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.
Friday, March 9, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)