G-d; HASHEM is One and Only. 5. And you shall love HASHEM, your G-d, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means. 6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart. 7. And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes. 9. And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates. (Deut 6:4-9) (translation from Judaica Press)
G-d wants us to love Him, because that is the greatest means to connection - creating a relationship with Him, "to love Him with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your means/resources...." With that relationship in place, you will "feel" that G-d loves you. When one is emotionally centered, psychologically grounded, then spiritually, this is perhaps the most concrete means to feeling a personal, loving emotional/spiritual connection with the infinite Creator of the Universe.
How awesome, unbelievable and great it is to be totally connected and in communication with the Creator of Everything! He can do anything, and He is directly involved in every minute action that I relate to. There is no intermediary, there is just a direct line to the Master of the Universe. It is awe-inspiring. He is the infinite Creator of Everything, and He is directly involved in what I have, what I want, and He wants a personal connection with me!
Our ability to connect to the Creator is to Love Him! To perform details and to relate to Him on a personal, every-day level, so that we can feel that connection. The details just like in any relationship between a father and son, man and woman, is predicated on details, remembering birthdays, talking to each other, relating to each other, doing special, unique things for each other is all built on the same fundamental understanding - that relationships take work and are formed with the details with which we connect and communicate with. The same is true with G-d, the more we give of ourselves, to the creator, the more we feel Him and relate to Him. Those details are tied up in doing what G-d commands. There are 613 little details and points that G-d is waiting for us to do, so that we can relate to Him and have that awesome, awe-inspiring connection.
G-d is real, He understands us, and He knows where we are and what we have done. He knows our faults and difficulties, He is intimately aware of our ups and downs, and yet, He wants us to return to Him. He says it:
1. And it will be if you obey the Lord, your God, to observe to fulfill all His commandments which I command you this day, the Lord, your God, will place you supreme above all the nations of the earth.
2. And all these blessings will come upon you and cleave to you, if you obey the Lord, your God. (Judaica Press Translation)
1. And it will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you,
2. and you will return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice according to all that I am commanding you this day you and your children,
3. then, the Lord, your God, will bring back your exiles, and He will have mercy upon you. He will once again gather you from all the nations, where the Lord, your God, had dispersed you.
4. Even if your exiles are at the end of the heavens, the Lord, your God, will gather you from there, and He will take you from there.
5. And the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you [too] will take possession of it, and He will do good to you, and He will make you more numerous than your forefathers.
6. And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, [so that you may] love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, for the sake of your life.
7. And the Lord, your God, will place all these curses upon your enemies and upon your adversaries, who pursued you.
8. And you will return and listen to the voice of the Lord, and fulfill all His commandments, which I command you this day.
9. And the Lord, your God, will make you abundant for good in all the work of your hands, in the fruit of your womb, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil. For the Lord will once again rejoice over you for good, as He rejoiced over your forefathers,
10. when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, [and] when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
15. Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil,
16. inasmuch as I command you this day to love the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.
17. But if your heart deviates and you do not listen, and you will be drawn astray, and you will prostrate yourself to other deities and serve them,
18. I declare to you this day, that you will surely perish, and that you will not live long days on the land, to which you are crossing the Jordan, to come and take possession thereof.
19. This day, I call upon the heaven and the earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live;
20. To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him. For that is your life and the length of your days, to dwell on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give to them.
"Personal Relationship" is really a code word. We don't want a Personal Relationship, we want an emotional, physical connection. We feel a certain lacking, and we feel pain, distance, difficulty, coldness lack of connection. These are emotional feelings. They are brought about through a variety of factors. Some of them are psychological, some are emotional, some are spiritual. Imagine a child (say her name is Aliza) that was abused emotionally, physically and psychologically. Aliza, if she is able to rebuild her life, will want to feel an emotional attachment, she will want to full the gap that was created by the abuse. She felt hurt and disconnected from her parents or from G-d, or from love itself. That emotional lacking can be replicated in different ways. If she has siblings, she might feel that she would want a closer attachment to her sisters (emotional). Due to her abuse, she might find respite in talking to a close friend (psychological), and she may become spiritually more open and more desirous to seek out having an emotional connection with G-d (spiritual).
Whenever we say we want a "Personal Relationship", we have to be careful as to what we mean. Do we mean that we feel a certain lacking on an emotional, psychological, spiritual level, and as a result that gap we require to be fulfilled? Many people are fulfilled emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually, but they feel a lacking in their spiritual sphere. They go to Synagogue and they feel spiritually connected. Others do not. Perhaps it is due to an over desire to do something spiritually more than others, perhaps it is connected to emotion, intellect or abuse or some other psychological need.
G-d says to His People:
Deuteronomy 6:4-9
Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad:
Vahavta es Adonai Elohecha, b'chol levav'cha, uvchol nafsh'cha, uvchol m'odecha. V'hayu had'varim ha'eileh, asher anochi m'tzav'cha hayom, al l'vavecha.....etc...
ד שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ, ה' אֶחָד. ה וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ. ו וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ. ז וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ. ח וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת, עַל-יָדֶךָ; וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת, בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ. ט וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל-מְזֻזוֹת בֵּיתֶךָ, וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ. (דברים ו.ד-ט)
4. Hear, O Israel: HASHEM is our G-d; HASHEM is One and Only. 5. And you shall love HASHEM, your G-d, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means. 6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart. 7. And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes. 9. And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates. (Deut 6:4-9) (translation from Judaica Press)
G-d wants us to love Him, because that is the greatest means to connection - creating a relationship with Him, "to love Him with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your means/resources...." With that relationship in place, you will "feel" that G-d loves you. When one is emotionally centered, psychologically grounded, then spiritually, this is perhaps the most concrete means to feeling a personal, loving emotional/spiritual connection with the infinite Creator of the Universe.
How awesome, unbelievable and great it is to be totally connected and in communication with the Creator of Everything! He can do anything, and He is directly involved in every minute action that I relate to. There is no intermediary, there is just a direct line to the Master of the Universe. It is awe-inspiring. He is the infinite Creator of Everything, and He is directly involved in what I have, what I want, and He wants a personal connection with me!
Our ability to connect to the Creator is to Love Him! To perform details and to relate to Him on a personal, every-day level, so that we can feel that connection. The details just like in any relationship between a father and son, man and woman, is predicated on details, remembering birthdays, talking to each other, relating to each other, doing special, unique things for each other is all built on the same fundamental understanding - that relationships take work and are formed with the details with which we connect and communicate with. The same is true with G-d, the more we give of ourselves, to the creator, the more we feel Him and relate to Him. Those details are tied up in doing what G-d commands. There are 613 little details and points that G-d is waiting for us to do, so that we can relate to Him and have that awesome, awe-inspiring connection.
G-d is real, He understands us, and He knows where we are and what we have done. He knows our faults and difficulties, He is intimately aware of our ups and downs, and yet, He wants us to return to Him. He says it:
א וְהָיָה, אִם-שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-מִצְוֹתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--וּנְתָנְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, עֶלְיוֹן, עַל, כָּל-גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ. ב וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל-הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה, וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ: כִּי תִשְׁמַע, בְּקוֹל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ.
(דברים לח.א-ב)
(דברים לח.א-ב)
1. And it will be if you obey the Lord, your God, to observe to fulfill all His commandments which I command you this day, the Lord, your God, will place you supreme above all the nations of the earth.
2. And all these blessings will come upon you and cleave to you, if you obey the Lord, your God. (Judaica Press Translation)
א וְהָיָה כִי-יָבֹאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי, לְפָנֶיךָ; וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ, אֶל-לְבָבֶךָ, בְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר הִדִּיחֲךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ שָׁמָּה. ב וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד-ה'אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְקֹלוֹ, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם: אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ. ג וְשָׁב ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-שְׁבוּתְךָ, וְרִחֲמֶךָ; וְשָׁב, וְקִבֶּצְךָ מִכָּל-הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר הֱפִיצְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שָׁמָּה. דאִם-יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ, בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם--מִשָּׁם, יְקַבֶּצְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וּמִשָּׁם, יִקָּחֶךָ. ה וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-יָרְשׁוּ אֲבֹתֶיךָ--וִירִשְׁתָּהּ; וְהֵיטִבְךָ וְהִרְבְּךָ, מֵאֲבֹתֶיךָ. ו וּמָל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-לְבָבְךָ, וְאֶת-לְבַב זַרְעֶךָ: לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ--לְמַעַן חַיֶּיךָ. ז וְנָתַן ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֵת כָּל-הָאָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ וְעַל-שֹׂנְאֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר רְדָפוּךָ. חוְאַתָּה תָשׁוּב, וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל ה'; וְעָשִׂיתָ, אֶת-כָּל-מִצְוֹתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם. ט וְהוֹתִירְךָ ה'אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ, בִּפְרִי בִטְנְךָ וּבִפְרִי בְהֶמְתְּךָ וּבִפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ--לְטֹבָה: כִּי יָשׁוּב ה', לָשׂוּשׂ עָלֶיךָ לְטוֹב, כַּאֲשֶׁר-שָׂשׂ, עַל-אֲבֹתֶיךָ. י כִּי תִשְׁמַע, בְּקוֹל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֹתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו, הַכְּתוּבָה בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה: כִּי תָשׁוּב אֶל-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ.
