1 00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:23,320 Speaker 1: Greetings, friends, and welcome back to the podcast of Jewish Ideas, 2 00:00:23,359 --> 00:00:24,600 a Terra Immersion production. 3 00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:27,760 Speaker 2: I'm jj Kimbray. On today's episode, we will be. 4 00:00:27,719 --> 00:00:31,600 Speaker 1: Exploring the dynamic encounter between analytic philosophy and Jewish thought. 5 00:00:32,079 --> 00:00:36,000 Analytic philosophy, with its emphasis on clarity, argument, and conceptual precision, 6 00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:39,000 has shaped much of contemporary philosophical discourse. 7 00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:40,920 Speaker 2: In recent decades, some thinkers. 8 00:00:40,600 --> 00:00:42,880 Speaker 1: In the analytical tradition have brought the tools and the 9 00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:46,119 paradigms of their philosophical school to bear on questions within 10 00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:49,159 Jewish philosophy, and in the process provide new lenses through 11 00:00:49,159 --> 00:00:52,679 which we might view, age old debates and analyze major 12 00:00:52,719 --> 00:00:53,439 Jewish thinkers. 13 00:00:53,560 --> 00:00:54,719 Speaker 2: We will be thinking about this. 14 00:00:54,719 --> 00:00:57,200 Speaker 1: Dialogue more broadly and through the lens of a very 15 00:00:57,200 --> 00:01:00,359 specific case study, namely the problem of repentance with its 16 00:01:00,439 --> 00:01:04,400 theological and philosophical challenges. Johnny us today to discuss these 17 00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:07,400 topics is doctor no i'm orn, a post doctor or 18 00:01:07,439 --> 00:01:10,239 fellow at the New York University and a gross Scholar 19 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:13,200 in residence at the NYU School of Law. Doctor Arn 20 00:01:13,239 --> 00:01:15,599 received this PhD in philosophy from the Hebrew University in 21 00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:18,799 Jerusalem and writes on a range of topics across the 22 00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:22,400 analytical philosophy of religion, modern Jewish thoughts, philosophy of alaja, 23 00:01:22,719 --> 00:01:26,079 and a special emphasis on the points where these feels intersect. 24 00:01:26,359 --> 00:01:29,599 It is a pleasure to welcome doctor arn to the 25 00:01:29,599 --> 00:01:32,400 Podcast of Jewish Ideas today, Doctor Oren, Welcome. 26 00:01:33,159 --> 00:01:35,000 Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you, pleasure to be here. 27 00:01:35,680 --> 00:01:36,599 Speaker 2: Excellent, excellence. 28 00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:40,000 Speaker 1: So let's start from the very beginning, and let's imagine 29 00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:41,439 for a moment that there will be one or two 30 00:01:41,519 --> 00:01:46,040 listeners who don't have multiple advanced degrees in philosophy, and 31 00:01:46,159 --> 00:01:48,680 perhaps you can start with a basic question, which is, 32 00:01:48,879 --> 00:01:51,319 what do we mean when we speak of analytical philosophy, 33 00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:54,120 What is it? Where did it come from? And what 34 00:01:54,239 --> 00:01:57,400 distinguishes it as a philosophical tradition. 35 00:01:58,719 --> 00:02:02,200 Speaker 3: Okay, question, and I have a couple of ways to 36 00:02:02,239 --> 00:02:05,200 answer this, so I will start with like with historical 37 00:02:05,239 --> 00:02:10,719 answer and then more conceptual answer. So, historically speaking, analytic 38 00:02:10,719 --> 00:02:14,479 philosophy is a philosophical stream or movement that began its 39 00:02:14,599 --> 00:02:17,080 way in the end of the nineteenth century at the 40 00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:22,879 beginning of the twentieth century, and again within the historical framework, 41 00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:26,000 there's many ways to describe how it's begun and world 42 00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:29,560 the main figures. But it's commonly viewed that the main 43 00:02:29,599 --> 00:02:34,319 figures that started the whole movement is godlb Reggae, I'm 44 00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:40,080 the German logician, Breton Russell the British logician and philosopher, 45 00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:43,520 and lodg villians Day. This is the three big names. 46 00:02:43,599 --> 00:02:45,280 There are a couple of more names that are being 47 00:02:45,319 --> 00:02:49,800 dropped over here, Ge Moore for example, and the story 48 00:02:49,960 --> 00:02:55,879 goes something like this. Philosophers from ancient times to modern 49 00:02:55,960 --> 00:03:01,159 times loved logic, logic who was way way of thinking 50 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:06,759 and examine and examining propositions and arguments. But the logic 51 00:03:07,039 --> 00:03:10,719 philosophers have was the Aristotilian kind of logic. And the 52 00:03:10,719 --> 00:03:14,120 arist kind of logic was pretty nice, but it was 53 00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,280 not too strong and it was hard to imply it 54 00:03:17,360 --> 00:03:24,199 on a regular kind of discussion, Like when we discuss arguments, 55 00:03:24,439 --> 00:03:27,400 it's will be very hard to take these arguments and 56 00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:35,400 to transform into those arguments into a logical Aristotoilian logical form. 57 00:03:35,599 --> 00:03:40,000 So the philosophers that really admired logic cannot really use 58 00:03:40,039 --> 00:03:43,120 logic in their philosophical words. So you can we can think, 59 00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:46,479 for examples, Spinoza when he writes the Ethics, he writes 60 00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:49,919 us as if it is in the logic form, but 61 00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:54,120 he cannot really use technical logical tools. He wants to 62 00:03:54,199 --> 00:03:58,879 use it, but he can't. And that changes changes with 63 00:03:59,599 --> 00:04:04,360 the log that godlip Reggae invents or develop. So he 64 00:04:04,439 --> 00:04:08,800 developed a new kind of logic that makes us. It 65 00:04:08,919 --> 00:04:12,840 makes a really a real big change in how do 66 00:04:12,919 --> 00:04:16,279 we think about logic and language, and it enabled us 67 00:04:16,319 --> 00:04:22,600 to transfer ordinary language speaking into logic form and to 68 00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:32,839 better investigate philosophical ideas. But the moment he developed this 69 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:36,279 kind of this kind of philosophy, a lot of philosophers, 70 00:04:36,879 --> 00:04:41,560 Forgae himself, but Russell Rigachen as well thinks some like, wow, 71 00:04:41,639 --> 00:04:44,759 that's great. All the time, until now we did philosophy 72 00:04:45,199 --> 00:04:48,360 with mumbling, with a lot of words and was we 73 00:04:48,360 --> 00:04:51,079 didn't know what we're talking about. Now we can do 74 00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:57,160 it in a very rigorous, precise, accurate way that we can. 75 00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:01,240 We need now to start philosophy all over Okay, what 76 00:05:01,319 --> 00:05:06,000 we did until now was not so serious, not too good. 77 00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:08,519 Now we can do it all over again with a 78 00:05:08,560 --> 00:05:12,000 precision and clarity that we always wanted. And there was 79 00:05:12,279 --> 00:05:17,040 its spring, a new spirit to the to the world 80 00:05:17,079 --> 00:05:19,800 of philosophy. So they started to do philosophy in a 81 00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:25,720 more logical, mathematical orientation, and this is how the whole 82 00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:31,560 movement of analyt philosophy had immersed. One example that can 83 00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:35,560 is often used to demonstrate the beginning of analy philosophy 84 00:05:36,399 --> 00:05:41,480 is the debate between Heidiger and Rudolph Karner. Rule of 85 00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,560 Karnap was a kind of a student of of Vidiness 86 00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:51,680 Stain and Frega and Russell and Heideger was the famous philosopher, 87 00:05:51,759 --> 00:05:55,279 the famous German philosopher, and he wrote the paper was 88 00:05:55,439 --> 00:05:59,720 published after giving a lecture the same name, what is Metaphysics? 89 00:06:00,199 --> 00:06:04,319 And Rudolph Karnap take this peace and try to articulate 90 00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:08,480 that what what Heideger is doing over there is not false, 91 00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:13,439 but it's nonsense. He's not doing anything. His propositions has. 92 00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:17,720 Whatever he says over there, it's again, it's not even false. 93 00:06:18,399 --> 00:06:21,560 If you take a logical way of thinking about it, 94 00:06:21,879 --> 00:06:27,040 you see that his sentences are meaningless. He's not saying anything. 95 00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:31,360 So with that kind of debate between Karnap and Heidiger, 96 00:06:31,399 --> 00:06:35,279 there's a depart between what was the main philosophy in 97 00:06:35,319 --> 00:06:39,079 German in that days and analytic philosophers that says, okay, 98 00:06:39,160 --> 00:06:42,600 all this is nonsense. We're stugning all over again. So 99 00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:45,720 this is the historical kind of story. And again it's 100 00:06:45,720 --> 00:06:48,160 not the whole story. It's part of the story. But 101 00:06:48,199 --> 00:06:53,040 there's back then till now, a lot of things has changed. 