Q&A: Postmodernism versus Religion
Postmodernism versus Religion
Question
Hello Rabbi,
More than a decade ago I read your (excellent!!!) trilogy on postmodernism and Judaism, and even years later I am still reflecting on it.
One of the things that troubles me most is the issue of being able to conduct useful discussions and clarify matters and get closer to the “truth” according to the two opposing conceptions you presented.
The argument that it is impossible to conduct a discussion under a postmodern philosophy (and that one can only engage in power struggles and verbal clashes) makes sense to me, and I accept it.
But my difficulty is this:
As I understand it, the conception you presented as opposed to postmodernism—according to which there are spiritual “entities” that we are capable of observing with “the eyes of our intellect”—does not really save us from the above problem.
I can testify from personal experience: when I was a devout and enthusiastic believer, I would from time to time debate with friends who held contradictory views, and it was impossible to arrive at any shared truth, even though both I and the opposing side accepted the “synthetic” assumption.
After all, if I “see” something as a spiritual fact, while my friend does not see it, how can we move from that point toward a more solid truth?
By contrast, if we accept an assumption according to which “good” and “evil” are concepts with a clearer meaning, derived from people’s emotional world, then it would be possible to conduct useful discussions.
For example, in a discussion about whether settlements should be evacuated, it would be possible to have a useful discussion if there is an objective function of increasing the good, in the sense of people’s welfare.
By contrast, if one person argues that it is a “spiritual duty” to hold on to the territories of the Land of Israel because it advances the redemption and so on, then it is not really possible to conduct a serious discussion around the issue (and here I assume that bringing “supporting texts” from the Bible and the Talmud does not advance the discussion, because each side will interpret the sources according to its initial inclination).
Thank you.
Answer
The fact is that it is difficult to decide ethical and other arguments. No matter what theoretical explanation you propose, the fact remains a fact. Whether you acknowledge observation of ideas or not, that will not change the situation.
If morality is a matter of emotion, then there is nothing to talk about at all. Each person has his own emotions. Moreover, there is also no point in trying to persuade, because you yourself do not believe it—you only feel that way. So what is the argument about, and why persuade? Just because you feel like having him feel as you do?
As for the matter itself, persuasion is possible if there is listening and a willingness to consider and accept. But clearly persuasion is not algorithmic, and there is no technique that works with certainty on everyone. I have already written that persuasion is usually based on rhetoric and not on logic. Logic derives conclusions from premises, but a serious argument is usually based on different premises. The way to discuss premises is with rhetorical tools. Rhetorical ability is what determines the matter in this respect. Rhetorical ability gives you the possibility of bringing the other person to observe the ideas from the angle from which you see them (through counterexamples and various implications), and then perhaps to persuade or be persuaded.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you for your answer.
But there is a certain problem here: after all, you argued against postmodernism that arguments become verbal clashes.
On the other hand, according to the method you describe, the way to persuade people of abstract truths is through rhetorical tools.
But if person A persuaded person B, who can guarantee that they have come closer to the truth?
The only thing one can infer from this is that person A has greater rhetorical ability.
From my personal experience, I have already several times seen decisions being made that were necessarily mistaken (on the engineering level) because a certain person in the forum had impressive powers of persuasion.
By contrast, if one assumes a conception according to which morality is the maximization of human happiness, there is room to bring facts into the discussion (unlike the spiritual conception you advocate).
For example: if there is a debate over whether to legalize soft drugs, according to your conception the main discussion will be whether this is “good” or “bad” in the spiritual-abstract sense.
By contrast, if the assumption of the debating sides is that the meaning of good is the maximization of happiness, one can use facts. For example, one can examine what happens in countries where they legalized it, one can examine the effect of such a move on health, on the economy, and so on.
(In other words, the assumption that good = maximization of happiness breaks David Hume’s naturalistic fallacy difficulty.)
Morality as maximizing happiness? That’s just a statement with no thought behind it
If everyone were at maximum happiness today, and no one had children and no one did anything, and everyone died maximally happy and humanity went extinct—would you say morality had been fulfilled?
By the way, over the years it turned into a quartet. The trilogy is the new work I published about two years ago.