יא כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא. יב לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם, הִוא: לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲלֶה-לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה. יג וְלֹא-מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם, הִוא: לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲבָר-לָנוּ אֶל-עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה. יד כִּי-קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר, מְאֹד: בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ.
טו רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם, אֶת-הַחַיִּים וְאֶת-הַטּוֹב, וְאֶת-הַמָּוֶת, וְאֶת-הָרָע. טז אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם, לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בִּדְרָכָיו, וְלִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֹתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו; וְחָיִיתָ וְרָבִיתָ--וּבֵרַכְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה בָא-שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ. יז וְאִם-יִפְנֶה לְבָבְךָ, וְלֹא תִשְׁמָע; וְנִדַּחְתָּ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתָ לֵאלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--וַעֲבַדְתָּם. יח הִגַּדְתִּי לָכֶם הַיּוֹם, כִּי אָבֹד תֹּאבֵדוּן: לֹא-תַאֲרִיכֻן יָמִים, עַל-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹבֵר אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן, לָבוֹא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ. יט הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם, אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ--הַחַיִּים וְהַמָּוֶת נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ, הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה; וּבָחַרְתָּ, בַּחַיִּים--לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה, אַתָּה וְזַרְעֶךָ. כלְאַהֲבָה אֶת-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּקֹלוֹ וּלְדָבְקָה-בוֹ: כִּי הוּא חַיֶּיךָ, וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ--לָשֶׁבֶת עַל-הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב, לָתֵת לָהֶם.
(דברים ל.טו-יט)1. And it will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you,
2. and you will return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice according to all that I am commanding you this day you and your children,
3. then, the Lord, your God, will bring back your exiles, and He will have mercy upon you. He will once again gather you from all the nations, where the Lord, your God, had dispersed you.
4. Even if your exiles are at the end of the heavens, the Lord, your God, will gather you from there, and He will take you from there.
5. And the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you [too] will take possession of it, and He will do good to you, and He will make you more numerous than your forefathers.
6. And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, [so that you may] love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, for the sake of your life.
7. And the Lord, your God, will place all these curses upon your enemies and upon your adversaries, who pursued you.
8. And you will return and listen to the voice of the Lord, and fulfill all His commandments, which I command you this day.
9. And the Lord, your God, will make you abundant for good in all the work of your hands, in the fruit of your womb, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil. For the Lord will once again rejoice over you for good, as He rejoiced over your forefathers,
10. when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, [and] when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
15. Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil,
16. inasmuch as I command you this day to love the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.
17. But if your heart deviates and you do not listen, and you will be drawn astray, and you will prostrate yourself to other deities and serve them,
18. I declare to you this day, that you will surely perish, and that you will not live long days on the land, to which you are crossing the Jordan, to come and take possession thereof.
19. This day, I call upon the heaven and the earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live;
20. To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him. For that is your life and the length of your days, to dwell on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give to them.
(Judaica Press Translation) [Emphasis Mine]
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Its a Matter of Interpretation
"Its about interpretation - you interpret it this way, I interpret it this way, we're both entitled to our opinions." This is the classical way of debate - interpretations are seen as legitimate regardless of how they fit into the text. My opinion weighs equally to yours.
This is a corollary to Argument from Majority. We see clearly that while many people can offer different opinions, opinions have varying degrees of weight. While we can include the cleaning staff in a hospital in a vote with regard to worker's wages - their opinion matters a lot, because they will be directly affected by wage cuts, it would be imprudent to include their say about which medical treatments are best to be supplied by the hospital because their opinion has little weight compared with the experts. The experts in the field of Medicine have a better say when it comes to understanding medicine and the cures and the investment involved. They are the ones that know all the journals, the medical books, they have operated, researched and discovered. They are in a position of greater degree of understanding then the janitor, and therefore they have a greater weight in the decision making process. In fact, their say has so much weight, it causes the weight of the janitor's say to be inconsequential and therefore tends to be zero. We can therefore ignore his opinion.
We have to first understand who is making the opinion and on what grounds. If the janitor of a hospital says that he prefers surgery A over surgery B because surgery A has a red circle around the A, and he likes red circles, we pay little attention to him. If the expert in his field says it, because the circle means that surgery A has a high success rate then we can listen to him. If however he says that he also likes red circles, his opinion can be also ignored.
The correct line of argument is that opinion, and interpretation have to be correct. Our determination of that relies on what G-d said to Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses, our teacher) at Sinai. Since there can be many interpretations of a single text, the only possible way of determining the veracity of any interpretation is how it fits with the interpretation of what was given at Sinai.
At Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses, our teacher) was given all the interpretations available, and the means of working them out - rules of exegesis. That means that until the closing of the Talmud (500 CE), the right of interpretation of the text, was handed down from teacher to student in a living chain. Today we rely on that interpretation as the back-bone and basis for any understanding of the text.
However, there are many interpretations that simply do not fit with the text at all. If they have no source or root in what G-d told Moses at Sinai, they are not valid. How can they be? They have no basis in the text - it has to be justified in the text. In addition there are rules inherent in the actual text, that show that certain interpretations cannot be correct. Any interpretation that ignores the punctuation of the text is incorrect. Any interpretation in which the meaning of the words changes to other meanings of the words that do not have a basis in Hebrew also are incorrect.
This stands to reason, we cannot simply allow any interpretation to be valid, anyone could justify his actions and negate the Torah simply with a different interpretation of the text - there has to be an accepted, clear reading of the text that everyone agrees to be the actual meaning. G-d's stamp of approval is the Oral Tradition of that interpretation that is valid and true.
To summarize the following:
1. Interpretation is given to the experts
2. We use relevant majorities, in relevant places - sometimes an expert overrides majority opinion.
3. Logic, rules of interpretation, and closeness to the text, justify interpretation.
4. Interpretations follow a pattern - there has to be congruence - punctuation, and meaning cannot be ignored.
5. Valid Interpretation has a chain to Sinai - it has to be part of the living Torah chain.
6. An expert is a person who is part of this living chain. Having a Phd isn't necessarily meaningful, you have to be connected to the source.
This understanding is delineated in three places in the Torah (for greater clarification of what is meant by the G-d's Word refer to "We Heard G-d Speak"):
8. If a matter eludes you in judgment, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, or between lesion and lesion, words of dispute in your cities, then you shall rise and go up to the place the Lord, your God, chooses. 9. And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment. 10. And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you. 11. According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left. 12. And the man who acts intentionally, not obeying the kohen who stands there to serve the Lord, your God, or to the judge that man shall die, and you shall abolish evil from Israel. 13. And all the people shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer act wantonly.
25. Moses chose men of substance out of all Israel and appointed them as heads of the people, leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. 26. And they would judge the people at all times; the difficult case they would bring to Moses, but any minor case they themselves would judge.
These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moses.
The Torah that Moses commanded us, is the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.
These four sources clearly delineate exactly how G-d wants His people to live and operate in the world of Torah. The Elders, heads of the community, the judges are the ones that are going to preside over cases, they are going to be the most accessible means for the people to relate to Moses, and by extension G-d. Source 3 shows us that there are two Torahs - a Written Torah and an Oral Torah - which was given by G-d to Moses.
Sources 1 & 2 show that the people require judges and educators in order to relate to G-d's laws. We see therefore that the right to interpret the laws, and apply them in the cases that are brought forth by the people to the judges and educators, is held by the judges and educators - they have to have some connection to the source - the Torah has given them a mandate to educate and judge cases, through Divine sanction. This is a perfectly logical proposition. In any legal system there is the statute laws and regulations, and the application and discussions of how each rule and statute is applied in each particular circumstance. But the right to interpret is not given to everyone, but rather the judges and educators who know and understand the laws and how to apply them effectively. The experts are the ones who are given the task. I have already outlined why we rely on experts to interpret the laws. We see it clearly spelled out in the Torah by G-d.
In this respect it stands to reason then, that in order to reach a clear understanding of what G-d wants we have to rely on the experts as the interpreters of G-d's laws. These experts are the judges that have passed on their judgments, interpretations and enactments for thousands of years from Moses until today. Their legal proceedings, interpretations and judgments are embodied in the Oral Torah and is codified in the Talmuds.
This is not a belief, it is not some subterfuge or ambiguous fuzzy means to understand G-d's word. It is logical and outlined in the Torah itself!
We see in Source 4, that G-d gave the nation of Israel, the Torah as a heritage to interpret and understand it.
It is important to understand that the Torah is not two components, or a Written and Oral Torah in which the Written Text is simply interpreted with the Oral Torah. While this might be the net effect, it is important to understand that was is meant by Torah is both the Written and Oral Torah combined, as a single, indivisible unit. One is incomplete without the other. They are two halves of a single whole.
You might argue and say: "Wait a second! I'm just reading the words, and some or other so-called 'expert' is interpreting it his way. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he hasn't a clue?"
To which I respond: Maybe you're right, but unless you provide positive evidence against the logic above you have no claim anymore than that there are pink invisible elephant aliens that are invading the underside of your shoes.
You might say: "Wait a second! I have positive evidence, its the broken telephone game, just like the game, is your Oral Tradition, I mean, whose to say its accurate, verifiable or actually true?"
To which I respond: Firstly, broken telephone games are designed to be fun. That means people have had a few to drink, the choice of phrases are stupid, with little content and with lots of aspirants (f, p, h-like letters), to make it hard to hear, you're only allowed to hear the content once, and there is little incentive.