102 00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:56,759 So Radleigh speaking, when we were talking about analytic philosophy, 103 00:06:56,800 --> 00:07:01,759 we're talking about philosophical stream. That what's unique. What's what's 104 00:07:01,879 --> 00:07:06,639 unique in this stream, it's not specific idea. So anally 105 00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:11,920 philosophers are not embracing a specific ideology or idea. They 106 00:07:11,920 --> 00:07:16,720 are embracing tool, and the tool is logical kind of thinking. 107 00:07:17,120 --> 00:07:22,800 So this is what united analy philosophers. But from that 108 00:07:23,439 --> 00:07:28,120 you can derive derive many more things, for example, and 109 00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:33,560 the analytic philosophers are not like ancient philosopher or medieval 110 00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:36,079 or even modern philosophers. They are not dealing with you 111 00:07:36,160 --> 00:07:39,399 with all the questions at once. When you think about 112 00:07:39,639 --> 00:07:42,839 my Monodis or Spinosa or the card or Plato, you 113 00:07:42,920 --> 00:07:46,360 think of someone who gave us like a really big 114 00:07:46,399 --> 00:07:50,319 picture that deals with metaphysics, with the pistemology, with logic, 115 00:07:50,759 --> 00:07:57,439 with ethics, with political philosophy altogether. And analytic philosophers most 116 00:07:57,480 --> 00:08:00,879 of the time deals with one specific quest they are 117 00:08:01,399 --> 00:08:04,600 like scientists. Okay, they're not dealing with all science at once. 118 00:08:04,920 --> 00:08:08,680 They're dealing with a specific puzzle question, and if it's 119 00:08:08,720 --> 00:08:10,959 not related to other kinds of questions, they will not 120 00:08:11,000 --> 00:08:14,920 deal with that. So well, ethicists that writing about eating 121 00:08:14,959 --> 00:08:18,240 animals will not deal with the metaphysics of time. 122 00:08:18,639 --> 00:08:18,800 Speaker 2: Right. 123 00:08:20,199 --> 00:08:25,000 Speaker 3: So the way of approaching philosophy as puzzle based and 124 00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:29,439 not like a broad rush, it's a feature of anally philosophy. 125 00:08:29,759 --> 00:08:31,319 One last feature I want to I want to talk 126 00:08:31,319 --> 00:08:37,639 about is the a historical approach. Ani philosophers kind of 127 00:08:37,799 --> 00:08:41,759 deny the importancy of the history of philosophy. They think 128 00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:46,679 something like, as a physicist don't need to know Aristotalian 129 00:08:46,720 --> 00:08:50,600 physics in order to do good physics, and philosophers philosophers 130 00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:53,639 don't need to know what Plato said in order to 131 00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:59,240 do good philosophy. Okay, we are developing. If you want, 132 00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:02,080 if you're interested in history, okay, learn the history philosophy. 133 00:09:02,120 --> 00:09:05,080 But if you want to do philosophy, there's no place 134 00:09:05,320 --> 00:09:09,120 to the history of philosophy. So I'm a little bit exaggerating here. 135 00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:13,440 This is not really the situation. And from the beginning 136 00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:16,360 of an anally philosophy to this day things are changed 137 00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:20,799 and now only philosophy is more historical oriented. But this 138 00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:24,080 is how it begun, and this is the basic features 139 00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:28,679 of analytic philosophy. I think, I hope it's no. 140 00:09:28,879 --> 00:09:29,639 Speaker 2: That was a good overview. 141 00:09:29,879 --> 00:09:31,799 Speaker 1: I know that that was actually a pretty good especially 142 00:09:32,039 --> 00:09:35,000 important of the clarity and the the language and the 143 00:09:35,360 --> 00:09:39,159 historicity of that was important. So before diving most civili 144 00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:42,639 into the Jewish components, I mean, analytic philosophy has not 145 00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,639 always had a particularly happy relationship with religion in general. 146 00:09:46,200 --> 00:09:47,840 Speaker 2: Many of the figures that you go. 147 00:09:47,960 --> 00:09:51,360 Speaker 1: To before, especially Russell Wilkinson, also to a certain degree, 148 00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:55,039 we're not particular friends of established organized religion. Do you 149 00:09:55,120 --> 00:09:57,120 think that is sort of a feature or a bug 150 00:09:57,120 --> 00:09:59,200 i meaning, is there something in analytic philosophy which is, 151 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:03,320 I don't know, necessarily antagonistic towards religion or no, it's 152 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:05,399 just it so happens that a certain generation, certain famous 153 00:10:05,399 --> 00:10:11,399 ones were whereas others, meaning other analytic philosophers, seem to 154 00:10:11,399 --> 00:10:14,799 be fine or even you know, very committed religion. So 155 00:10:14,840 --> 00:10:19,519 if you could just comment on that particular fraud relationship. 156 00:10:19,159 --> 00:10:21,879 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you're totally right, and I think it's at 157 00:10:21,879 --> 00:10:24,200 the beginning it was a feature, and then he went 158 00:10:24,200 --> 00:10:28,480 to into a bund. So what do I mean as 159 00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:33,559 at the beginning of an anti philosopher philosophy, the philosophers 160 00:10:33,799 --> 00:10:37,120 try to understand what is a meaningful sentence and what 161 00:10:37,240 --> 00:10:45,000 is unmeaningful, as I said, Karnav accused Heidegger saying meaningless sentences. 162 00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:50,759 And when they try to do that, they establish the 163 00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:56,600 principle they called the verification principle. And both ludvit Vitgimstein 164 00:10:56,720 --> 00:10:59,279 and the members of the Vienna Circle, who was the 165 00:10:59,279 --> 00:11:03,480 core member of the group that establish anially philosopher, they 166 00:11:03,519 --> 00:11:09,240 both develop and and and encourage this kind of this principle. 167 00:11:09,399 --> 00:11:13,919 And the principle says, loosely speaking, something like, if you 168 00:11:14,039 --> 00:11:18,440 say something and you cannot disprove it or prove it 169 00:11:18,879 --> 00:11:24,000 with logical or experimental tools, then meaningless. If you're saying 170 00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:28,679 something and you don't know when you will abandon this faith, Okay, 171 00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:33,720 you believe in p like some proposition, and you don't 172 00:11:33,799 --> 00:11:39,519 know what are the logical or empirical tools that you 173 00:11:39,559 --> 00:11:43,600 can falsify this claim or prove this claim, then you're 174 00:11:43,639 --> 00:11:46,759 not saying anything. You're not saying something false, but you 175 00:11:46,759 --> 00:11:51,159 were saying nonsense. And as I said, they accused Heideger 176 00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:55,320 of speaking nonsense. But both against the and the Vienna 177 00:11:55,399 --> 00:12:00,240 Circle members accused religion in general us saying nonsense. They 178 00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:04,840 thought that the whole theological kind of discussion, whether there's God, 179 00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:08,159 what the nature of God, the attributes of God, whether 180 00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:11,559 God intervenings the world, all this kind of question are 181 00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:17,840 really nonsense because it cannot be disproven with empirical or 182 00:12:17,919 --> 00:12:23,879 logical tools alone. So at the beginning, anti philosophers this 183 00:12:24,120 --> 00:12:27,200 card like the guard religion has really nonsense, and this 184 00:12:27,240 --> 00:12:30,639 is why they're not engaging in philosophy of religion. So 185 00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:33,600 this is like a feature of their philosophy. But the 186 00:12:33,639 --> 00:12:38,159 principle of the perfiguan principle was abandoned rightly, so we 187 00:12:38,159 --> 00:12:41,240 will not get into into this. But now there's not 188 00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:45,000 even one philosopher I think will embrace this kind of principle. 189 00:12:45,519 --> 00:12:50,960 And once this principle was rejected, the room for religious philosophy, 190 00:12:51,159 --> 00:12:55,960 of theology and philosophy of religion to come in was open, 191 00:12:56,759 --> 00:13:01,720 and in that time from a feature to bach. At 192 00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:05,639 that time there was a room to doing philosophy of religion. 193 00:13:06,039 --> 00:13:09,519 But an only philosopher were really against philosophy religion. They 194 00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:12,919 thought it's obvious that there's no God, it's obvious that 195 00:13:12,960 --> 00:13:18,279 religious is nonsense, so we should just ignore it. And 196 00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:21,320 the few philosophers a only philosophers that wrote about religion 197 00:13:21,600 --> 00:13:24,879 were pure atheistic and make fun of religion. This is 198 00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:30,480 all we had for the early period of Anily philosophers. 