- This topic has 173 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Wisey, are you not the one who asked for another philosophical question?
ready now – nope, perceive does not mean “to know”:
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. [Middle English perceiven, from Old French perceivre, from Latin percipere : per-, per- + capere, to seize; see kap- in Indo-European roots.]
Note that even in the 2nd definition, it means to acquire understanding that was not previously there (“achieve”). HKB’H does neither of those, He just knows without perceiving.
From Merriam Webster Dictionary:
“Definition of KNOW.
a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of.”
why not??
Hashem said to Moshe Rabbenu “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live.” Shemos 33.20
That doesn’t mean that we can’t try to understand…
We really cannot speculate on how Hashem hears. Hashem has no physical body at all and that is what we know for certain. And Hashem hears, for He has said He does.
The prophets also heard Hashem
Then at Sinai we all Heard Hashem.
If it’s OK for the Tanach and Chazal to speak of Hashem that way, it is OK for us. If you feel that it is being misunderstood, explain it. There is no disagreement here at all about the ifs and hows. The whole argument is so small, that you can forget what the point was.
Wisey, I don’t think form has to mean physical boundaries, necessarily. In fact, any boundary, that defines the limit of an ‘object’ would be its form. The question is what’s the object? The Rambam describes Malachim as form without matter. But, a form is not really the object, it is about the object. So, how could a form exist on its own?
Numbers can only be divided until the end of time when counting and dividing would stop.
Wisey: The infinite properties of sets in mathematics are applications of the concept of infinity, while the infinity discussed in Chovos Halevavos is the absolute concept. The absolute concept cannot be quantified.
Maybe we don’t Pasken like that Chovos halevavos.
Wisey: Exactly. And infinity in mathematics is not that infinity.
Repeating what I wrote above-
That means NO subtraction.
Ready, that’s only in the realm of something that takes up space.
Wisey, I meant nothing more than to sound ridiculous. That’s how it sounds to me when people say that when they personally don’t like a Shita.
One to ten is a name and method to count. The ability to count doesn’t end. Counting is the medium. Your question can only apply after you actually counted to infinity and you want to take off ten. That can’t happen, for the same reason you won’t get there.
Numbers are very finite, and there’s very few of them.
One, two, three… hundred, thousand, million, bi-tri-quad-quin and other Greek numbers, which are limited as well.
The concept of counting doesn’t come with a limit, and is therefore infinite.
Wisey, you said above:
HaLeivi: You realize that what you are saying does not make sense. For one to be able to count infinitely, he needs an infinite number of things to count. There are perhaps a finite number of specifically named numbers, but the cardinality of what we call “numbers” is indeed infinite.
The problem all of you are having is that you are treating infinity as a number. It is not a number – it is a concept that can be translated into a numerical property. It can be used to describe what happens at either end of the number line, not name what is there. The numbers 1-10 are not part of infinity – they can be described as part of any number of named sets that are infinite.
EIN-SOF (Heb. ???? ????; “The Infinite,” lit. that which is boundless),is the name given in Kabbalah to Hashem.
The Torah is indeed infinite. The answer lies in the fact that each of the Otiot in the Aleph Bet can be spelled out; e.g., Aleph is Aleph-Lamed-Peh. So every letter of every word can be expanded and expanded and expanded ad infintum.
Interesting terutz.
Wisey,
I believe that the answer to your question is that the mathematical “infinity” doesn’t actually exist. The number line is a human construct, it isn’t a real thing. Actual infinity is impossible for the human mind to comprehend.
Example: Imagine an infinite number of marbles. Now remove one marble. How many marbles are left? The answer has to be less than infinity, which will therefore be a number. Now put the marble back. You won’t have infinity, you will have the previous number +1.
In other words when dealing with actual infinity, if you break it down in component parts then you will quickly run into the above paradox.
Wisey,
Where did you get the idea that the Torah was literally infinite? The Torah is described as an ocean. Oceans are very very big, and very, very deep, but they aren’t infinite.
Now that that is settled, may I pose line of questions?