Lets imagine that to transfer information Orally, there is a huge incentive - prestige or financial gain. Lets imagine that you can hear the information and content over and over, lets imagine that the Oral tradition is prized in the community and valued in-of-itself. Lets imagine that the content is worthwhile and meaningful. Lets imagine that the best scholars, and experts are trained to recall it. Lets imagine that the people lived out their lives according to its content? Do you think that the Oral Tradition is any manner like a 'broken telephone game'? Absolutely not. For more information listen to the following: The Divine Oral Tradition.
This is a corollary to Argument from Majority. We see clearly that while many people can offer different opinions, opinions have varying degrees of weight. While we can include the cleaning staff in a hospital in a vote with regard to worker's wages - their opinion matters a lot, because they will be directly affected by wage cuts, it would be imprudent to include their say about which medical treatments are best to be supplied by the hospital because their opinion has little weight compared with the experts. The experts in the field of Medicine have a better say when it comes to understanding medicine and the cures and the investment involved. They are the ones that know all the journals, the medical books, they have operated, researched and discovered. They are in a position of greater degree of understanding then the janitor, and therefore they have a greater weight in the decision making process. In fact, their say has so much weight, it causes the weight of the janitor's say to be inconsequential and therefore tends to be zero. We can therefore ignore his opinion.
We have to first understand who is making the opinion and on what grounds. If the janitor of a hospital says that he prefers surgery A over surgery B because surgery A has a red circle around the A, and he likes red circles, we pay little attention to him. If the expert in his field says it, because the circle means that surgery A has a high success rate then we can listen to him. If however he says that he also likes red circles, his opinion can be also ignored.
The correct line of argument is that opinion, and interpretation have to be correct. Our determination of that relies on what G-d said to Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses, our teacher) at Sinai. Since there can be many interpretations of a single text, the only possible way of determining the veracity of any interpretation is how it fits with the interpretation of what was given at Sinai.
At Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses, our teacher) was given all the interpretations available, and the means of working them out - rules of exegesis. That means that until the closing of the Talmud (500 CE), the right of interpretation of the text, was handed down from teacher to student in a living chain. Today we rely on that interpretation as the back-bone and basis for any understanding of the text.
However, there are many interpretations that simply do not fit with the text at all. If they have no source or root in what G-d told Moses at Sinai, they are not valid. How can they be? They have no basis in the text - it has to be justified in the text. In addition there are rules inherent in the actual text, that show that certain interpretations cannot be correct. Any interpretation that ignores the punctuation of the text is incorrect. Any interpretation in which the meaning of the words changes to other meanings of the words that do not have a basis in Hebrew also are incorrect.
This stands to reason, we cannot simply allow any interpretation to be valid, anyone could justify his actions and negate the Torah simply with a different interpretation of the text - there has to be an accepted, clear reading of the text that everyone agrees to be the actual meaning. G-d's stamp of approval is the Oral Tradition of that interpretation that is valid and true.
To summarize the following:
1. Interpretation is given to the experts
2. We use relevant majorities, in relevant places - sometimes an expert overrides majority opinion.
3. Logic, rules of interpretation, and closeness to the text, justify interpretation.
4. Interpretations follow a pattern - there has to be congruence - punctuation, and meaning cannot be ignored.
5. Valid Interpretation has a chain to Sinai - it has to be part of the living Torah chain.
6. An expert is a person who is part of this living chain. Having a Phd isn't necessarily meaningful, you have to be connected to the source.
This understanding is delineated in three places in the Torah (for greater clarification of what is meant by the G-d's Word refer to "We Heard G-d Speak"):
Source 1
ח כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט, בֵּין-דָּם לְדָם בֵּין-דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע--דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ: וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ--אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ. ט וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, וְאֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ, אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט. י וְעָשִׂיתָ, עַל-פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ, מִן-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'; וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ. יא עַל-פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ, וְעַל-הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר-יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ--תַּעֲשֶׂה: לֹא תָסוּר, מִן-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יַגִּידוּ לְךָ--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל. יב וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן, לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אוֹ, אֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט--וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. יג וְכָל-הָעָם, יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ; וְלֹא יְזִידוּן, עוֹד. (דברים יז.ח-יג)
Deuteronomy 17:8-13:8. If a matter eludes you in judgment, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, or between lesion and lesion, words of dispute in your cities, then you shall rise and go up to the place the Lord, your God, chooses. 9. And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment. 10. And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you. 11. According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left. 12. And the man who acts intentionally, not obeying the kohen who stands there to serve the Lord, your God, or to the judge that man shall die, and you shall abolish evil from Israel. 13. And all the people shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer act wantonly.
Source 2
כה וַיִּבְחַר מֹשֶׁה אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל מִכָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם רָאשִׁים עַל-הָעָם--שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת, שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת. כו וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם, בְּכָל-עֵת: אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם. (שמות יח.כה-כו)
Exodus 18:25-26:25. Moses chose men of substance out of all Israel and appointed them as heads of the people, leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. 26. And they would judge the people at all times; the difficult case they would bring to Moses, but any minor case they themselves would judge.
Source 3
אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, וְהַתּוֹרֹת, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה', בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--בְּהַר סִינַי, בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה. (ויקרא כו.מו)
Leviticus 26:46:These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, through Moses.
Source 4
תּוֹרָה צִוָּה-לָנוּ, מֹשֶׁה: מוֹרָשָׁה, קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב. (דברים לג.ד)
Deuteronomy 33:4The Torah that Moses commanded us, is the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.
These four sources clearly delineate exactly how G-d wants His people to live and operate in the world of Torah. The Elders, heads of the community, the judges are the ones that are going to preside over cases, they are going to be the most accessible means for the people to relate to Moses, and by extension G-d. Source 3 shows us that there are two Torahs - a Written Torah and an Oral Torah - which was given by G-d to Moses.
Sources 1 & 2 show that the people require judges and educators in order to relate to G-d's laws. We see therefore that the right to interpret the laws, and apply them in the cases that are brought forth by the people to the judges and educators, is held by the judges and educators - they have to have some connection to the source - the Torah has given them a mandate to educate and judge cases, through Divine sanction. This is a perfectly logical proposition. In any legal system there is the statute laws and regulations, and the application and discussions of how each rule and statute is applied in each particular circumstance. But the right to interpret is not given to everyone, but rather the judges and educators who know and understand the laws and how to apply them effectively. The experts are the ones who are given the task. I have already outlined why we rely on experts to interpret the laws. We see it clearly spelled out in the Torah by G-d.
In this respect it stands to reason then, that in order to reach a clear understanding of what G-d wants we have to rely on the experts as the interpreters of G-d's laws. These experts are the judges that have passed on their judgments, interpretations and enactments for thousands of years from Moses until today. Their legal proceedings, interpretations and judgments are embodied in the Oral Torah and is codified in the Talmuds.
This is not a belief, it is not some subterfuge or ambiguous fuzzy means to understand G-d's word. It is logical and outlined in the Torah itself!
We see in Source 4, that G-d gave the nation of Israel, the Torah as a heritage to interpret and understand it.
It is important to understand that the Torah is not two components, or a Written and Oral Torah in which the Written Text is simply interpreted with the Oral Torah. While this might be the net effect, it is important to understand that was is meant by Torah is both the Written and Oral Torah combined, as a single, indivisible unit. One is incomplete without the other. They are two halves of a single whole.
You might argue and say: "Wait a second! I'm just reading the words, and some or other so-called 'expert' is interpreting it his way. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he hasn't a clue?"
To which I respond: Maybe you're right, but unless you provide positive evidence against the logic above you have no claim anymore than that there are pink invisible elephant aliens that are invading the underside of your shoes.
You might say: "Wait a second! I have positive evidence, its the broken telephone game, just like the game, is your Oral Tradition, I mean, whose to say its accurate, verifiable or actually true?"
To which I respond: Firstly, broken telephone games are designed to be fun. That means people have had a few to drink, the choice of phrases are stupid, with little content and with lots of aspirants (f, p, h-like letters), to make it hard to hear, you're only allowed to hear the content once, and there is little incentive.
Lets imagine that to transfer information Orally, there is a huge incentive - prestige or financial gain. Lets imagine that you can hear the information and content over and over, lets imagine that the Oral tradition is prized in the community and valued in-of-itself. Lets imagine that the content is worthwhile and meaningful. Lets imagine that the best scholars, and experts are trained to recall it. Lets imagine that the people lived out their lives according to its content? Do you think that the Oral Tradition is any manner like a 'broken telephone game'? Absolutely not. For more information listen to the following: The Divine Oral Tradition.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Argument from Majority
The Argument from Majority is a classical methodology for using it determine the veracity of an opinion or statement. However, it is fraught with very dangerous pitfalls if used incorrectly. We see that using the majority vote of all peoples of a country to determine whether or not a particular course of medical technology should be used in hospitals cannot be feasible, either for practical considerations or for lack of information, knowledge or expert skill in determining whether or not this technology should be available.
A Hospital cannot rely on the majority of its clients to determine whether or not it should use its funding to buy a dialysis machine, because invariably, the money would be used for medical emergencies already pressing or to pay the workers more. We see that majorities and their opinions may or may not be helpful in determining the allocation of funds. Additionally, including simply the Board of Trustees on a vote, would be very non-intuitive. Perhaps, the Hospital is in a location where pregnancies are not common, and the Board, may believe that Pregnancies have a low cost relative to other medical conditions, and therefore an extra maternity wing in the Hospital could be a boon for financially keeping the Hospital in the Green. The Hospital therefore cannot consider their vote as being absolute. We see that Hospitals generally value the opinions of the surgeons and medical experts in their fields to determine the case of whether or not a treatment or technology should be funded and carried out. Why? Because the basic majority isn't helpful nor meaningful nor is it an accurate display of what ought to be!
