On the Text and Contextualism – The Death of the Reader

שו”ת › Category: general › On the Text and Contextualism – The Death of the Reader

asked 8 years ago

To Rabbi Michai, peace and blessings,

I would like to consult with you on an issue that is currently troubling me. I am about to write a thesis in political thought, a thesis that will deal with the development of the movement called ‘conservatism’ and the sub-movement called ‘neoconservatism.’ Now, from a methodological point of view, it is most common to assume that ideas are not disconnected from the historical platform on which they grew. Therefore, those who argue claim that it is impossible to understand the philosophy of the thinker at all without researching and tracing his experiences, understanding his period and other historical nuances. However, it seems that this is not a philosophical work. It is a historical work whose assumptions are explicitly relativistic, which holds that philosophy does not stand on its own but is always conditioned by time and place. Some would say ‘sociology of knowledge.’

What do you think of this position? Can a method be justified that holds that understanding the text is accessible to us even without going into historical details? Can it be said that there are eternal philosophical questions that humans have been dealing with for generations, so that Aristotle did indeed argue with Mill and Plato with Tocqueville? Or is this a clear anachronism?

From here, of course, we come to ask, is there supposed to be a connection between the position we hold in academia and the position we hold when we come to the Holy Land? Ostensibly, the scholar is preoccupied with the body of laws and their ramifications and does not engage in historical research for the sake of the shekel and the freshness of the halakhic law. The study of the layered Gemara – although it may broaden the mind and excite the academic soul – has not gained popularity among classical Yeshivah scholars. How do you see this?

Thank you and have a good weekend,

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 8 years ago

Hello A. Your question concerns the purpose of the study. If the goal is to understand what the author intended, it is reasonable to need context. But if your intention is to clarify the issue itself (what is the correct position and what are the sides for and against each position), then context can provide enlightenment and ideas, but it is not essential. In my article on hermeneutics, I dealt with this point, and I argued that this is the reason that Yeshivah study did not need context, and from its perspective, Reka disagrees with Ra (and perhaps also with Vashti and Achshavrosh, according to the Flaplanim): 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%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7 %A2%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%99%D7%98%D7%99 %D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%98%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A7/ Although today I am no longer really there (meaning I do not hold the position I presented there). I don’t think there can be a difference between a position you hold in academia and a position outside of it. If that’s your position, then that’s your position. But in academia you’re not supposed to have a position. You’re supposed to review the different positions and sides. Positions only exist outside of academia (that’s what it’s supposed to be). I wrote about this in the polemic in the first place around Avinoam Rosenk and his opponents at the Hebrew University (the philological-historical position). You should read: 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%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%94 %D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7 %A9%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2/ All of this has to do with postmodernism, which sees every position as an expression of the influences and trends around it, and from this it follows that no one disagrees with the other (because if the other were in the same situation, they would think the same). It is a strange reversal of a relativist approach that becomes actually very objectivist (because in every situation there is only one position). There is still room for improvement in this matter, and so on.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ע' replied 8 years ago

Thank you for your quick response.

I remembered your article as soon as I clicked “Send”, and I was indeed moved to read it. The article provides an answer to the question of the characteristics of yeshivah study and the way in which it is similar to and different from historical research.
However, I first ask about the methodological-academic manner in itself, isn't this a philosophical work? When the rabbi approaches Kant's writings, does he first learn about Königsberg and its landscapes? Isn't reason universal and things must be understood as they are. Is there reason to fear that the thinker cannot be understood without conducting historical-philological research into his use of words and the nature of the incarnation of his ideas over the generations?

I also remember the column on Rosenk, of course, but I believe that the issue is only close to our subject and does not touch on the subject itself. Rosenk's issue is a good one to attack the sociology and gender studies departments, since they do not analyze and categorize, edit and arrange, but rather create ideological pamphlets per se (at least according to the accepted stereotype...). But if we still believe in the possibility of philosophy, as the application of arguments that make sense and their formulation in relation to each other, the comparison of methods of thinking and the raising of points of similarity and difference, then this is certainly a legitimate role of the academic philosopher. Once again, the question arises: does only the historical method have a place or also the study of matters that discuss positions in their essence. And assuming that there is a place for such a study, what are the basic assumptions on which it stands? How can one establish a position that sees a philosopher as a person whose ideas have managed to transcend their time and place and touch eternity?

What do you think about this?

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

I answered all of this. I don't understand what wasn't clear. An academic is supposed to analyze the perceptions of different thinkers. You can do this from the content and you can do this using the context. It is clear that a systematic, complete, and comprehensive study will need both of these aspects. But none of this has anything to do with taking a position. An academic is not supposed to have a position (in his academic hat). And that is exactly the content of my article on Rosenk. Or I really don't understand your point.
By the way, this column does not attack these departments but the approach of Rosenk and his colleagues. The column supports the objective (philological-historical) approach, and that is what I wrote to you here.