Blind loyalty to rational people, and manipulative terminology
Hello Rabbi Michi,
First, I want to thank you for your work. It adds a lot to have your entire enterprise.
I want to ask a few questions:
- I have seen questions directed to you on the site, that you have \\\\\’followers\\\\\’ like the Hasidim Rabbi, that is, that they remain \\\\\’an ignorant crowd\\\\\’, and admire critical thought, and continue to lead an uncritical lifestyle, and direct you to many questions in which they ask for your opinion, that is, there is a wise and critical person in front of them, and they will now simply ask him for an opinion on someone, in which he will not give a complete essay and sides, but will simply pass judgment on the matter brought before him for life or death, invalid or not invalid, obscene or not obscene, while the questioners themselves simply, instead of a Hasidim Rabbi telling them all this, a philosopher Rabbi tells them it. They continue to be influenced by emotions instead of managing themselves with thinking. \\\\\\\\”Rabbi Michi said about him so and so\\\\\\”. This no longer has any intellectual weight with them, but is purely emotional.
I asked, then, a) Do you agree with the statement I made here? b) If so, a question arises, why do you cooperate with these questions, and not confront the questioners with the rational absurdity of their entire approach?
- I read your post about the line meetings, from several years ago, and the thread of comments from users, and your responses to their comments. I join everyone who is happy about the cheap and surprising demagogy in this post in relation to your other posts. I saw that you continued to claim firmly that you use cynicism, humor, and disdain, and do not see anything wrong with this (rationally wrong, apparently, meaning that you did not deviate from conducting a substantive discourse in your opinion).
I would therefore like to ask you, regarding what constitutes a substantive discourse, a) Do you even recognize the existence of psychological manipulation in the rational presentation of ideas? That is, do you recognize the possibility of manipulations that are woven into the presenter’s “substantial” presentation?
b) From a rational perspective, in your opinion, is it correct to include in rational expression expressions that address the listeners’ stomachs directly, bypassing the barrier of reason, which could allow them to fairly digest things?
c) And accordingly, would you agree with the existence of social and psychological semi-definitions that contain and carry within them a great deal of negative connotation (fundamentalism, cult, etc.), and therefore the use of these semi-definitions would be defined as emotional manipulation of the listeners, as the deadly psychological effect of the expression cannot be ignored, unlike personal definitions that are free from contagion?
Best regards, Mordechai Stambler
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Section C’ “Social and psychological definitions that contain and carry a great deal of negative connotation…” is taken straight from the terminology of the Progressives and sounds like something I would expect to hear from a gender lecturer.
Rabbi Miki, thank you for your answer.
I ask about the very use of ’encyclopedic, relevant, and precise descriptions’. I argue that they are significantly deficient, as they themselves are created from a very specific view of reality.
Don't you think that many of the sectarian characteristics you wrote about can be said about Western society?
First of all, the aforementioned fundamentalism, which you wrote is truly the main component - don't you agree that every society is fundamentalist, since every society is organized around some principle, and whoever disobeys that principle is met with hostility from the members of the society?
After all, if a certain person does not recognize Zionist symbols in the environment of a Zionist society - will the attitude towards him not be in the same pattern as members of a sect who persecute those who oppose the principles of the sect?
The same is true for a person who opposes liberal principles in the environment of a liberal society.
I believe that it does, and that every society can uphold this principle. I argue that in order to present the criticism of the Myrrh, one does not need to resort to definitions that can define every human society, shaky definitions of ‘science’ in its infancy.
One can simply say ‘what they do’ on the Myrrh Mountain, instead of saying ‘what is the slot I put the Myrrh Mountain in’. In other words, one can simply leave the entire long list of what you wrote that occurs in sects, without resorting to the word ‘sect’. And then the observer will judge how many of the things on the list he can include in every human society he knows around him.
Gabriel, indeed, one can see in my claim that words have a great influence, a similarity to the central claim of the terminology of Progress, that where there is no meaning and truth in life, words are everything. This argument can also be used against Progress itself, which plays with words and their meaning to terrorize people and denounce anyone who does not align with its dictates.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
