Unity of Opposites Letter 44, Sections F

RAV KOOK’S LETTERS

By Rav Tamir Granot

 

 

 

Lecture #12:

Letter 44, Sections F-H

Introduction

 

 

Welcome back from Pesach break.  We are still studying Letter 44. To refresh your memory regarding the background of this letter, refer to the first lecture on it and to the biographical addendum there.

 

Section F is a relatively straightforward section, and we will not expand upon it much. In this section, Rav Kook explains why biblical criticism is not at all relevant to a Jew for whom the Torah is spiritual nourishment, the actual word of God. No normal human being asks his father to verify a family tradition through scientific research. One whose approach to Tanakh is intimate, traditional-familial, needs no external demonstration of its veracity, according to Rav Kook; for him, the simple biblical truth is a basic principle that is constitutive of national consciousness and historical memory. Despite this fundamental position, Rav Kook intimates, as we will see, that even one who doubts the historical veracity of biblical historiography can acknowledge the moral-ethical significance of the biblical narratives.

 

This lecture will focus on the next section – Section G – in which Rav Kook develops the metaphysics of the unity of opposites. Rav Kook dealt with this in another letter to R. Alexandrov (Letter 110) following a question that the latter sent to Rav Kook regarding what he wrote in the present letter. These words will be cited in next week’s lecture. As will be clarified below, this is an ancient and complex question. We will explain some of this background and then focus on the aspects that Rav Kook emphasizes.

 

Rav Kook addresses R. Alexandrov’s criticism of what Rav Kook wrote in Eder Ha-Yakar, published about a year earlier. Rav Kook wrote as follows there:

 

The science of mechanics has survived for many years, and the thoroughly mistaken law that “two forces that oppose each other create a negation upon their encounter” became a line for industry, for which it was as an iron yoke on its neck. But through experimentation and the broadening of awareness, the realization strode forward proudly that two forces do not negate each other upon their encounter – they create a “new, positive force” that is also an active force that contributes to man’s betterment when they know how to utilize it. (Eder Ha-Yakar p.13)

 

Here, Rav Kook points out the accepted principle of modern science and philosophy of science - that opposing forces create energy or a third force. The paradigm of this conception is the parallelogram of force, from which we learn that two opposing forces indeed create a new force. A magnet and, more broadly speaking, an electromagnetic field show the potential of physical opposites to generate new power. The discovery of magnetism indeed stirred the minds of modern philosophers, who understood that the encounter of opposing forces need not generate negation.

 

What is the ramification on philosophy of these physical discoveries? Is there a correspondence between material phenomena and the relationship among ideas in the thought-world? Rav Kook addresses this point later in Eder Ha-Yakar:

 

Human thought has much more work to do before it realizes the value of the power of thought and its manifold uses to the same degree that it – albeit correctly – recognizes the physical powers in its world. Therefore, although general knowledge has already arrived at the degree of understanding in which it can comprehend physical forces that encounter their oppositions, it has not become so sublime that it can understand the wealth of blessing latent in the oppositional encounter of philosophical forces – how precisely they are not negation but positive, giving rise to a new and potent force, a proper path that should be greeted with joy and light, with blessings of peace and love.

 

The law of positive results from the encounter of opposing forces completed the recognition of the unity of forces in practical reality, which operates on the material. The champions of higher unity, which brightens all the darkness of the entire universe, the sages of Israel, the fathers of our tradition, have already told us: “These render pure and those render impure; these prohibit and those permit… One God gave them, a single leader spoke them in the name of the Master of all actions, blessed be He,” and “these and those are the words of the living God.” This is the great seal of unified thought, which perfects the opposing visions when they encounter each other on the horizons of thought and the spirit, which recognizes that they bring blessing to the world. There is no greater salve for the disease of the shattering of the forces, and especially the spiritual powers of Knesset Yisrael, through this lofty law, which is all embracing in its power. (Ibid.)

 

Rav Kook explains that Chazal already expressed their opinion on the possibility of holding contradictory positions without them canceling each other. The task that he sets for contemporary philosophy takes this even further: “The great seal of unified thought” is the placement of the contradictory values and ideas within a unifying framework that transforms their opposition into a constructive force and makes the idea more complete and general.

 

In Eder Ha-Yakar, Rav Kook presents this task as being imposed on the Sages of the Land of Israel, since only the ongoing process of redemption and the spiritual atmosphere of the Land of Israel give us faith in the possibility of unified thought and the appropriate metaphysical context. We will not address this aspect of his words at this point; we will return to it in a later lecture, when we address the Torah of Eretz Yisrael.

