Posted by Etzelnik 12/19/2017 4:05 pm | #1 |
We assume God is incapable of impairing his essence and in general being ungodly through the Principle of Non Contradiction. How do we know God is subject to these principles? Isn't he above the laws of logic, what with Him being the grounds of them in reality?
Last edited by Etzelnik (12/19/2017 4:06 pm)
Posted by Miguel 12/19/2017 6:56 pm | #2 |
God cannot be "above" the principle of non-contradiction, that would be meaningless. If he were above it, he could be above and below it at the same time and under the same aspect.
God is logic. And denial of PNC as absolutely true beyond our minds is madness. That the principle of non-contradiction is true and holds for anything and everything in our minds and beyond our minds is something we know to be true with absolute, 100%, contra-stardusty certainty.
Last edited by Miguel (12/19/2017 6:59 pm)
Posted by Etzelnik 12/19/2017 7:37 pm | #3 |
You are right that the paradoxical nature of the proposition is madness, but that is in accord with our logic.
I ask because my brother is quite anti philosophical theology. This is something he posed to me, and I have no way out except to assume that God Himself is bound to the limits of my own puny logic.
Can God create ex nihilo? Isn't that also something human logic can't comprehend?
Posted by Miguel 12/19/2017 8:36 pm | #4 |
Etzelnik wrote:
You are right that the paradoxical nature of the proposition is madness, but that is in accord with our logic.
I ask because my brother is quite anti philosophical theology. This is something he posed to me, and I have no way out except to assume that God Himself is bound to the limits of my own puny logic.
Can God create ex nihilo? Isn't that also something human logic can't comprehend?
It's not "our" logic, it is logic period. How could God both be above and below PNC at the same time and in the same aspect? What we call the first principles of thought -- such as PNC and the principle of identity -- are insights into reality, not insights into our own mind. It is nonsense to hold otherwise.
God can create ex nihilo and while creatio ex nihilo is difficult to understand, it does not pose any contradiction. Not everything that begins to exist needs a material cause. A mystery is not the same as a contradiction.
We don't "assume" God is bound to the limits of logic. We *know* God is "bound" to the limits of logic; it is meaningless to think that God could create a square circle, for instance. And if you're still under the illusion that PNC is only an insight into the workings of our mind and not being itself, then maybe the following experiment will break the spell: can God create a square circle that we are able to understand? Just saying "we can't comprehend a square circle, but God can make it" won't help it here. Can God create a square circle that we can understand? Alternatively, can God make us -- as we are right now -- understand a square circle? No. He can't. Because even if it were the case that we're just unable to understand a square circle, still this fact would mean that God would not be able to make us understand a square circle, it is a "limitation", and one that follows logically.
Of course, it is not actually a real "limitation", for the limits of logic just are the limits of being; there is no such thing as the illogical or the non-being. God cannot both be and not-be. PNC is a direct insight into the nature of reality as such, beyond our minds.
Posted by Johannes 12/20/2017 2:40 pm | #5 |
Etzelnik wrote:
We assume God is incapable of impairing his essence and in general being ungodly [...]
Calling your assumption P2, it is a necessary necessary consequence of holding P1: that God is Absolute Being, the absolute fullness of Being. While Christian Revelation explicitely states these truths (e.g. 1 Jn 1:5), AFAIK in Judaism you may or may not hold them. Thus, it seems that you and your brother take each of the opposite positions described in this article.
Posted by Etzelnik 12/20/2017 2:51 pm | #6 |
Thank you, Miguel. I appreciate the clarity of your response.
@Johannes: It's interesting that you link that article. Both my brother and myself are decently well read in both philosophy and kabbalah, except that while I shape the kabbalah to fit philosophy, he does the reverse. Thus he is a kabbalist with some knowledge of philosophy while I am a philosopher (not professional, of course) with some knowledge of kabbalah. That matches nicely with the article.
I should point out, however, that Moses Haim Luzzatto (one of the greatest kabbalists in history) emphatically rejects the so called "kabbalistic" view, and reshapes the entire kabbalistic doctrine of tzimtzum, wherein God is spoken of as "limiting" Himself to allow for creation.
Last edited by Etzelnik (12/20/2017 2:56 pm)
Posted by Johannes 12/20/2017 3:42 pm | #7 |
Etzelnik wrote:
@Johannes: It's interesting that you link that article. Both my brother and myself are decently well read in both philosophy and kabbalah, except that while I shape the kabbalah to fit philosophy, he does the reverse. Thus he is a kabbalist with some knowledge of philosophy while I am a philosopher (not professional, of course) with some knowledge of kabbalah. That matches nicely with the article.
Then I will take advantage of this occasion to validate what I have understood from the little reading on kabbalah I have done:
- All versions are incompatible with absolute divine simplicity, just as Palamism is (*).
- All versions are incompatible with divine immutability to the extent that the sephirot emanated in time, and moreover to the extent that human actions can influence them.
- The Lurianic version is additionally incompatible with divine immutability because of tzimtzum.
- Cordovero's and the hasidic (chabad, etc.) versions are also panentheistic.
(*) There is a clear paralell between the Palamist and kabbalistic conceptions of God, the correspondent notions being:
Ousia - Ein Sof
Energeia - Sephirot
Of course there are fundamental differences, since in Palamism all Energeia proceed from the Ousia directly, not through other Energeia, and, more importantly, Palamists hold with RCs that God is immutable, which excludes His being affected by human actions in any way. (But even when Palamists hold that the Energeia proceed eternally from the Ousia, there's still room for an additional objection besides that on absolute divine simplicity: either God was not free to create the universe, or the Energeia would have had no purpose if God had decided not to create.)
Last edited by Johannes (12/20/2017 4:54 pm)