In 1934 Hitler rose to power in a perfectly legitimate fashion on the cards. He received a 99% landslide victory to become the High Chancellor of Germany. Admittedly, much of the vote was dependent heavily on brute force and threats, but we see that a majority position isn't necessarily accurate or right morally! While I'm not saying that Democracy got Hitler to power, to simply make the claim that a Majority rule represents the reality or truth, is sadly mistaken. (see here for more elaboration).
Why do we have democratic elections that are free and fair? For representation. The people need to be represented democratically because that is the means to which we can determine their active role in politically shaping the country. Lack of this principal is an expression of lack of representation, because the needs of the people are being ignored in favor of other considerations.
Democracy requires a certain degree of literacy and education. I believe that modern western free and fair electoral voting would have no place in ancient Greece, where Democracy has its birth, because the fundamental distinctions of class - i.e. land-owners vs. slaves, women and children, would be affected by their overall marginalization from society. Giving illiterate people the right to responsible government is dangerous because invariably that don't have the social knowledge to make informed, accurate decisions about who to vote for.
With this in mind, we can now turn to determining whether or not a belief, fact or statement is true. If the majority of experts in their field, reject the alternative then we have more reason to accept the statement as being true. It doesn't prove it, even in a non-absolute sense - it is only more likely to be acceptable. The majority of scientists in the earlier part of the 20th Century concurred that Pluto was the 9th planet. Today, the majority reject that hypothesis. All we can assume is that it is more likely to be true.
The experts of the Torah are the Rabbinical Scholars. They are the ones we should look up to in determining the validity of interpretation and understanding. Specifically the Rabbis who represent the Masora - the traditional passing down of Divine Wisdom from Moses until today, are the ones who are most capable in determining the truth. In fact, a simple summary from the time of Moses until today of these Rabbis, is a vast majority of intellectual opinion. On this basis alone, a unanimous decision has tremendous weight.
A Hospital cannot rely on the majority of its clients to determine whether or not it should use its funding to buy a dialysis machine, because invariably, the money would be used for medical emergencies already pressing or to pay the workers more. We see that majorities and their opinions may or may not be helpful in determining the allocation of funds. Additionally, including simply the Board of Trustees on a vote, would be very non-intuitive. Perhaps, the Hospital is in a location where pregnancies are not common, and the Board, may believe that Pregnancies have a low cost relative to other medical conditions, and therefore an extra maternity wing in the Hospital could be a boon for financially keeping the Hospital in the Green. The Hospital therefore cannot consider their vote as being absolute. We see that Hospitals generally value the opinions of the surgeons and medical experts in their fields to determine the case of whether or not a treatment or technology should be funded and carried out. Why? Because the basic majority isn't helpful nor meaningful nor is it an accurate display of what ought to be!
In 1934 Hitler rose to power in a perfectly legitimate fashion on the cards. He received a 99% landslide victory to become the High Chancellor of Germany. Admittedly, much of the vote was dependent heavily on brute force and threats, but we see that a majority position isn't necessarily accurate or right morally! While I'm not saying that Democracy got Hitler to power, to simply make the claim that a Majority rule represents the reality or truth, is sadly mistaken. (see here for more elaboration).
Why do we have democratic elections that are free and fair? For representation. The people need to be represented democratically because that is the means to which we can determine their active role in politically shaping the country. Lack of this principal is an expression of lack of representation, because the needs of the people are being ignored in favor of other considerations.
Democracy requires a certain degree of literacy and education. I believe that modern western free and fair electoral voting would have no place in ancient Greece, where Democracy has its birth, because the fundamental distinctions of class - i.e. land-owners vs. slaves, women and children, would be affected by their overall marginalization from society. Giving illiterate people the right to responsible government is dangerous because invariably that don't have the social knowledge to make informed, accurate decisions about who to vote for.
With this in mind, we can now turn to determining whether or not a belief, fact or statement is true. If the majority of experts in their field, reject the alternative then we have more reason to accept the statement as being true. It doesn't prove it, even in a non-absolute sense - it is only more likely to be acceptable. The majority of scientists in the earlier part of the 20th Century concurred that Pluto was the 9th planet. Today, the majority reject that hypothesis. All we can assume is that it is more likely to be true.
The experts of the Torah are the Rabbinical Scholars. They are the ones we should look up to in determining the validity of interpretation and understanding. Specifically the Rabbis who represent the Masora - the traditional passing down of Divine Wisdom from Moses until today, are the ones who are most capable in determining the truth. In fact, a simple summary from the time of Moses until today of these Rabbis, is a vast majority of intellectual opinion. On this basis alone, a unanimous decision has tremendous weight.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Concept of Messiah
1. Whenever we talk about the concept of Messiah, or in Hebrew: משיח (Moshiach), it needs to be understood. We can use the Torah as the fundamental definition of that idea. When we invest in a definition, it is critical to understand how we view the Torah, and how it impacts on the definition (See "We Heard G-d Speak for a precise analysis of this idea). The definition is fundamental to the entire concept of Messiah.
2. The first time משיח appears anywhere in the Torah is not in its current form but rather as: משחה: in Exodus 25:6:
שמן, למאר; בשמים לשמן המשחה, ולקטרת הסמים. (שמות כה, ו)
Oil, for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the aromatic incense. (Shemos 25:6) [translation from: Sherman, N, (ed.) (1994) "The Stone Edition, the Chumash", Brooklyn, NY, Mesorah Publications, pp. 444-5]
We see therefore that the meaning of the word Moshiach or Mashchah has to do with anointing with oil, or being anointed with oil. Specifically, this oil is the same oil used to light the Menorah. This is the best, purist, untainted olive oil, from the first fruits, and first drops of oil, that have been untouched by impure hands, pristine and pure. For further elaboration see Exodus 30:22-33.
4. Every time the word is used, is in the context of anointing. For example: King Cyrus (in Hebrew Coresh):
3. The Torah uses the term in reference to an anointed Priest:
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, לאשמת העם: והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן-בקר תמים, לה'--לחטאת. (ויקרא ד.ג)
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, לאשמת העם: והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן-בקר תמים, לה'--לחטאת. (ויקרא ד.ג)
If the anointed Kohein (Priest) will sin, bringing guilt upon the people; for his sin that he committed, he shall offer a young bull, unblemished, to Hashem as a sin-offering.[translation from: Sherman, N, (ed.) (1994) "The Stone Edition, the Chumash", Brooklyn, NY, Mesorah Publications, p. 557]
4. Every time the word is used, is in the context of anointing. For example: King Cyrus (in Hebrew Coresh):
א כה-אמר ה', למשיחו לכורש אשר-החזקתי בימינו לרד-לפניו גוים, ומתני מלכים, אפתח לפתח לפניו דלתים, ושערים לא יסגרו. (ישעיהו מה, א)
So said Hashem to His anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I held, to flatten nations before him, and the loins of kings I will loosen, to open portals before him, and gates shall not be closed. (Yeshayahu 45:1) Judaica Press Tanakh
5. Thus when we see the verse in Daniel:
ותדע ותשכל מן-מצא דבר, להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד-משיח נגיד--שבעים, שבעה; ושבעים ששים ושנים, תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ, ובצוק, העתים. (דניאל ט, כה)
And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times. (Doniyel 9:25) Judaica Press Tanakh
The parallel is striking - we see the definition defined in Exodus - anointing. In Exodus 30:22-33, Aharon (Aaron) the Kohein Gadol (High Priest), was anointed with oil. We see in Isaiah that Coresh is anointed, and we see in Daniel that the anointed king returns, to rebuild Jerusalem. That king is Coresh mentioned in Isaiah.
We therefore see something fundamental - a Messiah type figure is not at all mentioned in connection with prophecy at all. Rather, the word itself tells us that anyone who is anointed with oil is referred to as Moshiach - which means anointed one.
We don't really see from the Torah, nor the Tanakh a concept per se of a Messiah - Moshiach - a person that performs key actions that identify him as the Moshiach. What we do see is that certain verses in the Prophets and Writings, that can be interpreted to be referring to the Moshiach; however they don't have to be. It is only the Oral Tradition that was passed by G-d to Moses and the Jewish people, that particular verses in the Torah refer to the Moshiach.
Thus the Talmud (Gemara Berachos 12b) talks about a Messianic Age. The Talmud (Gemara Berachos 29a) Talks about the son of Yishai (Jesse) that being Dovid, G-d's servant rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and the Holy Temple.
With this in mind; we can now turn to the Tanakh. When we look to the Tanakh to see if there is a hint to a Moshiach that will bring about the redemption of the world, we have to say to ourselves the following: "In order for a verse to be Messianic, it needs to be known to be Messianic, therefore if any verse that the Oral Tradition of the Jewish people labels as "Messianic" then that verse or set of verses, refers to the Messiah and end of days;" then we need to ask: "Does this verse meet that criteria?"
