Monday, November 22, 2010

Actions and Knowledge - Decision Making.

 Responding to my comments on the excellent blog Three Jews, Four opinions Evanston Jew posed a few questions which require a more thorough treatment than on a comment thread. Here are the first two: (I rearranged their sequence for clarity)

1. Knowledge=Chochma=wisdom= science= all the sciences +philosophy+ theology. You say in your second comment, "learning Torah encompasses all the sciences etc." Is encompasses the same as identical, and is knowledge, wisdom, science contained in or synonymous with Torah?

2. How can understanding the science of chemistry or evolution predict or give us a picture where the universe is headed. Are you referring to truths like one day the sun will implode or the universe will expand forever? Do you know where the universe is headed?

Let me do the Jewish thing and begin with a question; how does one know whether his or her next act is  good or bad? We all agree that every action has a consequence whether trivial or momentous, so we would have to look at the outcome resulting from that act. As I get older and also more introspective, I can see how actions I took decades ago had consequences which I can tie in with specific decisions I made then. Some of those outcomes are good, others are pretty bad and it is clear that in those cases I could have done things differently for a different and better outcome. But even assessing now, so many years later, whether the outcome was good or bad is not so simple. The bad may be just a transition and as those who are affected by that decision continue on their path, we might find out that things evolved for the best and the same goes for the currently apparent good. In fact, many consequences of my actions may only become clear after I am long gone, maybe even a few generations down the road. As I look back on the things I did, the decisions I made, I have to say that all were pretty much like shooting darts in the dark. There was no real long-term impact assessment or study made before deciding. I based my decision on my instinct, my impulses, and my emotional state at the time and whatever logic I could muster up. Is there a way to improve our decision making so that it has the desired outcome in the long term? But what is the “desired” outcome? Isn’t that a problem too? Different people, based on their state of mind, culture, emotional state, personal bias and a slew of other factors will see different things as good and bad outcomes. Is there an objective criterion?

There really is no good answer to these questions because we are human and our perspective is very limited. But there are ways we can improve our decision-making and broaden our horizon. First, we have to define “good” and “bad” so that we can establish what a “desired” outcome is. Then we have to understand what the consequence of each action is. The most difficult task though is to understand ourselves and overcome our impulses and biases so that we can come to an objective conclusion rather that a subjectively self-indulging one. To achieve all this we need to acquire a lot of knowledge. We have to understand the world we live in, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, mathematics and all the other sciences including metaphysics and theology that try to explain how things function in our world. It is only then that we can hope to develop an understanding of “good” and “bad”, desired outcome and the actions that will bring those about. Clearly, no one person, not even one generation of humankind can achieve all this in one lifetime. This requires years, civilizations, many peoples and trial and error.

Rambam tells us in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 4:13

 ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם
ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות
ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול
מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן
שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך
הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא.  ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול
וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר

Pardes are the sciences while Havayot דאביי ורבא are the rules of self-discipline in both action and thought that are the underlying reason of לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות.

Rambam also tells us in Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:12 in a discussion on how one should organize the day and learn Torah and its various components והעניינות הנקראין פרדס, בכלל התלמוד. In other words Pardes, the sciences including metaphysics, are categorized as Talmud, as part of the core of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah.

The purpose of acquiring all this knowledge and working on self-improvement is to try our best and I keep on emphasizing, “try our best”, to figure out how to act properly and responsibly and to assess “good” and “bad” objectively by understanding ourselves and our environment. This is the idea behind the Mitzvah of Vehalachta Biderachav – to follow in God’s path so poignantly and concisely expressed in Breishit 18:18-19

  וְאַבְרָהָם--הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, וְעָצוּם; וְנִבְרְכוּ-בוֹ--כֹּל, גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ.

Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him

  כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו, לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת-בָּנָיו
וְאֶת-בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו, וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה
וּמִשְׁפָּט--לְמַעַן, הָבִיא יְהוָה עַל-אַבְרָהָם, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר,
עָלָיו.