199 00:13:30,559 --> 00:13:34,000 But all of that has changed when couple of Christian 200 00:13:34,039 --> 00:13:40,440 philosophers started to do serious analytic philosophy of religion. And 201 00:13:40,600 --> 00:13:43,919 they didn't they didn't really they did it really smartly 202 00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:47,440 because oz we can take my minds for example, for 203 00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:51,080 that he's not of anly philosopher, but they're a saying 204 00:13:51,080 --> 00:13:55,320 that he wrote me in order to establish his gadlute. 205 00:13:55,360 --> 00:13:59,120 He's really goddle in halakah, and then he can publish 206 00:13:59,519 --> 00:14:03,200 moo got through the puplex. Now everyone knows that he 207 00:14:03,279 --> 00:14:09,759 is a really good tem and something similar with in 208 00:14:09,759 --> 00:14:14,360 anlat hilosophy of religion. Great analytic philosophers not in only philosophy, 209 00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:17,960 wrote great things in analytic philosophy, and then after they 210 00:14:18,080 --> 00:14:22,320 established their name in Ali kilosophy, they said something like, oh, 211 00:14:22,480 --> 00:14:25,720 we're also religious and we do only philosophy religion, and 212 00:14:26,320 --> 00:14:29,440 you already know that we are good philosophers, so you 213 00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:31,840 cannot even know what we're doing and when we're doing 214 00:14:31,919 --> 00:14:35,320 Alan philosopher religion. And the main figure I'm speaking now 215 00:14:35,559 --> 00:14:38,039 is Alvin Planting. Alan Planting guy has done a big 216 00:14:38,159 --> 00:14:43,360 name of analyti philosophy of religion. He established both philosophically 217 00:14:44,000 --> 00:14:48,440 the world of Anlan philosophy religion, but also academically he 218 00:14:48,559 --> 00:14:51,879 developed the whole field. He developed the departments that deal 219 00:14:51,919 --> 00:14:56,919 with Alan kilosophy and the journals. And also we established, 220 00:14:57,200 --> 00:15:02,320 with a couple of his friends like will Austin and 221 00:15:02,399 --> 00:15:07,840 Linda Tegzevsky and Eleanor Stump, the Society of Christian Philosophers. 222 00:15:08,200 --> 00:15:11,840 It was a group of Christian philosophers that do Anly 223 00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:17,480 philosophy and well recognized as good philosophers. And now they're saying, okay, 224 00:15:17,519 --> 00:15:22,000 we're also doing Christian philosophy, and you cannot ignore us 225 00:15:22,120 --> 00:15:26,000 because you already know that we are great philosophers. So 226 00:15:26,559 --> 00:15:31,600 from that, I don't know stuff. Fifties of the twentieth century, 227 00:15:32,080 --> 00:15:36,000 from that time to this day, philosophy of religion is 228 00:15:36,039 --> 00:15:40,320 gaining more and more recognition in the world of analyt philosophy, 229 00:15:40,679 --> 00:15:44,919 and I must say that today's it's really driving it's 230 00:15:44,960 --> 00:15:47,120 our whole ranch of only philosophy. 231 00:15:47,759 --> 00:15:52,679 Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I can. I can second that. So let 232 00:15:52,679 --> 00:15:55,120 me so that let me the following question. 233 00:15:55,759 --> 00:15:59,519 Speaker 1: Analytical philosophers use a certain set of tools of analysis 234 00:15:59,559 --> 00:16:01,639 of lafe guage, analysis of concepts are sort of a 235 00:16:01,639 --> 00:16:05,600 logical rigor. Let's say, do you think there are precursors 236 00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:08,679 to analytic philosophy with within the history of Jewish thoughts? 237 00:16:08,679 --> 00:16:10,480 In other words, you know, for the last thousand years 238 00:16:10,519 --> 00:16:13,840 or so, Jews have produced many famous, important thinkers who've 239 00:16:13,879 --> 00:16:17,480 approached a whole series of philosophical questions. When because you 240 00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:20,200 not only do academic philosophy also to the history of 241 00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:22,000 Jewish thought, that that's one of your subjects. And do 242 00:16:22,039 --> 00:16:25,559 you see anyone in the Jewish tradition some kind of precursor, 243 00:16:25,639 --> 00:16:31,000 some kind of habits of thought, let's say, which you 244 00:16:31,039 --> 00:16:33,360 know aren't quite analytic philosophy, but are not too far 245 00:16:33,399 --> 00:16:35,759 away from it. How close do we get to this 246 00:16:35,879 --> 00:16:38,679 kind of thinking in juistradition prior to let's say, to 247 00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:39,559 the twentieth century. 248 00:16:40,720 --> 00:16:44,240 Speaker 3: Okay, that's a great question, and I think there are 249 00:16:44,279 --> 00:16:48,320 many philosophers or not even philosopher Jewish thinkers that wrote 250 00:16:48,360 --> 00:16:51,399 in a similar vein or a similar way of analyt 251 00:16:51,919 --> 00:16:55,159 like of analyt philosophers, So they most of the time 252 00:16:55,200 --> 00:16:57,480 they are not using the same terms or the same 253 00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:02,080 metaphysical framework, but it's kind of easy to translate them 254 00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:07,079 into the analytic philosophy kind of language and discourse. So 255 00:17:07,640 --> 00:17:10,640 of course I'm thinking of the more rational kind of philosopher. 256 00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:13,319 So when you think of my Monodez or Sadia Gone, 257 00:17:14,119 --> 00:17:19,519 many medieval thinkers that warned the Aristotelian kind of world 258 00:17:19,880 --> 00:17:23,480 are really doing kind of I will not say analythilosophy, 259 00:17:23,799 --> 00:17:26,759 but I will say some kind of rational philosophy that 260 00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:32,240 deals with arguments and premises and try to prove or 261 00:17:33,119 --> 00:17:37,519 have evidence to their kind of views or against other views. 262 00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:42,359 So they're doing something very similar to what analytilosophers are doing. 263 00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:46,079 And when you go further in time, you go to 264 00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:48,160 I don't know, Spinosa, I don't know if you regard 265 00:17:48,200 --> 00:17:51,279 them as a Jews philosopher or not, or Mendesine. I 266 00:17:51,319 --> 00:17:55,359 think those philosophers are doing something that is really easy 267 00:17:55,400 --> 00:18:00,279 to approach from the world of analyt philosophy. One more 268 00:18:01,559 --> 00:18:04,720 realm of Jewish tradition that I think is suited very 269 00:18:04,759 --> 00:18:07,680 well to the only tradition is the world of Alaha. 270 00:18:08,359 --> 00:18:12,680 So Alaric thinkers are also doing something very similar to 271 00:18:12,880 --> 00:18:17,000 anti philosophers. Again I said before that alt pilosophers doing 272 00:18:17,400 --> 00:18:20,759 dealing with specific puzzle. Of course, then each time and 273 00:18:20,759 --> 00:18:25,440 and and they're using a very theoretical, logical way of thinking. 274 00:18:25,680 --> 00:18:28,759 You can think of a lot of the Alaric figures 275 00:18:29,759 --> 00:18:33,720 and even more so that they're doing something that are similar. 276 00:18:34,880 --> 00:18:38,079 So I think there are similarities. Again, it's not there's 277 00:18:38,119 --> 00:18:42,200 no quurse, there are no historical influences back forward, but 278 00:18:42,599 --> 00:18:45,640 there is Indeed there's a lot of similarity between the 279 00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:46,839 two worlds. 280 00:18:46,920 --> 00:18:48,240 Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's an interesting point. 281 00:18:48,240 --> 00:18:50,359 Speaker 1: I've often observed that as well, that you know, many 282 00:18:50,400 --> 00:18:52,440 of the major hlak things, especially in the world of 283 00:18:52,440 --> 00:18:55,079 pillpull or sort of automotive analysis, even though they're not 284 00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:59,160 using any philosophical terminology or explicit methodology, but the way 285 00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:02,839 they are analyzing text, where they are asking questions, where 286 00:19:02,839 --> 00:19:06,640 they are conceptualizing things, is close enough to the analytics 287 00:19:06,720 --> 00:19:09,079 to well, it's a philosophical method in general, that they 288 00:19:09,119 --> 00:19:12,759 are in a certain sense doing a form of philosophy, 289 00:19:12,799 --> 00:19:16,240 of course, very rigidly bounded by uh, you know, with 290 00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:17,200 certain presuppositions. 291 00:19:17,799 --> 00:19:20,440 Speaker 2: Okay, fine, fair enough, that's the DAK point. So let 292 00:19:20,440 --> 00:19:21,519 me okay, let me ask the followings. 293 00:19:21,559 --> 00:19:24,720 Speaker 1: You're an analytic philosopher approaching the vast body of Jewish thought, 294 00:19:24,759 --> 00:19:27,279 and of course, within Jewish thought, there are many subjects 295 00:19:27,279 --> 00:19:28,160 that are approach. 296 00:19:27,839 --> 00:19:29,599 Speaker 2: To, many topics. There are many points. 297 00:19:30,519 --> 00:19:35,680 Speaker 1: Are there certain areas, certain genres, certain topics within Jewish 298 00:19:35,720 --> 00:19:38,599 thought that are let's say more susceptible the analytic approach, 299 00:19:38,599 --> 00:19:40,759 and the analytic philosopher can go in and say, ah, yes, good, 300 00:19:40,839 --> 00:19:43,480 you know, I can apply my particular way of doing 301 00:19:43,480 --> 00:19:45,559 philosophy to this and this and this, and are there 302 00:19:45,599 --> 00:19:48,119 others which are just less So? I mean, you know, 303 00:19:48,359 --> 00:19:51,720 are the limits within the boundaries of a religious tradition 304 00:19:51,799 --> 00:19:56,480 like Judaism to which the analytic philosopher is not you know, 305 00:19:56,839 --> 00:20:00,720 either either won't go or can't go, or the methodology 306 00:20:00,799 --> 00:20:02,519 just works so well, I mean, let's say, what are 307 00:20:02,519 --> 00:20:04,799 the limits of this particular encounter? 