One may interject and ask: "Wait a second, why can't we simply interpret the text as we see fit?" If that was actually true, then G-d would not have been so meticulous in providing His Own interpretation. The fact that G-d wanted the people to turn to the Spiritual Leaders of each generation (Exo 18:25-26, Deut 17:8-13), to ensure Jewish survival, that the Rabbis, Judges and Priests would be the Spiritual leaders and enable the people to become closer to G-d and see that the Torah is transmitted through them; the Torah's interpretation was given orally. Thus, G-d's written word is written in the Torah, and G-d's interpretation is embodied in the Oral Torah (see Leviticus 26:46). For more clarification see "We Heard G-d Speak".
One may interject and ask: "Wait a second, why can't we simply interpret the text as we see fit?" If that was actually true, then G-d would not have been so meticulous in providing His Own interpretation. The fact that G-d wanted the people to turn to the Spiritual Leaders of each generation (Exo 18:25-26, Deut 17:8-13), to ensure Jewish survival, that the Rabbis, Judges and Priests would be the Spiritual leaders and enable the people to become closer to G-d and see that the Torah is transmitted through them; the Torah's interpretation was given orally. Thus, G-d's written word is written in the Torah, and G-d's interpretation is embodied in the Oral Torah (see Leviticus 26:46). For more clarification see "We Heard G-d Speak".
Friday, March 9, 2012
We Heard G-d Speak!
The Torah is not a book, history journal, story, fable or whim; nor is it some chronology. It is the living word of G-d. The Torah begins: Bereishis Bara Elokim et hashamayim v'et ha-Aretz. בראשית ברא אל-הים את השמים ואת הארץ. G-d spoke those words. It is impossible to capture these in another language. There are so many different shades of meaning, it is like trying to explain to a Desert dweller, the concept that there 100s of different types of snow, that the native peoples of the northern parts of Canada describe and live in.
When we speak about Torah, it is the source of everything in this world. It is the life-force behind everything, it is the foundation of everything. The very understanding of our universe, the very atoms that cause there to be stars seemingly billions of light years away, are the same atoms that form life, they are the building blocks behind amoebas and humans and flies, and frogs and fish and birds and plants and animals - everything, all that is imprinted as DNA of creation is the Torah. The Torah is the blue-print for our universe, our world and everything in it.
It is the fundamental source of truth and wisdom. Everything is contained within it. On a superficial level, what it says, is. Any contradiction to it, is a denial of its essence, and is false beyond question. The Torah contains two aspects - a written text and an oral interpretation. The interpretation was given together with the text. In as much as a person who buys a car, can take the car out for a spin, he also receives an instruction manual, and a few words of caution, explanation by the seller. By analogy, doctors receive oral instruction on how to perform surgery, as do pilots of airplanes, etc. Every field acknowledges the interplay of a written text, and oral explanation as integral to the learning and education experience.
The Torah is no different - it has a written component that contains the essential elements, and an oral exposition that brings it out in all its depth and application.
It also stands to reason. The Torah read on a simple level is ambiguous and unclear, it demands explanation. G-d set out His word in a way that requires it to be unlocked by the Oral Interpretation that He gave with it.
This is the source of everything in this world. This is the key to unlocking the mystery of the universe, creation - everything.
This fundamental point is the basis of all of Torah and Judaism and everything in the world. It is spelled out specifically in Exodus 18-20, and Deuteronomy 4-6, 30:15-16.
This point is absolutely essential. The Torah is not the inspired words of some prophet. They are the living words of the Creator of the Universe! When we look at the first Five Books of Moses - the Torah these are the words that G-d spoke. They are the fundamental, essential aspects of the entire universe. They are the very fundamental building blocks of everything in this world, physically and spiritually!
The Torah therefore represents the sum total of G-d's expression and desires in this world, and we are to obey Him, and accept His word as absolutely fundamental, essential, unchanging, and above all His words.
While we accept that the Prophets from Yehoshua (Joshua) until the Last Prophets (Malachi etc.), they were prophets and represent the inspired words that they heard, dissected and interpreted, and then told the people the words, and their interpretation. This is fundamentally different to the Torah. In practical terms, the prophets cannot contradict the Torah, they cannot introduce a new idea, command or concept in the Torah, and they cannot remove or alter the Torah in any way (Deuteronomy 4:2).
This is absolutely fundamental to any understanding of Scripture. We refer to G-d's Holy Words as the ultimate source of everything. Thus, any concept not found in the Torah, must be human made.
In this respect, the Torah is G-d's word, and nothing can change it, no prophet can override its message, and nothing can alter it. Whenever we refer to anything as legitimate or truthful, we must ascertain if it is in the Torah!
It stands to reason that if this is what G-d said, we have to understand it. If G-d said to Moses: "I command you to do 'X'", obviously, Moses has to understand what 'X' is. If Moses didn't understand it, and the people didn't understand it, what would be the usefulness of stating X without some explanation of what is meant by 'X'.
The fact is that G-d spoke the written Torah and He also told the people the interpretation, the understanding, and the derivations of all that G-d wanted His people to obey and follow at Sinai. The Jewish people understand that the text is a text that G-d said, and not every passage is to be taken literally, not because it can't be, but because G-d said it mustn't be taken literally.
The idea that what G-d said must be taken literally, is entirely a Calvinist, Protestant perspective of Scripture based on the concept of Sola Scriptura. If it is literal it must be the truth, which is absurd. Imagine interpreting the US Constitutions statement "the right to bear arms", literally. This means that your average Joe in America has the constitutional right to own a gun as a means to protection. The Federal Government nor the State has any right to regulate the right to own a gun, according to the literal meaning of the words. However, this is not necessarily the case. The Right to Bear Arms, is a legal injunction of the State's right to have a militia: (see this link about the State Vs.Buzzard 1842).
In this respect then, the meaning of the Torah is subject only to what G-d says is the meaning. For the most part the meaning is clear, and for the text that is difficult, or requires explanation, G-d has provided for the necessary means of perfectly clarifying exactly what is meant by His Holy Words!
For more information please listen to Rabbi L. Kelemen's Lecture on the Divine Origin of the Torah.
When we speak about Torah, it is the source of everything in this world. It is the life-force behind everything, it is the foundation of everything. The very understanding of our universe, the very atoms that cause there to be stars seemingly billions of light years away, are the same atoms that form life, they are the building blocks behind amoebas and humans and flies, and frogs and fish and birds and plants and animals - everything, all that is imprinted as DNA of creation is the Torah. The Torah is the blue-print for our universe, our world and everything in it.
It is the fundamental source of truth and wisdom. Everything is contained within it. On a superficial level, what it says, is. Any contradiction to it, is a denial of its essence, and is false beyond question. The Torah contains two aspects - a written text and an oral interpretation. The interpretation was given together with the text. In as much as a person who buys a car, can take the car out for a spin, he also receives an instruction manual, and a few words of caution, explanation by the seller. By analogy, doctors receive oral instruction on how to perform surgery, as do pilots of airplanes, etc. Every field acknowledges the interplay of a written text, and oral explanation as integral to the learning and education experience.
The Torah is no different - it has a written component that contains the essential elements, and an oral exposition that brings it out in all its depth and application.
It also stands to reason. The Torah read on a simple level is ambiguous and unclear, it demands explanation. G-d set out His word in a way that requires it to be unlocked by the Oral Interpretation that He gave with it.
This is the source of everything in this world. This is the key to unlocking the mystery of the universe, creation - everything.
This fundamental point is the basis of all of Torah and Judaism and everything in the world. It is spelled out specifically in Exodus 18-20, and Deuteronomy 4-6, 30:15-16.
This point is absolutely essential. The Torah is not the inspired words of some prophet. They are the living words of the Creator of the Universe! When we look at the first Five Books of Moses - the Torah these are the words that G-d spoke. They are the fundamental, essential aspects of the entire universe. They are the very fundamental building blocks of everything in this world, physically and spiritually!
The Torah therefore represents the sum total of G-d's expression and desires in this world, and we are to obey Him, and accept His word as absolutely fundamental, essential, unchanging, and above all His words.
While we accept that the Prophets from Yehoshua (Joshua) until the Last Prophets (Malachi etc.), they were prophets and represent the inspired words that they heard, dissected and interpreted, and then told the people the words, and their interpretation. This is fundamentally different to the Torah. In practical terms, the prophets cannot contradict the Torah, they cannot introduce a new idea, command or concept in the Torah, and they cannot remove or alter the Torah in any way (Deuteronomy 4:2).
This is absolutely fundamental to any understanding of Scripture. We refer to G-d's Holy Words as the ultimate source of everything. Thus, any concept not found in the Torah, must be human made.
In this respect, the Torah is G-d's word, and nothing can change it, no prophet can override its message, and nothing can alter it. Whenever we refer to anything as legitimate or truthful, we must ascertain if it is in the Torah!
It stands to reason that if this is what G-d said, we have to understand it. If G-d said to Moses: "I command you to do 'X'", obviously, Moses has to understand what 'X' is. If Moses didn't understand it, and the people didn't understand it, what would be the usefulness of stating X without some explanation of what is meant by 'X'.
The fact is that G-d spoke the written Torah and He also told the people the interpretation, the understanding, and the derivations of all that G-d wanted His people to obey and follow at Sinai. The Jewish people understand that the text is a text that G-d said, and not every passage is to be taken literally, not because it can't be, but because G-d said it mustn't be taken literally.
The idea that what G-d said must be taken literally, is entirely a Calvinist, Protestant perspective of Scripture based on the concept of Sola Scriptura. If it is literal it must be the truth, which is absurd. Imagine interpreting the US Constitutions statement "the right to bear arms", literally. This means that your average Joe in America has the constitutional right to own a gun as a means to protection. The Federal Government nor the State has any right to regulate the right to own a gun, according to the literal meaning of the words. However, this is not necessarily the case. The Right to Bear Arms, is a legal injunction of the State's right to have a militia: (see this link about the State Vs.Buzzard 1842).
