Rationalism and Revelation (2)

 A Look at Logic, Experience and Revelation

The Vogue of Rationalism

 

            The section that we have been discussing constitutes a historical note.  It teaches us something very sad about the pretensions of human intelligence.  Until this point, we have considered the fact that the theory of eternal existence cannot be logically proven within the general framework of philosophical thought.  However, Rihal is not satisfied with this, and he presents us with an even more extreme position.  Philosophical thought means the application of the principles of logic.  This is the meaning of the great revolution wrought by Greek philosophy: logic examines the questions and chooses answers according to its principles.  It knows from the outset, a priori (to use the philosophers' term), that certain things are impossible.  However, this is misplaced arrogance.  There is a famous folk legend, in which a peasant sees a giraffe for the first time and claims that such an animal cannot possibly exist; similarly, according to Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, the philosopher is faced with certain realities and claims that they cannot possibly exist.  Rabbi Yehuda Halevi questions the presumption of human logic in invalidating things which are not "logical."  This presumption comes naturally to mankind, and one ought therefore to be forgiving towards it.  However, this absolution must be tempered by the knowledge that we are often faced with facts which force us to reopen the discussion of our perceptions, even at the cost of unsettling and significantly altering our basic assumptions.

 

            Rihal's starting point, then, is that there is no logic that can discount empirical facts.  This idea can find expression in our conflict with miracles, as well as our conflict with any reliable tradition which tells us of logically irrefutable facts, which our experience refuses to accept unequivocally.  Rabbi Yehuda Halevi was not radical enough here.  He still maintained that a conflict between reality, our principles of thought and the elements of logic was impossible.  He claimed that there was no absolute proof for the theory of eternal existence.  However, if such a logical proof did exist, we need not dispute it, for neither reality nor Torah contradict the theory of eternal existence.

 

            Rabbi Yehuda Halevi believed, then, in the basic unity between our the three pillars: human logic, our empirical perception of the world, and the Torah.  However, many other thinkers in various periods have taken a less optimistic view than Rihal.

 

            Rihal will yet expound upon the topic of prophecy.  Here he proclaims that prophecy is a source of higher consciousness, "reliable as testimony for the logical proof."  Rihal also believed in the existence of a domain which logic cannot reach.  Thus, we have two different sources of consciousness, which are expressed in the pair of terms, experience and logical proof.  The logical approach assumes the credibility of axioms and derives logical conclusions from them and from natural realities.  The experiential state constitutes a higher, more direct source of divine consciousness.

 

            In Rihal's view, no contradiction exists between these spheres.  Logic must endure, and maintain its independence, while admitting its shortcomings.  Logic and Torah are not sworn enemies.  However, the history of philosophy does remind us that such conflicts took place, and that contradictions between Torah and logic were raised more than once.  These conflicts were grounded in basic logical assumptions; however, the empirical facts altered the picture.  The result was interesting: following every such crisis people believed that what they had originally considered logical and obvious, was merely the result of a primitive and fanciful perspective, which could not stand up to critical analysis.  Therefore, they concluded, rationalism of one type must be substituted with rationalism of a different sort.  Then, they felt, everything would work out.  What happened in practice is that logic would periodically change its principles and adjust itself to the various empirical discoveries.  Rabbi Yehuda Musksato, the noteworthy commentator on Rihal and author of the book "Kol Yehuda," brings us an interesting example.  The Ralbag, in "Milchamot Hashem" (II:7) tells of a youth who could prophesy the future.  This being, in Ralbag's view, an indisputable fact, he developed a philosophical theory to interpret parapsychological phenomena, which mundane psychology could not explain.  In other words, the reality which he faced compelled the Aristotelian philosopher to change his mind.

 

            This principle was confirmed once again in recent generations through the two great revolutions of modern physics, the theory of relativity and particularly quantum mechanics.  These revolutionary theories evince discoveries that compel us to alter our entire intuitive system, even, according to some versions, our most basic logical principles, a result which would hardly have pleased Rihal.  In our world phenomena take place which remain inexplicable when approached with traditional human principles.  Thus, our rational principles remain helpless and incapable of explaining the facts.  A thousand year old argument surrounds the question of whether the world may be explained rationally, and as a result of this question religious philosophy grapples with its most formidable problem: does human logic have the right to veto the claims of religion?

 

            Does rationalism indeed hold the ultimate right to sanction or disqualify theories?  Rihal denies this authority, and in his vision of synthesis, he wishes us, without abandoning the embrace of logic, to open our eyes to the reality before us, and not automatically discredit facts that appear to be illogical.

 

            Now let us reread Rihal's words: "If the philosopher were a member of a nation in which true opinions were passed down through a well-known and irrefutable chain of tradition, he would have employed his logical proofs to bolster the faith in a created world."  Clearly, Rihal is favorably judging Aristotle's great accomplishment, namely, that he did not have a tradition and despite everything reached the perception of the existence of God.  However, this quote may be read with a  cynical slant as well.  The truth is that philosophy, in the hands of a logical genius such as Aristotle, would have incorporated the concept of creation as well, had Aristotle been faced with a fact which he considered indisputable.

 

            This accurate statement compels us to do much soul searching, especially regarding the essence of rationalism.  Rationalism always reaches some form of compromise with its weighty and dangerous partner, the empirical knowledge of the world.  As a rule, philosophy managed to deal with disturbing facts by explaining them.  Legend tells us that Plato's bequest was to "save the phenomena," by which he meant that we must suit the astronomical facts to the principles of ideal cyclical movement in Platonic theoretical astronomy, which, of course, guide the movements of the planets.  And, indeed, through these explanations logic has achieved great victories by means of the various sciences.  However, all of these victories, which enlarged the philosophical empire unceasingly, occasionally ended in a catastrophic defeat, which meant losing everything and beginning anew on a completely different basis.  Descartes' modern philosophy is only one of the examples of this process of destruction and beginning anew, almost from scratch.  Rihal commands us to be vigilant; we must not blindly follow any a priori rational conception.  We must not allow such conceptions to hold sway over our opinions and actions.  We must always remember, that one day we will have to leave these conceptions behind.

 

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

opyright (c)1996 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.