Dinosaurs | Imamother

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:12 am

bamamama wrote:

It does bother me. She's not willing to put her name (even a made-up internet name) on stance she's taking. To me, that goes to her reliability.

It shouldn't. Ideas stand on their own. They don't need an author to prove their worth.

bamamama

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:15 am

Look, amother, you are bringing up a topic from a thread that was locked so that you could come here and debase rationalism and, really, take pot-shots at Modern Orthodoxy.

Accepting kabbala is not one of the 13 ikkarim and if you think everyone who doesn't accept kabbala is intellectually dishonest, then sign me up.

Personally, saying "oh, they purposely made it so obtuse that only the very learned would understand" is the gateway to making Judaism into whatever you want it to be and is really an intellectually dishonest position if you claim it's the only valid one.

Last edited by bamamama on Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:18 am; edited 1 time in total

bamamama

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:18 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

It shouldn't. Ideas stand on their own. They don't need an author to prove their worth.

I just want her to own what she's saying. I'm owning my unpopular opinion. The very least she can do is own her popular one. Whatever. I'm out of this conversation because she's only interested in trashing Modern Orthodoxy and rationalism.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:22 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

For the Super Smart Amother (may I call you SSA?), and for BlueRose - I am not clever or educated enough to jump into this debate, so I'll just park this link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....phant

Indeed. The lesson of the parable is that there are a multiplicity of legitimate ways to be see an issue.

I absolutely agree. And that's why I never was rejecting the traditional literal view as illegitimate.

You tell me, which side of this discussion is arguing that there's only ONE legitimate way the issue has to be looked at?

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:26 am

bamamama wrote:

I know how you feel. I'd also like her to. But if she chooses not to, it's only a reflection on her willingness to withstand the heat, not on the credibility of her arguments. And at the end of the day, in a discussion of ideas, that's really all that should be focused on.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:46 am

yogabird wrote:

All the examples you bring here are phenomena observable every day. In one example, all science did was measure it, and in the other, simply named it.

Was reviewing some earlier posts, and came across this, and I can't believe I let this slip by me.
All they did regarding gravity was name it? shock

They theorized, they explored, they tested, they investigated, they debated, they measured, and they argued a lot about all of this. And after all that they eventually came to understand about it, they still aren't sure what makes it work!

But if you think all they did was name something, please, go to the Wikipedia article on gravity, and just erase it all. There really doesn't need to be a 4,000 word article about a simple naming process.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:55 am

BlueRose, thanks for the defense.

As for what you said about it being a "mis-interpetation" of Shemonah Perakim.

It isn't.

If you wish you can look it up (if I recall correctly it's towards the end of the third chapter but it's been awhile so I might be wrong on that one).

It's not a short qoute it's detailed explanation of the Rambam's approach towards Aggadah. In it the Ramabam expains three approaches taken one of them the approach popular in RJ he describes it at length and details his opposition to it repeatedly calling the approach "foolish" and those that take it "fools".

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:07 am

bamamama wrote:

WHY ARE YOU AMOTHER????????????

And I see you are still into the strawmen and hyperbole. Nice. "Pro-evolutionists thing God can't do something that complex!!!!!" "They are so stupid that they claim to follow the Rambam when the Rambam says the opposite!!!" Yes, Rationalists are clearly lazy jerks who just haven't done their homework.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that people have done their homework and come to a different conclusion? You're happy where your belief is. Good for you. Some of us have come to different conclusions.

Now, for your Kuzari argument. No, I haven't learned it inside nor have I sat through a day-long seminar about it. Crib sheet it for me if it's so powerful. Because, honestly? All you're doing is continuing to tell me that I'm doing it wrong. It shouldn't take a day to prove something so powerful. All that day-long seminar does is confound, confuse, turn you in every direction so that most lay people can't pinpoint exactly wth is bothering them. Telling people they are just ignorant is not proving your point at all.

I'm sorry BM, however I am not really into strawmen nor hyperbole. I am a great proponent of intellectual honesty and believe that the more the better.

I have given actual examples and actual sources for every single one of the positions I've taken.

I have'nt made broad claim's and I have made every effort to refrain from attacking a single poster on this board.
Regarding the Kuzari:
I did not state one is required to believe it nor that one needs to sit through an entire (hour, not day long,) presentation.
I have stated, and I maintain that position, that basic intellectual honesty would require one who disputes a position to actually know the position.
A case in point is dinasaurs.
One can dismiss the possibilty of dinasaurs existing out of hand and state it is out of the realm of possibilty.
If one takes that position they don't have to ook at the evidence.
However if one states "it could be, I just don't except the evidence".
Well for that person to be intellectualy credible they will have had to actually examine the evidence.