In this respect then, the meaning of the Torah is subject only to what G-d says is the meaning. For the most part the meaning is clear, and for the text that is difficult, or requires explanation, G-d has provided for the necessary means of perfectly clarifying exactly what is meant by His Holy Words!
For more information please listen to Rabbi L. Kelemen's Lecture on the Divine Origin of the Torah.
Avoiding the Issue
Future Fallacies
To avoid an issue in a debate is really a fallacy. You can answer the question, by saying: "Yes, I agree" or "No, I disagree", but you can also say: "This can be answered later". This is not answering the question, that is agreeing that the question stands and the assumption the questioner is basing himself off of stands, until proven incorrect.
For example:
Steve suggests Statement "X". Statement "X" is built on the assumption X'. If Jack argues against X, and says X is faulty because X' lacks sufficient evidence, Steve's response is that that X' is a good assumption, it however cannot be shown to be true now, but it will at some future time. This avoids the point entirely. Jack's argument against X' means that X' is now unproved, and remains unproven. If X' is unproven, then X cannot stand up to scrutiny and has to be removed as a good argument.
Steve claims that strawberries are green. Steve assumes that strawberries are green, because he has never seen red strawberries. Jack argues that since Steve lives in the North pole and has never seen strawberries at all, the assumption that strawberries are green lacks sufficient evidence. Steve argues however, that at some future time, he will be vindicated and strawberries will be shown to be green. Steve is avoiding the question and point of lack of sufficient evidence. Since Steve has no experience outside the north pole and the color of various fruits and vegetables, it stands to reason that Steve's knowledge of this area is severely lacking. It makes utterly no difference if Steve is right or not (maybe Steve has a different definition of green, or that Steve was only talking about unripened strawberries). At this point the statement is wrong, because it lacks sufficient evidence. Jack is in a position of authority, he has shown that Steve's underlying assumption is fallacious because it lacks sufficient evidence, that is enough cause to assume that the assumption and statement are wrong.
We live by this principle in real life. Cellphones are considered to be safe by many people, and the tests for cancer and radiation that have been conducted, are not cause for alarm because they lack sufficient evidence, to be shown to have affects on human health. (This Article from the Cancer Institute suggests this).
We should therefore think very carefully before we cast an argument into the wastepaper basket of "future proofs". That avoids the issue, and really is an admission of defeat because the argument stands, and the assumption it attacks has failed to be proven.
To avoid an issue in a debate is really a fallacy. You can answer the question, by saying: "Yes, I agree" or "No, I disagree", but you can also say: "This can be answered later". This is not answering the question, that is agreeing that the question stands and the assumption the questioner is basing himself off of stands, until proven incorrect.
For example:
Steve suggests Statement "X". Statement "X" is built on the assumption X'. If Jack argues against X, and says X is faulty because X' lacks sufficient evidence, Steve's response is that that X' is a good assumption, it however cannot be shown to be true now, but it will at some future time. This avoids the point entirely. Jack's argument against X' means that X' is now unproved, and remains unproven. If X' is unproven, then X cannot stand up to scrutiny and has to be removed as a good argument.
Steve claims that strawberries are green. Steve assumes that strawberries are green, because he has never seen red strawberries. Jack argues that since Steve lives in the North pole and has never seen strawberries at all, the assumption that strawberries are green lacks sufficient evidence. Steve argues however, that at some future time, he will be vindicated and strawberries will be shown to be green. Steve is avoiding the question and point of lack of sufficient evidence. Since Steve has no experience outside the north pole and the color of various fruits and vegetables, it stands to reason that Steve's knowledge of this area is severely lacking. It makes utterly no difference if Steve is right or not (maybe Steve has a different definition of green, or that Steve was only talking about unripened strawberries). At this point the statement is wrong, because it lacks sufficient evidence. Jack is in a position of authority, he has shown that Steve's underlying assumption is fallacious because it lacks sufficient evidence, that is enough cause to assume that the assumption and statement are wrong.
We live by this principle in real life. Cellphones are considered to be safe by many people, and the tests for cancer and radiation that have been conducted, are not cause for alarm because they lack sufficient evidence, to be shown to have affects on human health. (This Article from the Cancer Institute suggests this).
We should therefore think very carefully before we cast an argument into the wastepaper basket of "future proofs". That avoids the issue, and really is an admission of defeat because the argument stands, and the assumption it attacks has failed to be proven.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Time of Purple
Is a phrase that has no meaning. In much the same way that the color of 9 has little meaning, we often use phrases and expressions that do not reflect reality.
Take for example the time of purple. Time is a function of process. A process is simply the movement from one stage of existence to another. We perceive time in movement - because movement is an expression of movement over a particular distance - i.e. change. That change can be constant (i.e. 0 acceleration), or can increase. However, the fact that there is speed over some distance indicates that time has been traversed. Purple is a property of objects. Time is not an object, but an expression of a change in process, it, by definition is not an object of which we can attach a property of purple to it, and so the meaning of time of purple is utterly ridiculous.
Take for example the number "9". Abstractly, 9 is an integer, and can have certain mathematical properties. If I have 9 pencils, that means I have 9 individual components that make up a set of 9 pencils. The pencils can be purple, but not the number. The number does not have a property of how it looks or is perceived in the world. It is an abstract concept to relate to the world on a mathematical level. To speak of 9 having the color purple is not relevant.
These two examples show that our value and attribution to objects, things, abstract ideas, concepts must be logical and correct. We cannot assign color to an abstract idea. Only objects - physical entities can reflect the photons of light that produces the appearance of color.
We must be very careful when we assign a property to a being, object or abstract idea. Can such an idea, or object have this property attached to it? How do we know? Is it provable or justifiable? If not we are merely ascribing the color purple to time, which is a Purple Fallacy.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Coherency - a Model for Debate
Often we present our position, without thought without consistency.
Do we really pay attention to what we write?
Does it make sense? Is it coherent? Would it make sense to a bunch of crazed martians from Outer Space?
Is it coherent, organized and structured?
Often we don't care, don't notice and don't realize that we're representing ourselves, our beliefs and our expression reflects well or badly on us. It behooves us to write in a manner that is clear, concise, and coherent and that what we say has meaning, and can be understood by everyone.
Technical jargon, stereotypes, generalizations are usually borne out of ignorance, and false assumptions. Don't Strawman (Guidelines, Point 4), or assume your audience. Explain clearly and everyone will appreciate your position as being clear and methodical.
Do we really pay attention to what we write?
Does it make sense? Is it coherent? Would it make sense to a bunch of crazed martians from Outer Space?
Is it coherent, organized and structured?
Often we don't care, don't notice and don't realize that we're representing ourselves, our beliefs and our expression reflects well or badly on us. It behooves us to write in a manner that is clear, concise, and coherent and that what we say has meaning, and can be understood by everyone.
Technical jargon, stereotypes, generalizations are usually borne out of ignorance, and false assumptions. Don't Strawman (Guidelines, Point 4), or assume your audience. Explain clearly and everyone will appreciate your position as being clear and methodical.
Historical Fallacies
Pick an Event in History - the Destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, in 70 CE. The Romans sacked the place, burned it down and over the next 60 years or so, caused the Jewish people much anguish by expelling the people from the land, building an idol on the Temple Mount, plowing it over and together with famine and disease, and completely decimating the country, the people were expunged and subjugated.
Marxists tend to project their view of history onto events that have little to do with a class conflict. They will explain the history as follows: The reason the Jews were expelled, is because the Jews represented the workers, and the Romans represented Capitalist forces, and due to the lack of organization, and the lack of development of a proper bourgeoisie to turn the Capitalists into reformers, the Romans conquered and wiped out the workers.
Or perhaps we can explain that there were no workers or Capitalists, but simply a standard slave-owner society, where the slaves were becoming too quarrelsome, and the Romans represent the owners of that society, and were simply quelling resistance, and were oppressing the meek on the basis of the slave-owner model.
Marxists especially tend to do this to history and this is why I used them as an example. They tend to take preconceived notions about a particular historical approach, and apply it as the actual feelings, sentiments and thoughts about the people concerned as explanations for why they rebelled, and why history presented itself in that manner.
This is the historical fallacy, and it applies generally all over. Yes, Marxists have a right to explain the forces inherent in society as part of their view of explaining history, but Marxists tend to apply those explanations to the people on the ground, they explain that what was going on in the heads of these people was a market-bourgeoisie framework or a super-structure model and they wanted out...and so the bourgeoisie re-structured and focused themselves....etc... which is simply wrong. Only post-Communism can you apply this approach to modern views. For example - you can say that about the movement in Sweden to Socialist principles - because indeed, those bourgeoisie elements in society are in fact impacted by the theories of Marxists.
However, to super impose our definitions of history, our definitions of culture, our understanding of class-conflict and to inflict people with our understanding of it in our terms on a time and location that doesn't have those definitions, those understandings those conflicts of interest is about as ridiculous as the above example illustrates.
We must be extremely careful about imposing our views and paradigms on people and locations other than our own, in our own times. Its about knowing our paradigms and how that impacts on our perception of history in general.
Marxists tend to project their view of history onto events that have little to do with a class conflict. They will explain the history as follows: The reason the Jews were expelled, is because the Jews represented the workers, and the Romans represented Capitalist forces, and due to the lack of organization, and the lack of development of a proper bourgeoisie to turn the Capitalists into reformers, the Romans conquered and wiped out the workers.