For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.'

Avraham realized that to know what is the desired effect – “to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him” – he had to first figure out what to “keep the way of the LORD” means. The result of that contemplation was “to do righteousness and justice”. It is with that understanding that Avraham could foresee the outcome at Sdom. When Lot decided to move there the basis of his decision was very mundane – (Breishit 13:10)

י  וַיִּשָּׂא-לוֹט אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא
אֶת-כָּל-כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן, כִּי כֻלָּהּ, מַשְׁקֶה--לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת
יְהוָה, אֶת-סְדֹם וְאֶת-עֲמֹרָה, כְּגַן-יְהוָה כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם,
בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר.

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as one goes unto Tzoar.

I am sure there were signs of the upcoming destruction, as Sdom lies directly on a fault at the edge of a major tectonic plate there must have been earlier less devastating tremors etc… and Lot chose to ignore them because of the short-term gain he saw in the fertility of the land. The “desired outcome” that Lot was seeking was not in accord with Derech Hashem. It was a selfish and narcissistic short-term decision. Avraham on the other hand realized the mistake Lot made and Lot, a student of Avraham, came to that realization just in time to barely save his own skin. Lot’s earlier decisions to join Avraham show his conflicted personality and the imperfect decisions this brought about. It is those early decisions that resulted generations later in the two nations Amon and Mo’av.

So answering Evanston Jews questions, yes all knowledge that leads to our better understanding of our universe, world and society falls under the rubric of Talmud Torah as it helps in our acting responsibly for the long term. The Halachik part of the Torah is only one of the components of Talmud Torah albeit an important one, because it gives us the tools to assimilate the other knowledge and use it constructively. And yes, knowledge and information are crucial in our decision making and for us to know how to act. Does knowledge lead to perfect action, are we always right if we act with knowledge, of course not. We are human and the best we can do is try our best by getting to know as much as we can about ourselves and the world we live in.

I will address Evanston Jews other questions which are related to his first question in a follow up post as I have reached my self-imposed limit on posts lengths and have indulged in a little digressing to Parshanut.  

  










9 comments:

  1. I have to strongly disagree with the entire assumption. The torah (and particularly תורה שבכתב) is interested in conveying a clearer picture of existential reality, not the physical one. Without making that distincion you're making alot of mistakes.

    ex. A man's mother being an ערוה is an existential definition (without any requirement on our part to associate it with physical manifestations) in the same way that מדאורייתא גר מותר באמו is an existential definition. By your logic, we would be hard pressed to distinguish between the two conflicting laws that seemingly apply to the same physical, biological, phenomena.

    I would also point out that some of the greatest kabbalists of jewish literature had mistaken notions as to the physical and astronomical world, shall we then discount the entire Zohar and Eitz HaChaim because we clearly are more advanced than them in regards to the physical world?

    Torah sh'bichtav does not care about the physical world's realities primarily, science does. I agree with you that the goal of Torah is to better understand ourselves and our surroundings, but on the existential plane, not the physical, social, or cultural one. Otherwise, the Torah has been a horrible failure as compared to the philosophers and scientists of history.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniel,

    There are two ways to approach prohibitions. one would be that there is something intrinsically wrong with the act and the other is that there is nothing wrong with the act itself but limits have to be set to train people in self discipline and change their narcissistic perspective. The first approach is accepted by kabbalah the second is the one Rambam opts for.

    A man's mother is an erva because that is the limitation Torah put on us to teach us self restraint. That restraint is not applicable when one's biological mother is not so legally which is the case of a Ger.I do not see where there is a problem here.

    Now, going one step further the question is posed whether the limit itself, the restriction, has a reason too. here already conjectures are allowed. Rambam understands that the reason for restraint on family members is because the familiarity with them makes sexual contact easier and would encourage sexual proclivity which increases self- indulgence and narcissism. In that case there would be one more reason why a Ger would have less a problem as he is separated anyway from his birth family.

