On religious postmodernism.
In the SD
Hello Rabbi.
I heard a lecture that the rabbi gave about 3 years ago after the publication of the book “Tablets and Tablet Fragments” on the topic: Is religious postmodernism possible?
I would like to ask a few questions about the short lecture.
1. The Rabbi said that it is possible to reduce the question to – is postmodernism possible at all? And the answer is no. All that is talked about today about postmodernism is cultural, psychological, a mental position that listens and is more inclusive, but on the philosophical level there is no such thing. (That is what I understood from the Rabbi’s words at least) So, the Rabbi is confident that there is one truth. My questions are 1. Does this mean that we have a criterion to reach it? To understand it? Or is it simply impossible to say that there is no one truth, but that does not really oblige us to say that we will one day reach it? (And if it is possible to reach it, how is it done?)
2. Why does the Rabbi claim that there is only one truth? Is this a belief that there cannot be another, or in a more rational sense?
3. The Rabbi explained that every sentence must either be modernist – (which can simply be understood in a more complex way and from different angles, but that doesn’t really make it postmodernist) or it is nonsense. I wanted to understand a little more what exactly that means? And if possible, an example from the book if the Rabbi remembers… (If the Rabbi doesn’t remember the book, I would be happy to have a complex example that will clarify the matter for me.)
4. Even if the rabbi rationally and intellectually explains that there is one truth, and that there is no criterion for reaching it – what about the existential feeling that lingers in the hearts of religious young people (yeshiva boys, for example) who sit and study and ponder the issues but find no rest? What if in the end, it simply doesn’t sit well with the heart? What if it fails to build in me the fear of God?
I am not at all sure, from my limited familiarity with the rabbi’s writings, that the rabbi identifies with these types of questions. But I tried.
Thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello Eitan. Sorry for the delay (I didn’t see the question. Thanks to Oren the editor for bringing it to my attention).
- First, there is not necessarily one truth for every question. There are questions for which there may be several correct answers, but this does not require postmodernism either. Postmodernism holds that there is no single correct answer to any question, or any correct answers at all.
- In my opinion, it can be reached, but not with certainty. Contrary to the postmodern view, truth and certainty are not synonymous. Our truths are uncertain but not entirely subjective (=as true as their opposites).
- Truth by definition is one. These are the rules of logic. If X is true then “not X” is false. If you believe in “not X” then you do not accept X. Quite simple.
- I gave the example of chocolate in the lecture, and that’s enough. Anyone who says it’s both delicious and not delicious is nonsense. Anyone who says it’s delicious in one respect and not in another is a simple modernist claim. And of course if you claim it’s delicious but not healthy.
- I don’t know what to do with feelings. That’s what psychologists are for. A philosophical subject is supposed to answer and discuss questions, not provide answers to feelings. But in any case, I don’t see why postmodern nonsense provides an answer to anything. If they tell you that you are both right and wrong, does that calm you down? If you have a concrete question that you are undecided about, you are welcome to bring it up and we will analyze it together. Maybe we will find an answer, maybe not, but one thing is clear: the postmodern text will not help you at all.
- Just saying one more thing, that answers to questions are not examined according to the criterion of whether they build fear of God but according to the criterion of truth and logic. If the result of the truth is a lack of fear of God, then that is what it is. There can be different and strange approaches and claims that bring people to fear of God, that does not make them correct.
Finally, I didn’t understand what it means to identify with a question. If you mean that the question is not difficult for me, that doesn’t exempt me from explaining it myself (why it’s not difficult). There is no such thing as a question that I don’t identify with. Either I don’t understand, and then you can certainly explain it to me, or I don’t think it’s difficult, and then I have to explain to you why.
All the best
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
