Tuesday, January 16, 2018
light to the goyim the gra's Torah learning resulted im Kant's philosophy
ז] רעיון ״אור הגויים״ אינו מחייב כלל להתענין בכל בעיות העולם,
ושלמותו של בן ישראל לפי מסגרת התורה משמשת מגדל אור לעמים,
אור התורה שבישראל שופע דרך התורה ומשפיע על העמים, ויפה העיר
הגאון הצדיק ר׳ דניאל מובשוביץ ז״ל הי״ד, ראש התלמוד תורה דקלם,
מיסודו של ר׳ שמחה זיסל ז״ל, שבאותו זמן שישב הגר״א זצוק״ל בווילנא
שקוע בעיון התורה, בה בשעה עמד החכם קאנט בברלין וחידש הרעיון
של טוהר השכל, אבל חייב הוא בן ישראל לדעת מהמתהוה בעולם מצד
תכליתו בתכלית העולם, אבל תרומתו בפתרון הבעיות הכלליות באופן זה
של תכלית באה מתוך עלייתו ושלימותו כבן תורה, בן עם ה
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Fascinating. Where is this taken from?
ReplyDeleterav gifter's letters vol 3 page 226 i posted the link
ReplyDeleteWhy Kant and not Euler or Lagrange?
ReplyDeleteAnd you cant say he knew it be ruakh hakodesh, because it says "החכם קאנט בברלין", while in fact Kant had never set foot in Berlin and the holy spirit couldnt have lied to him.
That statement is meant more metaphorically, as in Tertullian's famous pronouncement, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Obviously, it's not the actual cities that are meant. "Berlin," like "Athens" before it, stood proudly at the center of the epoch's philosophical revolution that has characterized modernity ever since, whose readership was universally & irresistibly challenged by Kant's wide-ranging, innovative project, not so much by the more special-ized work of the likes of those whom you mention-- Euler, Lagrange, etc. However brilliant, lasting, & polymathic their contributions, their intellectual challenges are not typically ranked as philosophically central as Kant's. (See any decent history of philosophy, such Coppleston or one of the decent online Encyclopedias.)
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth noting that those others' work you mention grew more out of the 17th-c. Enlightenment, which hearkened backward as much as it looked forward, whereas Kant's is often celebrated as inaugurating a stream of thought in the 18th that is uniquely German, flourished throughout the following century, and never really dropped off since, even if the 20th saw it flag somewhat. (On this, see Ernst Cassirer's Philosophy of Enlightenment .)
Vilna gaon also not to be taken literally?
ReplyDeleteWell, if we proclaim regarding God's Holy Torah "dibra Torah kelashon bnei Adam" then kol shekein all others, right?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, relevant newsflash
Also, as a raiyah that my point above is on target, note that the Alter (as quoted by Rav Movshovitz, as quoted here by Rav Gifter) refers specifically to "taharas hasekhel." An unusual phrase, it means to refer, obviously, expressly to the Kantian project of circumscribing "Pure Reason" -- or, to use Kant's own vocabulary, of performing a "critique of" reason by determining its limits (leaving us thereby paradoxically with greater appreciation of it (then in some clearer, more realized state)-- and from there too, one might add, to wonder more groundedly at its unknowable Source!).
ReplyDeleteSo it would seem from this very passage that the Alter of Kelm was aware of Kantian Enlightenment thought more than in name only. As I asserted, it held (and holds) a rather special status.
I'm confused. Was or wasnt Gra in the city of Vilna?
ReplyDeleteI believe the Jewish community was on the outskirts, outside the main city, but sounds like it had an ambiguous status. You decide: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Užupis.
ReplyDeleteAnd, from here, I found this:
In 1994 the Vilnius Old Town was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List (No. 541) in recognition of its universal value and originality. The definition of "historic center" itself has a broader meaning than the Old Town, formerly encircled with defensive walls. It embraces the valuable historical suburbs of Vilnius, such as Užupis, which historically used to be outside the city boundaries. Therefore Užupis is often considered a part of the Old Town of Vilnius.
My impression--but it's merely that--from a few scattered readings is that the Gaon, having little use for the citylife, dwelled quietly in a neighborhood just outside it.
