3 Limits of Logic

As the Rebbe does not explain here why the Torah, and Yiddeshkeit, are true in the first place, I will lay out here the two proofs that, in my opinion, prove that Yiddishkeit is true.

But before I get there, I will preface with some thoughts on the correct methodology to be used when trying to figure out the veracity of any claim, as there are significant flaws present in any intellectual enquiry.

One of the fundamental flaws of logical reasoning is that with almost every idea or ideal, there are at least two ways of viewing it, if one is lucky. Most often, in addition to the two extremes in how to address the subject, there is often a whole range of conclusions in between that can be reached. Furthermore, our minds can be clever enough that they can convincingly explain the correctness of each conclusion.

To give some examples: how should one educate a child? Does one ‘spare the rod, and ruin the child’, or should one be completely permissive and unrestricting? Or something in between?

How about capital punishment? Or questions of morality? Or the correct approach to various political issues? There are so many positions that one can take, all based on sharp logical reasoning.

Now, generally speaking, only one conclusion is actually correct (i.e. works out the best) in any given situation. The problem is that our minds can convincingly argue the righteousness of each approach, making it difficult to find the correct conclusion.

A further flaw with logic, pertaining more to facts and information, is that when one learns even a bit more information about a certain situation, that sometimes has the potential to lead one to a very different conclusion than what was reached originally, sometimes even to the exact opposite of one’s first conclusion.

A famous example of this idea is of someone who wanders into the emergency room of a hospital for the first time, without any prior knowledge about the existence of surgical procedures. Imagine the scene that meets his eyes: someone is lying on a bed, apparently asleep; he is surrounded by three people, all wearing masks on their faces, one of whom has a knife in his hand, clearly preparing to make use of it. It can be expected that our hypothetical spectator will come to the conclusion that he is about to witness a murder, and if he would be courageous enough, he would try to do everything in his power to prevent that from happening.

But if, before he manages to intervene, someone pulls aside our spectator and explains to him that, in truth, the patient lying in bed is suffering from a life-threatening disease, and the people around him are doctors, and that they are about to perform surgery on him in an attempt remove the affected organ – then that would bring our spectator to the opposite conclusion: that instead of murder, the doctors are attempting to save the patient’s life. In which case, our spectator would most probably try to assist the doctors in any way possible.

One has to be so careful when trying to formulate logical conclusions, as there is always the possibility that there exists more information that can drastically change, or even uproot, one’s original conclusion.

I’m not suggesting that people should resign themselves to be in a perpetual state of limbo, and remain undecided about everything – it’s just not realistic to live life that way. But one has to be extremely cautious when reaching conclusions that have a profound impact on one’s life, and the lives of those around them, as one must always bear in mind that there remains the possibility that one has inadvertently miscalculated.

Because of these above-mentioned flaws, I will suggest adopting the following methodology:

1. One must always base his conclusions on reality, and not base reality on his previously reached conclusions.

Once we accept reality for what, and how, it is, and only then try to build a logical reasoning to explain it, that firstly, aids us tremendously in evaluating which factors we should be taking into account and which ones we should ignore, and secondly, we also know that this conclusion is the correct one, as this is what actually works in our reality.

2. One must be very cautious when reaching conclusions, and one should always allow oneself to re-examine any conclusions that were reached, whenever one encounters new evidence on the subject.

3. One should never set a time limit for finding the truth, as that will only encourage self-deception in one’s haste to arrive at a decision.

Now, after clarifying the methodology, I will move on to the proofs for my belief in Yiddishkeit.