The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nietzsche

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Nostromo
You still care about what that schnauzer wannabe thought?

And you still haven't found analytical philosophy, as its name implies is, well, anal ?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Nietzsche

QFT

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


And you still haven't found analytical philosophy, as its name implies is, well, anal ?

That I sympathize with analytical philosophers doesn't mean that I'm one. And, yes, analytical philosophy can be anal. As a matter of fact, the guy who taught us ontology (in the analytical tradition) called it anal philosophy. And I don't believe there's a single analytical philosopher that I genuinely admire.

BTW, I recently finished On liberty by John Stuart Mill and its one of the best books I ever read. You won't like it, 'cause you're a commie. But he's one of the few philosophers I genuinely admire.

Individuality and even eccentricity is better than massive social uniformity. The latter is the consequence of both terror and tyranny. But it can also be the consequence of democracy. Influenced by de Tocqueville's analysis of American culture, Mill came to think that the chief danger of democracy is that of suppressing individual differences, and of allowing no genuine development of minority opinion and of minority forms of culture. Democracy might will impoverish the culture of the community by imposing a single and inflexible set of mass values. This form of government has the virtue of fostering intelligence, common moral standards, and happiness; but where the citizens are unfit and passive it can be an instrument for tyranny, perhaps of one, as with Louis Napoleon, or perhaps of the many. In general, the only reliable safeguard can be institutions, educational institutions in particular, that can ensure the development of individuals with personalities strong enough to resist such pressures. But other forms of social order are also called for. Thus, after the rebellion in 1837 in Canada he defended Lord Durham's recommendations for internal responsible self-government in the colonies, free on the whole from interference from the colonial power. But, where Lord Durham recommended a central government and the assimilation of the French population to the English, Mill defended the cultural interests of the French minority, and recommended a form of federal government as an institutional means to protect those interests. A federal form of government was finally secured with the British North America Act of 1867, which created Canada as a confederation. This Act was passed while Mill a member of Parliament.

No, I'm not a federalist. But federalism is better than assimiliation, no?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Nostromo
BTW, I recently finished On liberty by John Stuart Mill and its one of the best books I ever read.

It pwns

Mill pwns in general, as does Locke

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Nostromo
BTW, I recently finished On liberty by John Stuart Mill and its one of the best books I ever read. You won't like it, 'cause you're a commie. But he's one of the few philosophers I genuinely admire.

I read it three or so years ago and thought it was fine. I found his theory on moral utility to be BS though.

BTW, I'm not really a commie anymore, post-marxist/deconstructionist perhaps. Of Grammatology ranks in my personal top 3.

[Nostromo]

And Derrida is near the bottom of my list. Des goûts et des couleurs...

[Elok]

Re: The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What did God mean to tell Adam in the Genesis ?

a) Nietzsche believes that the Forbidden Fruit is the expression of the Jewish priest's fright of science, which would destroy the idea of God.
b) But a more commonsensical explanation would be that God told Adam that if he ****ed Eve, Eve would give birth and her ***** would hurt.

Which explanation is correct ?

They're both moronic. The correct answer is

c) Your life is perfect right now. You have no reason to lick the flagpole other than perversity. If you're going to be perverse, it's your call, but it's gonna hurt. I have warned you of this.

[Theben]

Option 3 should be 'Forbidden Fruit meets banana'.

[BeBMan]

Oh, more Nietzscheterror. Wasn't he a racist anyway?

[Heraclitus]

Der Nietzschespam

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Nostromo
On liberty by John Stuart Mill

Good book, I'm kind of fond of utilitarianism myself. It does have several problems though.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Wasn't he a racist anyway?

You're not serious.

But if you were my answer would be:
No.

[Elok]

Incredibly misogynist, yes, but not racist.

[lord of the mark]

On-line Tanach Class
Chavah [Eve] and the Tree

Chavah and the Tree, Week I

Hello,

Introduction
This is the first week of our sixth e-mail topic, that of Chavah and the Tree. For those joining in here, I offer a brief introduction to our method.

We are trying to examine events recorded in the Torah by looking at two tracks: Peshat (literal reading) and Derash (analytic reading). We have stated as a "given" that both of these methods require a type of Masorah (tradition).