 

However, Rav Kook expands the range of application of the principle of unifying opposites to his discussion of theology, and he wants to understand through it the basic problem of the relationship between “nothing” (“ayin”) and the Divine “something” (“yesh”):

 

Anyone who understands knows how to act with the positive images [i.e., descriptions of Divinity], which perforce must be portrayed in his heart in their positive garb, but they immediately become the basis for negative abstract portrayals that are more sublime than these and have more honor of the Divine, an abundance of holiness and an abundance of realness, to the point that it is well known amongst kabbalists and ancient theologians to call those first ideas that emanate from the true reality in their true form “ayin” and “darkness” [the sefira of Keter is called “ayin” and it is the beginning of Atzilut]. This is the sublime, dim feeling that is more precious, due to the exaltedness of this matter, than any clear feeling about limited matters, “for the source of life is with You – in Your light we shall see light.” (Eder Ha-Yakar, p. 42)

 

Theology is paradoxical since it posits that negation and positivity depend on one another, and in a certain sense even stem from one another. It is precisely the negation of limited descriptions of God that allows for the recognition and sensation of the Divine reality in the fullest manner and with the clearest recognition. Paradoxically, negation is the basis for something positive.

 

We see how this outlook on the unification of opposites has meaning in all areas: in Halakha – these and those are the words of the living God; in philosophy – the unification of ideas; in physics – the magnet, for example; and in theology – the positive and negative in descriptions of the Divine.

 

R. Alexandrov wrote the following about this:

 

In my opinion, such investigations are only the fruits of a false and imaginary game that combines two opposites of a single issue – existence and non-existence – and there is no place for this in the world of logic…

 

Later in his letter, R. Alexandrov cites what he wrote himself in Tal Techiya regarding the paradoxical nature of Jewish existence and the logical and existential contradictions in our world of thought, although he testifies about himself:

 

I investigated all of this long ago… and as I [now] see, such decisions are arrived at only by combining despair that leads to negation with the Divine feeling that fights with all its power… Yet healthy logic is not like this…

 

He adds:

 

I wrote about this at some length because… almost all of his investigations are the result of his central idea of the unification of opposites…

 

R. Alexandrov indeed comprehended something major here. For Rav Kook, the unification of opposites is not just a good and correct idea, but to a great degree the methodological principle that defines his entire philosophic approach.

 

R. Alexandrov’s questions are penetrating and, as stated, the importance of this topic for Rav Kook’s thought is great. Below we will attempt to clarify the main points.

 

To Consider Before Reading

 

The debate about the possibility of two contradictory axioms on the same question or object is quite ancient.

 

The contradiction of the rules of logic that R. Alexandrov refers to is the contradiction of the law that Aristotle called “The Law of Contradictions,” according to which something cannot be “A” and “not-A” simultaneously. For example, an object cannot be both solid and liquid (i.e., non-solid) at the same time. The general implication of this law is that if two statements negate each other – whether explicitly or by inference – one of them must be false.

 

Aristotelian logic has ruled the day ever since, and the Law of Contradictions was accepted as a virtually unquestioned logical and philosophical principle. The broad application of this law leads to a monolithic view of truth: only one truth is possible, as the prophet stated, “‘Thus are My words like fire,’ says God, ‘and as a hammer it will shatter rock’” (Yirmiyahu 23:29), according to its simple meaning.

 

Other philosophical positions have arisen, mainly within modern philosophy. Below we will mention particularly Hegel and Schelling, German philosophers who were active at the beginning of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the thought patterns of Kabbala should be mentioned as well. Although it did not always address this question in its classical form, Kabbala created an alternative type of logic, built on contradiction and paradox. The kabbalistic method of unification of opposites found explicit formulation in the philosophy of Chabad, and since there is virtually no doubt that it is one of Rav Kook’s main sources, we will address it below.

 

As an illustration of an approach that accepts the existence of opposites in the world of thought, the rabbinic midrash on the verse cited above can be brought: “It was taught in the academy of R. Yishmael: ‘As a hammer it will shatter rock’ – just as this hammer is divided into many sparks, so too every utterance of God is divided into seventy languages” (Shabbat 88b; Sanhedrin 33a has “so too one verse can have many meanings”). These very words of Chazal, which ignore the straightforward meaning of the verse, actualize this general principle, for it is impossible to say that the word of God is simultaneously unambiguous and multivalent and to understand both axioms as the correct interpretation of the metaphor “as a hammer it will shatter rock.” The resolution to this contradiction is rooted in the gap between prophetic truth, which discloses the word of God in a sharp, clear, and unequivocal manner, and halakhic and midrashic truth, which is also a mode of revelation of God’s word, albeit a multivalent one.

 

(Translated by Elli Fischer)