One my favorite pieces of literature. Not for those afflicted with ADD.
From: Die Geschichte von Herrn Sommer (The Story of Mr Sommer) by Patrick Süskind, translated to English by yours truly (I preserved the grammar, punctuation, style and the sentence structure — or what passes for it in this piece).
* * *
In the times when I still climbed trees — it was a long time ago, years and decades back, and I was barely above one meter tall, wore shoes of the twenty eighth size¹ and was so light that I could fly — no, I am not lying, I really could fly — or, at least, almost could fly, or let’s say it better: at that time it was certainly within my power to do so, if I were to very firmly desire it and try to do it, because... because I remember vividly how one day I almost flew, how it was in autumn, the same very year I started school and was returning on that day home, and the wind was so strong that I, without spreading my arms, could lean against it at the same angle as a skier, or even a larger angle, without fear of falling... and when I then ran against the wind, down the hill from the school mountain — for the school was on a small hill by the village — and slightly pushed away from the ground and spread my arms, the wind immediately caught me, and I could make without slightest effort jumps two-to-three meters high and ten-to-twenty meters long — or, perhaps, not quite so long and not quite so high, but what difference does it really make? — in any event, I was almost flying, and if only I unbuttoned my overcoat and took its tails in my hands and spread them out as wings, the wind would fully pick me up in the air, and I would with absolute ease glide down from the school mountain over the valley towards the forest, and then over the forest down to the lake, near which our house was standing, to the utter amazement of my father, my mother, my sister and my brother, who were already too old and too heavy to fly, then make an elegant turn over the garden only to glide back over the lake, almost reaching the opposite shore, and, finally, calmly coast back over the air and still be home in time for dinner.
But, I did not unbutton my overcoat and did not fly up in reality. Not because I was afraid to fly, but because I did not know how and where I would be able to land, and whether I really could land. The lawn in front of our house was too hard for landing, the garden was too small, the water in the lake was too cold. To lift off — that was no problem. But what about coming back down?
With climbing trees I had the same situation: climbing up was not problematic in the least way. I saw the branches in front of myself, I felt them in my hands and could test their hardness even before I lifted myself and then put my foot on them. But when I was climbing down, I did not see everything and was forced to find, more or less blindly, the branches below me, until I found a proper support — except, oftentimes, the support was not so firm, but rotten and slippery, and then I would slip or fall through, and if I did not have a chance to catch some branch with both hands, I would fall down as a stone does, according to the so-called laws of falling bodies, discovered already almost four hundred years ago by an Italian scientist Galileo but still acting even today. [...]
____________
¹ [My shoes are of 40th–41st size — APC.]
53 comments:
"discovered already almost four hundred years ago by an Italian scientist Galileo but still acting even today."
amazing, isn't it.
Do you only read the last lines of my long posts?
No.
Oh.
Yes, I always draw attention of the people who bemoan the fact that G-d's Laws, given around 3K years ago, are still supposed to be applicable today, that another set of G-d's Laws -- regarding nature -- still seem to be functioning, year after year, without change.
You see, most people don't feel threatened by the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not demand that people keep Shabbos or don't fornicate with their sisters.
Well, socialists seem to have a problem with the laws of economics.
Are the laws of economics part of the immutable laws of nature?
Indeed they are.
So G-d is a capitalist?
No.
But his laws are?
Capitalism is simple a relationship that allows everyone to benefit the most. Knowledge of laws of economics confirms that.
According to you.
No, I wasn’t the one who discovered this.
Who was it then?
Look it up. I would start with John Smith. Anyway, whoever discovered this principle, its truth has been reconfirmed time and again. I was born in a country which confirmed the principle by falling apart as a result of going against it.
You mean Adam Smith.
I mean John Smith, the guy who married Pocahontas.
You mean John Ralph.
Sorry, John Rolfe.
Oh. Then who was John Smith? I distinctly remember having heard that name.
And yes, I initially meant Adam Smith.
That was just a platonic relationship.
Point is, if it's the truth (in our dimension anyway), then presumably it's a law of nature, no?
A.: What was just platonic relationship?
TRS: Yes. Although 2+2 = 4 is not a law of nature, but it’s the truth.
No, because a law of nature describes the way things are. Capitalism is a doctrine that is supposed to harness the laws of nature and use them for an advantage. It is prescriptive, not descriptive.
Nu, so which laws is it harnessing?
Pocahontas taught John Smith Indian and he taught her English. That was it. She married John Rolfe.
Oh, I see.
Don’t you mean Native American?
TRS: laws of economics.
According to those who believe in capitalism, it is harnessing the "law" which states that competition and a free economy make a country richer. That law is an "is" statement. Capitalism is an "ought" statement.
Capitalism ought to be?
Not just the country, the individuals too.