That is my point regarding the Kuzari.
If someone wants to dispute the Kuzari, fine.
If they think they can do what no one who has ever actually gone through it inside has been capable of doing and disprove it, fine.
But that person would have to actually have seen what the Kuzari say's.
If a person didn't and still disputes it they are simply being very intellectually dishonest.
No matter if they put their screen name behind it or not.

FranticFrummie

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:12 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

It shouldn't. Ideas stand on their own. They don't need an author to prove their worth.

We may disagree now and then, but THIS I stand by 100%, and I really respect you for that.

Are you by any chance a Libertarian? Independent thinkers (sorta loosely) unite! Very Happy

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:15 am

amother wrote:

Like I said, I'm not interested in getting into it. But here's the text that I think you're referring to. It's a famous piece in his Introduction to Chelek (the final chapter of Sanhedrin):

Quote:

You must know that the words of the Sages are interpreted differently by three groups of people.

The first group is the largest one. I have watched them, read their books, and heard about them. They accept the teachings of the Sages in their simple literal sense and do not think that these teachings contain any hidden meaning at all. They hold these opinions because they do not understand science and are far from having acquired any knowledge. They posses no perfection which would give them their own insights, nor have they found anyone else who would provide them with a similar understanding. Therefore, they believe that the Sages intended no more with their deliberate and straightforward utterances than what they understand based on their own inadequate knowledge. They understand the teachings of the Sages only in the literal sense, even though some of these teachings, when taken literally, would make even the uneducated (let alone sophisticated scholars) ask how anyone in the world could believe such things are true, let alone edifying.

The members of this group are ignorant, and one can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and exalt the Sages using their own meager understanding actually humiliates them…

The second group is also large. When the people in this group read or hear the words of the Sages, they too understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the Sages intended nothing other than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the Sages to be fools, hold them in contempt, and slander that which does not deserve to be slandered. They imagine that they are more intelligent than the Sages, that the Sages were simpletons who suffered from inferior intelligence. The members of this group are so pretentious and stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom. Most of those who have stumbled into this error are involved with medicine or astrology. How remote they are from true philosophy compared to real philosophers! They are more stupid than the first group; many of them are simply fools.

There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group, except in the sense that one speaks of the sun as a group (or species) of which it is the only member. This group consists of men to whom the greatness of the Sages is clear. They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words, which point to exceedingly profound truths. Even though this third group is few and scattered, their books teach the perfection which was achieved by the authors and the high level of truth which they had attained. The members of this group understand that the Sages knew as clearly as we do that difference between the impossibility of the impossible and the existence of that which must exist. They know that the Sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the Sages contain both an obvious and hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the Sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable, which is the method of truly great thinkers. For example the greatest of our wise men (Shlomo) began his book by saying, “To understand an analogy and a metaphor, the words of the wise and their riddles” (Mishlei 1:6).

All students of rhetoric know the real concern of a riddle is with its hidden meaning, and not with its obvious meaning, as: “Let me now put forth a riddle to you” (Shoftim 14:12). Since the words of the Sages all deal with supernatural matters which are ultimate, they must be expressed in riddles and analogies.

(Translation based on I. Twersky, A Maimonides Reader, pp. 407-409)

If this isn't the quote you were referring to, my mistake. But if it is, I see nowhere here does the Rambam say anything close to your claim that, "The Rambam explains anyone with a knowledge of Shas can see that Rabbinic scientific knowledge was far more advanced and must have come from "non-scientific" sources." I might have missed it though, if I did, please point it out.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:20 am

By the way, in case anyone thinks I have all these sources on the tips of my fingers, and that I'm really so well versed in this stuff, it's all an illusion. Seriously. I'm just very good at googling. I just assume it's out there, and from prior discussions on these topics I remember some of the key points mentioned in the text, so I just do some searching based on that and sure enough, it comes up!

The Internet is awesome. LOL

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:21 am

bamamama wrote:

I never stated that the acceptance of Kabbola is one of the 13 ikkarim, nor did I state that one who does not accept Kabbola is inherently intellectually dishonest.

What I did state was that when Kabbolla has been accepted for centuries by the overwhelming majority of JEwish Scholars, who were competent in the entire body of Torah as we have it, (and for an aside we can throw in a great many who demonstrated a tremendous amount of erudtion in secular disciplines as well) to casually dismiss it is intellectually dishonest.

Furthermore if one can cogently explain in detail why it was that Chazal made certain things "intellectually obtuse" so that not everyone can understand it, which the Ramchal does in great detail in Mamar al HaAgodos (as do many other Rishonim and Achronim) then once again to casually dismiss their words, reasoning, and proofs is once again intellectually dishonest.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 4:00 am

Well BlueRose the first thing you are right on is that it's not in Shemonah Prukim it's the into to Chlek as you said.

