: To echo some of Micha's remarks Kant rejected any proof by design...
Kant formalized the general disinclination toward proof of metaphysical
claims that had been going on for a while. His problem wasn't with the
argument from design in particular.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics
And if one reads MmE with RACarmell's footnotes, enough of REED's
ideas come from Kant to make a strong argument that he was a Kantian.
I discussed in the past his position that both time and nature are
more reflective of how man perceives the world (since Adam, and
people who are not up at the level of neis) than of what's really
out there. Very Kantian.
Whereas:
: Rav Dessler goes in the opposite path condemning rationality and
: intellectualism. Only a torah scholar can reach the truth. Therefore
: everyone should subject himself to the Torah giant and not attempt to
: reason for himself.
is very non-Kantian. Kant would have you rely more on will and on first-hand
experience. (See the Stanford encyc entry, above.)
Here is a quote from MmE 1:75, taken from RACohen's "Daat Torah"
at <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf>:
Our Sages have already told us to listen to the words of our rabbis
- Even if they tell you that left is right. Furthermore a person
should not think, G-d forbid!, that they have certainly erred just
because someone so insignificant as himself has perceived that they
erred. But rather [one should say that] my understanding nullified
as the dust of the earth in comparison to the clarity of intellect
and Heavenly support they have (siyata d'shemaya).
To fill in RAC's ellision:
We have an important halachic principle that one beis din can not
nullify the ruling of another beis din unless it is greater than the
first in wisdom and number. Otherwise it is likely that that which
he thought that he perceived is merely an illusion and distorted
understanding of reality.
And RAC concludes:
This is Daat Torah in the Rubric of Emunat Chachamim.
(This was written in response to the usual question about where was daas
Torah in the Holocaust.)
However, as seen on pg 8, RYBS also often talked about the obligation
lehitbatel lerabbo, and clearly RYBS didn't dismiss the value of
independent thinking.
There is nothing there about not attemptiong to reason for oneself. Only
that one should refrain from blog and social media norm of deciding that
the rabbis are idiots because the obviously correct answer is something
else. Rather, assume they have a so much more clear understanding, my
opinion is valueless. But they can still be wrong, and at times I may
yet be right. But the odds are against the value of 2nd-guessing.
I like RAC's continuation:
Perhaps it is important to realize that a bad outcome doesn't
necessarily prove the advice was bad. Sometimes the unexpected
does happen, which no one could have predicted. Sometimes surgery
must take place but the patient dies of an allergic reaction to
the anesthesia. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to perform the
necessary surgery, it just means that we are not always in control
of the consequences of our seemingly wise decisions or even that we
can always foresee all the possible results. [42]
42. The Gemara derives a very important article of belief when it
addresses the issue of Torah leaders making mistakes. In Gittin 56b,
the Gemara records the famous encounter between R. Yochanan b. Zaccai
and the Roman general Vespasian during the seige of Jerusalem.... One
of the answers tendered by the Gemara is most enlightening: the
verse in Isaiah 44 says, "He turns wise men backwards and makes their
thinking foolish." In other words, it was the Divine plan that the
Temple be destroyed, and therefore Hashem deliberately prevented
R. Yochanan from making the wise request which would have saved it
from destruction.
We ordinary mortals, who are not blessed with the wisdom and insights
of Chazal, cannot make such pronouncements regarding any specific
episode or rabbinic advice. Nevertheless, we should take to heart
the essential message that there are times when the Divine Will
obscures an individual's wisdom.
In his Mipeninai HaRav, R. Herschel Shachter quotes Rav Soloveitchik
as having expressed this sentiment also.
All of which is consistent with these words by REED.
In any case, I am unhappy with the habit in some circles of pinning
every yeshivish idea with which they disagree on REED. If nothing else,
he was a mussarnik, not yeshivish. But I fear you were a victim of
someone who spun this quote from MmE with this jaundiced eye.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha