From Marxism through "New Criticism" to Academic Nonsense 4 (Column 181)

Rabbeinu HaKadosh wrote Yoha"lan when he surely meant Yoha"lam (“from women to gender”). So the Yoha"lan in the IDF protected women (half the population), but that is “inefficient” in someone-or-other’s view, so it was decided to switch to “protecting” transgender people. The dignity of the latter is fully acknowledged; they too are human beings. But that does not justify abolishing the distinction between the sexes, whose abolition harms women above all. For example, separation in public restrooms: even lesbians would prefer that they and their daughters be able to use women’s restrooms without strange men present. The common academic pairing “women’s and gender studies” made possible this bizarre hava amina, as if humane feminism and radical genderism were really good neighbors. Not really.

Indeed. After writing it I remembered this small-big change. And that is exactly what I meant.
But in my insignificance, clutching the hem of the master’s robe, allow me to correct one thing in his pearl-like words. The master wondered whether humane feminism is a good neighbor to radical genderism. But he is mistaken. These are two stages, one on top of the other. For granted, women who do not want a biologically male transgender person entering the restroom with them—who cares about them?! They’re straight. The status of women is an outdated feminist stage. Nowadays women belong to the privileged. Except that in such a case lesbians don’t want this either, and their narrative dignity is more important than anything. Therefore they invented the Yoha"lam, who will save us where the Yoha"lan despaired. So who said there is no progress and up-to-date thinking in the IDF?!…

And so as not to leave the page blank, I will add some small grain that occurred to me while I was engaged in this grave sugya. For behold, they investigated (in the office of the Chief Military Rabbinate for the Yoha"lam unit) with whom a gay man may be secluded. With a straight woman he may not be secluded, because she might be attracted to him. With a straight man he may not be secluded, lest he (=the gay man) be attracted to him. With a gay man he may not be secluded, for that is doubly bad. So all that remains is a lesbian woman [though this requires further inquiry regarding a lesbian man and a homosexual woman. But surely in New York they already have such genders]. It follows that if a gay man is sitting in a room, he must examine everyone there and leave only lesbian women. And if some ordinary person comes to enter this holy place, we follow the majority, and it is biblically forbidden, for biblically we follow the majority. And this is a decree the public cannot endure (and exclusion too, of course).
But ever since our genderist cousins in New York, by force of their profound research, invented for us that there are 31 genders, we now have 28 more genders, and therefore anyone may enter the room, since we follow the majority, and most genders follow the husband. Hence we permit them to enter and do not press them in the vestibule at the threshold. However, this depends on whether we follow the majority of people, or whether we may leniently follow the majority of genders, and this still requires further inquiry. And the matter needs a carpenter and a carpenter’s son to resolve it (by removing the door and window so there will be no seclusion), and that is obvious.

With God’s help, 14 Mar/teheshvan 5779

To Nadav—greetings,

Heaven forbid that we use the expression “gender,” which is grammatically masculine. By contrast, the term “women” fits all human sons and daughters. Men should stop using the expression “a-nashim,” which expresses the negation of female identity. It would be proper for all human beings, male, female, and everything in between, to define themselves by the common name “women,” and thus a redeemer/redeemeress will come to Zion 🙂

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger/te

Here is part of a critique by a PhD of something-or-other who reviewed a fifth-grade book submitted for the approval of the Ministry of Education. The book deals with Israeli Jewish culture (making Judaism accessible as a culture rather than as a religion in state education), and here are some of his sacred words:
A. The chapter on the attitude toward the Land of Israel suffers greatly from one-dimensionality. The issues dealt with are only ideological and religious: longing for the land throughout exile, the commandment of dwelling in the Land of Israel, Zionism as a return to the homeland. (See, for example, the note to p. 110.) It almost completely lacks any discussion of all the real aspects of life in the land: belonging to my own community, belonging to landscapes, different population groups, the existence of Arabs in the land, which is also their homeland, cities and modern development versus nature and village life, wealth versus poverty, the richness of Israeli society and existence, the real lives of Jews in the Diaspora (beyond the question of their “right” not to live in the land, which for some reason is discussed at length in the program…), and in general—a conception of Jewish peoplehood rather than one single exclusive center.
(This one-dimensionality is also prominent in the rationale presented in the teacher’s guide, where it is emphasized that our relation of ownership to the land is the main prism for the entire program. Incidentally, there they speak several times of “Israel’s heritage,” and nowhere does “Israeli Jewish culture” appear—as an expression and as a concept.)
B. The above issue repeats itself again and again in the other chapters as well, in the treatment of Independence Day, Jerusalem, prayer, repeating the same contents over and over in the same way, referring only to symbols while completely ignoring the real sociological reality.
C. The book is very “religio-centric,” and it is evident that the writing team lacked a secular perspective. This is very noticeable with regard to prayer as well.