308 00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:11,599 Speaker 3: Okay? So I will say that there are several realms 309 00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:14,720 within the Jewish world that it's more easy for anti 310 00:20:14,720 --> 00:20:18,319 philosophers to go into. But I don't think there's a 311 00:20:18,359 --> 00:20:22,599 specific relevant at philosophers cannot go into. So let's take 312 00:20:22,640 --> 00:20:26,799 that extreme example, okay, of mysticism, kabbalah, those kinds of things. 313 00:20:27,039 --> 00:20:30,640 There are analytic Jewish analytic philosophers that are doing today 314 00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:35,359 analytic kabbala. Okay, it seems kind of weird thing about, 315 00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:38,880 but I will mention a couple of names like Sam 316 00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:43,559 Libins or a Lasomiak. So Sam Libins writes metaphysics out 317 00:20:43,559 --> 00:20:46,000 of the sources of HASI do, and he writes is 318 00:20:46,079 --> 00:20:50,079 pretty well amazing. So he's doing it and all asiac 319 00:20:51,200 --> 00:20:56,559 rite metaphysics out of kabbala. So again, it's not easy 320 00:20:56,839 --> 00:21:01,720 because those thinkers that lurianic cabalistics things are not writing 321 00:21:01,759 --> 00:21:04,759 in the way that ant philosophers write. But you can 322 00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:09,319 kind of extract their arguments, their worldview and try to 323 00:21:09,359 --> 00:21:11,960 make sense of it with the tools of anly philosophy. 324 00:21:12,279 --> 00:21:15,480 So yeah, I will not say there are limits to 325 00:21:15,680 --> 00:21:21,319 the meeting between the anal philosophy and and Jewish philosophy, 326 00:21:21,680 --> 00:21:24,640 but there are areas that it's more easy to do, 327 00:21:24,799 --> 00:21:27,960 and there are areas that will be much more difficult. 328 00:21:27,960 --> 00:21:30,680 Speaker 2: But again possible, fair enough. 329 00:21:32,599 --> 00:21:37,240 Speaker 3: I want also to mention that I'm not hastied of 330 00:21:37,279 --> 00:21:41,880 the view that antilosophy should do everything. Okay. There is 331 00:21:41,920 --> 00:21:47,200 a place, of course, to other ways of approaching text. Okay, 332 00:21:47,480 --> 00:21:52,599 so I'm using anletlosophy as another approach besides the historical, 333 00:21:52,680 --> 00:21:58,400 the philological, the literature, the sociological whatever. Okay. I'm a 334 00:21:58,400 --> 00:22:01,720 true believer in combining all this tools together. 335 00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:08,440 Speaker 1: So yeah, okay, So then let me let me sort 336 00:22:08,440 --> 00:22:11,400 of ask a parallel question, which is that what might 337 00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:15,440 be the dangers of applying something like analytical philosophy to 338 00:22:15,799 --> 00:22:22,000 a religous tradition, because there are some who may claim that, Okay, 339 00:22:22,079 --> 00:22:24,319 let me let me backtrack on moments. There are some 340 00:22:24,359 --> 00:22:27,720 thinkers who sort to systematize Jewish thoughts. We're talking about 341 00:22:27,720 --> 00:22:31,880 people like Zadigon, people like my monodeseosopher Alba, and also 342 00:22:31,880 --> 00:22:34,599 in the modern ty I mean spinners that we can 343 00:22:34,640 --> 00:22:36,240 put to one side, but people like mental and others. 344 00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:38,160 Speaker 2: You try to make like a system at a Jewish thought. 345 00:22:38,359 --> 00:22:40,839 Speaker 1: But there are those who always attempted to resist this 346 00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:42,759 sort of thing. And it seems to me that analytic 347 00:22:42,799 --> 00:22:47,960 philosophy at least presumes that there are topics that can 348 00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:54,599 be analyzed logically, are there? I mean, I'm'm trying to 349 00:22:54,599 --> 00:22:56,720 think anyone I'm asking is do you'd think there's maybe 350 00:22:56,799 --> 00:23:02,640 a danger of kind of flattening or forcing ideas into 351 00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:04,200 a box that can be analyzed? 352 00:23:04,200 --> 00:23:06,279 Speaker 2: You know what I mean? This analytic philosophy seems to 353 00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:08,279 I mean, obviously this is not me saying this. 354 00:23:08,680 --> 00:23:11,680 Speaker 1: It's quite clear analytic philosophy is a kind of a 355 00:23:11,680 --> 00:23:14,920 borrowing from a scientific methodology, which is very useful in 356 00:23:14,920 --> 00:23:18,400 some cases. But do you see that in other cases 357 00:23:18,680 --> 00:23:23,079 it may be made of a steamroll ideas or shoe 358 00:23:23,240 --> 00:23:25,799 shoe hool them into the conceptual categories to which they 359 00:23:25,799 --> 00:23:26,480 don't really belong. 360 00:23:27,359 --> 00:23:32,359 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, definitely. As I said before, I think in 361 00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:38,119 when discussing and investigating Jewish ideas Jewish text, it's wrong 362 00:23:38,720 --> 00:23:42,160 to use only one method and analyt philosophy is one method. 363 00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:45,440 So if you will ask me the same question about 364 00:23:45,519 --> 00:23:48,160 philology or history or literature, I will answer the same 365 00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:50,640 kind of answer. Using one method is. 366 00:23:50,559 --> 00:23:51,240 Speaker 2: Not the right way. 367 00:23:51,559 --> 00:23:55,759 Speaker 3: So if you are dealing with Jewish ideas, Jewis text 368 00:23:55,880 --> 00:24:01,160 and using only anly philosophy, yes you're flattering, flatting something 369 00:24:01,160 --> 00:24:04,880 and you're definitely missing something. There are historical dimension, there 370 00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:11,240 is literature. They mentioned in every Jewish text, every energy 371 00:24:12,240 --> 00:24:18,359 Jewish figure. So yeah, using only philosophy as as one 372 00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:21,839 tool and the only tool, I think it's flooded. And 373 00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:25,240 this is why I in my own researcher, and I 374 00:24:25,240 --> 00:24:28,720 think many of the Jewish and only philosophers are also 375 00:24:28,759 --> 00:24:31,400 doing it as well. We're using all the different kinds 376 00:24:31,400 --> 00:24:36,200 of tools that Jewish studies and Jewish tradition gives us. 377 00:24:36,480 --> 00:24:40,240 So yeah, I have this worry, but I hope I 378 00:24:40,319 --> 00:24:43,240 do it, and I hope that in my work and 379 00:24:43,359 --> 00:24:48,160 the other Jewish anily philosophers are not going to this 380 00:24:48,359 --> 00:24:51,160 kind of way of approaching Jewish tradition. 381 00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:54,480 Speaker 1: Which is an excellent segue into the specific case study 382 00:24:54,519 --> 00:24:55,880 that I wanted to discuss today. 383 00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:59,440 Speaker 2: Which is the question of of truva. Right This is 384 00:24:59,640 --> 00:25:04,079 a penance right now. Again, this is something that as religious. 385 00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:06,880 Speaker 1: Jews, we're relatively familiar with something that you know that 386 00:25:06,920 --> 00:25:08,640 there's a certain time of year for it, and then 387 00:25:08,680 --> 00:25:11,720 you know days devoted to it and texts and et cetera, 388 00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:15,400 et cetera. But you approach it as some others. But 389 00:25:15,640 --> 00:25:17,440 specifically when you approach it. You aproach it as a 390 00:25:17,440 --> 00:25:20,319 philosophical puzzle. Let's say, so, can you lay out for 391 00:25:20,440 --> 00:25:22,920 us in relatively simple terms, what is the nature of 392 00:25:22,920 --> 00:25:24,519 this philosophical puzzle, like how. 393 00:25:25,799 --> 00:25:26,440 Speaker 2: How does it work? 394 00:25:26,440 --> 00:25:29,559 Speaker 1: And you know, what are the problems involved that require 395 00:25:30,000 --> 00:25:31,039 philosophical attention? 396 00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:36,079 Speaker 3: Okay, great, thank you. Just before delving into this kind 397 00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:38,839 of like my my paper about repentance, I want to 398 00:25:38,839 --> 00:25:41,519 have size that I'm not sure that this is the 399 00:25:41,519 --> 00:25:47,160 greatest example i've philosopher. Is just my kind of example 400 00:25:47,200 --> 00:25:50,400 that I worked on. So this is why we're delving 401 00:25:50,400 --> 00:25:51,039 into death. 402 00:25:51,160 --> 00:25:54,519 Speaker 2: Okay, why I asked, I asked you the question, but yeah, 403 00:25:54,640 --> 00:25:55,480 I agree, but it is. 404 00:25:55,559 --> 00:25:57,880 Speaker 1: It is I think an interesting case example, especially because 405 00:25:58,119 --> 00:26:00,920 there are those previously, like you know famously round salivation 406 00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:01,640 and others who. 407 00:26:01,480 --> 00:26:03,240 Speaker 2: Have found within this topic. 408 00:26:04,720 --> 00:26:09,880 Speaker 1: Philosophical dimensions which you know are of interest and wouldn't 409 00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:12,440 initially strike the reader, but but a deep thought about 410 00:26:12,480 --> 00:26:15,240 the possibilities of repentance of what that means in fact 411 00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:19,599 is I don't know, there are the philosophical hefts to this, 412 00:26:19,759 --> 00:26:21,440 so as well of your exploration. 