Indeed it ought.
the economic policy of the state.
according to some.
According to smart some.
Please define then the difference between a law of nature and any other sort of true (as in, 2 times 2 equals 4) thingamabob.
OK, good Shabbos. Happy Sabbatical celebration to y’all.
TRS: one you have to look out the window to discover. The other you don’t. Also, with the first you can imagine the Universe being different (I can imagine a Universe where gravity repels, or a solar system where the sun raises in the West), while with the other you can’t (I can’t imagine a Universe where 2+2=5).
Just because you, with your extraordinarily limited intelligence, can't understand it...
PC: that is a lack of imagination. Two plus two is four is an is statement.
It is only shayach to say true about an is statement. Then how can we say that Torah is Truth? Because Torah is (ayvarei dimalka) as well as ought.
Tell me, which class would I have to take in order to understand this "is" vs. "ought" shtuff?
It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with logic. By “imagine” I mean conceive logically.
The physical laws are arbitrary. As such, they have to be discovered empirically: someone has to go “out there” and discover how “things are”. If one asks the question, e.g.: “Does Plutonian monkey’s heart have four chambers?”, there is no way to answer this question except by looking at the monkey’s heart. It doesn’t necessarily have to have a heart with four chambers. One could conceive of a monkey with a different heart.
On the other hand, in order to answer the question about mathematics, one doesn’t go “out there”, one uses one’s head, i.e., logic. We don’t “discover” that Poincare’s Theorem is true by making observations of how “things are” in the world. And once we’ve proven that it’s true, it must be true no matter what.
Of course, one could theoretically suppose that there could be a Universe created by G-d, where even laws of logic would be different. But such a Universe is beyond our mind completely and thus is irrelevant.
Whether to call both laws of mathematics and of natural sciences “laws” is a matter of semantics, which I find boring. In any event, they are different kinds of laws.
An interesting question is what kind of laws the laws of morality are. Are they logical, or are they empirical? In Judaism, it would seem that we believe that they are empirical. One can’t just “figure out” whether something is moral or not. In utilitarian philosophy of morality, the idea is the same (i.e., something is moral if it leads to greater stability of the society, which can only be figured out by experimentation and history being kind to some kinds of societies vs. others), but in my opinion, utilitarianism is intellectually bankrupt.
Finally, there are some people (namely, some classical liberals, aka libertarians) who believe that laws of morality can be discovered logically, just like laws of mathematics. I really fail to see how that could happen, but perhaps I am merely ignorant or stupid.
TRS: you mean, which class do you go to in order to understand the distinction? The answer is: no class, because the Rebbe was against his chassidim going to college.
But normally, one would take a philosophy class, or any class where they teach basics of philosophy, such as introductory science classes, economics classes, politics, sociology, etc. Also, I suppose, a Math class (but a more advanced one, like Linear Algebra, where they start shaking the foundations of your worldview — at least according to my roommates; one of them was quite shaken when he was asked to prove that a x 1 = a).
PC: I agree that they are different, but it is confusing to be michalek between two types of is statements when TRS is asking about the difference between is and ought.
TRS: a good gemara shiur could also do the trick.
CA: eh, looks too complicated. I'm not one for philosophy, or indeed over-analyzation of any sort.
Anon: oh, I've been to plenty of those, just I never paid attention :)
but seriously, yes, I'm sure I could relate to the concept, I just need to have it couched in terms I'm familiar with.
But true that it has nothing to do with imagination.
I think that Rav Saadia Gaon (definitely someone) says that a person could figure out the entire Torah using logic if given enough time.
Like monkeys+typewriters=hamlet, or...?
Even the chukim? How would one figure out how many cubits high the sukkah should be?
I suppose that is an interesting point of view. It goes well with the idea that Hashem initially intended to create the world using middas ha’din vs. middas ha’rachamim. This means (among other things) that there should not have been any revelation at all. People should have figured out by themselves that there is G-d and the entire Torah and create dira b’tachtoinim all through their own initiative and logic.
(But then he saw that that would be too difficult, so he mixed in middas ha’rachamim and introduced the Light in the form of Revelation and the prophets and ruach ha’koidesh.)
Well, I believe there are two kinds of “is” statements:
a) those derived empirically,
b) those derived logically.
Plus, there are “ought” statements, which depend on one’s goal. As my snag chavrussa once said (I don’t feel justified saying he was a Litvak, because he is actually Sefardi), “If I want my life to reach its full potential and be the happiest, I should follow Torah. But who says I want my life to reach its full potential and be the happiest?”
He persecuted chassidim?
My chavrussa? He was an opponent of Chassidus (until he started learning with me). And he was a follower of You-know-whom (not Voldemort or Yoshke).
Snags don't necessarily persecute, they oppose.
Post a Comment