-nip-

Everything, down to the letters of the alphabet, require a tradition. Even a dictionary, the basis for a "literal reading," requires a tradition. As such, a Peshat reading has no more claim to "truth" or "accuracy" than does a Derash reading, so long as both cling to a tradition, a Masorah.

Our goal is to find out more about what goes into a Peshat reading, and into a Derash reading. We have been trying to develop this by taking Ibn Ezra as an exemplar of Peshat, and Rashi as an exemplar of Derash, and learning our way through various events in the Torah with an eye toward what made Ibn Ezra and Rashi say what they said.


-snip-

Chavah and the Tree: An Overview
As we have done with previous topics, we began by looking at the actual Pesukim talking about the event. It would likely help to have a Chumash handy.

I believe that in order to understand why Chavah ate from the tree, we actually need to answer three questions:

1. What was the tree supposed to be?
2. Why did the Nachash want Chavah to eat?
3. Why did Chavah want to eat from the tree?

Therefore, we begin by looking at four different sections from the Torah:

1. Creation of the Tree (Bereishis 2:8-9)
2. The Command Not to Eat from the Tree (Bereishis 2:16-17)
3. Eating from the Tree (Bereishis 3:1-7)
4. The Punishment (Bereshis 3:13-17)

This week, we dealt with the first two areas, and began the third area.

Bereishis 2:8-9 - Creation of the Tree
Here HaShem creates the Garden of Eden. The Torah seems to be retreating from its account of the Seventh Day, to discuss earlier events.

We are told that HaShem planted a garden, and that HaShem caused trees to grow in that garden. 2:8 seems to be an overview of what is then described in the following Pesukim, because in 2:8 we are told that HaShem planted the Garden and placed Adam in the garden, but then in 2:9-2:15 we are given the same information with greater elaboration.

In 2:9, we are told that HaShem caused general trees to grow, and then we are told that HaShem created "a tree of life in the middle of the garden, and a tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Why are we told of the location of the tree of life, and not of the tree of knowledge? Or are they both together?

It might be suggested that this is almost mocking Adam and Chavah - HaShem created the tree of life and put it smack in the middle of the garden, and didn't forbid them from eating of that tree, and yet they sought out the tree of knowledge.

Which tree would we seek, given the choice? Rahmat pointed out that Shelomo haMelech was addressed by HaShem, and offered a choice of whatever he would want, and he chose wisdom rather than choose long life. Nonetheless, it seems odd that they bypassed the tree of life. (Of course, we are not told expressly that they knew of its existence, but see Bereishis 3:22, which indicates that they were aware of it.)



-snip-


Chavah and the Tree - Week Two

Hello,

This week we wrapped up our look at the verses describing the Tree of Knowledge, and Chavah and Adam eating from that tree. We added a few more questions to our list, and next week we should be able to take a look at Ibn Ezra's understanding of what happened.

-snip-


3:5 - The serpent promises that Adam and Chavah would "know good and evil" if they would eat from the tree.
Does this mean that they don't know what good and evil are, at this point? What does that mean?
Certainly, they can comprehend that some act could be evil - otherwise, how could Gd give them a Mitzvah, telling them that eating from the tree is wrong? (Of course, this is not a problematic if you assume that Gd was warning them that the fruit was poisonous - it isn't an issue of "right" and "wrong.")
So what sort of knowledge would Adam and Chavah gain from eating?

Further, the serpent promises that eating from the tree would give them this knowledge, and "make them like Gd," following one translation of "veHiyyeesem KEilokim." How could this knowledge make them godlike?
I think it would be incorrect to assume that this last point was an exaggeration by the serpent - the serpent had been very careful not to "hype" the tree. He didn't tell Chavah, "The fruit will remove wrinkles" or "The fruit will make you popular." He told her the truth - it will give knowledge of good and evil. What was it that would make them godlike, then?

3:6 - Chavah saw that the tree was good to eat.
How does one "see" that something is good to eat?
Further, the Torah says that Chavah saw the tree itself was good to eat.
This is reminiscent of a Midrash, which says that Gd originally commanded the ground to produce trees which would have fruit and bark of equivalent taste. The ground failed to produce such trees, a phenomenon which the commentators attribute alternatively to a misunderstanding by the ground, or simply sheer inability to produce that sort of tree. Either way, this tree seems to be a "throwback" to that time when Gd wanted a tree which would have this sort of characteristic.


