Axioms and values
Hello Rabbi.. With your permission, I would be grateful if you could answer two questions:
- Is the world built on axioms? – meaning religions, worldviews, political views, etc….
- Does the world necessarily exist on axioms?
- Is a world where people rely on axioms a world that descends into chaos because everyone has their own assumptions and general assumptions, etc….?
- If it is the person who gives existence to the values he follows, then why should I believe in the values that others create? After all, values cannot be imposed on a particular person, since it depends on the person’s desire to adhere to and strive for the value.
I know the questions are a bit out of order and illogical, I would be happy if you could correct them and answer them.
Thanks in advance!
Hello Gil.
First, I must say that if you send questions and expect an answer, the basic requirement is that you spend some time refining and clarifying your intent. If you yourself say that the questions are illogical and unorganized, what prevents you from sitting down and organizing them a bit? I don’t think it makes sense that I should spend the time to understand, when I answer a lot of people who ask and when you are the one who wants answers.
As for your two (?) questions.
- I didn’t understand. Give an example and explain what the alternatives are between which you are hesitating.
- What is the difference between built and existed? I didn’t understand.
- I have elaborated on this in several places. It is true that every person and every group constructs their own worldview, and this creates different “narratives.” Postmodernism claims that this is essential and that any such system is arbitrary (because it is impossible to justify basic assumptions), and this does indeed create chaos and an intellectual vacuum. But if you see this as a debate whose goal is to reach the truth (as far as possible), I do not see it as chaos in the negative sense. On the contrary, diverse perspectives improve the discussion and help us get closer to the truth.
- I didn’t understand.
Thanks for the comment. You answered some of what I asked in 3. I will try to summarize the other questions that did not receive an answer (the order of the questions changes a bit in this question):
1. To fish’ – in politics - the axioms will be the values that stem from the government in country X. I ask - is there an alternative? That is, can it be said that I do not accept a certain axiom because the person is infected and subjective or must he accept the axiom against his will because it is common in the world? What will make me accept the axiom and will it necessarily be a game in the field of logic?
2. What is the authority that obliges the person to accept certain values and can they be imposed on him?
1. Values are the ethical axioms. Therefore, it can always be said that at the heart of our value system is a set of axioms (=values). From them we derive the appropriate forms of conduct.
The way to adopt such axioms is intuition (in this case, moral). You do not accept them because someone stated them, but because they seem correct to you, and therefore it really does not matter whether he is infected or not.
2. Regarding authority, this is a question of the source of the validity of morality. In my view, this is the will of God (see in the fourth notebook, Ch. 3). If there is a correct value, people can be forced to act according to it, although not always. If they truly and sincerely believe in another value, there is room to treat them with tolerance. See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA/
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
