Wednesday, March 14, 2018
A book on the Kuzari?
An idea I'm toying with. Should I publish the discussion of the Kuzari Proof as its own book? It could make a well-over one hundred page book all on its own, depending on how much material is in the final version and things like page size and font/formatting.
I started working on writing my book in October, and I've only just finished the fourth chapter last week. The chapters are different sizes, and other demands on my time change, so it's not strictly predictive, but at this rate, it's going to take another two years to finish.
And it's going to be really long.
I could probably have a book on the Kuzari ready in a few months. And it would cut down the length of the main book. In the main book, instead of the Kuzari being its own (long) chapter, I could reference my Kuzari book, and summarize it in a few pages in the chapter on assorted proofs for Judaism.
There's also some financial incentive. Splitting off part of the main book into a separate work means more book sales (if anyone buys them), because now there would be two books instead of one. And if people buy the smaller, cheaper Kuzari book and like it, there's a better chance they'll buy the bigger, more expensive comprehensive book.
Thoughts?
Title suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you think you'll make money on a book, never mind a niche religious book, you're in for a rude awakening. I'll buy your book, but very, very few others will.
ReplyDeleteDepends on what you mean by "make money." I have no illusions about getting rich from this, or even making something like minimum wage per hour invested. But some money would be nice, and some more money would be nicer.
DeleteYou make good arguments for a second book. Furthermore, kuzari in the title is even more likely to pull in eyes.
ReplyDeleteYes please! But if you are going to do a book on Kuzari alone, please do try to be rigorous and do a fair testing of your arguments. Too many articles on this subject are superficial and really don’t challenge themselves well.
ReplyDeleteCould I suggest you do a series of posts on the topic along the way and invite challenges back?
Not to discourage you, But I do think you are in for a surprise if you think there will be any significant direct financial reward for you in this. I suspect you will make less on the book than you would a month or two of flipping burgers.
The articles are too short. I intend to be thorough.
DeleteGreat. Looking forward to reading it.
ReplyDeleteBasically three main versions of Kuzari 'proof'. Rabbi Gottlieb, Rabbi Kellemen and Rabbi Chait. Yet, during discussions the argument morphs from one version to another and RG uses something called NET. Something like no false NETS exists. Also NETS resist myth formation per RG. Kefirahoftheweek wrote a post on Rabbi Gottlieb version. I myself wrote numerous posts on Kuzari and many of my posts even when not called Kuzari touch on the argument. Pelta probably researched the Aztec myth the most - see my links to him. RG tries to refute the Aztec story. Sounds like good Idea to separate Kuzari argument into another book. I suggest reading every kefirahoftheweek post as well. http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/ I wonder what philosophers would think of the Kuzari argument.
ReplyDelete@G*3 The Kuzari argument seems to be the main argument used by apologetics and religious Jews and it important to deal with it. No matter what else you write about in your book, they will invariably respond SO WHAT. We have the full proof Kuzari argument.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, the Kuzari argument is made by taking pretty much everything that makes the jewish tradition of the Sinai revelation unique, and then somehow claiming that not only do those aspects make the revelation more likely, but that: A: they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for it not to have occurred, and B: ONLY that particular set of unique properties can do so.
ReplyDeleteThe problems with this are that: A: the argument uses a sample of one, and is built to only be able to have a sample of one, effectively rendering it both unproveable and unfalsifiable unless one assumes the answer in advance. B: no one has actually calculated the probability of the component parts to increase the likelihood a tradition is true. Until this is done, the Kuzari is less of a rational argument, and more of something that just sounds like it might make sense. C: other religions have logically similar arguments, each using the specific historical aspects that make it unique. There is therefore no reason to believe that the unique aspects of any religion are likely to be proof of it's validity
> he Kuzari argument is made by taking pretty much everything that makes the jewish tradition of the Sinai revelation unique
DeleteYes, that's R' Gottlieb's version of it.
> the argument uses a sample of one, and is built to only be able to have a sample of one,
He defines matan Torah as an NET, and defines an NET as matan Torah. Then says that the fact that matan Torah is the only NET shows that NETs can't be lies or form naturally like other myths, and must be true.
> other religions have logically similar arguments
Not just logically similar, pretty much identical. I've seen Christians make the same argument about the Resurrection.
