Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Rambam: On Becoming Acquainted with Truth (Lessons 1-2)

Introduction

Artwork: The Thinker, by Stephen Younts
"I wanted to know more about the Rambam's view of Torah, so I started reading the Guide for the Perplexed." 

I've heard this sentiment expressed on a number of occasions from a wide range of individuals: frum laymen, baalei teshuvah, yeshiva bochrim, secular intellectuals, and even semichah students. They are aware that the Moreh ha'Nevuchim is considered to be the Rambam's "philosophy book" and, figuring that this is the best way to familiarize themselves with (quote unquote) "Maimonidean philosophy," they jump right in.

Thankfully, my rabbeim in yeshiva always cautioned us against "dabbling in the Moreh." In addition to hearing this explicitly from my rabbeim on a number of occasions, I was also privy to certain experiences which drove this point home.

One time, in my first year of yeshiva, a bunch of us were arguing about how to interpret a certain passage in the third section of the Moreh. Just then, my rebbi walked in. He looked at the open copies of the Moreh on the table, then looked at us and said, "There isn't a single person in this room who understands what the Rambam is saying here." He then proceeded to show us the full extent of our ignorance and our overestimation of our collective intellectual prowess. This made a big impression on me an early stage in my learning. 

Another time, a magid shiur had to physically destroy a tape recording of one of his own shiurim after realizing that he had made a huge mistake in his interpretation of the Moreh - a realization which was induced by consulting the Rosh Yeshiva. Seeing that one of my rabbeim was prone to such errors definitely made me wary about venturing into the Moreh on my own. 

My favorite cautionary admonitory anecdote is something I heard from a friend. When he was in yeshiva high school, he expressed to his rebbi his desire to learn the Guide for the Perplexed. His rebbi responded, "You're not even on the level to be perplexed." Nuff said.

I've noticed one thing in common among the people I've met who decide to start reading the Moreh on their own: they all seem to either skip or disregard the Rambam's introduction, in which he specifies the type of student for whom he wrote his treatise. If these readers paid attention to the Rambam's own warnings in his introduction, they would either abandon their project at the outset, or at least go about learning the Moreh under the guidance of their rabbeim. 

This issue was brought to mind this weekend after speaking with yet another person who decided to start read the Moreh on his own. When I asked him whether he thought he met the prerequisites stated in the introduction, he didn't seem to know what I was talking about. 

On the basis of that conversation, I decided that perhaps it was time to reread the Rambam's introduction myself. Initially, I planned to compile all of the excerpts which should deter a person from a willy-nilly perusal of the Moreh. However, when my chavrusa and I began rereading the introduction, we discovered that it offered something beyond that. We noticed that the Rambam's introduction to the Moreh serves as a primer on how to become acquainted with truth, à la "Say to wisdom, 'You are my sister,' and call understanding a friend" (Mishlei 7:4). That might sound kind of weird, and might not make sense right now. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean as we go along. 

I've decided to conduct a "walk-through" of the Rambam's introduction to the Moreh which will span several blog posts. My goal here is not to attempt to write a full commentary on the Rambam's introduction, but rather, to extract useful ideas (or "lessons") about the nature of truth and how to approach it - with the secondary goal of highlighting why the Moreh should not be read by those who aren't ready. I'm not even going to include the entire introduction - only those parts which contribute toward this end.

Without further ado ...

Lesson #1: Desire for Truth ≠ Readiness for Truth

Rambam prefaces his formal introduction with a dedicatory epistle to the student for whom the Moreh was composed. He begins with a brief history of their relationship: 
My honored pupil R' Yosef, may the Rock guard you, son of R' Yehuda, may his repose be in Paradise. When you came to me, having conceived the intention of journeying from the country farthest away in order to read texts under my guidance, I had a high opinion of you because of your strong desire for inquiry and because of what I had observed in your poems of your powerful longing for philosophical matters. This was the case since your letters and compositions in rhymed prose came to me from Alexandria, before your grasp was put to the test. I said however: perhaps his longing is stronger than his grasp.
The Rambam here acknowledges that even though R' Yosef exhibited a "strong desire for inquiry" and a "powerful longing for philosophical matters," he knew that it is possible for a student to have a strong desire for a certain area of knowledge, but to not be on the level to acquire that knowledge. The Rambam expands on this point later on (Moreh 1:34) when he enumerates the five obstacles which prevent the masses from learning metaphysics:
Man has in his nature a desire to seek the ends; and he often finds preliminaries tedious and refuses to engage in them. Know, however, that if an end could be achieved without the preliminaries that precede it, the latter would not be preliminaries, but pure distractions and futilities. 
Now if you awaken a man - even though he were the dullest of all people – as one awakens a sleeping individual, and if you were to ask him whether he desired at that moment to have knowledge of the heavenly spheres (namely, what is their number and what their configuration, and what is contained in them), and what angels are, and how the world as a whole was created, and what its end is in view of the arrangement of its various parts with one another, and what the soul is, and how it is created in time in the body, and whether the human soul can be separated from the body, and if it can, in what manner and through what instrument and with what distinction in view, and if you put the same question to him with regard to other subjects of research of this kind, he would undoubtedly answer you in the affirmative. He would have a natural desire to know these things as they are in truth; but he would wish this desire to be allayed, and the knowledge of all this to be achieved by means of one or two words that you would say to him. 
If, however, you would lay upon him the obligation to abandon his occupation for a week’s time until he should understand all this, he would not do it, but would be satisfied with deceptive imaginings through which his soul would be set at ease. He would also dislike being told that there is a thing whose knowledge requires many premises and a long time for investigation … 
Speaking as both a teacher and a student, I know how easy it is to feel that wanting to know something automatically qualifies one to learn it. We feel that the desire to know means that we deserve to know. Sadly, this is not the case. While it is the rebbi's job to keep the student on track with what is developmentally appropriate, the student should, over time, cultivate the self-knowledge and humility to say, "I'm not ready for this yet." 

Lesson #2: Training in Logic is a Necessary Prerequisite

The Rambam continues with his account of how R' Yosef excelled in his preparatory studies: 
When thereupon you read under my guidance texts dealing with the science of astronomy and prior to that texts dealing with mathematics, which is necessary as an introduction to astronomy, my joy in you increased because of the excellence of your mind and the quickness of your grasp. I saw that your longing for mathematics was great, and hence I let you train yourself in that science, knowing where you would end. When thereupon you read under my guidance texts dealing with the art of logic, my hopes fastened upon you, and I saw that you are one worthy to have the sodos (secrets) of the prophetic books revealed to you so that you would consider in them that which perfect men ought to consider.
Rambam writes in several places about how the study of mathematics and natural sciences - particularly astronomy - are necessary prerequisites for the study of metaphysics. Nevertheless, it was R' Yosef's study of logic which clinched the deal, and finally prompted the Rambam to transmit sodos to R' Yosef. 

We could digress here into a lengthy discussion about why the study of logic is a necessary prerequisite to metaphysics, and we can speculate on why the Rambam made his decision to teach R' Yosef on that basis, but I want to focus on a much simpler point: how many of us bother to master logic before venturing into metaphysics? How many of us can say that our thinking consistently follows the rules and principles of logic? And if we aren't sufficiently fluent in the science of logic, how can we even begin to study the deepest sodos of Torah and the universe?

To Be Continued ... 

I hope you can see what I'm trying to do here. The picture will become even clearer when we get to Lesson #3: Encountering Truth by Accident, and Lesson #4: Truth as Lightning.

That's all for now, but there's plenty more that will have to wait until next time. 

97 comments:

  1. I have a few questions:

    a)you-Rambam writes in several places about how the study of mathematics and natural sciences - particularly astronomy - are necessary prerequisites for the study of metaphysics. Nevertheless, it was R' Yosef's study of logic which clinched the deal, and finally prompted the Rambam to transmit sodos to R' Yosef.

    a)what is this logic? and b) how does understanding astronomy-a physical science a requirement to metaphysics---i see no connection. In addition, I ask this because the gem in chagiga talks about baalei mesorah teaching each-other maaseh merkaba(roshei perkaim), and the other would teach him maaseh beraishis.

    Is astronomy part of of the rambams maaseh berashis, because it's not fully expounded in the 3 and 4th perek, but later on in hilchos kidush hachodesh.

    b)does the rambam maintain these ideas even regarding the first 4 perkaim of the yad?

    **let's hope we don't quote any rambams 2:18 and 4:21(mechon mamre) without thorough analysis of those rambams(this is not a question, just a hope that in the future posts you apply thorough analysis to them.)

    finally, when u look at the rambans introduction to his sodos in berashis, he goes at length to deter anyone from learning it without a kabbala(which interestingly the rambam doesn't say anything about kabbala). BUT he then says that God reveals his sodos to those who he finds favor in his eyes(i assume those who don't have access to a kabbala).I'm adding the ramban, because I don't believe the rambam has something better to offer than the ramabn.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i should clarify, im just quoting the rambam for one reason. It seems that there is an idea of a person gaining sodos without this preparation that the rambam describes.

      and i finally have one more question: I'm of the opinion and there are many like me who hold that Einsteins theories and QM are pardes, or maaseh berashis. Does the rambam prescribe the same preparation for this area of knowledge?

      Delete
    2. Mio

      If you don't know what logic is then start by reading a overview of logic, for example the milot hahigayon I gave a link to below. Then you can actually start studying logic in a primer on logic.

      When you understand what logic is you will see the difference between astronomy and maaseh bereshit, then you can start thinking about why they are prerequisites to maaseh merkava, but note, the student does not fully understand all of the prerequisites before doing them, that is why a master is needed.

      The first 4 perakim in the yad have a level of understanding for everyone which is useful in setting up the foundations necessary for the mishneh torah, but that doesn't include understanding them at the deepest level. This too should be done under a rav's guidance.

      The Rambam and Ramban are far apart in their approach to maaseh bereshit and merkava. Be very careful in drawing from one to the other. Again a teacher is essential.
      Also, note that finding favor in God's eyes is not random but tied to living and studying wisely. One who studies out of order does not find favor in His Eyes.

      Don't be so quick in identifying the exact domain of maaseh bereshit and to categorize the place of QM and relativity, take the rambam's advice and don't rush to conclusions without a proof. again a proper rav will guide you appropriately. (Also note that learning these areas need mathematics just like Rambam's astronomy, if you can't solve the Schrodinger equation you haven't learned QM)

      Delete
    3. Mio,

      Regarding your questions about logic and astronomy: Yaakov already responded well to many of your questions. I have nothing to add to his comments, and to the ongoing dialogue in the comments to this post. Same goes for his response to your question about the Ramban, and modern physics, and his other responses. I agree with everything he said.

      Regarding your question "does the rambam maintain these ideas even regarding the first 4 perkaim of the yad?" I would think the answer is "no." He introduces these perakim by saying: "Based on these concepts, I will explain important principles regarding the deeds of the Master of the worlds to provide a foothold for a person of understanding to [develop] love for God, as our Sages said regarding love: "In this manner, you will recognize He who spoke and [thus,] brought the world into being." He indicates that these perakim are for the meivin, but for the meivin within the intended audience of the Mishneh Torah.

      Regarding your point: "let's hope we don't quote any rambams 2:18 and 4:21(mechon mamre) without thorough analysis of those rambams" - your request is noted. However, I do not share the position you seem to hold that one should ONLY cite these Rambam's if the citation is accompanied by thorough analysis. I think that there are different levels of understanding the Rambam, and that sometimes, citing the Rambam's words WITHOUT writing an essay on them can still be instructive.

      Delete
  2. Yakov,

    why doesn't the rambam mention anything about logic or astronomy in the MT. I was under the impression that if someone is a baal svara, he can engage in these areas. As he SEEMS to make clear--- ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות.--which is not kol hatorah kula(considering that it's infinite) but rather one who is trained in theoretical thinking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yakov,

      Also the ramban never discusses Logic or astronomy to understand his metaphysics. There were two possible routes-a kabbala, or a person finding favor in Gods eyes and he reveals him the secrets. To my mind something is very off.

      Delete
    2. Yakov,

      Sry about the last post, i did not see ur response to me.

      Delete
    3. Yakov,

      why do u assume maaseh berashis is a pre-req for maaseh merkaba when the gem in chagiga has a story that one amora made a deal with another one. Story-u teach me maaseh merkaba and ill teach u maaseh berashis. 13a at the bottom. We see that MB is not a pre-req for MM. Thanks for the feedback.

      Delete
    4. Kol and Yaakov,

      While I have not read the whole introduction, this struck me as a 'contradiction', to ur thesis that one must know logic, and certain areas of math connected to astronomy". I quote the following:

      "It is not here intended to explain all these expressions to the
      unlettered or to mere tyros, a previous knowledge of Logic and
      Natural Philosophy being indispensable, OR to those who confine
      their attention to the study of our holy Law, I mean the study of the
      canonical law alone; for the true knowledge of the Torah is the
      special aim of this and similar works."

      If i'm reading this correctly, he seems to be saying there are two ppl who can study this sefer. a) a previous knowledge of Logic and
      Natural Philosophy being indispensable
      b)or to those who confine
      their attention to the study of our holy Law, I mean the study of the
      canonical law alone;

      Or he might be saying that if u only learn shas and taryag with lomdus, then u are still not prepared for the sefer, and need logic and astronomy. I'm not sure how to read this line...

      I just want to mention one thing. I asked the rosh hayehsiva when i could learn the Moreh and he said after I know shas. He did not mention anything about logic or astronomy.

      Delete
    5. if it is (b) then the rambam in the mishna torah makes sense(4:21). One must be a baal svara to engage in these areas. Because he makes no mention of the fact that one even has to learn logic.

      Delete
    6. Perhaps following the rosh hayeshiva's advice on this topic is best, and we can pick up this discussion when you know Shas.

      some general comments
      1. Study these issues with a qualified teacher, if you are doing so with the rosh yeshiva that is great.

      2. Remember the post from a few weeks ago: http://kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/2014/07/parashas-balak-on-citing-midrash-as.html

      3. Note we don't get to pick and choose our sources, if you see a contradiction you can't just pick the source you like and take it at first glance, the contradiction points to a need for deeper thought. Therefore study the halacha in yesodei hatorah more carefully, specifically noting what he does and doesn't say there (note that logic is useful in drawing correct conclusions from halacha as well). Similarly you read your quote from the moreh backwards.

      Delete
    7. Yakov,

      I quoted the rosh hayeshiva because to me the rambam was enigmatic, and seemed to indicate that someone who is a baal svara can learn the moreh. I do not agree with the rosh that someone needs to "know shas"---that is meaningless because it's infinite.

      As far as learning the moreh is concerned, one can do it by himself. He can get the roshei perakim without a rebbi. It would seem that one needs to know logic so that he can get the rest of the underlying information.

      Delete
    8. yakov,

      Therefore study the halacha in yesodei hatorah more carefully, specifically noting what he does and doesn't say there-thank u i will

      (note that logic is useful in drawing correct conclusions from halacha as well)---i dont know what u mean by this.

      Similarly you read your quote from the moreh backwards-----that's why i asked the original question

      not to sound hostile, but this is savara 101-----Note we don't get to pick and choose our sources, if you see a contradiction you can't just pick the source you like and take it at first glance, the contradiction points to a need for deeper thought.

      Delete
    9. Yakov,

      u have still now answered this question...why do u assume maaseh berashis is a pre-req for maaseh merkaba when the gem in chagiga has a story that one amora made a deal with another one. Story-u teach me maaseh merkaba and ill teach u maaseh berashis. 13a at the bottom. We see that MB is not a pre-req for MM. Thanks for the feedback.

      Delete
    10. I didn't know that the rosh yeshiva was in the habit of saying things which are meaningless.

      Delete
  3. 1. Good point. I'm not familiar with the statement of Kapach you referenced. Where does he point this out? On a related note, the Rambam himself makes this point in his hakdamah: "I know that, among men generally, every beginner will derive benefit from some of the chapters of this treatise, though he lacks even an inkling of what is involved in speculation."

    2. I'm familiar with that point from Adler, but I lack sufficient familiarity with Aristotelian astronomy to fully understand why.

    3. I've heard that this is one of the books whose authorship is dubious. I once asked Rabbi SZ about this, and he responded: "This is a big debate. Rav Kafich maintained that it was written by him. Professor Herbert Davidson maintains that it wasn't. The matter is unclear." What is the basis of your opinion on the matter?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where's the English? I too wonder what he means by logic and what he means by mathematics and what he considers to be the difference between the two

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's an English translation. Can't vouch for the accuracy, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does the Rambam say anything in the introduction about people who don't know what he's talking about in the introduction? Even if he did, in sure I still wouldn't know what he's taking any

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Kol. Wow, this is like super advanced. If you had just given this to me without any indication of what it was our who it was by, you wouldn't be able to convince me that it's not a grad school textbook

    ReplyDelete
  8. By "this" do you mean the blog post or the excerpts from the Rambam?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Skimming the first bit of the rubbish, which is what my phone put when I typed English, translation of the book

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, you mean the Treatise on Logic. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kol,

    Thanks for the quote from Rabbi SZ, I will ask his son what he knows about it.
    I started looking into the milot hahigayon on the advice of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I don't know enough to determine the authenticity, but I am convinced of Rav Kapach's claim that it is a useful book for understanding rambam (even if rav kapach is wrong about the authorship).

    I think the difference between Natural science and astronomy, is that natural science tries to understand the nature of things, whereas in astronomy (at least medieval astronomy) we are not understanding its nature but only creating mathematical models, which make good predictions. (Perhaps this is similar to our Quantum mechanics which, as Feynman pointed out, no one understands, but which is well modeled mathematically.) For example, according to Aristotelian science the epicycles cannot be real, but they are necessary as tools for modeling the heavens. Hence astronomy deals with quantities abstracted from matter.

