tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post4224686059209218720..comments2023-10-09T10:35:20.874-04:00Comments on Thoughts of a Secular Jew: E-man's (http://www.markset565.blogspot.com/) Done it Again.SJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10704885840004960450noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-17773524092551189672009-06-26T00:40:19.309-04:002009-06-26T00:40:19.309-04:00>> maharal's point is that they try to m...>> maharal's point is that they try to modify miraculous descriptions to accord as much as possible with the natural order. which is fine if one's assumption is that miracles must operate within the natural order.<br /><br />The Maharal said, "believers of Israel that try to explain the wonders and miracles that happen in this world with their minds and their knowledge"<br /><br /><br /><br />E-man said, "The Maharal here is telling us where the philosophers got it wrong. It seems like he is explaining the philosophers as believing in an allegorical explanation of the text of the Bible."<br /><br />What the Maharal said really don't look like what you are saying the Maharal said, Josh. WTF, who is changing miraculous descriptions? O.o It seems they're either looking for natural reasons or dismissing it as allegory alltogether.<br /><br />>> "Whether or not the world is eternal and whether or not the natural order can change seems to me to be two different unrelated things." "Depends on whatever turn evolution goes." but are you familiar with what the philosophers were saying? he is not arguing with SJ. he is arguing with philosophers of his time. this was before Darwin. Aristotle *did* indeed maintain the immutability of species.<br /><br />* Yawn * you are misreading the Maharal. The Maharal is fallaciously suggesting that the idea that everything follows the natural order means that the fly's wing can't be elongated and what I'm saying is that the Maharal had minimal knowledge of evolution cause the theory as Darwin put it wasn't around at the Maharal's time, though there was always naturalists.<br /><br /><br />By the way, nice to know you are a rationalist.SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704885840004960450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-23925166719945895252009-06-26T00:09:14.384-04:002009-06-26T00:09:14.384-04:00you clearly do not understand maharal, and you cle...you clearly do not understand maharal, and you clearly do not understand his opponents.<br /><br />there are good points to be made, and it is informative to derive ideas from this dispute to current disputes.<br /><br />maharal's point is that they try to modify miraculous descriptions to accord as much as possible with the natural order. which is fine if one's assumption is that miracles must operate within the natural order.<br /><br />as a matter of good peshat, i think he makes a valid point. where a text speaks of divine intervention, who says that this intervention must operate within the natural order? it is not a matter of orthodox rabbis trying to suppress thinking, despite your own apparent bad experiences with rabbis suppressing you. it is not all about you, and not all thinkers who are rabbis fit into your preconceived notions.<br /><br />"Whether or not the world is eternal and whether or not the natural order can change seems to me to be two different unrelated things."<br />"Depends on whatever turn evolution goes."<br />but are you familiar with what the philosophers were saying? he is not arguing with SJ. he is arguing with philosophers of his time. this was before Darwin. Aristotle *did* indeed maintain the immutability of species. See here, for example:<br />http://books.google.com/books?id=NFr2MXHFxZQC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=aristotle+species+immutable&source=bl&ots=zGFOIAUG76&sig=DnUvDN3wgOTzTZmKY4EZzNuo6Uc&hl=en&ei=3kdESr7UKdrEmQegtbmuAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1<br /><br />I say all this, btw, as a rationalist. You can see some of my recent disputes in this regard. My impression of E-man also would be different than what you seem to imagine him as. But part of an intelligent discourse is understanding the various positions in play.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-43761576225778930362009-06-25T16:35:06.545-04:002009-06-25T16:35:06.545-04:00http://askville.amazon.com/Amazon-Associate-make-c...<a href="http://askville.amazon.com/Amazon-Associate-make-commission-product-link-buys/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8040097" rel="nofollow">http://askville.amazon.com/Amazon-Associate-make-commission-product-link-buys/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8040097</a>SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704885840004960450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-72827732397113199962009-06-25T15:51:53.223-04:002009-06-25T15:51:53.223-04:00Really? Does Amazon pay well?Really? Does Amazon pay well?Garnel Ironheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-8430319894001822302009-06-25T14:59:23.386-04:002009-06-25T14:59:23.386-04:00>> 1) At the bottom of your post is a list o...>> 1) At the bottom of your post is a list of books. Check your formatting. Is it supposed to be there?<br /><br />Yes. Amazon's associates program.<br /><br /><br />>> generally supported himself purely through the Talmud and Midrash.<br /><br />Sounds more to me like he was high.<br /><br />>> All the stuff you quotes is his reply to secular philosophers who deny God<br /><br />If you read what E-man said that the Maharal said, it didn't look like the Maharal was accusing the jewish philosophers of atheism.SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704885840004960450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-70938881914550916622009-06-25T14:21:14.513-04:002009-06-25T14:21:14.513-04:001) At the bottom of your post is a list of books. ...1) At the bottom of your post is a list of books. Check your formatting. Is it supposed to be there?<br /><br />2) The Maharal was very much a purist in terms of his approach to Torah. He rejected most philosophy, disagreed strongly with the rationalist theories of the Rambam and generally supported himself purely through the Talmud and Midrash.<br /><br />3) All the stuff you quotes is his reply to secular philosophers who deny God, the spiritual and its influence in the world, not to people who are prepared to believe that a combination of natural and miraculous exist.Garnel Ironheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627627202031486081.post-85329456781888057782009-06-25T09:50:25.953-04:002009-06-25T09:50:25.953-04:00Location to E-man's post: http://markset565.bl...Location to E-man's post: <a href="http://markset565.blogspot.com/2009/06/maharal-against-philosophers-continued.html" rel="nofollow">http://markset565.blogspot.com/2009/06/maharal-against-philosophers-continued.html</a><br /><br />Read about the Maharal: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharal" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharal</a>SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704885840004960450noreply@blogger.com