@Anonymous - R' Kellemen and R' Gottlieb seem to have two different versions, but in discussions people sort of conflate them. I think RK leans towards a uniqueness approach while RG towards a more general approach - his KP principle. Then he uses NET to argue myth formation does not work for NET's. RG's Kuzari principle is faulty and so RG's entire argument collapses. RK uniqueness approach is faulty because uniqueness does not even remotely suggest the Sinai story is true. I think RG has a stronger argument than RK. To repeat I have written extensively on the Kuzari argument and even my non Kuzari posts often discuss it a bit. Start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i.html
Delete@ G*3 I am not so sure RG "defines" Sinai as NET and visa versa. Rather, he argues NET is a general category and all known NETs are true and there are no false NETS. Thus we may accept the Sina story as true. Check out http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/09/kuzari-argument-part-6.html
Delete@G*3 RG is a clever man and has carefully formulated his Kuzari argument. We have to be careful not to strawman his argument. I wrote a two posts on the Miracle of the 'Son' 'Sun" which I think is a good refute to the Kuzari http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13.html
DeleteI know, he argues that technically there can be NETs other than matan Torah. But he refines the definition of an NET whenever he's presented with a new national revelation story from another culture. And he doesn't cite any true NETs. The category is built around matan Torah.
Delete@ G*3 Like in Moving Goal Posts ! There more RG limits his NET to Sinai the weaker his argument becomes. He has to provide some examples of Nets. Why ? There are no false NETs, per his claim. So if there are no true NETs either, then the NET category is empty except for Sinai which he claims is a NET. But if Siani is the only NET how does he know NETs are true ? Would September 11, 2001 count as a NET ? http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/09/kuzari-argument-part-6.html
DeleteEvery known true NET did not involve supernatural. Thus Sinai would not qualify as NETs that are known to be true. Per RG Sinai is a NET, but we do not know if it falls into the category of true NETs.
Delete@G*3 "The category is built around matan Torah." The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
DeleteIt really bugs me how these conversations so often end up around whether “NET” is or isn’t an actual thing or whether there are or are not counter examples. It really makes little difference. Even if MT is unique in many ways that by no means demonstrates that it can not be formed through the normal process of myth formation. It just means that it is a rare myth. It formed under unique circumstances. Not supernatural circumstances. By arguing around the definition of “NET” you are effectively giving credence to the theory that if something is unique that somehow gives license to expect it to be supernatural.
DeleteYoni2. you're absolutely right. Uniqueness is no indication of truth. But I think it's useful to show that even if it were a valid argument, it's still wrong.
DeleteI am not sure RG is arguing MT is unique. That is more like RK. I think RG claims NETs resist false myth formation. Why ? Because there are no known false NETs. But there could be no false NETs for reasons having nothing to do with NETs resisting false myth formation. For example limited sample size, few countries wanting to develop NETs, unrecorded NETs...WHY would Miracle of Son/Sun not qualify as a NET ?
DeleteMy default assumption is that 'NET' stands for 'not even true.'
ReplyDeleteThat's good!
DeleteI would love that! I would suggest even splitting it up into more books - iirc, you already have sections, right? If you only plan to self-publish, on Amazon, and you recognize that you're speaking / writing to a very small and specific group of people (who might grow your audience via sharing), all of whom are willing to wait for installments - you could treat it like extended - very extended! - blog posts. (Sorry for the incoherence, I've been writing all weekend and then all week - is it already Wednesday night??? - and my brain is fried.)
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in what you come up with. Let me know if you want someone to read stuff critically and make suggestions/edits. I have a lot of familiarity with the various arguments and might be able to provide historical and archaeological sources for specific claims.
ReplyDelete@ A Kefirah It is a real pleasure to hear from you again. Do you check your email ? I think I emailed stuff but never heard back. Check out http://2nd-son.blogspot.com/2018/03/breaking-kuzari.html if you can think of anything to help out G*3 great. I have spent alot of time trying to source what Rabbi Kelemen's calls AppleWhite Theorem. I find nothing. Somebody has tried to contact Rabbi Kelemen and all RK does is reference his videos or write ups, none of which source it. I am 99% certain it is an RK invention. It is as if RK tinkered with R'Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle and came up with AppleWhite Theorem.
Delete@altercocker since I cant reach you by email I'd add to your gematria post that you can make a Gematria for anything if you want
DeleteSome examples
Israelites knew 4/20 would be a big drug day as that's the Gematria of עשן
Jesus died for our sins as ישו (Jesus) has the same value as ויכפר
Here's a HIGHLY offensive one that should shut up all Gematria fans: היטלר(hitler) and רחום (mericful,compassionate) have the same gematrias.
Anonymous thanks.
Delete