    Ken
    Logic is the art of thinking, and deals with how to attain truth (both primary concepts as well as using syllogisms to arrive at new truths). Mathematics deals with quantity, i.e. ideas which only apply to physical bodies, but are abstracted from them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. the english starts on page 131

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yaakov, I couldn't get anything out of your definition of logic that wasn't a tautology (in the philosophical, not the mathematical sense), and I don't see how logic and math are distinct under these definitions

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just like there is an art of cooking so that you prepare food well, and grammar is the art which lets you speak correctly, so too there is an art of thinking to become skilled in thinking correctly. This art is called logic and is a prerequisite to every specific field of study.
    On the other hand Mathematics is a specific field of theoretical study, namely of quantity (which is an abstraction from matter).
    If you are interested ch 14 of the book of logic discusses this point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yaakov, thanks. I understand now. But isn't that definition of logic self referential at best? How might one determine that logic is the art of thought?

    ReplyDelete
  16. And why is the study of logic either impossible to embark upon our exempt from the prerequisite of studying logic?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't understand your question, logic is just the name for the art.

    ReplyDelete
  18. sorry I didn't see the follow up.

    Lets take a concrete example, in order to think well one needs to know which syllogisms are valid and which aren't (for example,
    "all men are animals, all animals are living therefore all men are living"
    is valid, while
    "all men are animals, all sheep are animals, therefore all men are sheep"
    is not)
    one doesn't need prior knowledge of which syllogisms are valid to make this distinction

    In other words, man has an innate capacity to know, logic trains that capacity so that it functions well, but it does function even before one has learned logic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. another interesting point is that the Rav Yosef learned mathematics and astronomy before logic

    ReplyDelete
  20. But the question is still begged. How do we know that logic is the art of thinking? Maybe it's language or mathematics or movement or social interaction, all of which are innate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm sorry I really am missing something in your question, how could these others be the art of thinking? Doesn't the art of thinking have to be about thinking (which we have intuitive notions about).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ah, okay, great, i understand your problem. I'll try to hit the issue from a good angle for you: Do those other things not involve thought?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maybe a little more would help. Just as one can perform logical deductions without thought and one can think without logic, so too with ballet and movement. So logic is distinct from thought but can be an expression of it, same with ballet, so why do you consider logic to be primary?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I know we've wandered far from the topic at hand, but before I go past the sentence in the Moreh that defines the prepared student as prepared mainly by virtue of logic, I wanna know preceisly what logic is and why the Rambam seems to esteem it so, not only to know how to prepare, but because it will inform further reading in a way, one would think, is critical

    ReplyDelete
  25. And just to spell out the question begging, you both assume and conclude that logic is the art of thought

    ReplyDelete
  26. in the link Yaakov posted, the english starts around 140ish (intro) and the first page is pg 164

    ReplyDelete
  27. What do you take logic to mean, such that logic can be done without thought?

    One can think without thinking arts, but one cannot think well. Just like one can fight without martial arts but not fight well.

    Also, I still don't get the circularity. I am just saying that logic is a name for the art of thinking (which I think you agree exists), ie the craft of arriving at true ideas. We can drop the word logic. Lets translate 'Higayon' as 'thinking art' which will remove the connotations. With this switch is your question still extant?
    Another question is what comprises this art. Is your question what are the parts of 'thinking art' and why they are relevant for skillful thinking? For example why are logical deductions part of the 'thinking art'?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I mean that you can give a computer (human or machine) a knowledge base and have it make inferences by just following some rules. a kind of rote reasoning if you will

    the circularity is that you assume that thoughts can be expressed or formalized by logic and go on to conclude that logic is therefore the art of thought. but that's just another way of stating the premise. but forget about that.

    k, good. i think higayon will help, but not in the way you had in mind (eg, the next sentence)

    the question still exists: how do you know that logic is higayon and anything else is not – or at least not the best – higayon?

    I don't understand this question ("Is your question what are the parts of 'thinking art' and why they are relevant for skillful thinking?")

    I suppose you could phrase my question like your example, but what i really want to know is one thing, and i'll put it two ways: (1) what does the rambam mean when he says "logic" or "higayon"? you say, he means the art of thinking (higayon) (which is clearly begging the question), (2) now i want to know what is the art of thinking, and I havent yet heard a proof or an explanation which would convince me that it's logic

    ReplyDelete
  29. so to clarify, your definition of logic is making inferences by just following some rules?
    and you don't see why that is identical with the art of thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  30. one other source which might be useful is book 1 chapter 34 and specifically see rabbi kapach's comment 34 on that chapter

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ok, we are somewhat arguing about semantics. I was not using the definition of logic common in modern computer programming and mathematics, and agree that making inferences by following rules is not equal to the art of thinking.

    With this, let me not break your question into two steps.
    1. How do I know that the rambam means 'the art of thinking' by higayon, and doesn't mean what is called logic in modern computer science.
    2. Does making inferences by just following some rules have a role in the art of thinking and if so what is that role.

    ReplyDelete
  32. All arguments are somewhat about semantics. I do need 2 questions, but not those two, and I'll phrase one in the form of a statement: what does the Rambam mean? Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If a rhetorical question is one you don't want an answer to, then a rhetorical statement is one to which you do want an answer amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  34. So you, Yaakov, have answered the first question, but I'm struggling to understand how you would answer the second

    ReplyDelete
  35. Actually, I'm also struggling to understand your answer to the first question

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1. The Rambam is saying that he decided to teach the secrets of torah to his student after seeing his mastery of the art of thinking correctly (i.e. that art which leads the mind to truth and to avoid error, and allows it to communicate ideas accurately).