-snip-

1. What was the nature of this tree? What effect did it have on people?
2. What was in it for the serpent?
3. Why did Chavah eat from the tree?


Chavah and the Tree - Week Three

Hello,


Overview
We began with an overview of Ibn Ezra's understanding:

This story is about knowledge and insight, and about the idea that knowledge may be off-limits, at times. To a certain extent, this story teaches us the role of humanity in the world - there is an hierarchy of creatures, and humanity ocupy a slot which is not privy to all information. We are not intended to be Malachim, meaning that we are created without certain information, which HaShem has given to Malachim, and not to humanity. Chavah and Adam wanted more; they wanted to be like the Malachim.

To state, in brief, Ibn Ezra's answers to our three questions:

1. What is the nature of this tree? What effect does it have on people?
The tree provides knowledge of good and evil, and knowing the good and evil possibilities involved in a course of behavior leads to desire. The context of Adam and Chavah's eating from the tree indicates that the issue about which they learn is relations between men and women.

2. What was in it for the serpent?

-snip-

We then began to look at specific comments by Ibn Ezra, to see how he says this, and from what clues he learns it:

The Nature of the Tree
Ibn Ezra says that the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life were unique. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 70) does suggest various commonplace trees, but Ibn Ezra says that these were unlike any other trees.

-snip-

What do these trees do?
Ibn Ezra writes (3:6) that the Tree of Life is meant to increase life, and (2:9) that the tree of knowledge is meant to increase knowledge.

In 2:9 he states this as a point of grammar, in the words, "Eitz haDaas."
Ibn Ezra expands on this in 2:17, writing that it is impossible to think that Adam did not have any Knowledge on his own. After all, argues Ibn Ezra, Adam named the animals. Further, Gd gave Adam a Mitzvah; why would He do this, were Adam a fool, without intelligence?
Of course, all of this is subject to the question of what sort of "knowledge" we are discussing - intelligence, wisdom, factual knowledge, etc.

What sort of knowledge are we talking about?
Ibn Ezra makes two comments on this point. This is the first:

2:17 - Adam was lacking knowledge of good and evil in one specific area, and that was the area of physical relations between men and women.

Ibn Ezra learns this from two sources:

1. Ibn Ezra takes it as a given that Adam had a level of knowledge/intelligence, already.
2. The story of the Tree is flanked by a prior statement that Adam and Chavah were not sensitive to their unclothed state, and a following statement that Adam and Chavah recognized their unclothed state, and clothed themselves.

Therefore, Ibn Ezra concludes that the knowledge which was added was in this, specific, realm.
As Phyllis pointed out, there could have been other knowledge they were lacking, as well; this is only what we see from the story here.

(Parenthetically, this meshes well with another point of Ibn Ezra's, elsewhere.
When Gd creates humanity, He gives them an apparent command to "Be fruitful and multiply (Bereishis 1:28)." The commentators are puzzled, for this injunction is repeated again later, after the Flood! Most commentators assume that the command in 1:28 is a commandment, and the one after the flood is a blessing. Ibn Ezra, though, argues that 1:28 is a blessing.
This would fit with what he said here - a person can't have a Mitzvah, if he doesn't have knowledge in that area. Adam and Chavah do not have knowledge in that area as of 1:28, and so HaShem isn't giving them a Mitzvah - He is only blessing them.)

Ibn Ezra makes his second comment:
3:6 - Adam ate from the tree, and from this he received desire for physical male-female relations.

What are we to make of these two comments? First we are told they received knowledge, then we are told they received desire!
Perhaps Ibn Ezra is saying that they began with a functional knowledge of how to perform the act, as any animal has that sort of functional, built-in instinct. They lacked any of the higher emotional involvement that comes with it, though - involvement which could well be classified as knowledge of good and evil.
Good and Evil would refer here to relationships, and to those interactions which are deemed good, and which are deemed evil. To this point, it's all mechanical. When they eat from the tree, they gain a senstivity to a world of emotion which goes along with it, and to all of the desire which accompanies that emotion.

We left off with two questions, though, which we will try to address next time:

1. Why would Gd create humanity without this type of knowledge?
2. Why did Gd put this knowledge at their fingertips, with this tree, if He didn't want them to have it?