Thus runs his sacred language, and the words of the mouth of a babbler are babble.

The problem was that in the Ministry of Education they took his nonsense comments seriously, and on their basis they determine the education of Israel’s children.

With God’s help, 14 Heshvan 79

The Nazis’ hatred was not only toward the Jews, but also toward “Judaism,” whose “slave morality,” which imposed on European man duties of justice and aid to the weak, suppressed the domination instincts of the Aryan “master race.”

The Nazis correctly understood that every Jew carries within himself the Abrahamic “bacillus” that calls on him and on all humanity “to keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice,” and therefore as long as there is one Jew in the world, their ideology of evil cannot stand.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

See my remarks on secular Jewish culture (= the empty set). What is written here is merely an illustration of what I wrote there.
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%96%D7%94%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C/

Fascinating, more power to you.
The link to “Picasso’s Sweet Revenge” is broken.

The conception of scientism as whatever is accepted in the community of “scientists” (which is of course a distortion of Kuhn), and therefore if you cite someone, however absurd he may be, that makes you a scientist, is a grave malaise in the social sciences. This of course joins the fact that in these fields one can rely on Marxist or Freudian theories even though they were disproven long ago. These theories are presented with a wink, supposedly, as merely examples of theories of liberation and the like, until you discover that the winkers really do believe in those theories and rely on them. But even apart from Marxism and Freudianism, this does not change the fact that in the end a group of people can promote one another at our expense. One founds a journal devoted to cock-a-doodle-doo studies. The second publishes an article there. The third cites the article, and so on and on. After that they point to the journal as the A-level journal in cock-a-doodle-doo studies, and presto—we have a new scientific field: cock-a-doodle-doo science. Then, in introductory courses to cock-a-doodle-doo studies, they bring Kuhn as an example of science as communities and Marx as an example of liberation studies, and behold, we have self-justification for cock-a-doodle-doo studies.

This conception of scientism has a negative impact on the connection between science and reason. Thus, for example, in the following article on the Alaxon site:
https://alaxon.co.il/article/%d7%97%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%93%d7%99-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%93%d7%a2-%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%98%d7%94/
The author cannot imagine that one can deal with flat-earth claims in a rational way—that is, listen to their arguments and then refute them logically. It seems he does not understand that if you are unable to refute the claims in a logical rational way, then apparently you are not a scientist but a foolish devotee of scientism. Science does not belong to some academic establishment or other, but to our reason (our judgment). And the fact that we fund universities does not make them scientific. Until the nineteenth century science did not reside in universities (their role was to train priests), and even today it does not have to reside in universities (there are quite a few private companies that conduct independent research).

But that is on one level. On another level, the social sciences are difficult sciences because they deal with problematic entities. One can divide science according to our assumptions about the entities we study. In the natural sciences we assume that entities are subject to Newton’s law of inertia, according to which a body persists in its state. Even if we have phenomena that are seemingly not subject to Newton’s second law, such as quanta, they can still be handled statistically. Sciences that make this assumption are physics, chemistry, and biology at the protein level. However, as one climbs upward in biology, we are dealing with entities that no longer obey this assumption. The behavior of biological creatures is governed by the drive to pass genes on to the next generation. And since this conduct depends on other biological creatures, one cannot explain their conduct mechanically. Since they include the conduct of other parallel biological creatures within their response function, their conduct becomes more and more game-like. Their scientific analysis therefore has to be based on game theory and not merely on mechanical or statistical analysis. Entities that meet this requirement may be biological animals or human beings dealing with the phenomenon of scarcity (economics) or power (political science). Game theory assumes a fixed utility function based on a fixed and known preference system. But at a certain point the question arises: what creates our preference system, and is it fixed or not? Here the problematic social sciences begin. Sociology, psychology in some of its aspects, and onward into the humanities try to cope with these questions (while history altogether denies the ability to do science on these questions and contents itself with philology of the human condition). The ability to define theories and research frameworks becomes very difficult, and it is much easier to slide into bogus studies, that is, studies based on citations, instead of doing serious and difficult research. The temptation to become addicted to illusions of liberation is also great, and the result is chaos and void.

Classical philosophy is beautiful, perfect, but lacking true life-spirit. Modernity began as a justified critique of the classical sources and continued as brilliant theories lacking well-grounded foundations of thought. Marx, the Frankfurt School, Derrida—all were assimilated Jews who tried in different ways to shatter the idolatry of Western metaphysics/logic. Did you expect a sophist like Derrida to be a scientist? Do you think the fields the Frankfurt School dealt with are nonsense? That is how it has always been in the humanities: most writers write nonsense, a few write words of substance, and very few of the very few properly understand what they wrote. By the way, are all the conjectures of the roshei metivta and the students in the yeshivot correct? If the Brisker method is such a highly developed analytical tool, why do they say of our times that “truth is absent”?