Why "obviously"? You are using a gezeira shava, but it requires a mesorah.
ReplyDeleteSo even if he lived in Riga, he would still be called Vilna Gaon? I'm still confused.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Maybe we were both confused. The Alter's memra quoted here read -- rather proverbially, I pointed out -- "While the Holy Gra sat in Vilna ..., just then was the Chakham Kant standing in Berlin ..." the one in silent iyyun haTorah, the other loudly spreading chiddushei hasekhel. It's a poetic contrast. When I answered your question to the effect that this pronouncement's seifa need not be taken too literally, given its proverbial form & tone, I assumed your question about the Gra "also not to be taken literally?" was asking about the reisha, in which case my answer to that stands as well: Neither in fact is meant strictly,
ReplyDelete(belashon davqa, like so many Chazals) seeing as the Gra was sitting in learning outside the city, not in it.
But if that's not what you meant to ask, well, then it's I who's confused, because I don't possibly see what could be the relevance of your question otherwise.
I assume that's a joke. Hat tip; it's kinda funny. 8^)
ReplyDeleteIt is very refreshing to see this:
ReplyDeleteבה בשעה עמד החכם קאנט בברלין וחידש הרעיון
של טוהר השכל,
A secular philosopher is praised as a Hacham :)
Kant wrote a Critique of Pure Reason, so was the Gra also critical of Pure reason? Argumentation is something that is interconnected. A while back, a Modern O Rav said that R' S.R. Hirsch was influenced by the dialectical thinking of Hegel, the other famous German Philosopher. Today, secular Hachamim have little use in yeshivas, perhaps with the exception of YU etc. the only times these views are discussed is in the Torah-Science debates , where they usually trash the ideas of evolution, and astrophysics.
A secular professor of Philosophy once asked why there are no more "great philosophers" like Kant, Hegel, etc. He answered that there are so many today, that is it hard to measure them. May we merit that we have so many Gedolim like the Gra, the Chatam Sofer, the Rambam, Raavad. etc.
Re the Gra, isn't that the peshat of the tale that he refused to let Eliyahu haNavi impart the sodos haTorah and thereby rob him of his own opportunity, via mortally bound reason, to attempt acquiring them?
ReplyDeleteIt is refreshing, this statement besheim the Alter of Kelm, true. But let's be careful as well. For one thing, best not to interpret things too superficially. The actual proper meaning of "critique"-- and the sense in which Kant's great opus means it-- is a delimiting of what's "critiqued". To 'critique' something, in the root sense, is to examine what it has and has not accomplished among its goals. Kant, essentially, aims to circumscribe the power of reason, thereby showing us why it is able to accomplish what it does, and as well wherefrom all its errors may proceed -- how far it may extend, on the one hand, and, on the other, that beyond which it may extend no further. Hence: a delimiting of it, a critique. He says as much in his work's intro, and anyway that's inherent as well in the word's Greek etymology, which has fallen into a more reduced, simpler usage in contemporary English, obviously. (Same root: We come to a "crisis" when we've reached our limits.)
As for the highly idealistic diagnosis that today we're just awash in great philosophers, well, whoever it is you're citing is not in very crowded company opining that. First off, philosophers of that caliber -- the likes of Kant, Aquinas, Plato, etc. -- don't exactly come around very often at any age in history. There a couple recently, it's true: Wittgenstein seems to have been one, or close to it, and he was 20th century, so that's one not so far from present day; perhaps Henri Bergson as well, arguably; according to some others, the Spanish thinker Ortega y Gasset--again, arguably; or one of the several German 20th century thinkers aside from Wittgenstein (dep. on whom you ask); or even one among the French (although imh"o that'd be stretching it). While there are those, it would seem that there's as much evidence, or far more, to make a case for yeridos hadoros than for some overwhelming explosion of momentous philosophical thought. In fact, the latter carries the whiff of MO hashkafic fantasy.
As for Torah demonstrating clear influence of German Idealist thought, you need go no further than Rav Wolbe. Every work he produced seems to have been shaped by it. And, yes, it's truly beautiful, mechudesh Torah.