    2. Thats what the word translated as 'logic' or 'higayon' means. (see for example ch 14 of the book of logic (pgs. 28-30 in the pdf, kol posted, and kapach's footnote 34 on the moreh 1:34 (available here:
    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/a9-2.htm#1 ))

    ReplyDelete
  37. yeah yeah, i looked at the chapter. I want to understand the step before the chapter. How did the ancient peoples who came up with these categories ("The term logos technically used by the thinkers of ancient peoples, is a homonym having three meanings. The first is the faculty, peculiar to man, whereby he conceives ideas, learns the arts, and differentiates between the ugly and the beautiful; it is called the rational faculty. The second is the idea itself which man has conceived; it is called inner speech. The third is the interpretation in language of that which has been impressed on the soul; it is called external speech.") and so which one is it? Since he doesn't tell us which definition he's using, the later stuff about logic is damn near meaningless, including the following. And then he comes up with a fourth definition out of nowhere, which is as vague as the previous three: "[Logic is] an instrument to science. Indeed it has been said: One cannot properly study or teach except by means of the art of logic; for it is an instrument, and an instrument of something is not a part thereof." So what is he talking about?! This source, unfortunately doesn't help me to understand what logic or higayon, or anything for that matter, is. For me, it just muddies the issue, so I'd rather not use it as a source, unless you can summarize it for me in less ambiguous terms. My questions remain, how does one practice the art of thinking correctly and how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  38. For the muslim aristotelians this study comprised the content of Aristotle's 8 books, something which the book of logic presents a first outline of. And which Al Farabi discusses in his enumeration of the sciences and his introductory works on logic.

    (For anyone who wants this page has more information on arabic logic http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H017.htm#H017BIBENT3)

    ReplyDelete
  39. sorry I didn't see your response

    ReplyDelete
  40. I misunderstood your question, I thought you were asking what does the rambam claims is a prerequisite for metaphysics, it now sounds like you are asking what is the specific content of that art. If this is your question this sounds like a much larger discussion of all of the elements needed for correct rigorous thought?

    ReplyDelete
  41. For example, how do I defend myself effectively, we would answer you need teh art of self defense, but now you need to know what that art includes, so we would answer it includes effective offense, for example punching and kicking and defense for example blocks, and that this would need one to develop a courageous mindset and work on position of ones body etc.

    Are you looking for a similar expression of the art of thinking (with the etc. filled in)

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. whoopsie doodle.
    ive asked this already (July 29 2:51pm), but ill ask again in a different way, a growl and the swing of a fist is an expression of some idea, but is it operating at the same level as clear thinking? no! of course not! but thats exactly my point! what makes logic different from a growl and a swing? theyre both very clear, they both have their origin in thought, so why pick logic as the best way? what is it about logic that makes it the best? and by logic i dont mean logic particularly, you can call it whatever you want as long as you explain what it is and how it answers the above question

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is what is confusing me, a growl and swing of fist are not a good way of arriving at truth and avoiding error.

    ReplyDelete
  45. this time i didnt see your response. yes! that's what i want to know, but that's not distinct from the question of what the rambam claims is a prerequisite for metaphysics, but whatever. but i dont just want to know that. i also want to know how you arrived at that definition and why its not arbitrary, and finally, and this one is optional, why is that a prereq for metaphysics?

    ReplyDelete
  46. i agree that that's confusing, but i want to work out the high-level problem and then move down into particulars

    ReplyDelete
  47. I am still confused, can you state clearly what you view as the high level problem.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Also which of these premises do you currently accept?

    1. People sometimes come to false conclusions
    2. There are techniques which help us become more effective at finding truth and avoiding error
    3. If we want to find truth we should use these techniques
    4. We can identify the techniques which help us find truth and the pitfalls which lead to error by seeing which ones actually work.
    5. Metaphysics is hard and doesn't have the same experiential feedback as other areas so these techniques are especially important when studying metaphysics

    ReplyDelete
  49. The high level problem is the one you stated in your July 30, 2014 at 11:46 AM post and my additional questions stated in my July 30, 2014 at 12:10 PM post.

    I accept...1...2...3...4...5, so all of them. I'm a little wary though, cuz you didn't use the word "thought" or "think" anywhere and it seems like you've replaced the art of thinking with some kind of truth detection technique, so im concerned this might be heading down the wrong path, but do go on.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What difference do you see between thinking and seeking truth?

    ReplyDelete
  51. sorry I meant thinking and truth detection. Is truth not the aim of thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  52. uh oh. thinking is thinking, and you claim there is something called the art of thinking, which is an as yet undefined kind of thinking.

    truth detection may be one thing you can accomplish through thinking, but thinking is not truth detection.

    i don't think truth is the aim of thinking, but i dont see what that has to do with truth detection or anything else we've mentioned in the discussion so far

    ReplyDelete
  53. What would you say is the aim of thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  54. i would say that it has no definitive aim in any normal sense, but if pressed, i would say the aim is apprehension

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ok, it sounds like we are working with different definitions of thinking. I am curious how you are defining thinking? Would dreaming be thinking? Would remembering? Imagining? Hitting? Being angry? seeing? growling?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I will try to answer your question, but I still think there is a premise of your question which I am not seeing. So this might be totally off. I also think that we are using different definitions of some of the key terms.

    I have been using thinking in the limited sense of the act (or process) of knowing reality. [Which includes both pure knowledge (the sciences) and applied knowledge (craft and planning.)] In knowing we can either accurately know reality or be in error. This is the sense I was characterizing logic as the art of thinking, which to me would be equivalent to saying the art of correctly knowing reality and avoiding error.
    Perhaps reasoning would be a more resonant term then thinking for what I am discussing, in which case we could call this the art of correct reasoning. Does this help?

    Without training we can gain some accurate knowledge of the world by thinking, but we make mistakes. With training we can improve in accurately gaining knowledge. This problem is especially severe when it comes to areas without immediate sensory feedback and we must really on reasoning to arrive at truth.

    Some components of this art are:
    1. How to combine previous knowledge to accurately gain new knowledge.
    2. Moving past a descriptive, first, common-sense view of things to a deeper definitive understanding of their nature (this includes distinguishing essences from accidents; potentiality from actuality; universality from particularity; conventional things from natural)
    3. Identifying authoritative sources of conviction and the different levels of conviction they produce, in other words how much credence we should give to different arguments
    4. How to avoid common causes of error and distortion
    5. Identifying the relationship between concepts
    6. How to communicate truths effectively, and how to understand these communications.

    This is a short outline. A full catalog of these issues is contained in the book of logic and I think exceeds what can be usefully done in a blog post.