413 00:26:22,319 --> 00:26:26,519 Speaker 3: Okay, So the puzzle, as I see it is themes 414 00:26:26,519 --> 00:26:30,960 from three propositions that are intentioned with one another. Okay. 415 00:26:31,359 --> 00:26:33,759 The one is that the past cannot be changed. Okay, 416 00:26:33,759 --> 00:26:38,920 everyone almost everyone accepted one cannot change the past. Okay. 417 00:26:39,759 --> 00:26:44,240 The second proposition is something like guilt concerns action or 418 00:26:44,640 --> 00:26:47,720 intention that occurred in the past. Okay. So if I'm 419 00:26:47,720 --> 00:26:50,079 guilty of something or guilty of something I did or 420 00:26:50,079 --> 00:26:55,400 I intended to do, so it's something in the past. Okay. 421 00:26:55,720 --> 00:27:01,559 And the third proposition as yields can be shd okay. 422 00:27:01,680 --> 00:27:05,519 So Truvia's possible, repentance is possible. One can do chuva. So, 423 00:27:05,559 --> 00:27:08,880 according to this view, repentance is a mechanism to shed 424 00:27:08,880 --> 00:27:12,160 out guilt. Okay, I have some guilt, I do juvai, 425 00:27:12,319 --> 00:27:15,960 I repent and then I'm no longer have this kind 426 00:27:15,960 --> 00:27:18,880 of guilt. But if you're rased that the past gonna 427 00:27:18,920 --> 00:27:23,920 be changed and the guilties on the past, it kind 428 00:27:23,920 --> 00:27:28,119 of follows that repentance is impossible. Okay. So this is 429 00:27:28,160 --> 00:27:32,720 the three propositions, and this is the puzzle. And when 430 00:27:32,759 --> 00:27:38,559 philosophers deals with puzzles, okay, like this, the only options 431 00:27:38,559 --> 00:27:41,759 that we have. If there's indeed a contradiction, when the 432 00:27:41,839 --> 00:27:45,480 three proposition is to reject one of the propositions. And 433 00:27:45,519 --> 00:27:48,039 what I try to do in my paper is to 434 00:27:48,079 --> 00:27:53,839 investigate how different Jewish philosophers or different Jewish streams rejected 435 00:27:54,079 --> 00:27:58,799 each one of this propositions. So, for example, there are 436 00:27:59,240 --> 00:28:04,240 a couple of cabalistic and also Assidic thinkers that rejected 437 00:28:04,279 --> 00:28:07,519 the first premise that the past cannot be changed. They thought, 438 00:28:07,599 --> 00:28:11,079 no one can change the past, and true repentance is 439 00:28:11,119 --> 00:28:15,440 exactly the cases where one can change the past. So 440 00:28:15,559 --> 00:28:18,440 and I think it's in the in the bad world. 441 00:28:18,960 --> 00:28:22,599 This is the dominant view of the nature repentance. So 442 00:28:22,680 --> 00:28:28,240 you can find places where where the Lubabbe writes explicitly 443 00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:35,039 that one when one repent one truly changing metaphysically the past. 444 00:28:35,039 --> 00:28:37,400 It's not like kind of a metaphor they are using 445 00:28:38,720 --> 00:28:42,480 kind of midrash says. There's a famous saying saying in 446 00:28:42,519 --> 00:28:46,039 the table that if anyone says that David does sin, 447 00:28:46,480 --> 00:28:51,440 he's mistaken, or according to different reads, he's not mistaken. 448 00:28:51,480 --> 00:28:56,000 He's also a sinner himself. Okay, And now the course, 449 00:28:56,039 --> 00:28:59,799 that is why you can read it that David does 450 00:29:00,039 --> 00:29:05,000 it seems like a historical fact. And the explanation here 451 00:29:05,279 --> 00:29:10,519 goes along those lines. David has repent, and from the 452 00:29:10,519 --> 00:29:16,160 moment he was repent, he never has said he changes 453 00:29:16,640 --> 00:29:21,279 the history. So when we moved backwards the movie of 454 00:29:21,319 --> 00:29:25,160 the history, we will not find the moment when David 455 00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:27,559 has said so, it's only in the story, but it's 456 00:29:28,000 --> 00:29:31,880 never happened. So, according to this view, repent is a 457 00:29:31,920 --> 00:29:36,599 metaphysical mechanism to change the past. Okay, so this is 458 00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:40,240 one view I myself cannot endorse it because it's kind 459 00:29:40,240 --> 00:29:44,279 of whack up for me. I'm not going to that 460 00:29:44,359 --> 00:29:46,880 kind of well thinking. By the way, Sam Libbins that 461 00:29:46,920 --> 00:29:50,200 I mentioned earlier, has this view that one can change 462 00:29:50,240 --> 00:29:53,359 the past. God can change the past, and so he's 463 00:29:53,440 --> 00:29:55,720 done with in any problem with that. 464 00:29:56,440 --> 00:29:58,119 Speaker 1: We had him on the show before, so we may 465 00:29:59,000 --> 00:30:02,440 we may dragging back on and demoded an explanation from him. 466 00:30:04,160 --> 00:30:08,240 Speaker 3: So you can you can, you can it's eight episode. 467 00:30:08,279 --> 00:30:10,160 Speaker 1: Exactly as the producers of this podcast, we can go 468 00:30:10,160 --> 00:30:13,880 back into the episode and sort of you know, uh yeah. 469 00:30:13,599 --> 00:30:19,440 Speaker 3: Exactly, Okay, yeah. One one other view that I'm exploring 470 00:30:19,880 --> 00:30:23,119 is the rejection that repentance, as I laid it out, 471 00:30:23,319 --> 00:30:27,039 is possible. So a couple of really readers of my 472 00:30:27,119 --> 00:30:32,839 monitis thought that his thought about repentance, he's only forward looking. 473 00:30:33,200 --> 00:30:38,119 One cannot shed out guilt, okay, one, Once you you 474 00:30:38,200 --> 00:30:41,559 are you are guilty of something you sinned. You cannot 475 00:30:41,599 --> 00:30:44,720 do anything about that. You can do other good things 476 00:30:45,119 --> 00:30:49,160 that will balance it, but you cannot shed out guilt. 477 00:30:50,160 --> 00:30:56,599 When he when he writes about repentance in his he 478 00:30:56,680 --> 00:30:59,480 gave this example. What one second, I will find it. 479 00:31:00,400 --> 00:31:03,599 A person should always look at himself as equally balanced 480 00:31:03,599 --> 00:31:07,400 between merit and sin, and the world has equally balanced 481 00:31:07,400 --> 00:31:10,240 between merit and sin. If he performed one sin, he 482 00:31:10,279 --> 00:31:13,680 tips his balance and that of the entire world to 483 00:31:13,839 --> 00:31:17,400 the side of guilt and brings the instructure upon himself. 484 00:31:17,839 --> 00:31:20,279 On the other hand, if you perform on mitzvah, he 485 00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:23,240 tips his balance and that of the entire world the 486 00:31:23,279 --> 00:31:27,359 side of merit and brings deliverance and salvation to himself 487 00:31:27,519 --> 00:31:30,680 and others. So this is a famous quote for my monds. 488 00:31:31,039 --> 00:31:36,039 And here if he thought that shutting out guilt is possible, 489 00:31:36,519 --> 00:31:40,599 he should make it as an option. So if the 490 00:31:40,599 --> 00:31:44,720 world is balanced, okay, there are two ways you can 491 00:31:44,839 --> 00:31:48,359 change the balance. You can do a mitzvah and you 492 00:31:48,400 --> 00:31:51,799 can shed out guilt you can take out, but he 493 00:31:51,880 --> 00:31:54,599 is not taking it as an option. All you can 494 00:31:54,680 --> 00:31:57,039 do is do more mits fault, so you can balance 495 00:31:57,079 --> 00:32:00,440 it out in the future, but you cannot share your 496 00:32:01,400 --> 00:32:04,440 guilt from the past. Okay. So, accord to this view, 497 00:32:04,880 --> 00:32:10,680 repentance as a mechanismity to shout out guilt is impossible. 498 00:32:11,559 --> 00:32:16,160 Repentance is something else. But towards that of the paper, 499 00:32:16,359 --> 00:32:19,319 I'm suggesting a different view, and this view will reject 500 00:32:19,400 --> 00:32:24,160 the second proposition I claimed before, the guilt is considered 501 00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:28,079 action and intention occurs in the past. In order to present 502 00:32:28,240 --> 00:32:33,599 this view, I'm using the work of the analytic philosopher 503 00:32:34,000 --> 00:32:37,799 Derek Parford. So Derek Parford wrote wrote a lot about 504 00:32:39,240 --> 00:32:43,599 personal identity. So in his famous book Reasons and Persons, 505 00:32:43,839 --> 00:32:46,240 he deals a lot with the metaphysics of personal identity 506 00:32:46,440 --> 00:32:52,839 and its relation with ethical questions. So one way to 507 00:32:53,319 --> 00:32:57,200 present it is to present the whole discussion is imagine 508 00:32:57,200 --> 00:33:01,200 you were encountering the picture of of you in the 509 00:33:01,240 --> 00:33:05,920 first grade and you're asking yourself is this me? It 510 00:33:06,000 --> 00:33:09,480 seems that the right answer will be just yes, yeah, 511 00:33:09,640 --> 00:33:13,839 it's you, I know, twenty or thirty years ago. And 512 00:33:13,920 --> 00:33:17,400 if you take some other person picture and ask if 513 00:33:17,400 --> 00:33:22,440 this you the answer will be plately no, but Parfitt, 514 00:33:23,400 --> 00:33:27,039 following many thought experiments and like a lot of like 515 00:33:27,440 --> 00:33:31,400 philosophical discussion about it, try to give us a different 516 00:33:31,480 --> 00:33:34,400 kind of answer. You tried to argue that maybe the 517 00:33:34,400 --> 00:33:38,119 answer is not yes or no but quite a bit 518 00:33:38,799 --> 00:33:42,480 not entirely. Okay, So the quest whether I am the 519 00:33:42,519 --> 00:33:46,119 same person as the person I was in first grade, 520 00:33:46,759 --> 00:33:50,079 the answer will be something non binar kind of answer. 521 00:33:50,440 --> 00:33:53,960 I will I just for accuracy, partly said it that 522 00:33:54,119 --> 00:33:58,960 about personal identity, but what we should care about personal identity? 523 00:33:59,359 --> 00:34:02,119 So never mind, I will not go into details. A 524 00:34:02,319 --> 00:34:06,799 very analytical fight greating details over here. But he's not 525 00:34:06,839 --> 00:34:09,920 saying it about personal identity, but about what we care 526 00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:11,000 about personal deity. 