Have a good week,
Mordechai Torczyner
--
Chavah and the Tree, Week Four

Hello,

This week we began by addressing a few questions which were left from Ibn Ezra's explanation of the purpose of the "Tree of Knowledge."

Why weren't humans created with this knowledge?
As we said last time, Ibn Ezra explained that this tree was meant to increase one's knowledge, but that Adam and Chavah already possessed standard intelligence, for the most part. Ibn Ezra deduced from the verses immediately preceding this story (Bereishis 2:25) and immediately following their consumption of the fruit (Bereishis 3:7) that the knowledge which Adam and Chavah received was knowledge of the good and evil side of male-female interaction. According to Ibn Ezra, that type of knowledge converts an animal instinct into an act with all sorts of desires involved.

We began today with the question of Gd's goal in creating humanity with all sorts of knowledge, but without this type of knowledge. What is the point in leaving this particular data out of their makeup?

I suggested an idea which is common in Chassidic thought (using Chassidus to explain Ibn Ezra is odd, but it is not impossible!). The creation of another human being is not simply the fusion and fission of cells to form a physical body. When a man and woman mate, they are involved in a sort of creation of their child's soul, as well. Their traits affect the soul of the child - even their thoughts and state of mind during the actual act which creates the child will affect the outgrowth of their efforts.

Seen in that light, the reproductive act is much more than a biological function - it is nothing less than quasi-Divine Creation. It is the point in which a human being can affect both the physical and spiritual balances of this universe.

The information which allows human involvement on this scale is withheld. Gd does not give humanity the opportunity to take part in this type of Creation, presumably due to the destructive possibilities involved.

Why put the knowledge into the Tree?
In that case, why did Gd put this knowledge into the Tree, thereby making it available to humanity?


A. Rahmat suggested that HaShem wanted to give us a Mitzvah.
However, I find this difficult - if this knowledge is truly so dangerous, why give us a Mitzvah like this? Why not give us a more innocent Mitzvah?

B. One might suggest that this is part of a general theme which is called, in Aramaic, "Istakel biOraysa, Ubara Alma" - "Gd looked in the Torah, and created the universe."
The Torah is a blueprint for Creation, and since the Torah contains laws dealing with the morals and value of male-female relations, it makes sense that the possibility of this desire should exist in this world.

C. Alternatively, one could suggest that HaShem did not want to make this type of knowledge unattainable for human beings.
HaShem did not create us with this knowledge, as He wanted to make it our choice, and HaShem clearly marked the knowledge is a threat to humanity (in this context, "You shall die" is a warning rather than a punishment) - but the potential for it is within humanity's grasp, and so HaShem made it possible for us to reach it.
This is exceedingly difficult to work into the language of "Do not eat from it," though.


Like Angels?
This left one more point to handle. The serpent promised Chavah (Bereishis 3:5) that eating from the tree would make humans "Keilokim." Ibn Ezra does not translate this as "Like Gd." Rather, Ibn Ezra takes the view that this is a generic term for "powerful beings," and that the serpent was promising Chavah that they would become like Angels.

According to this, the serpent promised Chavah that gaining knowledge regarding male-female relations would make humans into Angelic beings. This is rather odd - the angels are the sole creation of Gd which do not reproduce!

Perhaps the serpent was simply bluffing. Alternatively, though, we could understand this in light of Ibn Ezra's general worldview. According to Ibn Ezra, as well as Rambam, the hierarchy of creations is governed by knowledge. The animals have a low level of knowledge, compared to humans, and so they are lower on the scale. The angels have more knowledge than we have - and so they are higher on the scale. The scale has nothing to do with capacity, or practice - having the knowledge is the sole criterion to determine one's place.

Thus, gaining this knowledge would bring human beings one step closer to the angels.

What's in a Name?
Here Mr. Rosenbaum (fils) pointed out an additional problem. Ibn Ezra claimed that the tree, known as a generic "Tree of Knowledge," gave Adam and Chavah knowledge in the specific realm of male-female relations. Why isn't the "type" of knowledge mentioned in the Tree's Name?

Perhaps this is the type of knowledge it gave Adam/Chavah only because that was the type of knowledge they were missing. It is possible that the tree would give different types of knowledge to different people, depending on what they were lacking.


-snip-

--