If a person born to devout Taliban parents in Afghanistan is brought up to believe that jihad is the way to go, and he blows himself up believing that he’s doing the world a favor, is he a bad person? Or just stupid for not questioning the religion he was born in? Do any of you think you would be a terrorist if born there? How do you know?
From my PIT:
What gives Rashi the right to comment on the Torah? (I’d like to see what you guys have to say)
yes. I think every being is influenced by it’s background. the question is if people are born with morals or in their growth and because of their surroundings they develop morals. unless you say that a person is born with an innate sense of right and wrong, you cannot blame them for developing and acting on improper morals because of their flawed growth.
I think most people, aside from those who’s personalities lead them to questions, would become a terrorist given these circumstances.
you can’t blame them unless they made a conscious decision, which in my opinion they are not capable of.
and Rabbi Shimon the son of Gamliel said, Pirke Avos 1:18
Frumnotyeshivish
I heard an interesting thought from Rabbi Shafier of the shmuz. He asked why is it that we should hold someone who grew up in a bad environment where drugs and murder is common place responsible for crimes he commits. His answer was that Hashem created every person with an inner knowledge of right and wrong and everyone therefore knows right from wrong (not talking about someone mentally deficient) with regard to things like murder and theft. Therefore if one does it he has made a bechira choice and done such a crime he must be held accountable.
Benign, exactly. I wrote that earlier. We don’t actually relate to infinity, although we have no philosophical rebuttal of the existance of this concept. The finite has no relationship with in the infinite by definition. A circle can not be made of small lines, because it would take an infinite amount of small lines, hence the irrational number for that relationship.
There are a lot of mathematical gimicks, riddles and paradoxes based on the misunderstanding, or the non-existant relationship, of infinity. You can’t get there and you can’t come from there.
Now, being infinite doesn’t mean there are no parts, it means there are an infinite number of parts. Our perception of space is that it is infinite, yet no one suggested that we don’t exist in it.
When discussing infinity you have to keep in mind that the lingering problem is that we don’t relate to it. Realize when the argument hit that problem, and stop there. Very often people think up different arguments about this, which really amount to the same problem.
You can’t separate or subtract a part of something infinite, but you can find a part of it and discuss that finite part.
Think about this before saying it’s wrong and repeating my words back to me.
About the Taliban question, it’s none of our business. I read a book from the nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, about his activities. It is full of intriguiging musings. At one point he writes that he won’t analyze the German mindset because, although possible, he doesn’t want to. This is a very true point.
People aren’t born bad, and almost anyone has a rationalization for what they do. Very few people do things because they are bad. Even when they want to do evil it is with the intent of showing who’s boss, or something like that.
However, internally bad or not, they are wrong. Dead wrong — in the sense that we kill them. Their soul gets judged by the One that knows the heart. We judge and act upon actions.
WIY – Rav Dessler writes otherwise. Everyone has a subjective level of bechira.
I think the answers to my question inevitably lead to this: is it one’s responsibility to be frum by choice, or should one blind his/herself, with the possible consequence (in their own logical sub-conscious mind) of being good, but wrong? The advantage of the second path is to avoid temptations and confusion. The advantage of the first path is that would differentiate our choices from those of the Taliban. I’m not implying c”v not to be frum, I’m just questioning: which is the best underlying motive?
Are all the philosophers stumped? Wow…
It didn’t pay well, so I got a job flipping burgers instead.
hehe
frumnotyeshivish
Yes Im aware of that Rav Dessler. He may not have Bechira at this point but I believe the reason he is responsible for what he does now is for allowing his bechira to be taken away by making bad choices up to this point even though technically at this point he couldn’t control himself. Meaning, just like Paraohs bechira was taken away at some point I think after makah 5 so the meforshim ask how can he be punished, and they answer because the first 5 times he still had Bechira and chose not to do the right thing and not to accept what Moshe was saying bsheim Hashem.
I think what Rabbi Shafier means is that even if they were preached to from youth that you must kill “the infidel” internally we all know murder is bad. So if he chooses to kill and ruin his natural good conscience that Hashem gave him then he is responsible for that.
Rav Dessler writes about one who was brought up between thieves may not be responsible for theft.
But again, no one has answered my question. It is as basic and as fundamental as it gets. Anyone?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.