A side comment: after reflecting on this a bit, I thought it might be worthwhile for the rabbi to change the term he uses for these disciplines (and it is indeed the term commonly used by the masses) to something else, since it is phrased in low language that the rabbi would do well to avoid, even at the cost of immediate clarity (one can mention that name once). The term is built on Arabic, which for some reason, whenever an expression from it is used in colloquial Israeli Hebrew, turns into a cheap and crude expression.

I suggest the name “the sciences of vanity,” which on the one hand echoes the term “the humanities” (“and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind,” “this too is vanity and a striving after wind”), and on the other hand rhymes with “garbage sciences” (which is itself a bit blunt).

I asked Oren to fix it. Thanks.

Nice. I’ll think about it.

Academics are not comparable to the aggregate of yeshiva students. This is an elite that might perhaps be comparable to heads of yeshivot. In my opinion the situation in yeshivot is much better than in those fields I described. “Truth shall be absent” is just the usual kvetching. But as I said, I did not expect this to be science, and that was not my claim. I explained this.

With God’s help, 14 Heshvan 79

The conception of the doctor you quoted is nothing but the standard conception of nationality in the Western world. I am English or French or American because I live in that country, love its landscapes, its language, and its contemporary culture—not because of commitment to a historical or religious heritage. Some secularists seek to apply that same natural nationality to the people of Israel as well.

The difficulty in applying such a natural national conception to the people of Israel is that for us, our existence as a nation in its land is not natural and self-evident. In that same land there is a clash with another national aspiration, which for some reason is unwilling to accept the solution of “two states for two peoples,” and claims exclusive right to that same land. Whoever wants to live here a natural national life must believe that at some point “the other side” will agree to recognize us, or be prepared for an ongoing struggle.

This is the great difficulty in the existence of a natural Israeli nationality. We have no existence except through faith—either faith in the peace that will come, or faith that the people of Israel have a great ideological destiny for which it is worth struggling.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

With God’s help, 14 Heshvan 79

In our eyes Marxism has a negative connotation because of its corruption in certain countries into cruel regimes of oppression. But one should remember that Marxism came into the world in response to a real problem: the Industrial Revolution, which brought disgraceful exploitation of workers, without limits on working hours and without decent pay or minimal social conditions. The human being became a valueless “cog” in the machine, exploiting him to the end without a drop of humanity.

Socialism raised the worker’s head; it made him understand that the worker’s share in the economic success of the enterprise is no less than that of the owner of capital, and it gave him tools of organization that enabled workers to fight for their rights and not fall prey to exploitation—a struggle that led to legislation ensuring reasonable working conditions that are a blessing to worker and employer alike.

Where socialists knew how to build without destroying, to care for the worker’s welfare and rights while preserving democracy and a free competitive economy, the worker’s welfare increased; free competition that brings economic growth also benefits workers. And conversely, the worker’s welfare increases his productivity and his purchasing power as well, thereby improving the national economy.

Socialism taught humanity the vital importance of “human capital” to society and the economy. Capitalism taught the importance of the “free market.” An intelligent combination of the two yields a successful and healthy society.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

Clearly the situation in the yeshivot is better, because it hangs on great trees, whereas modern fields, which are the offspring of thought that has distanced itself from its roots, have to a great extent become a kind of pseudo-intellectual jargon-ridden discourse. If Leo Strauss wrote that in his day most who called themselves philosophers were no more than cautious, systematic, and utterly unbold intellectuals, then today they are for the most part not cautious and less systematic, and far from being educated; all the more so those who call themselves men of spirit or researchers. To our sorrow, this is modern democracy: mass culture.

That is a conception of nationality with which I have no problem whatsoever, including with regard to the people of Israel. But one should not make it into a value. It is a neutral fact, and therefore there is no point in educating toward it. I explained this in my article.

My problem here with Marxism is not its social doctrine, which you discussed here, but its philosophical doctrine (scheming-subversive-bogus). Therefore your remarks have no connection to our discussion.

In connection with the rabbi’s last four articles, and with similar topics he has addressed many times in his essays, it is worth reading Max Horkheimer’s book Eclipse of Reason. Here is a nice review of the book by Yiftah Goldman:
https://ygoldman.org/?p=310

Unfortunately, wherever there is exploitation and oppression, there are also schemes and attempts to present evil as good. Marxism rightly warned about injustices done to workers, and in the end it too failed by engaging in such acts, and worse.

Indeed, one must be careful when struggling against a negative phenomenon that the end not sanctify the means, and that the pursuit of justice be carried out by way of justice—“Gather yourselves together, yes, gather together.”