527 00:34:11,400 --> 00:34:16,119 Speaker 2: And yeah, no, I was just say, don't have let 528 00:34:16,119 --> 00:34:16,599 me explain. 529 00:34:16,840 --> 00:34:21,320 Speaker 1: So what what would be the main problem involved in 530 00:34:21,360 --> 00:34:24,159 asserting the personal identity? Let's say, well, why are you 531 00:34:24,159 --> 00:34:26,079 an issue saying oh, I'm just the same person and 532 00:34:26,800 --> 00:34:27,800 as I was in first grade? 533 00:34:27,840 --> 00:34:29,840 Speaker 2: Like why am I not? Is it because I don't 534 00:34:29,840 --> 00:34:30,400 a memory of it? 535 00:34:30,639 --> 00:34:34,079 Speaker 1: Because what is the what's the issue of of sort 536 00:34:34,079 --> 00:34:37,960 of assessing just one continuous personal identity because it's important 537 00:34:37,960 --> 00:34:39,079 for your your article and true. 538 00:34:39,159 --> 00:34:42,800 Speaker 3: Actually yeah yeah. So classically there are like two main 539 00:34:42,880 --> 00:34:46,679 views about personal identity. One is the more psychological one 540 00:34:46,960 --> 00:34:50,880 and one is the more theological one. The psychological one 541 00:34:50,920 --> 00:34:56,119 will say, I am my thoughts, my feeling, my character. 542 00:34:56,880 --> 00:35:01,159 And Locke has the John Locke, very philosopher, has this 543 00:35:01,239 --> 00:35:04,519 famous thought experiment if a prince and a lay people 544 00:35:04,880 --> 00:35:10,360 would will change their psychological state. Okay, So the thought 545 00:35:10,440 --> 00:35:12,519 that the character of the prince will go into the 546 00:35:12,559 --> 00:35:15,039 lay person and the lay person will go into the 547 00:35:15,159 --> 00:35:18,440 body of the prince. Where is now the prince and 548 00:35:18,440 --> 00:35:23,000 where is now the lay person? And it's pretty natural 549 00:35:23,079 --> 00:35:26,559 for many of us to say, no, the prince moved 550 00:35:26,880 --> 00:35:31,199 to the body of the lay person and the layperson 551 00:35:31,280 --> 00:35:34,400 moved to the body of the prince. This means that 552 00:35:34,800 --> 00:35:39,519 what we are is our psychology or something. A lot 553 00:35:39,559 --> 00:35:42,440 of this lines okay, So this is the psychological kind 554 00:35:42,480 --> 00:35:46,679 of view, and the biological kind of view is no, 555 00:35:46,880 --> 00:35:51,320 we are our body and we are in the Locke 556 00:35:51,400 --> 00:35:56,119 thought experiment, the prince stays the princes body, okay. And 557 00:35:56,159 --> 00:35:59,440 there are many arguments for each views, and there are 558 00:35:59,599 --> 00:36:04,280 eventween views and their additional views but according to many 559 00:36:04,320 --> 00:36:09,039 of these views, it seems that we are constantly changing. 560 00:36:09,440 --> 00:36:12,239 So when I'm asking whether I am the same person 561 00:36:12,360 --> 00:36:14,639 I was in the first grade, I don't have the 562 00:36:14,679 --> 00:36:17,440 same body. I have similar body, but I don't have 563 00:36:17,480 --> 00:36:20,000 the same body, and I don't have the same psychology. 564 00:36:20,719 --> 00:36:23,559 So I'm not the same person. But if you don't 565 00:36:23,559 --> 00:36:26,639 want to say that I'm just not the same person, 566 00:36:27,880 --> 00:36:30,440 you can say, as Parfect says, Okay, maybe I'm not 567 00:36:30,519 --> 00:36:33,599 the same person, but I'm quite the same and there's 568 00:36:33,800 --> 00:36:39,360 similarities between me and me and me at first grade. 569 00:36:39,559 --> 00:36:42,760 By the way, there are also similarities between me and 570 00:36:42,800 --> 00:36:46,119 someone else in first grade. Okay, So the whole boundaries 571 00:36:46,199 --> 00:36:51,000 between people, according to the perfitting kind of worldview kind 572 00:36:51,039 --> 00:36:55,840 of fade away. So he has this kind of weird 573 00:36:55,920 --> 00:37:00,440 metaphysical view that people are similar in some sences to others, 574 00:37:00,440 --> 00:37:04,559 are dacimo to others, but there's no like binary way 575 00:37:04,559 --> 00:37:05,800 of thinking of personally the. 576 00:37:06,559 --> 00:37:10,360 Speaker 1: Right okay, so so then so so with that introduction 577 00:37:10,480 --> 00:37:13,719 in the backgroun, let's let's return to the particular conundrum. 578 00:37:13,760 --> 00:37:16,440 Speaker 2: So you have these three seemingly. 579 00:37:16,800 --> 00:37:20,280 Speaker 1: Incompatible propositions regarding Tuba, regarding the possibility of changing the 580 00:37:20,280 --> 00:37:22,079 past if you are in fact the same person. 581 00:37:22,920 --> 00:37:23,719 Speaker 2: And so and so. 582 00:37:23,800 --> 00:37:26,079 Speaker 1: Yeah, So how does this I don't know how to, 583 00:37:26,239 --> 00:37:29,559 It's just so, how does your particular view of personal 584 00:37:29,559 --> 00:37:33,719 identity help with the question of what tuba is or isn't, 585 00:37:33,880 --> 00:37:34,920 or how it works or doesn't? 586 00:37:35,639 --> 00:37:40,599 Speaker 3: Okay? So what once your accept approach similar to perfect 587 00:37:40,719 --> 00:37:44,800 kind of personal identity, you can think something like repentance 588 00:37:45,480 --> 00:37:51,159 is the active davor to changing yourself. So the guilty 589 00:37:51,199 --> 00:37:54,719 is in the past, okay, and the past cannot be changed, 590 00:37:55,199 --> 00:37:59,280 but you can be changed. Therefore, if I changed, I'm 591 00:37:59,400 --> 00:38:02,239 no more like, I'm not guilty anymore of what I 592 00:38:02,239 --> 00:38:06,679 did because it's not me, it's him, It's a different person. Okay. 593 00:38:07,280 --> 00:38:12,480 So repentance is a wave of changing yourself. So the 594 00:38:12,519 --> 00:38:16,280 parts of yourself that the war we're guilty is no 595 00:38:16,360 --> 00:38:19,599 longer parts of yourself. So this is like using perfect 596 00:38:19,719 --> 00:38:24,000 kind of thinking and embracing it into the world of repentance. 597 00:38:24,480 --> 00:38:27,440 After we I have this kind of thought. After reading 598 00:38:28,000 --> 00:38:33,400 perfect I went back to the George tradition and actually 599 00:38:33,440 --> 00:38:36,280 found that there are many places you can find this 600 00:38:36,440 --> 00:38:41,039 kind of thinking and writing about repentance. Repentance is changing yourself. 601 00:38:41,199 --> 00:38:44,800 So one great example again from my monoliths, so it's 602 00:38:45,320 --> 00:38:49,159 presenting here another and different reading of my monodis and 603 00:38:49,199 --> 00:38:53,000 repentance is when he writes about the nature of repentance. 604 00:38:53,400 --> 00:38:56,880 He writes, and I'm quoting it now, among the paths 605 00:38:56,920 --> 00:39:02,519 of repentance is for the petitionaire petition to constantly call 606 00:39:02,559 --> 00:39:07,519 out before God, crying and entertaining, to perform charity according 607 00:39:07,559 --> 00:39:11,840 to his potential, to separate himself far from the object 608 00:39:12,239 --> 00:39:14,880 of his sin. And here comes out poor parts to 609 00:39:14,960 --> 00:39:17,760 exchange his name, as if to say, I am a 610 00:39:17,800 --> 00:39:21,800 different person and not the same who are sin? Okay, 611 00:39:22,199 --> 00:39:25,440 So here seems that my mind is explicitly say a 612 00:39:25,519 --> 00:39:29,119 repentant like a repented person who is someone who is 613 00:39:29,199 --> 00:39:32,800 not the same person as he was, as he's said. 614 00:39:33,079 --> 00:39:35,199 So I'm not sure if to read my mind is 615 00:39:35,719 --> 00:39:40,559 here as using metaphorical kind of language or metaphysical language 616 00:39:40,599 --> 00:39:43,880 as perfect using. But I think it's a very interesting 617 00:39:43,960 --> 00:39:48,719 way to look about repentance. So this is only one example. Again, 618 00:39:48,800 --> 00:39:53,159 Roberts Lavechik has a similar kind of writing, and also 619 00:39:53,159 --> 00:39:55,199 in the table you can find a lot of saying 620 00:39:55,239 --> 00:39:58,960 about repentance that echoes this kind of you and perfect 621 00:39:59,599 --> 00:40:03,360 enable us and help us to articulate it in a 622 00:40:03,519 --> 00:40:08,400 very clear and also convincing way. So in this kind 623 00:40:08,440 --> 00:40:11,159 of podcast, I can I go into the details, but 624 00:40:11,440 --> 00:40:16,360 part of it really gives us a good analytic arguments 625 00:40:16,360 --> 00:40:20,840 in favors views, and once you're embrace it, the view 626 00:40:20,840 --> 00:40:24,800 of repentance here seems kind of natural and really reasonable. 627 00:40:26,599 --> 00:40:29,320 Speaker 1: Is this is very interesting? I have two questions on this. 628 00:40:30,760 --> 00:40:33,719 One is it's an interest question. Is that when you 629 00:40:33,760 --> 00:40:36,719 talk about changing personal identity, do you mean that this 630 00:40:36,840 --> 00:40:41,360 is undertaken sort of naturalistically or supernaturalistically. In other words, 631 00:40:42,199 --> 00:40:44,400 it is your position that through a pros of repentance, 632 00:40:45,039 --> 00:40:50,519 you sort of change your attitude and mindset and you know, 633 00:40:50,559 --> 00:40:53,119 intentions about the future such that you may in fact 634 00:40:53,119 --> 00:40:56,239 be considered substantively different to the person that you were 635 00:40:56,280 --> 00:40:59,159 when you sit there. Therefore, repentance works just because you 636 00:40:59,199 --> 00:41:01,480 aren't guilty any because you're just not that that same person. 