tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post2924724914852033761..comments2023-10-12T10:09:54.121-04:00Comments on Believing is Knowing: Reward and Punishment - Miraculous or natural?David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-4064982741840132892006-12-12T12:51:00.000-05:002006-12-12T12:51:00.000-05:00Big S now that you are an expert on Unknowability ...Big S now that you are an expert on Unknowability I have to watch every word I write:-)<br /><br />What applies to God's actions is Tov and Ra, Good and evil or rather there is no evil possible just good because God is Creator only. It is not a limitation but that is another matter.<br /><br />You are also right that before the sin there was only true and false but that is as it relates to man. True being God as He is the ultimate truth - see beginning of Yesodei Hatorah. <br /><br />And again there is no judgement just as we perceive it. Wait for the next post (in production) and it will get a little clearer.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-87882352683946084642006-12-12T12:42:00.000-05:002006-12-12T12:42:00.000-05:00I like the naturalistic idea of reward and punishm...I like the naturalistic idea of reward and punishment, although it seems to make God a bit of a "fifth wheel".<br /><br /><i>Wrong cannot be ascribed to God in any way whatever.</i><br /><br />I would have interpreted this (in the context of Rambam's thought) as meaning that "right" and "wrong" are not predicates which apply to God. In that case, it's not that "we are only ignorant of the working of that judgment," but rather that <b>there is no judgment</b>. See, now I sound like Ben Avuyah, but isn't this what Rambam is flirting with? Doesn't he also indicate that for Adam and Eve before the "Fall" there was no "right" and "wrong", only "true" and "false"? Or something to that effect....Big-S Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11592881477466761046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-20785172085607651172006-12-12T04:10:00.000-05:002006-12-12T04:10:00.000-05:00JS, you are correct in differentiating between the...JS, you are correct in differentiating between the two types of free will, instinct and freedom of choice, however when it comes to schar ve'onesh it is dependent on moral choices. Rambam uses the case of the Chasid in the ship as an example of schar veonesh as he reads:<br /><br /> which examines all their deeds in order to reward or punish them. It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents, as in the above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house falls upon those within; but it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, <br /><br />I therefore believe that if you read that piece carefully Rambam sees the decision to embark on that ship, like every human decision, always "good and bad". It is always a rational decision. The presence and absence of correct rational calculation makes the act "good or bad". That is the Shemona Perakim reference where he argues that. It is also in Yad. I am writing my next post and I will be expanding on this there. <br /><br />I find this issue fascinating and every time I think I have it straight I get entangled in another problem. Notwhistanding my seeming self confidence I am not as sure of it as I make believe.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-2575145080062476312006-12-11T13:44:00.000-05:002006-12-11T13:44:00.000-05:00David,in your post "Rambam on Providence: A contra...David,in your post "Rambam on Providence: A contradiction?" You asked a kashe on the Rambam.I wrote an explanation,but you dismissed it.Since it deals with the same subject as your present post & is even in the same perek in MN,& since I didn't have a chance to further comment,I wish to do so now.<br />I wrote:"IOW,his freedom extends ONLY TO MORALS.<br />So, therefore,when the chasid boarded the ship,he followed his natural instincts.He HAD NO FREE WILL OF HIS OWN WHICH WOULD CONTRADICT GOD'S WILL who wants him to perish & lead him to take that trip.<br />According to that, Rambam would hold that free will exists only with regard to morals."<br />Your comment: "Have a look in Shemona Perakim chapt 8 Kapach edition where he strats Ava halashon shematzanu lechachamim vehu omram hakol bydei shamayim etc... I think it contradicts your explanation"<br />I don't think it contradicts what I said that according Rambam REAL free will is only with reference to acts that involve morals.<br />you write:"The answer is that there are two kinds of free will. The one generally discussed when we talk about Bechira, clearly not universal, is the choice between right and wrong which requires a higher level of thought and is therefore sentience dependent. The other one to which Rambam refers to here is choices that we have on a daily basis, crossing the street or not, eating this apple as opposed to the other and other such continuous decisions. This freedom of choice is common to all living things sentient and non-sentient. This understanding of this type of free will is unanimous “in our nation” and note Rambam’s sigh of relief about that! (Unfortunately nowadays Rambam’s relief is misplaced. The opposite view is very close to popular belief"<br /><br />The second ex.of " free will",which Rambam says is common to all living beings is NOT really "free will".It's used more in לשון העברה & yes the popular believe that animals don't have free will is correct & I don't think Rambam would dispute it. If animals had free will, they should be rewarded or punished per the Mutazzilites,which Rambam rejected.<br />So yes,there are 2 kinds of free wills.One that is common to all living things ,not directed towards morals.To call it "free will" is really a misnomer,it's a volition or rather instinct. <br />To go back to the chasid boarding the ship,there was no FREE WILL involved,directed towards morals.He wanted to board the ship for whatever reason.It was instinct not free will.It could have been a cat trying to get on board.Therefor there was no INDEPENDENT FREE WILL to contradict God will.<br /><br />The second kind of free will is of course the one which,according to Rambam,humans possess,but it can only be called free will when the acts leads to a choice between good or evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com