Postmodernism vs. Religion

שו”ת › Category: faith › Postmodernism vs. Religion

asked 4 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
More than a decade ago I read your (excellent!!!) trilogy on postmodernism and Judaism, and years later I’m still pondering the things.
One of the things that most disturbs my peace of mind is the issue of being able to have useful discussions and to find out and get closer to the “truth” based on the two opposing views you presented.
The argument that it is not possible to have a debate (but only to conduct power struggles and verbal clashes) under postmodern philosophy makes sense, and I accept it.
But my difficulty is this:
In my understanding, the anti-postmodernist view you presented, according to which there are spiritual “beings” that we are able to observe “with our mind’s eye,” does not really save us from the above problem.
In my opinion, the following is true: When I was a devout and passionate believer, I debated from time to time with friends who held conflicting views, and it was not possible to reach any common 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, how can we from this point advance to a more solid truth?
On the other hand, if we accept the assumption that “good” and “bad” are concepts with a clearer meaning, derived from the emotional world of humans, it will be possible to have useful discussions.
For example, in the discussion of whether communities should be evacuated, it would be possible to conduct a useful discussion if there is an “objective function” of increasing the good, in the sense of the well-being of people.
On the other hand, if one claims that it is a “spiritual duty” to hold onto the territories of the Land of Israel because it advances redemption and the like, it is not really possible to have a serious discussion around the issue (and here I assume that bringing “references” from the Bible and the Talmud does not advance the discussion, because each side will interpret things according to its initial inclination).
thanks.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 4 years ago

The fact is that ethical and other debates are difficult to decide. It doesn’t matter what theoretical explanation you offer, the fact is a fact. Whether you acknowledge that there is observation in ideas or not, it doesn’t change the situation. If morality is a matter of emotion, then there’s nothing to talk about. Everyone has their own feelings. Furthermore, there’s no point in trying to convince because you yourself don’t believe it, but just feel that way. So what’s the argument about and why convince? Is it because you want him to feel the same way? In essence, it is possible to persuade if there is listening and a willingness to consider and accept. But it is clear that persuasion is not algorithmic and there is no technique that works for sure for everyone. I have already written that persuasion is usually based on rhetoric and not on logic. Logic draws conclusions from assumptions, but a serious debate is usually based on different assumptions. The way to discuss assumptions is with rhetorical tools. Rhetorical ability is decisive in this matter. Rhetorical ability gives you the ability to make the other person view ideas from the angle you see them (through counterexamples and various implications), and then perhaps convince or be convinced.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

By the way, it eventually became a quartet. The trilogy is the new work I published about two years ago.

חיים בואורן replied 4 years ago

Thanks for your answer.
But there is a certain problem here, after all, you argued against postmodernism that arguments turn into verbal clashes.
On the other hand, according to the method you describe, the way to convince with simplified truths is through rhetorical tools.
But if person A convinced person B, who guarantees that they got closer to the truth?
The only thing that can be concluded from this is that person A has higher rhetorical abilities.
From my personal experience, I have already seen several times that decisions are made that are necessarily wrong (on the engineering level) because a certain person in the forum had impressive persuasive abilities.
On the other hand, if we assume a perception according to which morality is the maximization of human happiness, there is room to involve facts in the discussion (different from the spiritual perception that you advocate).
For example: If there is a debate about whether to legalize soft drugs, according to your perception, the main point of the discussion will be whether it is “good” or “bad”, in the abstract spiritual sense.
On the other hand, if the assumption of the disputing parties is that the meaning of good is maximizing happiness, facts can be used. For example, you can examine what happens in countries where they have legalized, you can examine the impact of such a move on health, on the economy, etc.
(In other words, an assumption that good = maximizing happiness breaks the problem of David Hume's neutralist fallacy.)

הפוסק האחרון replied 4 years ago

Morality Maximizes Happiness? This is just a statement with no thought behind it

If everyone were to be maximally happy today, and no one would have children and do nothing. And everyone would die maximally happy and humanity would become extinct. Would you say that the moral has been fulfilled?