    Unlike dance which focuses on elegance of movement, or grammar which deals with clarity of speech, these issues deal with problems which could impede one from accurately knowing reality.

    This is important for metaphysics, since in studying metaphysics we are trying to find truth in an area which does not give us sensory feedback so we only rely on reason. Therefore we must be especially careful of errors in reason. (Unlike other areas, e.g. in engineering if you make a mistake in reasoning the object will visibly fail)

    ReplyDelete
  57. let me respond to your first post first. i havent read the second one yet. since im trying to understand the rambam, im taking the rambam's view of cognition, which can be found in the guide in book 1 chapter 68.

    k, i skimmed your second post. i think you're confusing thinking with expression of a thought. as i've pointed out before, logic is not thought, dance is not thought, speech is not thought, but they all may be (and even logic only may be) expressions of thought. thought is simply perception. if i remember correctly, and its been years since ive looked at it, mistakes one and two in M Adler's Ten Philosophical Mistakes takes this up as well

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ok thanks for clarifying. So you understand thinking as the actualized state of knowing something (In other words a translation of the Hebrew “Yodeah”)? If so this is what I have been calling ‘knowing’, or ‘intellectually cognizing’. In this sense, one could not have a false thought, correct?
    What would you call the process which leads the person to thinking? Would that be reasoning? If so would calling logic the art of reasoning make more sense to you?

    "thought is simply perception"
    I don't understand this. Is thought? By perception do you mean sensory perception? I don't see how that fits with the guide 1:68. Note how the Rambam carefully distinguishes perceiving whiteness from cognizing knowledge.

    In understanding Rambam’s theory of cognition it is probably worth looking at the first chapter of shemoneh perakim, where he distinguishes the different nefesh powers, the 5th of which is the ‘hogeh’. What English word are you using for this 5th part of the soul? Is its function identical with what you are calling thinking?

    I agree that logic, dance and speech are not thought. And that dance and speech could be expressions of thought. I am not familiar with Adler's approach, but looking at it quickly I don’t see the relevance to this discussion. (note, I also don’t think any of the things I asked about in the 11:16 comment are thought)

    I am not thinking of logic as essentially thought itself, nor an expression of thought but the art which helps ones rational faculty skillfully come to ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I also agree that logic includes the techniques which help one express thought in a way which corresponds with the thought itself.

    ReplyDelete
  60. thinking is cognitive apprehension. it’s the perception of the mind, which is a 6th sense. Like skin senses touch but can’t see, eyes sense light but can’t smell, noses (and so on)…the mind perceives the non-physical. another way to put it is that thinking is the mind functioning.

    So there is no process which leads the person to thinking except for his ability to think. you could have a false thought if you define false thought to be an apprehension of something non-physical that isn’t real; by analogy, you could have a false vision, whether a hallucination, illusion, or a malfunction of the eye.

    reasoning is not perception. one must begin reasoning with something known and can apprehend the products of reason, but the reasoning itself is not.

    In an english translation of the 8 Chapters that I found online, page 43 ff. explains, “Reason…enables [man] to understand, reflect, acquire knowledge of the sciences, and to discriminate between proper and improper actions…The intellectual power is that by which one, when he intends to do an act, reflects upon what he has premeditated, considers the possibility of performing it, and, if he thinks it possible, decides how it is done…the soul…may be compared to matter in that it likewise has a form which is reason…if the form (reason) does not communicate its impression to the soul, then the disposition existing in the soul to receive that form is of no avail…” In this translation, reason means thinking, which, again, is perception. So far, all we have is plain old thinking without formalization or expression – just the mind operating.

    perception is multi-dimensional. for example, a biologist might examine (i.e. perceive) an elephant’s skin, its tusks, and its tail, cognizing each component on its own as he goes. But he can also just consider the elephant, and his knowledge of the parts of the elephant may affect his perception of the elephant as a whole. so here again, there is no application of logic, but simply the operation of the mind, which is called thinking. So far, i don’t see any place for logic.

    i don’t see what the whiteness thing has to do with this.

    Forget Adler then.

    so that’s thinking, and i think its a complete picture of thinking, but do demure if you’re inclined to it, but i can find no special place in thought that logic might uhm…inhabit, if you know what i mean

    so far, i see no distinction between logic, dance, math, and speech, except that some thoughts might be more efficiently expressed through math, others through logic, others through dance, a facial expression, etc.

    i feel like we might be getting closer to the answer to why the rambam insisted on logic. please ask questions on any point that’s not clear to you, as you have been, but i hope that maybe now, we might be able to take another step toward the answer

    ReplyDelete
  61. when i said perception unqualified, i mean mind perception, not perception in general

    ReplyDelete
  62. I hope we are getting closer to understanding each other. And think I am understanding your terminology better. Let me first try characterizing logic using your terminology. then I will try understanding your definition of thinking better.

    Would characterizing logic as the art of reasoning correctly solve your problem? Do you see why correct reasoning will help one think true thoughts instead of false thoughts? Is this an important difference?

    If reasoning is not exactly the right word according to you, is this better. Do you think it is important for our thoughts about metaphysics to be true? If so is there a way to improve the correlation of our thoughts with reality? Would the techniques I outlined be helpful to thinking true thoughts while dance wouldn't?

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am still confused by your definition since it seems to me like you are combining a number of things in this definition. Here are some initial questions.

    You say that thinking is a 6th sense. Do you mean this metaphorically or literally?

    What name do you use for the mind perceiving reality as it actually is? Does all thought perceive reality as it is? Is there a way to increase our thought’s correspondence with reality or is it random? Is here a difference between thinking about the product of reason vs. thinking about something the product of imagination or false reasoning? Does this matter?

    Are all functioning of the mind thought? Can a person think about a unicorn, for example, or would that be imagination? Is imagination a functioning of the mind? Is it a kind of thinking?

    Taking the case of the elephant, lets say you have 3 biologists, one thinks of the elephant as a six-legged flying creature which blows fire, the second as a big grey animal, the third as a social trunk-feeding herbivore (or whatever the scientific definition of an elephant is). Are all three thinking? How would you characterize the difference between each of the 3?

