4 questions
Peace be upon the late R.A. Shlita.
1. Why does the rabbi believe that there is no such thing as Jewish philosophy or thought? The various philosophies are shaped in parallel with the culture of each region. Chinese philosophy is different from Western philosophy. It is true that in everything there will be things that are universally right or wrong, but nevertheless, what types of thought are different?
2. Following the debate at the Chabad conference in Tel Aviv about gender segregation, I remembered that you said that true liberalism is letting each person lead their life as they wish. Therefore, if religious men and women want segregation, that is their right. The question is how long will this last? As I know, there are many devout women in Islam who are on behalf of the unfortunate status of Muslim women. Should we support this in the name of liberalism?
3. And if we are talking about modesty and the status of women, in your opinion, does modesty cross the line between a woman’s dignity and modesty that causes her oppression?
4. What is good extremism, about which the Chazova said that there is no perfection without it? Does this mean excessive strictness in laws, while bad extremism is fanaticism?
5. How is it possible that countries like China and the East in general are not affected by the struggle between postmodernism and fundamentalism? Although they are not European, this struggle must take place wherever the Enlightenment appears. Perhaps the West needs a way of life and a way of looking at the world as practiced in the East?
Peace be upon the Lord of the Holy Mountain in Ntzivin, a servant of a holy people who resides in the place of judgment and whose fortress is spread throughout the network.
And so as not to leave the page blank and for the love of the Holy Spirit, I will allow myself some grains of bitter words.
1. I did not say that there is no Jewish philosophy. There really is none, but perhaps there are some Jewish outlines. When I say that there is no Jewish philosophy, I mean that conclusions should not be drawn on the basis of Jewish sources and not examined through their conformity to them. Philosophy is something universal, meaning that what is true is true for everyone in the world, even if its origin is foreign, and what is not true is not true for Jews either, even if its origin is from the greatest Torah scholars.
2. I have not heard of the debate at the Chabad conference in Tel Aviv regarding gender segregation. As for your question, I have no clear lines. But in principle, as long as an adult and society make decisions, it is not right to interfere in their lives. As long as it is accepted by all concerned, you can try to convince, but there is no justification for forcing. By the way, it is usually not helpful either. There may be exceptional cases, but right now I cannot think of such a case (it would have to be a case where I am convinced that the people did not make an autonomous decision. This is of course a vague and problematic criterion, since there are many who are convinced that as long as they do not think it is right, it is a non-autonomous decision, as in the case of Haredi and Muslim women).
3. I have no criteria. It can also change in time and place. Therefore, one must experience the situation in order to formulate a position on it. In any case, as I wrote above, even if there is something that does seem to me to be oppression, as long as the “oppressed” agrees and is an adult – there is no justification for intervening.
4. Any extremism is good in the sense that you should act according to your understanding and not be a compromiser. Bad extremism is the content of the position you believe in, i.e. a black or white view. This is usually not true.
Of course, there is also proportionality in using force to further your position. I advocate tolerance, and using force in the wrong place can also be considered an improper extremism.
5. I’m not familiar enough, but I’m not sure it doesn’t appear there. On the contrary, I assume it definitely appears there, even if in different forms. Beyond that, there’s a difference in the timeline. Sometimes things appear in a different place at a later time (the ripening time is different).
But even if you’re right, what’s good for the East isn’t necessarily good for the West. It reminds me of suggestions to learn the virtues of socialism from Scandinavia. Beyond the fact that it’s a different kind of socialism and usually presents data in a biased and partial way, we can’t necessarily learn from them. Jews have a different nature and not everything (understatement beware!!) that’s true for Swedes is true for Israelis.
By the way, this question is related to its predecessors. The West is more ideological and follows labels (part of this is its religious heritage that distinguishes between an infidel and a believer and between one god and another. In the East it doesn’t work that way. It is more pluralistic and polytheistic). That’s why extremism appears there in other forms (although Chinese communism is a crackdown on this, and so on).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