Now here's a semi-lyrical translation of the Hebrew ( I can't call it original since I think it may have been written in Arabic).
The Secon Group, They are also big and they are the one who saw the words of the Sages or heard them and understood them according to their literal meaning.

And they think that the Sages had no intention other then their literal meaning. And they come to ridicule what contains no ridicule and make fun of the words of the Sages. And they think they are smarter and know more of reality, things that the Sages could not comprehend in any way.

Most of those who error in this path are those who feel they are wise men of medicine and astronomy, who feel that in their minds they are men of understanding and wise in their eyes and great philosophers (philosophy and science were interchangeble words in that era-me).

In truth how far are they from the Sage and philospophers of truth!

Now this second group in a way is better then the first however they are cursed because they go after those men who are far greater then them whose wisdom was already proven to wise men.

And these fools if they would toil and understand how it is proper to organize and write the wisdom of God, both for the general populace and the wise men, so that the practical portions could be understood from the philosophy then they would have understood the wise Sages and seen if they were sages or not and they would have understood the point of the words."

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 4:13 am

As an aside the translation from Prof. Twersky that you qoute actually seems to point to the dangers of relying on translations independent of the original source.

The examples abound but one that seems to change the compexion of what the Rambam actually states is in the third group.
He transalates
"They recognize the superiority of their intelligence from their words, which point to exceedingly profound truths".

However he ignores an entire line!
The full text continues "and even though they are few and scattered in different places in their works they point to the completeness and they comprehended the truth and it was understood by them things that prevented and things that caused things to be"

I will be DLZ that Twersky meant to give over the flavor of the Rambam and not everything the Rambam actually writes.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 9:55 am

I still don't see from where you conclude that "Rabbinic scientific knowledge was far more advanced". Please highlight the words that indicate that to be the case.

PinkFridge

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 10:00 am

bamamama wrote:

Ooh, are you saying that all Rationalists are MO or the reverse? Or not? I've wondered what kind of discussions all this engenders on the MO board, then I remind myself that you gals just discuss recipes.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 10:02 am

amother wrote:

Yet the process of the Zohar being accepted was pretty brutal. The Ramban himslef spent a long time with a proponent to see if it was in fact correct on a Torah level. This continued through the centuries. The Vilna Gaon was a re-knowned scholar who wrote commentary on the entire body of the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, And the Esoteric sections of the Torah.

Yet those who disagree with the overwhlming majority of Jewish Scholarship over the period of about 1000 years that all verified the accuracy of the Torah don't give a reason as to why.
They simply state " I don't accept it".

On what basis?
How do they have the temerity to not just disagree with the Jewish Great's for centuries, yet not even se the need to explain on what basis.

This accusation was troubling me, so I looked into it a bit more, and dug up some well argued sources that might explain some of the basis for why people don't accept the Zohar as authoritative.
http://parsha.blogspot.com/201......html
http://www.zootorah.com/contro.....h.pdf (Note: Even though this is hosted on his site, Rabbi Slifkin isn't the author of this essay. He just hosts it so it's easily accessible.) If you don't feel inclined to read a whole long essay on this topic, just jump to the last section of the essay, titled, "Contemporary Gedolim’s Opinions", which is pretty fascinating.

PinkFridge

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 10:24 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

Thanks! It's taking a while to open. I hope that somewhere it'll include a brief bio of Rabbi Chareidi.
ETA: such a pity that people are so nervous that they'll only give their initials. I certainly don't know what I could base on this.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 10:29 am

PinkFridge wrote:

I don't think you can base anything on that. Nor should you. I just thought it was very interesting. If you're looking to draw some conclusions, you should do that based on the 40 pages of arguments in the essay, not from some anonymous anecdotes.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 10:43 am

I just want to be clear about the dynamic of this exchange. Judging from how some people respond to past posts of mine, some might be upset about what I wrote and see the above links as me trying to promote a very questionable approach, as pushing what they think is kefira into the pristine minds of innocent amothers. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not presenting this with the position of, "You're all wrong! Your mesorah is false! You should believe this view instead of your erroneous one!"

My purpose in presenting it was defensive. Amother asked a reasonable question on the rationalist school of thought, and in response, I think these sources somewhat address her objections. I'm not suggesting that you need to accept any of this as your derech. What I am suggesting is that you should recognize that there is a basis for those who see validity in that derech. It's not just a "casual dismissal" of "meh, we just don't accept the Zohar!"