    Is all thought of non-physical things? When thinking about the tusks (for example), or the elephant what is the non-physical entity that he is perceiving? Can a person truly understand the tusks without thinking about the elephant as a whole?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I was looking at the 68th chapter of the moreh, and I think we aren’t currently ready for a careful analysis of that chapter, which comes at the end of the entire progression of book 1 of the moreh (furthermore the rambam identifies the word I think you are translating as ‘thinking’ is an equivocal term, which the rambam references us to Alfarabi’s ‘on the intellect’ to understand). In general, I don’t think turning to something more obscure to explain something simpler is a good idea, and understanding the need for logic is much more basic then a sophisticated understanding of the soul.


    From your quote of the 8 perakim I think you are confusing three things. 1. Reason (which is the faculty that enables understanding and gaining knowledge etc. and is a distinct term from the one used in the moreh 1:68) 2. The intellectual power (which is a part of practical reason, and therefore a type of 1) 3. form (reason) which is a superior form which is the form to which the entire nefesh, including the reasoning part, is matter. (This is the actualized knowing i.e. the tzelem which can exist after death)
    The footnotes on the bottom might help, which include a chart with the diverse Hebrew terms he is translating.
    I don’t know if a detailed understanding of this is necessary for our current discussion. But ‘acquiring knowledge of the sciences’ makes truth seem very relevant

    ReplyDelete
  65. i think i have something to say which may resolve this issue, so im (with respect) not gonna answer any of your questions.

    one can express thoughts in sundrie different ways, limited only by imagination, depending on the content of the thought. logic/dance/mathematics are all ways to express thought. one could use dance to express a mathematical formula, but it would be very inefficient; you should use mathematics to express that thought. So i think that it must be that the thoughts or some of the thoughts expressed in the Guide through writing might actually be better expressed in logic, so in order to unearth the concepts in the Guide fully, one must be trained in logic, like a ballerino is trained in ballet.

    all that remains is to identify what the subject of thoughts are that is best expressed through logic, and any questions or problems you might have

    ReplyDelete
  66. and ya, im not really interested in the sources. i agree they cloud the issue

    ReplyDelete
  67. If this clears up the issue for you, I am fine with leaving the conversation here. Feel free to ignore the following.

    I still don't understand your view of thought (it still seems confused and much too broad to me, e.g. including imagination). I also don't understand why you are downplaying the importance of truth to thought. To me the class of true thoughts seems very important, and seems to be ignored in your system. Is the truth of a mathematical thought unimportant, even though both true and false thoughts would be expressed mathematically. How should I differentiate true from false thoughts? And think/believe only true ones?
    I also don't understand why you are viewing logic only through its efficient cause, and not its formal and final cause. Or in other words why you are defining it (along with mathematics and ballet) as a species of the genus 'ways of expressing thought'. All of the arts express thoughts, but that isn't their definition.

    ReplyDelete
  68. taking another step, it seems that the subject matter best expressed by logic is nonphysical stuff. math too can express abstractions, but it excels in expressing thoughts which can be applied to physical things (e.g. fractals can be found in the physical world and math is good at expressing thoughts about fractals, but math has a hard time infinity, which is not in nature, but is a purely metaphysical thought).

    correct, i don’t care about the truthiness of a thought, and so yes, imagination may and often does produce thoughts. the truthiness of a thought is also a thought. one may arrive at a determination of whether thought t0 is a thought or not through consideration (i.e. the mind’s act of perception of the thought, i.e. thinking) of t0, arriving at thought TRUE0 or FALSE0, where TRUE0 is the thought which I can express in writing as “t0 is true,” and FALSE0 is the thought which I can express in writing as “t0 is false.” now one may go on to arrive at thought TRUE1 or FALSE1, which would be the determination of the truthiness of FALSE0 and so on.

    i don’t get your problem. all these things are utilities which one may employ to express thoughts, or just nonsense. e.g., my posts are written in language, which is a means of expressing thoughts, but you might consider my writings to be a jumble of nonsense which not only doesn’t express true thoughts, but doesn’t even express thoughts at all

    ReplyDelete
  69. oops. IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING PREVIOUS POST

    should be:

    one may arrive at a determination of whether thought t0 is true or not through consideration

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ken,
    I think we are still talking past each other. (I am also confused by your not caring about truth)

    You are focused on the issue of ways of expressing thoughts. I do not think that this is the issue here at all. I agree that there are a variety of ways of expressing thoughts. And if you view logic as essentially a way of expressing thoughts (perhaps as a formal language) then you are right. But I am suggesting that your approach to thought and logic is not the same as the Rambam’s and am trying to put forward a different way of viewing things which might explain what the Rambam is doing. (Namely, not viewing logic as a type of (formal) language, but rather as a method (like all arts)for attaining a certain objective, namely, truth.)

    For the Rambam the distinction between imagination and reason is very great. In the chapter from shemonah perakim we mentioned earlier he emphasizes that they are two distinct faculties, and he discusses numerous times in the moreh the importance of distinguishing between the two. I think by putting them both under the umbrella concept ‘thought’ is an error (unless you mean it as an equivocal term).

    Similarly the Rambam cares very much about truth. I don’t know exactly what you mean about not caring about ‘the truthiness of a thought’, (it seems a strange sentiment for someone who has spent so many years involved in study). But the Rambam definitely does care. And I think all science (including metaphysics) aim at true understanding. (As an aside, I don’t quite follow your system of determining truth since it seems like it leads to infinite regress, since I will then need T2, T3 etc.)

    With regard to logic, I am trying to present a view different then the one you are considering. You are viewing logic as a way of expressing certain kinds of thought. I am pointing to something different, which may be what the Rambam means by logic, namely, techniques useful in guiding the human mind to truth and avoiding errors. Whatever name you want to give to it this is a distinct art. I am suggesting that this is what the Rambam means by logic (I know you were confused by the definition in ch. 14 of the book of logic, but I think he is at least clear that (what he calls) logic has to do with attaining truth (e.g. “guarding it [the inner speech] against error and leading it in the right path until it acquires the truth”)). If someone is not interested in truth he would have no reason to study these techniques. (It is true that these techniques secondarily guide ones expression of thoughts to accurately express truths which one apprehends. But again this is significant only insofar as one is interested in truth so lets not complicate matters for now). You are welcome to use the term ‘logic’ however you want but I don’t think your usage matches the Rambam’s.