Or perhaps we can explain that there were no workers or Capitalists, but simply a standard slave-owner society, where the slaves were becoming too quarrelsome, and the Romans represent the owners of that society, and were simply quelling resistance, and were oppressing the meek on the basis of the slave-owner model.
Marxists especially tend to do this to history and this is why I used them as an example. They tend to take preconceived notions about a particular historical approach, and apply it as the actual feelings, sentiments and thoughts about the people concerned as explanations for why they rebelled, and why history presented itself in that manner.
This is the historical fallacy, and it applies generally all over. Yes, Marxists have a right to explain the forces inherent in society as part of their view of explaining history, but Marxists tend to apply those explanations to the people on the ground, they explain that what was going on in the heads of these people was a market-bourgeoisie framework or a super-structure model and they wanted out...and so the bourgeoisie re-structured and focused themselves....etc... which is simply wrong. Only post-Communism can you apply this approach to modern views. For example - you can say that about the movement in Sweden to Socialist principles - because indeed, those bourgeoisie elements in society are in fact impacted by the theories of Marxists.
However, to super impose our definitions of history, our definitions of culture, our understanding of class-conflict and to inflict people with our understanding of it in our terms on a time and location that doesn't have those definitions, those understandings those conflicts of interest is about as ridiculous as the above example illustrates.
We must be extremely careful about imposing our views and paradigms on people and locations other than our own, in our own times. Its about knowing our paradigms and how that impacts on our perception of history in general.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Good Reason
Are we out to convince people of the truth of our assertions? Is this a pull of psychology? The truth of our statements does not come from the way they are stated, nor from the ability or quality of the speaker. Rather it comes from the veracity of the reasons behind those statements.
As a test, do the following, find someone to talk to in a quiet room. You will want to make notes of his/her reaction to the statements that were made. Record on film the following: in a sensual manner make the following statement: "It is summer in the middle of January" or "3+4=12". Then in a rough, rebuking tone, repeat the statements. Do the same in a soft, gentle tone, and again in a speaking, commanding tone. Repeat the above for the following statements: "The largest single landmass on the planet earth is the Eurasian continent" or "1+1 = 2". Make careful note of his/her reaction. Notice how the quality of the way in which the statements were made changed his/her reaction regardless of the veracity of what was stated. You can say an outright lie, in a way that is soft, gentle or loud or sensual, and you can change the perception of the person.
The point of the above test is to show that our emotions can sway our perceptions and beliefs. In fact they can do so in a way that we may or may not even realize. We may think that we are unswayed by our emotions, but that is not true. On average, unless we are very aware of our reactions to different emotions, we can totally ignore what was being said and accept it as true, as long as it vaguely fits with our overall belief system, as long as it is conveyed in an emotionally pleasing manner.
However, when it comes to analyzing the truth and whether or not a statement is true or not, depends not on our emotional response, but whether the reasons presented for a particular statement are logical, and are accurate and fit the facts. We must be extremely careful and accurate in our diction, choice of words and accuracy in thought and logic to make precise and detailed analysis of whether or not our actions, statements and thoughts are indeed logical and make sense, practically and in real terms.
This takes work. Most people are not open to such degrees of accuracy, truth and sound reasoning. The point is that this is one approach among many to ensuring that what we understand to be true is indeed true and can withstand tests against our understanding, perspectives and perceptions on reality.
Indeed, our prejudices and subjectivity, life experience and up-bringing have a tremendous impression on our perceptions of reality and how the world works. How do we perceive the world? How do we view others in our worldview? What is our paradigm, can we engage in what may be termed a paradigm shift? Is that an option? If we cannot entertain that we can undergo paradigm shifts, then our openness to engaging in other points of view and perceptions is severely limited. This limitation is born our of emotions and prejudices, and not out of logic or reasoning.
As a test, do the following, find someone to talk to in a quiet room. You will want to make notes of his/her reaction to the statements that were made. Record on film the following: in a sensual manner make the following statement: "It is summer in the middle of January" or "3+4=12". Then in a rough, rebuking tone, repeat the statements. Do the same in a soft, gentle tone, and again in a speaking, commanding tone. Repeat the above for the following statements: "The largest single landmass on the planet earth is the Eurasian continent" or "1+1 = 2". Make careful note of his/her reaction. Notice how the quality of the way in which the statements were made changed his/her reaction regardless of the veracity of what was stated. You can say an outright lie, in a way that is soft, gentle or loud or sensual, and you can change the perception of the person.
The point of the above test is to show that our emotions can sway our perceptions and beliefs. In fact they can do so in a way that we may or may not even realize. We may think that we are unswayed by our emotions, but that is not true. On average, unless we are very aware of our reactions to different emotions, we can totally ignore what was being said and accept it as true, as long as it vaguely fits with our overall belief system, as long as it is conveyed in an emotionally pleasing manner.
However, when it comes to analyzing the truth and whether or not a statement is true or not, depends not on our emotional response, but whether the reasons presented for a particular statement are logical, and are accurate and fit the facts. We must be extremely careful and accurate in our diction, choice of words and accuracy in thought and logic to make precise and detailed analysis of whether or not our actions, statements and thoughts are indeed logical and make sense, practically and in real terms.
This takes work. Most people are not open to such degrees of accuracy, truth and sound reasoning. The point is that this is one approach among many to ensuring that what we understand to be true is indeed true and can withstand tests against our understanding, perspectives and perceptions on reality.
Indeed, our prejudices and subjectivity, life experience and up-bringing have a tremendous impression on our perceptions of reality and how the world works. How do we perceive the world? How do we view others in our worldview? What is our paradigm, can we engage in what may be termed a paradigm shift? Is that an option? If we cannot entertain that we can undergo paradigm shifts, then our openness to engaging in other points of view and perceptions is severely limited. This limitation is born our of emotions and prejudices, and not out of logic or reasoning.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Positive Evidence and the "Maybe Fallacy"
"The Maybe Fallacy"
Often people conjecture: "Well, maybe your statement isn't so", or "Perhaps some objection can be made". The standard response is: "Yes, maybe the position is wrong, and perhaps there are alternatives, but until there is positive evidence, that the position is to be re-assessed in light of the new positive evidence, there is no reason to reject it on the grounds of a 'maybe position'.
Maybe green aliens created the universe through a giant aerosol can, and perhaps transcendental, pan-galactic beings invaded the earth 45 billion years ago, and implanted a biological device that makes us think that the universe is 15 billion years old. However, this is all conjecture, and extremely far-fetched to show that the fallacy is one that requires substantiation and cannot be the basis for a solid objection.
The premise for the "Maybe Fallacy" objection is that proof requires 100% certainty, and anything less is not to be taken as being believable. This premise is incorrect, no theory, position or proof has 100% certainty, in fact, we cannot even prove to absolute certainty that your parents are in fact your parents, even with DNA records indicating that, since there is a small (not insignificant) chance that they are not your parents. We can therefore safely conjecture that if on a sliding scale, knowing our parents and agreeing that they are indeed our parents on the basis of high level of certainty, allows us to be objectively real, when it comes to all elements of proof and certainty.
In this respect then, the "Maybe Fallacy" falls flat, because it assumes that proof requires 100% certainty, and since that is an impossibility on axioms known to be true, we can therefore argue that the premise is indeed wrong.
If however you wish to argue and say that the maybe fallacy doesn't have such a premise, it is still fallacious since it simply argues that a 'maybe' position weakens a position already thus established as reasonable, and likely given the evidence suggested. In this circumstance, to argue that it may not be so, requires positive evidence against the statement. The Maybe Fallacy fails to procure such evidence and can be shown to be pure sophistry.
Often people conjecture: "Well, maybe your statement isn't so", or "Perhaps some objection can be made". The standard response is: "Yes, maybe the position is wrong, and perhaps there are alternatives, but until there is positive evidence, that the position is to be re-assessed in light of the new positive evidence, there is no reason to reject it on the grounds of a 'maybe position'.
Maybe green aliens created the universe through a giant aerosol can, and perhaps transcendental, pan-galactic beings invaded the earth 45 billion years ago, and implanted a biological device that makes us think that the universe is 15 billion years old. However, this is all conjecture, and extremely far-fetched to show that the fallacy is one that requires substantiation and cannot be the basis for a solid objection.
The premise for the "Maybe Fallacy" objection is that proof requires 100% certainty, and anything less is not to be taken as being believable. This premise is incorrect, no theory, position or proof has 100% certainty, in fact, we cannot even prove to absolute certainty that your parents are in fact your parents, even with DNA records indicating that, since there is a small (not insignificant) chance that they are not your parents. We can therefore safely conjecture that if on a sliding scale, knowing our parents and agreeing that they are indeed our parents on the basis of high level of certainty, allows us to be objectively real, when it comes to all elements of proof and certainty.
In this respect then, the "Maybe Fallacy" falls flat, because it assumes that proof requires 100% certainty, and since that is an impossibility on axioms known to be true, we can therefore argue that the premise is indeed wrong.
If however you wish to argue and say that the maybe fallacy doesn't have such a premise, it is still fallacious since it simply argues that a 'maybe' position weakens a position already thus established as reasonable, and likely given the evidence suggested. In this circumstance, to argue that it may not be so, requires positive evidence against the statement. The Maybe Fallacy fails to procure such evidence and can be shown to be pure sophistry.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Burden of Proof
In any debate, there are two sides, the claimant and attacker.
