Q&A: Fundamentalism and Syntheticity and Practical Implications
Fundamentalism and Syntheticity and Practical Implications
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I read your book “Truth and Unstable,” and already at the beginning I felt repulsed by the utilitarian striving to create a system of thought that would not lead us to extreme consequences.
But my main problem with the book’s conclusion in favor of synthetic thinking is that it doesn’t solve the problem at all.
Because someone who holds the synthetic (unstable) truth has no problem at all using radical tools like the death penalty, a southern law, or eliminating a terrorist like a cat, and so on.
At first I thought about the difference between killing out of a lack of appreciation for the lives of certain people and killing as a possible tool, but that doesn’t hold water.
In short, a person with a synthetic outlook, just like his fundamentalist friend, can decide—even under uncertainty—on total/extreme actions based on the truth he believes in, and the only thing a synthetic outlook does is lower the threshold of certainty, which from a utilitarian perspective (yuck…) can lead to the opposite situation of lowering the values even further.
I was reminded of the story about someone who wanted to kill a second person after seeing that he was coming to kill him, and a third person tried to persuade him that maybe he hadn’t seen well, and that he couldn’t rely on his own thought process, etc. And the first person answered that he intended to murder the second on the basis of the same sight and reasoning by which he had seen him coming, so it cancels out.
In short, morality and values that derive from a synthetic outlook cannot be any stronger than extreme actions driven by that same outlook.
With joy and delight,
Reuven
Answer
Hello Reuven. It seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the book. It does not strive for synthetic thinking in order to prevent fundamentalism. Syntheticity is true, and therefore one should hold it. Not in order to achieve any goals whatsoever. Likewise, fundamentalism is not problematic because of its results, but because it is nonsense. Its philosophical definition is not extremism but the absence of critical thinking.
We have no way to avoid relying on basic assumptions, but all of them must be subjected to critical examination, and we must understand that none of them is certain. That does not mean one can always persuade others, or that you have here a proven key to preventing extremism. But usually there will indeed be less extremism there.
Discussion on Answer
By the way, I really don’t like the new look. You were much more impressive with a few extra kilos.
I read your question and answered it. The motivations at the beginning of the book are not the justifications for syntheticity, but only a motivation to consider it seriously on its own terms.
The question is divided into two topics; please take note.
Indeed, at the beginning of the book (and also a bit later on), the fundamentalist position is presented not in a philosophical analysis but as a utilitarian problem (see there).
And as I wrote, I already read the book and I know the arguments. I’d be happy if you would read my question again from that perspective.