    I understand that all arts are expressions of thought - so, if you prefer, we could say that logic is the art which expresses the thought of how to arrive at truth, just like baking is expressing the thought of how to bake bread - but that is not the differentiating characteristic. The differentiating feature of the arts is the end that one wants to attain. Baking is useful if you want bread, carpentry if you want a house and logic if you want truth. (Note, mathematics isn’t an art, but rather one of the sciences, which as you mentioned, is a study of abstractions from the physical. Also, note that mathematics isn’t the same as the mathematical language used to express certain thoughts.)

    I agree that working through the sources is probably too complicated to do through blog comments, but I hope this approach might point to a possible reading of the Rambam.

    To summarize, I am claiming that the Rambam’s ‘logic’ is not essentially a formal language useful for expressing certain thoughts, but the art which guides one towards true thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Whoa, thanks for taking the time to write all that out! I haven't yet given it the time it deserves, but I think we mostly agree and that if I carefully read what you wrote, I'll be guided from my understanding to the Rambam's. One thing I would like to resolve for you is that _I_ care about the truthiness of an idea, but my concept of an idea does not care. I believe in false ideas, which one should strive to recognize and avoid. Yes, *IN LOGIC* there is an infinite regression of thoughts about truthiness, but in some other realm which relates to that idea more fundamentally, the thinker doesn't need to rely on logic, and so avoids the infinite regression.

    I just skimmed what you wrote, but let me ask, how can you have an art, like logic, but informal? Isn't art the formalization of some activity?

    ReplyDelete
  72. So to put it more formally, which in this context is synonymous with artfully, and where the art is English, formal logic is an art of syntax only, but there is something before logic (premises which are then encoded (another art) into logic) and after it (understanding and evaluation of the results of the application of logic) which are concerned with semantics. This, I think IS what the Rambam had in mind. From what I understand, the Rambam's atom of logic is the syllogism, which is only syntactic and not semantic (all people are Socrates. Socrates is a person. Therefore Socrates is Socrates. is a perfectly valid nonsense syllogism) and which requires the logician to properly encode premises into logic

    ReplyDelete
  73. k, i went over what you wrote. i don't have anything to add or subtract from my posts earlier this morning, except to explicitly ask how the rambam could hold that there are no false ideas, which, to me, seems like a great example of a false idea. hopefully if you can address those issues, i'll better understand the Rambam's definition of logic as a prerequisite for metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might mean that but didn't want to make assumptions.

    Aristotelian logic is not formal in this sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system). My point was not that logic has no formality, but that it isn't a formal language (since it isn’t a language). It is also not formal in the mathematical or computer science sense, even though it is formal in the sense that baking is formal (i.e. applying a certain form in the mind, and following certain patterns), but I didn't want to confuse matters with adding more ambiguous terms.

    While distinguishing syllogisms is an important part of logic, it is only the subject of one out of the eight Aristotelian books on logic. If anything the ‘atom’ of logic is probably the proposition, though I am not sure that is the most useful way to think about it (since Aristotelian logic also includes the 'subatomic' individual concepts).

    Another metaphor which might be helpful is that logic provides tools for more accurate reasoning just as a ruler is a tool for more accurate measuring.

    In modern logic (which is part of mathematics and computer science) the interest is in formal systems and automated deductive systems, which are (in a sense) parallels of the Aristotelian Syllogism, but we shouldn’t project the modern interest onto the ancients. For Aristotle, not all logical arguments (syllogisms) reach the level of certainty of a geometric deduction, and the purpose of knowing the syllogisms is to use them in arriving at new truths from things already known. (As an aside, your example isn’t actually a syllogism). Using a Syllogism in a nonsense way does not mean one is thinking logically, just like using a karate punch doesn’t mean one is fighting artfully (or even fighting at all if one is practicing the punch in the dojo).

    In modern terms, instead of ‘logic’, a better translation might be the art of rationality (of which deduction is only a part).

    ReplyDelete
  75. Your question about false ideas is a much broader issue and I need to think about it more (I suspect that a full understanding would bring in the active intellect etc.), but in short, I don't mean the human mind can't think (in the loose sense, that you have been using it) something false, and therefore we could call that a false idea. Rather I mean that it isn't a ‘knowing’ (This issue is related to the chapter you quoted in the moreh, 1:68 and to the Rambam's definition of 'Etakad' which you may be familiar with) but rather confusing a product of the imagination with the apprehension of the intellect. My main point in this regard was only that we should distinguish carefully reason from imagination and knowing truths from random ‘thoughts’.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I simply don't understand. Anyone wanna buy a Pines Moreh? Jk

    ReplyDelete
  77. A short excerpt from the book of logic might give an example of the kind of thing logic trains you in, other than the syllogism:
    "philosophers say that any one who cannot distinguish between the potential and the actual, between per se and per accidens, between the conventional and the natural, and between the universal and the particular, is unfit to reason"

    "All the terms explained in this chapter are ten: matter, agent, form, purpose, proximate causes, remote causes, elements, materia prima, hyle, foundation."

    ReplyDelete
  78. and what exactly is doing the confusing? and what kind of thing is a recognition of a confusion? im certainly confused. totally and completely confused.

    i know those words (the first set)! maybe there is hope.

    well, although i havent answered my original question, ive gained a lot from this discussion. primarily, a clear recognition that i have no idea what the rambam is talking about when it comes to even the simplest point of an explanation of the simplest point he makes on metaphysics

    ReplyDelete
  79. why isnt it a syllogism?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thanks ken, I also enjoyed this conversation.

    Its not a syllogism since the conclusion is just an identity statement about the middle term, as opposed to a combination of the minor and major term.

    ReplyDelete
  81. oh, i didnt make the assumption that there's a law of identity in that system

    ReplyDelete