(For some elaboration on these and other debating guidelines I refer you to the Guidelines Section)
In debating circles, often the claimant will shift the burden of proof, and claim some or other fallacy of logic. The Claimant, however has shifted the burden of proof, which is itself a fallacy. It is up to the claimant to provide reasoning for his claim. It is up to the attacker to show why the reasoning is faulty. It is easy for the claimant to ignore that and to simply criticize the attacker. This is faulty logic. The Claimant cannot attack, he can only defend his position against the attack. If the attacker presented a new position, that must be dealt with separately, but the claimant's defense must withstand the attacker's attack, if the claimant did not defend his position, and show why the attacker's attack is fallacious, the claim falls away, and the position, initially presented is no longer tenable.
In addition, on a forum where debate is written, and not spoken, making claims and presenting arguments is easy. But to show why or where the claim is faulty is on the onus of the person attacking. If an argument is circular, it needs to be spelled out - which argument is circular? Why? How? It is no use simply stating: 'Oh your argument is circular' That is is lazy, and not useful. Better stated is: 'Your argument regarding "X" is circular, because you assumed "Y", and that is already part of the understanding in "X"'.
The same is true for all debate - cite the difficulty, and then present the reasoning behind why it is fallacious. Generalized, ambiguous arguments are not helpful, nor do they present any real objection, but rather obfuscate the process.
(For some elaboration on these and other debating guidelines I refer you to the Guidelines Section)
In debating circles, often the claimant will shift the burden of proof, and claim some or other fallacy of logic. The Claimant, however has shifted the burden of proof, which is itself a fallacy. It is up to the claimant to provide reasoning for his claim. It is up to the attacker to show why the reasoning is faulty. It is easy for the claimant to ignore that and to simply criticize the attacker. This is faulty logic. The Claimant cannot attack, he can only defend his position against the attack. If the attacker presented a new position, that must be dealt with separately, but the claimant's defense must withstand the attacker's attack, if the claimant did not defend his position, and show why the attacker's attack is fallacious, the claim falls away, and the position, initially presented is no longer tenable.
In addition, on a forum where debate is written, and not spoken, making claims and presenting arguments is easy. But to show why or where the claim is faulty is on the onus of the person attacking. If an argument is circular, it needs to be spelled out - which argument is circular? Why? How? It is no use simply stating: 'Oh your argument is circular' That is is lazy, and not useful. Better stated is: 'Your argument regarding "X" is circular, because you assumed "Y", and that is already part of the understanding in "X"'.
The same is true for all debate - cite the difficulty, and then present the reasoning behind why it is fallacious. Generalized, ambiguous arguments are not helpful, nor do they present any real objection, but rather obfuscate the process.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Appeal to Emotion
To be emotionally engaged in an objection, logical inference or position, is to really ignore the possibility that the position statement, objection or inference could be or is likely to be wrong. For example take the following hypothetical conjecture.
Imagine Fred likes strawberries. In fact Fred likes them so much that he feels emotionally deprived without them, he eats strawberries at all three meals he has per day, and feels very unsatisfied if his daily dosage of strawberries has not been fulfilled.
Now imagine there is a world-wide pandemic and strawberries all over the world are found to be infested with a rare, deadly disease. If Fred is emotionally engaged with strawberries, all the evidence, all the scientific, biological papers, all the proofs from the Surgeon General, all the scientific arguments, all the statements made by doctors, even Fred's own mother would fail to convince Fred of the dangers of eating strawberries. Yes, Fred is probably insane, unrealistic, psychologically disturbed and possibly emotionally unstable. Logic, sound reasoning and clear unambiguous facts do not help Fred because he needs to be emotionally convinced.
To convince or persuade someone emotionally requires psychology. To convince someone rationally, objectively with a desire for the truth then logic, sound reasoning and facts that are unambiguous are going to be the mechanism for determining the correct path.
The question therefore, whenever one is engaged in debate is: "Am I emotionally involved in the outcome?" If the outcome is negative, and my position is wrong, am I intellectually positive, or am I going to react negatively to such a position, because of the outcome?" If you are one of these people who, given that the position reached will reach the opposite conclusion, will be upset, or remain unconvinced of the alternative, or not budge from your position, then you may be emotionally involved in the argument, and debate is futile.
The arguments and reasoning presented are to those who have an open mind, to those who are able to see other points of view, and to accept them as logically viable. It is part of being a intellectually healthy human being to accept and understand alternative positions, and to argue them constructively, methodically and arrive at different results. What you do with these results is your own prerogative, however, it behooves us, if we wish to be honest and intellectually true, to change our views so that the truth of our conviction matches our beliefs, in a sound, logical and reasoned manner.
Imagine Fred likes strawberries. In fact Fred likes them so much that he feels emotionally deprived without them, he eats strawberries at all three meals he has per day, and feels very unsatisfied if his daily dosage of strawberries has not been fulfilled.
Now imagine there is a world-wide pandemic and strawberries all over the world are found to be infested with a rare, deadly disease. If Fred is emotionally engaged with strawberries, all the evidence, all the scientific, biological papers, all the proofs from the Surgeon General, all the scientific arguments, all the statements made by doctors, even Fred's own mother would fail to convince Fred of the dangers of eating strawberries. Yes, Fred is probably insane, unrealistic, psychologically disturbed and possibly emotionally unstable. Logic, sound reasoning and clear unambiguous facts do not help Fred because he needs to be emotionally convinced.
To convince or persuade someone emotionally requires psychology. To convince someone rationally, objectively with a desire for the truth then logic, sound reasoning and facts that are unambiguous are going to be the mechanism for determining the correct path.
The question therefore, whenever one is engaged in debate is: "Am I emotionally involved in the outcome?" If the outcome is negative, and my position is wrong, am I intellectually positive, or am I going to react negatively to such a position, because of the outcome?" If you are one of these people who, given that the position reached will reach the opposite conclusion, will be upset, or remain unconvinced of the alternative, or not budge from your position, then you may be emotionally involved in the argument, and debate is futile.
The arguments and reasoning presented are to those who have an open mind, to those who are able to see other points of view, and to accept them as logically viable. It is part of being a intellectually healthy human being to accept and understand alternative positions, and to argue them constructively, methodically and arrive at different results. What you do with these results is your own prerogative, however, it behooves us, if we wish to be honest and intellectually true, to change our views so that the truth of our conviction matches our beliefs, in a sound, logical and reasoned manner.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Clarity of Thought
In order to convey a message it needs to be clear and succinct. It reflects on the speaker/writer that a person who conveys a point clearly and concisely means that his mind, actions and thoughts are clear, precise and logical. A captain of on ocean liner, who declares: "Oh, I have no idea where we are headed, and we don't have a course in which to go", will certainly not command any respect - neither his sailors, who have been paid to follow his orders, nor the passengers who paid to travel to their destination. You are the captain of your thoughts and the presentation of them conveys everything about which you stand for.
1. The best manner in which to clarify one's argument and thought process is to number each item. Make sure that the items numbered are in order of importance, or are in a sequence that reflects progression either in time, or logic.
2. Clarity and clarification means thinking about what you're saying. This means putting pen to paper (or keyboard to blog), and to re-read what one has written - eliminating spelling and grammatical mistakes - and to ensure that it will be read correctly and understood.
3. Accuracy means researching the material conveyed. This means that what ever statement is made, it should be thoroughly investigated for accuracy. Outdated, outmoded, or incorrect material is irrelevant to current discussions: it simply is a breeding ground for inaccuracy and miscommunication.
4. Make sure what is written or said makes sense, can be understood and is supported with quality, relevant and up-to-date sources. The best statements are said briefly, with single citations, from sources that everyone agrees to.
5. Presenting a position can only help if its unclear what is meant. Once stated, it behooves the person to clarify and support his position. Often people present positions based on material that only reflects one side of the debate, with sources that are out-dated, from a level of interpretation that is polemical (i.e. biased and favors a particular view). Wouldn't it be more constructive to imagine the other side, and from their position, argue why it is inconsistent, using their sources?
6. Translations are a serious challenge to debate. Consider using the original sources, rather than fueling the fire with inaccurate translations. Cite the original text or link to the actual text.
1. The best manner in which to clarify one's argument and thought process is to number each item. Make sure that the items numbered are in order of importance, or are in a sequence that reflects progression either in time, or logic.
2. Clarity and clarification means thinking about what you're saying. This means putting pen to paper (or keyboard to blog), and to re-read what one has written - eliminating spelling and grammatical mistakes - and to ensure that it will be read correctly and understood.
3. Accuracy means researching the material conveyed. This means that what ever statement is made, it should be thoroughly investigated for accuracy. Outdated, outmoded, or incorrect material is irrelevant to current discussions: it simply is a breeding ground for inaccuracy and miscommunication.
4. Make sure what is written or said makes sense, can be understood and is supported with quality, relevant and up-to-date sources. The best statements are said briefly, with single citations, from sources that everyone agrees to.
5. Presenting a position can only help if its unclear what is meant. Once stated, it behooves the person to clarify and support his position. Often people present positions based on material that only reflects one side of the debate, with sources that are out-dated, from a level of interpretation that is polemical (i.e. biased and favors a particular view). Wouldn't it be more constructive to imagine the other side, and from their position, argue why it is inconsistent, using their sources?
6. Translations are a serious challenge to debate. Consider using the original sources, rather than fueling the fire with inaccurate translations. Cite the original text or link to the actual text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)