637 00:41:01,599 --> 00:41:03,559 Similar to let's say someone who's been in prison for 638 00:41:03,599 --> 00:41:05,320 a long time and is repentance and is released on 639 00:41:05,360 --> 00:41:07,599 parole because we assume, oh, he's not so bad anymore, 640 00:41:07,599 --> 00:41:09,000 he's you know, learn his lesson. That sort of thing, 641 00:41:09,679 --> 00:41:12,320 or do you mean it in or not you? Or 642 00:41:12,320 --> 00:41:14,719 like did do you imagine that truva functions in such 643 00:41:14,719 --> 00:41:16,880 a way it's like supernaturally? No, we say different person 644 00:41:16,880 --> 00:41:20,039 a ten mean that like God effectuates a miracle as 645 00:41:20,039 --> 00:41:23,440 it were, and grants you this kind of new life 646 00:41:23,440 --> 00:41:25,599 in which you're not the same person and therefore don't have. 647 00:41:25,960 --> 00:41:29,519 Speaker 2: Don't have the guilt that's clinging to you from the past. 648 00:41:29,559 --> 00:41:31,320 You see what I mean. It's it seems to be. 649 00:41:31,320 --> 00:41:33,719 It can be taken in need of direction. But it's 650 00:41:33,760 --> 00:41:34,480 all your thoughts on this. 651 00:41:35,280 --> 00:41:38,360 Speaker 3: Okay, So part of it himself was an eighties as 652 00:41:38,360 --> 00:41:43,119 far as I know, so it always been accept his view. 653 00:41:43,159 --> 00:41:47,880 You don't need God in the picture, okay. Repentance is 654 00:41:47,920 --> 00:41:54,239 a natural phenomenon, so God does not give needs to 655 00:41:54,239 --> 00:41:57,760 give us the gift of repentance, so to say we 656 00:41:57,800 --> 00:42:01,039 can just repent, and I don't think it's up bad 657 00:42:02,320 --> 00:42:07,880 feature of this explanation. Repentance as a natural phenomenon, and 658 00:42:07,960 --> 00:42:12,360 in the Revetish realm, it's really important because we sometimes 659 00:42:12,360 --> 00:42:16,639 sin and we want our mechanism to shout out our guilt. 660 00:42:17,239 --> 00:42:20,280 So yeah, my approach is going to the more natural 661 00:42:20,280 --> 00:42:20,639 way of. 662 00:42:20,599 --> 00:42:22,239 Speaker 2: Explaining things interesting. 663 00:42:22,360 --> 00:42:24,320 Speaker 1: The second question I have on this is sort of 664 00:42:24,559 --> 00:42:27,000 it's more broad implications. Let's say you are correct that 665 00:42:27,000 --> 00:42:30,880 truva should be understood as a kind of mechanism that 666 00:42:30,960 --> 00:42:33,639 allows you to assume or assumes that you assume a 667 00:42:33,679 --> 00:42:36,320 new personal identity free from the burdens of the past. 668 00:42:36,480 --> 00:42:40,440 So what are some broader implications of this, uh, for 669 00:42:40,840 --> 00:42:46,280 questions such as forgiveness, punishment, moral responsibility. And the second 670 00:42:46,320 --> 00:42:49,480 question I wanted to approach is just on on the 671 00:42:50,000 --> 00:42:52,079 implications of this particular view of truvie and other words, 672 00:42:52,119 --> 00:42:55,400 if you if it is in fact the case that 673 00:42:55,880 --> 00:42:59,280 the mechanism works in such a manner as to give 674 00:42:59,320 --> 00:43:02,559 one a new idea entity, or to allow them to yeah, 675 00:43:02,840 --> 00:43:05,800 assume basically a new self, as it were, So then 676 00:43:06,280 --> 00:43:08,480 what do you think are the broader implications of this 677 00:43:08,559 --> 00:43:11,559 for things like forgiveness, moral responsibility? 678 00:43:11,559 --> 00:43:12,079 Speaker 2: Inwards? 679 00:43:12,719 --> 00:43:17,480 Speaker 1: How does this portrait of this concept? What are the 680 00:43:17,599 --> 00:43:21,639 ramifications of this philosophically? And I guess religiously, you know, 681 00:43:21,719 --> 00:43:22,679 more broadly. 682 00:43:22,519 --> 00:43:26,519 Speaker 3: Tarlin speaking, I would be very cautious about implying this 683 00:43:26,960 --> 00:43:33,400 views view on different realms. So forgiveness or maybe about blame, 684 00:43:34,480 --> 00:43:40,079 blameworthyness in the legal kind of world. So my view 685 00:43:40,119 --> 00:43:44,400 is about repentance and applying it on different realms. It's complicated. 686 00:43:44,760 --> 00:43:48,239 For example, if you think something like want to forgive, 687 00:43:49,199 --> 00:43:52,639 if the other one who sent is repentant, it seems 688 00:43:52,719 --> 00:43:57,679 kind of wrong because person of forgiveness. It's really about 689 00:43:57,760 --> 00:44:01,719 a lot of psychological kind of things. So if I've 690 00:44:01,840 --> 00:44:06,519 changed changed. Let's say I harmed you, okay, and I 691 00:44:06,559 --> 00:44:10,079 did Juvie repented and I changed, I'm not the same person, 692 00:44:10,400 --> 00:44:13,880 but you are still very hurt. The course, whether you 693 00:44:13,920 --> 00:44:17,039 should forgive or not, it's not only a metaphysical question 694 00:44:17,079 --> 00:44:20,840 about what I change, What is my personal identity or not? Okay, 695 00:44:21,039 --> 00:44:23,960 So they may be connection between the two, but I 696 00:44:23,960 --> 00:44:30,800 will be very cautious in implying directly from repentance to forgiveness. 697 00:44:31,199 --> 00:44:33,760 I will say the same thing about I don't know 698 00:44:34,039 --> 00:44:38,360 the world of justice of legal justice. Okay. So John 699 00:44:38,440 --> 00:44:44,519 Locke famously said that if someone really don't remember doing something, 700 00:44:44,800 --> 00:44:48,760 he cannot be accused of that, okay, because he is 701 00:44:48,800 --> 00:44:52,079 not the same person. Because of the ideas of John 702 00:44:52,119 --> 00:44:56,599 Locke had about personal identity. This view is kind of crazy, okay, 703 00:44:57,159 --> 00:45:00,880 because it seems as again, if this view is true 704 00:45:01,199 --> 00:45:03,199 and we embrace it on the perfitting kind of view, 705 00:45:04,000 --> 00:45:06,880 what the judge needs to do is to do metaphysics 706 00:45:07,440 --> 00:45:10,800 and to ask whether I'm the same person or not. Again, 707 00:45:10,840 --> 00:45:14,239 I'm not saying it's not relevant at all, but I 708 00:45:14,639 --> 00:45:18,000 will again I'm will be very cautious of implying it 709 00:45:18,559 --> 00:45:22,239 in different realms. I must also say that my view 710 00:45:22,280 --> 00:45:25,400 has I emphasize this the pros, but there are a 711 00:45:25,400 --> 00:45:28,480 lot of cones to my views. So, for example, it 712 00:45:28,559 --> 00:45:31,440 seems that if I'm not the same person, I'm not 713 00:45:31,480 --> 00:45:34,599 guilty anymore if the thing I have done in the past, 714 00:45:35,519 --> 00:45:38,199 but I'm not praise of word anymore for the good 715 00:45:38,199 --> 00:45:40,400 things I've done in the past, And this seems kind 716 00:45:40,400 --> 00:45:43,000 of weird. Again, if you go to the perfiting kind 717 00:45:43,000 --> 00:45:45,480 of view, I can change the part of myself of 718 00:45:45,840 --> 00:45:50,599 myself are guilty and not change the part of myself 719 00:45:50,719 --> 00:45:53,960 that are praise word. So this is maybe a solution 720 00:45:54,000 --> 00:45:56,719 to this kind of puzzle, but it just what's just 721 00:45:57,159 --> 00:46:01,599 one example. I think there are many puzzles that embracing 722 00:46:01,639 --> 00:46:06,239 this kind of view will bring bring us. So this 723 00:46:06,320 --> 00:46:07,800 view is not It's not perfect at all. 724 00:46:08,440 --> 00:46:12,239 Speaker 1: Right, so so so, so, uh, let's elaborate that sort 725 00:46:12,239 --> 00:46:15,280 of what do you think is the usefulness of this, 726 00:46:15,599 --> 00:46:18,159 uh of the solution here, Like you mentioned, it will 727 00:46:18,159 --> 00:46:19,000 solve other things. 728 00:46:19,199 --> 00:46:20,239 Speaker 2: What kind of things would it solve? 729 00:46:20,920 --> 00:46:24,119 Speaker 3: One thing it solves if if it's correct, of course, yes, 730 00:46:27,320 --> 00:46:30,639 it solves the question what is repentance? How repentants? For? 731 00:46:31,159 --> 00:46:34,599 How can I shed out guilt and without changing the past? 732 00:46:35,079 --> 00:46:37,719 So this is one thing it's solved. And if you 733 00:46:37,760 --> 00:46:41,840 are religious person and you really care about repentance, or 734 00:46:42,000 --> 00:46:46,320 you really care about understanding my modernists and I'm offering 735 00:46:46,400 --> 00:46:48,880 a new reading of a monodis so maybe i'm I'm 736 00:46:48,920 --> 00:46:51,840 I mean so also helps us to understand my monolis 737 00:46:52,440 --> 00:46:55,800 Here we need also to use other tools, like phological tools, 738 00:46:55,840 --> 00:46:58,519 historical tools to see whether it's plausible to think that 739 00:46:58,679 --> 00:47:02,079 my mona is really thought that way. But in those 740 00:47:02,800 --> 00:47:07,519 kind of questions, I think my kind of answer helped us. 741 00:47:07,559 --> 00:47:08,000 Speaker 2: Interesting. 742 00:47:08,679 --> 00:47:11,639 Speaker 1: Okay, fine, So I guess what is left to ask 743 00:47:11,719 --> 00:47:14,320 you is just you know, what do you see on 744 00:47:14,360 --> 00:47:17,599 the horizon. So it seems to me that this interaction 745 00:47:17,679 --> 00:47:21,719 between analytic philosophy and religion in general, as you mentioned, 746 00:47:21,920 --> 00:47:25,159 planting and others, but certainly within the religious tradition of 747 00:47:25,239 --> 00:47:27,880 Judaism is relatively young. So you mentioned some names that 748 00:47:27,880 --> 00:47:29,519 Sam Libins is one of them. There are a few others 749 00:47:29,559 --> 00:47:32,400 who sort of trains in this analytical school and wish 750 00:47:32,440 --> 00:47:36,199 to apply the terminology and the methodology that they have 751 00:47:36,519 --> 00:47:39,599 to questions and ideas within within Judaism. 