Epistemic Disagreement and 'Elu We'Elu

• Autorzy: Joshua Halberstam
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A lively exchange in recent epistemology considers the problem of epistemic disagreement between peers: disagreement between those who share evidence and have equal cognitive abilities. Two main views have emerged about how to proceed in such circumstances: be steadfast in maintaining one's own view or conciliate, and suspend or reduce one's confidence in one's belief. Talmudic debates do seem to promote steadfastness, as the disputants are not called on to conciliate purely because they confront a disagreeing peer. But why? Third party judgments are even more problematic, for what epistemic warrant is there for choosing between a disagreement of superiors? A common explanation for Talmudic steadfastness is the notion 'elu w'elu divrey 'Elohim kayim - both sides of Talmudic (or, more generally, halakhic) disputes have 'heavenly' legitimacy. But a closer look at this oft-quoted dictum and its various interpretations does not, in fact, reveal such support for steadfastness. Other explanations for Talmudic steadfastness are, therefore, required.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Solving problems; Philosophical thought; Jews

PL

Rozwiązywanie problemów; Poglądy filozoficzne; Żydzi

• Czasopismo: Studia Humana
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 6(2)
• Strony: 7--16

Twórcy

autor

Joshua Halberstam

• BCC/City University of New York, the United States of America

Bibliografia

• 1. Christensen, D. Epistemic Modesty Defended, The Epistemology of Disagreement New Essays, 2013, pp. 76-97. 15
• 2. Elga, A. Reflection and Disagreement, Nous, 41 (3), 2007, pp. 478-502.
• 3. Enoch, D. Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement, Mind, 119 (476), 2010, pp. 953-97.
• 4. Halberstam, J. With All Due Epistemic Humility, Presentation, Athens Institute for Education and Research, Annual International Conference on Philosophy, 2016. Athens, Greece.
• 5. Halbertal, M. The History of Halakhah, Views from Within: Three Medieval Approaches to Tradition and Controversy', http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ Gruss/halbert.html
• 6. Hidary, R. Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud, Providence, Brown Judaic Studies- 2010.
• 7. Kramer, D. The Mind of the Talmud: An Intellectual History of the Babylonian Talmud, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990.
• 8. Rosensweig, R. M. Elu V'elu Divrei Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and Theories of Controversies, Tradition, 26/3, 1992), pp. 4-23.
• 9. Sagi, A. Both are the Words of the Living God, HUCA LXV, 1994, pp. 105-136.
• 10. Sokol, M. (ed.) Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, Northvale, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1992.
• 11. Sosa, E. The Epistemology of Disagreement, In A. Haddock, A. Millar, and D. Pritchard, Social Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.278-297.
• 12. Zion, N. Elu V'Elu: Two Schools of Halakha Face off on Issues of Human Autonomy, Majority Rule and Divine Voice of Authority, Jerusalem, Shalom Hartman Institute, 2008.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/sh-2017-0008