by Guy Shaked

Keywords: Aristotle, Jacques Derrida, Greek Natural Philosophy, Plato, Rhetoric, Socrates, Shaked, Thales,

Wise Student (Talmid Hakham): Shalom… Shalom… Rabbi

Ben Zoma: Oh! What a young wise student like you is doing in the middle of the night walking out the streets of Jerusalem. You startled me a bit.

WS: What can I tell you Rabbi. At the Bet-Midrash (religious school) today we learned so many issues, and my friends seem to argue them (lehitpalpel) so wisely. But I… these huge problems leave confused for it seems to me I'm not wise enough to try and undermine any of the ideas learnt so as to reach the truth that God hides - yet expects us to find.

Ben Zoma: Is that all that is keeping you up at night? not money (parnasa) problems? not familial dificulties? Let me tell you: you are a very lucky young man indeed.
As to those matters that keep your mind troubled over - perhaps I could try to assist you with.

WS: You don't know how much that would mean to me. For tonight is only one of many that my sleep wanders and I inhabit the streets instead of my bed.

Ben Zoma: There are two main ways by which you could argue logically (i. e. applying to the mind, not to emotion) in order to try and undermine any claims that are put forward before you. The first I call - "The opposites disquation".
You might or might not know that the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said the world is composed of opposites. I happened to hear of him from my friend Aher (Rabbi Ben Avuyah) who studies these materials.
Now, have you perhaps noticed that whenever something seems totally un-godlike your teacher (melamed) claims that it is beyond human comprehension and only God can perceive it?

WS: Indeed, I have.

Ben Zoma: So you could answer him that being a human himself how can he determine if so, what is possible to humans to perceive and what is beyond their comprehension.
What I have done in order to reach this argument is the following process of "opposites disquation":
First, I turn the matter into at least two pairs of opposite terms: something-only God can comprehend / all the rest-humans also can comprehend. Then, I look for an example (a case if you will) in which this equation is evidently false - since humans are not God they could not tell what only God can and neither can their statements since they are human-made [1]. You see, its rather simple.

WS: It indeed looks rather simple when you do it?! I notice you chose as your case a special one: that regarding the examined statement/claim itself [2].

Ben Zoma: Now let me explain shortly if you will, as the hour is rather late the second method of argumentation, I call "the shift" (hetek). For this I will use the Greek explanations of the nature of the world, which of course are much different than ours. Perhaps we could say, that "they are complementary to our world view".

WS: But surely you do not mean you support these outdated opinions of the ancient Greeks, that many modern scholars are shown to be primitive and naive, so to say.

Ben Zoma: It is exactly these they I intend to show their wisdom. In order to make my case a short one I will deal with the oldest and seemingly simplest one as I'm getting very tired now.

WS: Are you referring to Thales's primitive thought that everything is water?!

Ben Zoma: I see you are becoming more erudite by the minute as the night progresses. Indeed I am.
For it is certain to anyone who employs logic that Thales being a Greek did not mean water as a narrow term. For the Greek like us here in Israel are famous for their olive oil, and Thales would most surely have known that the two do not mix hence oil is not water. However by saying all is water he simply meant all is fluid.
Furthermore, gas and solid are sub-states of fluid as both can turn return into water and back to their states. So they are but transitory states from and to water.

WS: But how would you explain that when wood is burnt it turns to gas (smoke) and solid (ashes) and not water.

Ben Zoma: Easy... the wood when burnt turns to water and then to gas, however with old (dry) wood the burning process is so fast that it seems to us it turns strait into gas. When one uses just-picked-up wood for the burning, the burning is slower and indeed if you would place a cold plate above the burning wood you are sure to see water accumulating on the plate. Try it and see for yourself.

WS: I am indeed confused by your answer - something feels to me wrong about it yet at the same time it makes sense to me…

Ben Zoma: Notice what I have done. Through logical arguments I've substituted the term water with fluid, and gas and solid which are different states of mater than fluid with fluid by seeing them as a continuum. This is "the shift" - I shift the focus from one term to another - blurring their difference and focusing on their similarity. From then, I continue using the new term, instead of the old one and focusing on it. Raising perhaps some question regarding it to move your attention to it so that you forget that its not my original term and so on can move to another terms and still another [3]

WS: Oh I'm Sorry Rabbi, but the late hour is getting to me and your summery seems to me like in a blur…I seem to think it is not "the shift" you employed but the "opposites disquation" as you divided water:exist in every process of change/ non water:not exist in every process of change, and chose the case of burning wood which shows it to be false. But, please forgive me as I retire to go to sleep…

Ben Zoma: Yes, you note rightly that every claim can be said to be employing both methods. But I probably got a bit carried away by your questions, forgetting that its more important that you get some sleep, the way you look. I shan't continue then… have a good night…
-----------------------------------------------

Other dialogues by Ben Zoma and much more in the book "The Dialogues" - by Guy Shaked

[1] Plato's Socrates uses this argumentation for example in Crito. Where he sets against the "opposites disquation": against murder:bad / for justice:good, the case of the prosecutor's (Crito's) father killing by neglect a most disobedient slave.

[2] This seems to be Derrida's favorite techniques of argumentation, i.e. negating the claims of a text by showing the text can be characterized by the opposite of what it claims. For example: the United States constitution as a non-democratic document in origin (as is the case for any primary rules of a democracy), Nietzsche's texts as feminine, and more. See: Jacques Derrida, Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles, Barbara Harlow tr., Chicago: Chicago Uni. Press, 1972; Otobiographies: l'enseignement de Nietzsche et la politique de nom propre

Paris: Galile`e, 1984

[3] This method could be said to be founding itself from the Aristotelian method of sub-dividing of a continuum. When Derrida notes that everything is text (including people dining in a restaurant, is employing "the shift" as he plays down and doesn't highlight the difference between mainly communicative actions (like speech and writing) to other actions with non mainly communicative purpose usually (like body movement during feeding). See: Dinitia Smith, "Philosopher Gamely In Defense Of His Ideas", in Arts & Ideas/Cultural Desk, NYTimes, May 30, 1998

Dear visitor, please take a short moment to sign my guest book!

My Biography

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004 Emails are gladly received: shakedtg@hotmail.com

Jacques Derrida's interpretation of Plato's Phaedrus (Plato's Pharmacy)

On Descartes' "I think therefore I am"

Four that Entered the Pardes

Other articles by G. Shaked: ART BIBLICAL STUDIES BIOLOGY CINEMA LITERATURE MUSIC PHILOSOPHY PHYSICS (ACOUSTICS)