Hebrew thought

Hebrew Thought.

Table of contents

1 Where it comes from
2 Comparison with Greek Thought

2.1 Function vs. Form
2.2 Active vs. Static
2.3 Historic vs. Ahistoric
2.4 Patterns vs. Holistic or Individualistic
2.5 Democracy vs. Autocracy or Chaos
2.6 Observation vs. Plausibility
2.7 Substance vs. Appearance

3 Who uses Hebrew Thought today?
4 Further reading

Where it comes from

This type of thinking comes from a religious tradition centered on the Hebrew Tanakh, or Old Testament, hence its name. Today it is used by a small number of Christians whose theology is consistent with that of the Protestant Reformation. One does not need to be a Christian to utilize Hebrew Thought, as it is the thought pattern used by Archimedes and much of modern science.

Most philosophers use what is called Greek Thought, so named because it was used by the ancient Greek philosophers. It is also the thought pattern used by most world religions.

Very few modern philosophers even understand Hebrew Thought. They think it is a simple method used by a relatively primitive people who had little concept of abstract concepts. However, it uses the same mathematical logic used also by Greek Thought, only applied in a different manner.

Comparison with Greek Thought

Possibly the best way to illustrate this type of thinking is to contrast it with Greek Thought, the other major thought method:

Hebrew Thought says that history is important, so important that specific dates are recorded. For example, in 1 Kings 6 we are told that Solomon started building his temple 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt under Moses, which would put the Exodus at about 1450 BC. The reason history is important for those who follow Hebrew religion is that it records God’s actions into history and his communications with his creation—us.

Patterns vs. Holistic or Individualistic

Greek Thought, with its emphasis on form, found itself asking which form is the defining form for objects, and beliefs. The universals became a abstract form for which there is no specific example on earth. What we experience is that objects often come is a variety of forms, and between the abstract, universal form and the multiplicity of individual forms that we experience is an unbridgeable gap that has been called “the line of despair”.

Hebrew Thought with its emphasis on function recognizes that whatever form fulfills the intended function is thereby a representative of the universal. It is the function that defines both the universal and the individual, so there is no difference between the two.

Democracy vs. Autocracy or Chaos

Perhaps a good way to illustrate this difference is to listen to the music of Vivaldi and Bach. They were contemporaries, but wrote recognizably different music. Vivaldi followed the Greek Thought tradition, and his music is typified by one instrument or group of instruments having the melody line and all the others merely accompaniment. Not so with Bach. Bach was from the orthodox Lutheran tradition that was very much influenced by Hebrew Thought. In his music usually each voice is a melodic voice yet they work together to make a harmonious whole greater than the individual parts.

Later music from a Greek though tradition has either the one voice autocratically leading and all other voices subservient, or where each voice is autonomous as in Bach, they tend not to work together to make pleasant harmony.

We also see the difference in high art: most art made by those influenced by Greek Thought is static, at rest. Art from the Dutch masters, for example, influenced by the Reformation, is noted for its dynamism. Even the “quiet” pictures usually look as if the artist caught a pause between activities.

A final example is that in societies with religions strongly influenced by Greek Thought, they tend toward dictatorship where an elite has absolute power, above the law. But under the influence of the Protestant Reformation, even where royalty continued, all people are considered to be equally under the law and the power of government is limited and shared with the people usually in the form of a parliament.

Observation vs. Plausibility

In Greek Thought, a plausible argument that fits within a logical and conceptual whole is often more valued than one based on observation but is not understood. Thus we find observations are sometimes devalued, such as when Darwin did not take the studies of Mendel seriously (Mendel sent him a copy of his paper), when they don’t fit the whole of the belief system. (Modern evolutionists have made a synthesis of both Darwin’s and Mendel’s works.)

In Hebrew Thought, observation takes precedence over plausibility, even when it is not understood.

Substance vs. Appearance

In Hebrew Thought, whether something has the substance to fulfill its function is more important than if it looks good. For example, a hidden door that fulfills its function as a door is counted as a door, while a decoration that appears like a door is not.

Who uses Hebrew Thought today?

It is no question that those Christians who most closely follow the same theology as taught by the Protestant Reformation, in particular those of Luther do use Hebrew Thought.

One fallout of the Protestant Reformation was the development of modern science and the mathematics to support it. For example, while the ancient Greeks and Egyptians developed algebra and geometry to a high art, it was Newton and others influenced by the Reformation, even though they themselves may have not been Christians (e.g. Leibnitz) who developed calculus designed to describe action by a mathematical formula. Today the modern scientists who most consistently follow Hebrew Thought in their studies are in the hard sciences such as chemistry and physics, while nonempirical studies such as historical cosmology are wedded to Greek Thought and others are in between.