Rabbi Micha Berger wrote this comment to a previous post regarding th dangers of philosophy - It contains important issues
Notice that the author (and I also heard the true author is unknown) in this middah isn't rejecting Scholasticism or Greek philosophy, but the entire enterprise of seeking machshavah amuqah -- deep understanding [of theology].
This is an old problem: there is a dialectic between whether we view Hashem as Immanent ("Hashem is here, Hashem is there") or Transcendent ("Just one Hashem in heaven"). The more one studies /about/ G-d, the more one gets involved the the Transcendent perception of the Almighty.
The Rambam had no problem -- to him, a Personal G-d is simply a concept for the masses, and the intelligentsia should only relate to the Transcendent notion.
Rav Nachman miBreslov took the opposite approach -- having a personal relationship with G-d is so important, one simply should avoid studying theology.
Briskers don't have this problem either, they don't study aggadita altogether. (I'm exagerating, but not much.) The whole question isn't really in their worldview -- just go learn more halakhah!
Lub takes a mystical way out, involving the notion of a particular person having a soul that comes from the nation's soul's Yechidah. In other words, this rebbe (Moshe, Yehoshua, ... Yiftach, ... Shemu'el ... David ... Rav Yehudah haNasi ... Rav Ashi ... and so on to the Besh"t and the Lubavitcher Rabbeim) has a soul from the level at which Israel, G-d and the Torah are one.
Therefore, their Torah unifies.
And that's why Lub teaches Tanya to newcomers. From within Chabad thought, Tanya is the only philosophical approach that enhances rather than distracts from the notion of a personal relationship with the Almighty.
Mussar taught a different "out", based on its tenet (as well as psychology's) that there is a huge gap between what we know, and what we internalize. Machshavah amuqah is an intellectual pursuit; emunah peshutah is a middah. They are inculcated through different routs. Yes, in theory the two conflict. In practice, man is very capable of living with such dialectics.
In contrast to the Tanya, the Nefesh HaChayim teaches more Transcendence and the dangers of "immanence" which is essentially Pantheism.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a danger of calling everything dangerous. This is precisely what they do in cults, and brainwash their followers to be afraid of everyone on the outside. Orthodoxy also faces this danger, and succumbs to it on a regular basis. This can be Messianic cults, like Chabad, Shabbetai Zvi, which originated within orthodoxy; or the many scandals that this "dangerous" website and others are exposing.
In practice, man is very capable of living with such dialectics.
ReplyDelete=================
Source? anecdotally my observation is most people prefer not to live the vida dialectic.
KT
Joel Rich
The Sulam in his introduction to the Zohar uses the language of naturalistic and existential philosophy while making his point and pokes a refutation to deism.
ReplyDeleteWhat is needed is more rabbis trained in these areas and whatever is being discussed in the day to deal with the curve.
ReplyDeleteThe enlightenment hit Jewry like an atomic bomb and it took the rabbinical establishment time to catch up with the curve. From what I have seen a lot of what is passed for dealing with modernity is polemical without getting to the heart of the issue. Atheism is a hot topic today. Most people do not know the precise meaning of the word atheist and I have seen rabbanim fall into this trap and develop irrelevant responses. Making irrelevant assumptions on how G-d rules the world. I do not mean gedolei Yisrael necessarily but lower level rabbanim who have charges that they are to mold. They are simply not equipped brought up or trained to deal with these issues. Particularly because of the internet we can no longer assume that separation is protection. The very notion of attemting to ban the internet is about a wishfull notion as banning marijuana.