    I do not see why you have to separate Torah from reality. it is after all referred to as Chukei Chaim in the bracha before Kryat Shema.

    Torah is responsible for western civilization which is responsible for the scientific advances that we have today. It over time succeeded in separating mysticism, the bane of scientific advance and the core of idolatry, from science. The core of Torah is exactly that, anti mysticism and Avodah Zara, notwithstanding the digressions which we suffer from contemporary kabbalah and how it misinterprets the genuine Kabbalah of the Rishonim. And yes, kabbalah is not infallible. When it uses erroneous science it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have not separated Torah from physical reality/Life but rather claimed that it deals with a higher emergent level above it.

    Why you would personally choose to opt for the narrower approach (what you called the Rambam's) and not rather consider that the Torah's teachings are on a far more subsuming level of existence I find difficult to undersand but to each his own. If I had your approach I think I'd find it very difficult to learn a sugya in zevachim over learning Calculus or Clinical psychology.

    Consider the possibility that what you are advocating falls under the rubric of דרך ארץ as in דרך ארץ קדמה לתורה as in לשמור את דרך עץ החיים which I trust you know does not simply refer to table manners or having a profession.

    In any event, much thanks for the posts. בברכה

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are two ways to approach prohibitions. one would be that there is something intrinsically wrong with the act and the other is that there is nothing wrong with the act itself but limits have to be set to train people in self discipline and change their narcissistic perspective. The first approach is accepted by kabbalah the second is the one Rambam opts for.

    Why can't there be a third way, there is something wrong with the measure in which the prohibited act is done, not the act itself. In this way Rambam accords a rationale to the particular structure of the Mitzva, rather than to a generality such as discipline. Isnt that generality of discipline actually a position of ayn taam limitzvos, an approach opposed by Rambam?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another way of putting this is to say that you are focusing on one benefit of Mitzvot mentioned by Rambam, without acknowledging the second.

    ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם
    ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות.
    ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול
    מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן:
    שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך
    הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול
    וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר

    Rambam notes that Mitzvot have the benefit of yishuv daat as well as yishuv olam. Yishuv daat might well be the discipline you speak of. However, yishuv olam is not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >Why can't there be a third way, there is something wrong with the measure in which the prohibited act is done, not the act itself.

    Example?

    > ליישוב העולם הזה>

    you read this as a verb - to settle the world it also can be read to the settlers of the world. Either way I do not disagree and societal laws are of course important.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If a persons closest relatives were to be allowed to him, he would have almost continuous access to sexual activity. This would necessarily involve him in sexuality beyond its productive amount for settling the world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was planning to write about this but never got around to it.

    There are two issues:

    1. are mitzvot just gezeirot or are they to teach us things.

    2. even if mitzvot are to teach us, the way it is legislated, does it have a reason. for example is the issur erva of a mother chosen because there was a need to set limits but there is no real rational for a mother being chosen.

    On 1. Rambam is adamant on 2 he is tentative. the explanation of krovim is tentative but he also is adamant that there must be a good reason why a mother was chosen but we don't really know for sure- it is just a conjecture.

    Your example is a conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So we agree that there are underlying mechanisms of human development that Mitzvot particularly develop, rather than a generality such as "discipline". We also agree that we should be cautious in our hypothesis regarding what these mechanisms are in any particular Mitzva.

    I am further suggesting that a major part of human development is finding metrics by which to measure moderation in our various actions, using Mitzvot.

    In this particular case, of Ervah, the Rambam's explanation shows an example of finding a metric of moderation in ones sexual activity. One satisfies ones personal needs with a delimited wife, with proper attention to peru urvu. Ones avoids sexuality with partners not conducive to that prudent sexual path.

    This is an example of a hypothesis of an act being prohibited because of its measure of involvement, rather than its intrinsic nature. To be sure, it may be inaccurate. However, one would then look for a new hypothesis, which established a metric of moderation in sexuality. One still would not only look for explanations for the prohibition of acts which based on the notion that they evil intrinsically.

    ReplyDelete