752 00:47:39,760 --> 00:47:42,159 Speaker 2: So where do you see this going? Like what other 753 00:47:42,239 --> 00:47:44,320 big topics that ought to. 754 00:47:45,840 --> 00:47:48,280 Speaker 1: That there ought to be that are next sort of 755 00:47:48,280 --> 00:47:51,039 on the on the menu of the engagement between these 756 00:47:51,119 --> 00:47:54,360 these two U these I don't know the methods of 757 00:47:54,360 --> 00:47:57,519 analytical philosophy and Judaism, you know, Yeah, where does the 758 00:47:57,559 --> 00:47:59,559 engagement go from here? And is there sort of a 759 00:47:59,639 --> 00:48:02,679 natural limits of this or is this, I don't know, 760 00:48:02,679 --> 00:48:05,280 an ongoing project with with no with no end. 761 00:48:05,599 --> 00:48:10,320 Speaker 3: Okay. What I'm thinking about the encounter between ant philosophy 762 00:48:10,400 --> 00:48:13,599 and the Jewish world, I'm thinking of three different kind 763 00:48:13,639 --> 00:48:17,840 of encounters and and I'm I'm thinking it as an 764 00:48:17,840 --> 00:48:22,400 academic three kind of way of developing this kind of 765 00:48:22,880 --> 00:48:27,679 research project. One is historical, Okay, So there are many 766 00:48:28,320 --> 00:48:34,360 scholars who wrote about the influence of continental philosophy or 767 00:48:34,480 --> 00:48:39,760 I mean Thellian philosophy or kantient philosophy and the Jewish world. Okay, 768 00:48:41,119 --> 00:48:44,000 the same kind of project can be implanted in this 769 00:48:44,119 --> 00:48:47,360 kind of case. So there is influence of analyte philosophy 770 00:48:47,400 --> 00:48:50,960 on Jewish philosophy. So as as I said before, the 771 00:48:51,159 --> 00:48:56,440 Fiata Circle is the kind of founder group of analytic philosophers. 772 00:48:56,719 --> 00:49:01,000 And among this group there were there was uh Jewish 773 00:49:01,000 --> 00:49:05,639 philosopher Joseph Schefter, who was a rabbi and after after 774 00:49:05,840 --> 00:49:09,880 the Fantas Circle broke apart, he bade to Israel and 775 00:49:09,960 --> 00:49:14,639 became like a religious, uh spiritual leader. But he's not 776 00:49:14,679 --> 00:49:18,079 only one. When you think about vich he's also a 777 00:49:18,079 --> 00:49:23,639 great example when when in one of the journalistic article 778 00:49:24,199 --> 00:49:28,639 once Child was asked who is the great philosopher who 779 00:49:29,239 --> 00:49:33,880 who was influenced him? And his answer was Breton Russell. 780 00:49:33,960 --> 00:49:38,880 And okay, so just one example. But he he didn't 781 00:49:38,880 --> 00:49:39,960 say about. 782 00:49:40,519 --> 00:49:43,760 Speaker 2: He didn't say that's really strange, that's really really strange, because. 783 00:49:43,519 --> 00:49:47,679 Speaker 3: That's yeah, I thought, people say content. 784 00:49:47,440 --> 00:49:51,119 Speaker 2: My models, Yeah, okay, everything. 785 00:49:54,239 --> 00:49:57,360 Speaker 3: When you think about Robbie Selo in his early writings, 786 00:49:57,559 --> 00:50:02,480 he discusses logical post and it was logical Posit was 787 00:50:02,480 --> 00:50:05,199 a part of the philosophy of the ant philosophy in 788 00:50:04,960 --> 00:50:10,960 the beginning of its development, and when you go on 789 00:50:12,119 --> 00:50:15,280 in time you find more and more Jewish thinkers that 790 00:50:15,320 --> 00:50:18,519 were really influence influenced by by a philosophers. I think 791 00:50:18,519 --> 00:50:22,639 the great example is Robbie Sacks. Robbie Sacks grew up 792 00:50:22,800 --> 00:50:28,159 in the UK, in Cambridge and Oxford, where any philosophy 793 00:50:28,400 --> 00:50:33,119 was the key kind of philosophy. And as advisor, we're 794 00:50:33,199 --> 00:50:37,039 kind of an only philosophers. And again today there are 795 00:50:37,079 --> 00:50:41,280 more and more Jewish ante philosophers. I don't want to 796 00:50:41,760 --> 00:50:44,320 go into the game of mentioning names because I will 797 00:50:44,519 --> 00:50:47,960 forget some. But just a couple of examples. Aaron Siegel 798 00:50:48,039 --> 00:50:51,199 one of my PhD advisor and and I'm I'm a 799 00:50:51,280 --> 00:50:55,559 real travid of him. He is a great analytic Jewish philosopher. 800 00:50:56,320 --> 00:51:01,559 Mosche Halbertal I'm also a student of his. He's also 801 00:51:01,639 --> 00:51:05,360 he's using Ani philosophy to develop his own kind of 802 00:51:05,639 --> 00:51:09,440 philosophy and reading of Jews text. So, as I said, 803 00:51:09,760 --> 00:51:13,679 the encounter between anti philosophy and jew philosophy has this 804 00:51:14,800 --> 00:51:19,320 historical they mentioned that need to be further investigated. One 805 00:51:19,400 --> 00:51:23,840 other field of the encounter between the two is hermonoudics. 806 00:51:24,400 --> 00:51:30,119 A lot of scholars use different methods of hermoneutics to 807 00:51:30,320 --> 00:51:34,920 read Jewish texts and Jewish ideas to interpret them. I 808 00:51:35,039 --> 00:51:40,920 think anaint philosophy gives us additional tools to read ancient texts, 809 00:51:41,320 --> 00:51:43,760 as I said, as I did now with repentance and 810 00:51:43,880 --> 00:51:47,440 my monolis and jabad, we can do the same thing 811 00:51:47,559 --> 00:51:50,599 and use the insight and the tools that anly philosophy 812 00:51:50,679 --> 00:51:56,079 give us to read and to present and to make 813 00:51:56,159 --> 00:51:59,480 sense of Jewish texts and ideas. So this is the 814 00:51:59,800 --> 00:52:03,920 kind of hermoneutical kind of project. The third kind of 815 00:52:03,960 --> 00:52:09,039 project that I'm thinking about is actually doing analytic Jewish philosophy. 816 00:52:09,880 --> 00:52:14,440 So as my body is did Aristilian kind of Jewish philosophy, 817 00:52:14,480 --> 00:52:17,639 and I don't know hermic Cohen did Kanty and jewishilosophy. 818 00:52:18,800 --> 00:52:22,960 Now there are many Jewish thinkers that are doing Jewish 819 00:52:23,000 --> 00:52:27,400 ant philosophy. So this is the three the mains that 820 00:52:27,480 --> 00:52:32,360 I think Jewish philosophy and analy philosophy and the Jewish 821 00:52:32,400 --> 00:52:37,440 vision can be enriching each other. And I hope it 822 00:52:37,519 --> 00:52:40,639 will be done more and more in the coming years. 823 00:52:41,400 --> 00:52:43,679 Speaker 1: Yes, I hope so too, because as you say, I 824 00:52:43,760 --> 00:52:47,599 think that as a school as a method of philosophy, 825 00:52:48,199 --> 00:52:54,119 it has a power to analyze, to deconstruct and reconstruct, 826 00:52:54,199 --> 00:52:57,599 to sort of penetrate bodies and systems of ideas that 827 00:52:58,360 --> 00:53:01,159 there's really unparallel. When it's properly one has done well, 828 00:53:01,679 --> 00:53:06,719 then the power of analytic philosophy to make sense of 829 00:53:07,039 --> 00:53:09,360 and to really get into it is how do you 830 00:53:09,400 --> 00:53:12,239 know if anyone is doing what we mentioned earlier, which 831 00:53:12,280 --> 00:53:15,320 is that sort of the the application or least similarities 832 00:53:15,360 --> 00:53:17,440 between analytics and let's say talmudik thinking. 833 00:53:18,039 --> 00:53:20,320 Speaker 2: In other words, you know other of. 834 00:53:20,360 --> 00:53:23,280 Speaker 1: Those who try and draw out the parallels or even 835 00:53:24,079 --> 00:53:28,000 into place between something like the methodologies of analytic philosophy 836 00:53:28,039 --> 00:53:33,159 and and analysis of texts of of the Gamara, the name, 837 00:53:33,159 --> 00:53:33,480 et cetera. 838 00:53:33,880 --> 00:53:36,239 Speaker 3: Yeah, as I said, I think that that the similarity 839 00:53:36,280 --> 00:53:39,599 is here is amazing between the Anad philosophy and how 840 00:53:39,639 --> 00:53:44,639 they approach things and and and and and there are 841 00:53:45,559 --> 00:53:47,840 I will not say many, but I will say several 842 00:53:47,960 --> 00:53:53,320 thinkers that embrace Ani philosophy in order to investigate ideas 843 00:53:53,480 --> 00:53:58,039 and and and texts from the Ala world. One example 844 00:53:58,320 --> 00:54:01,559 is again Aaron Siegel. He wrote a couple of papers 845 00:54:01,599 --> 00:54:05,840 about the better physics of a laca. Okay, So again 846 00:54:07,079 --> 00:54:11,000 I think philosophers don't like to ask the big question 847 00:54:11,000 --> 00:54:14,000 that at the beginning, okay, what is halaha? What is 848 00:54:14,360 --> 00:54:16,480 those kinds of things? Okay? We want to go into 849 00:54:17,039 --> 00:54:24,519 specific details of halaka okay, go again or or whatever 850 00:54:24,880 --> 00:54:27,159 and try to extract from that what do you need 851 00:54:27,239 --> 00:54:29,440 to assume in or to make sense of this a 852 00:54:29,679 --> 00:54:34,519 bunch of alacot so Arozia wrote about causality and aloha 853 00:54:34,960 --> 00:54:38,719 what is the the the notion that had in mind 854 00:54:39,079 --> 00:54:43,400 about how causation works and how time works, you know, 855 00:54:43,559 --> 00:54:46,920 to make sense of their rulings have a great fate 856 00:54:47,000 --> 00:54:50,039 of mine. Is Coin also wrote about the nature of 857 00:54:50,039 --> 00:54:54,039 a lakic rules, so how lakic rules are similar not 858 00:54:54,119 --> 00:54:58,119 similar to natural rules okay, to the rules of the 859 00:54:58,199 --> 00:55:01,320 natural world or to borrow rules, and we have different 860 00:55:01,400 --> 00:55:06,360 kind of rules. So there are a couple of scholars 861 00:55:06,400 --> 00:55:11,719 that are writing at this day about the connections, mostly 862 00:55:11,800 --> 00:55:15,159 the conceptual connection between the world of alaha and early philosophy. 863 00:55:15,400 --> 00:55:19,519 I also myself engage with such a project, and I 864 00:55:19,840 --> 00:55:21,920 think it's really really promising. 865 00:55:23,639 --> 00:55:27,679 Speaker 1: Yeah interesting, okay, fine, that is I think enough and 866 00:55:27,800 --> 00:55:29,119 more than enough to go on for the time being, 867 00:55:29,400 --> 00:55:31,280 Doctor nor Laarren, thank you so very much for joiny 868 00:55:31,320 --> 00:55:34,000 yesterday on the podcast Jewish Ideas. We look forward to 869 00:55:34,199 --> 00:55:38,000 seeing your fantastic work in this particular fruitful field in 870 00:55:38,039 --> 00:55:38,480 the future. 871 00:55:38,880 --> 00:55:40,960 Speaker 2: And yeah, I'll just speak to you again soon. 872 00:55:41,320 --> 00:55:42,400 Speaker 3: Thank you, Thank you very much. 873 00:55:44,159 --> 00:55:46,599 Speaker 1: This has been the podcast of Jewish Ideas by Toro 874 00:55:46,719 --> 00:55:50,039 in Motion, produced by Alisha Kellman and myself JJ Kimbrie, 875 00:55:50,599 --> 00:55:53,360 edited and mixed by Alisha Kelman. You can stay up 876 00:55:53,400 --> 00:55:55,920 to date by subscribing in your favorite podcast app. To 877 00:55:55,920 --> 00:55:58,599 support the more thoughtful Jewish content like this, please visit 878 00:55:58,679 --> 00:55:59,719 Toro in motion dot org. 879 00:56:00,000 --> 00:56:08,440 Speaker 3: Slash donated m