Regards, Sh. Tz. Leving,

Oops, I thought this was a link to the full book…

With God’s help, 15 Heshvan 79

The conception that history has a direction and a purpose was not invented by Marx. This conception lies at the foundation of modernity, which sees the world as advancing and developing. Scientific research and historical experience advance man in understanding what is true and right. The achievements of each generation form a basis for further progress.

And no less than that, the failures of each generation lead humanity to draw lessons and refine ideals from the dross that clung to them. Human progress is full of trials and errors, hopes and disappointments, ascents and crises. From successes and failures humanity comes closer to understanding complexity. Every idea bursts into the world stormily, and out of youthful enthusiasm those who hold it think it alone will solve all problems.

When people try to realize the idea in the practical world, the problems latent within it are also revealed, and they understand that it requires balance and completion from opposite directions, and the dialectic brings, “at the end of the day,” balance.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

More power to you, Y.D.
You saved the honor of the social sciences and the humanities from indiscriminate trampling (and also that of “bogusness,” whose honor remains in its place…).
As you wrote, biological evolutionary “climbing” or progress is what makes research more complex, and the physical, chemical, mechanical tools are no longer enough.
The difference is immense; it is not that the social sciences are bogus, but rather that the ability to measure and analyze these fields is still limited (and here we need a great deal of humility and a little curiosity and patience, which are the opposite of bogusness).

With God’s help, 15 Heshvan 79

To Ramda—greetings,

Is love of one’s people, land, and culture “a neutral thing” from an evaluative standpoint? Just as a person’s love for his family and friends is a positive thing, so too is love for the “extended family” positive. It is not for nothing that the Sages instructed that “the poor of your city take precedence.” When a person loves strongly his relatives, companions, and neighbors, that love radiates to all humanity.

Love of those close to us is indeed based on a natural feeling, but even a natural feeling requires cultivation and deepening, and guidance in the way of its proper realization. Education in this is not superfluous!

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

Thanks.
We actually do have game-theoretic tools, and there have been quite a few attempts to test game-theoretic theories (ecological systems, econometrics, natural experiments, and more).
The problem begins when one tries to understand human preference systems. How are they formed? What determines them? Are they social or individual? And so on. Here there is not even agreement about the theories. What we have is a host of assumptions and claims, some more grounded and some less so, on the basis of which people try to present studies (though usually what comes out is vanity, as Ailon put it). Matters become more complicated when certain theories fail to distinguish between game-structured reality and the preference system, and claim that the game-structured reality creates the preference system (Marxism, gender, and so on). In that situation the discourse becomes even more amorphous and confused, when what is supposed to mark players’ strategies is presented as their preferences, and vice versa—preferences are presented as strategies. The players’ set of beliefs turns into ideologies, and everything takes the form of an unclear mush. In that situation, entering logical loops and paradoxes is simply inevitable, and as is known in logic, if your premise is false the result is always true. At that point there is no real need for research anymore. All that is needed is to say that you did research and ignore the need for research to confirm the assumptions (since the assumptions contradict themselves anyway). What is required is to bring order to the mess, understand what each theory claims, check that it does not lead to logical loops or self-contradictions (from which any conclusion can be reached), and only after filtering out all the false theories begin to conduct sensible research.

In my opinion, acquaintance with game-theoretic models is simply a first and easy step toward untangling the knot. You do not have to take the course in the mathematics department, but the simple distinction between a preference system and a utility function, between a belief system, and between strategies, is simply necessary. After that one can begin to clarify what to do when certain theories mix up these divisions, and how to disentangle them in a way that clarifies whether they can yield research utility or whether they lead to self-contradictions from which any conclusion at all may be inferred.

In my view, yes. Love for those close to you is not a value but nature. If a Jew decided to love Belgians more, and especially if he joined them, I see nothing morally wrong in that.

The conception that history has a direction and a purpose is a romantic outlook, called historicism, based on the Enlightenment ideology of progress. Both Rabbi Kook and Karl Marx were influenced by Hegelian historicism. It was precisely modernity that sharply criticized historicism. For example, “On the Concept of History” by Walter Benjamin, or The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper, or The Courage for the Secular by Leah Goldberg.

As you wrote: “entering logical loops and paradoxes is inevitable,” and here, in my opinion, lies a problem, even though it is indeed inevitable.
Logic fails to explain/prove preferences and human phenomena, but the failure is that of the existing logical tools, which do not succeed, or are not sufficient, or are partly unsuitable for human sociological analysis.

You did not understand what I wrote. Logic is not required in order to create theories about human preferences. Anyone can do that (provided he is sufficiently talented and not confused). Logic is required in order to move from theories to research. Logic has to check that the theories do not contain self-contradictions from which any claim whatsoever may be inferred. If your theory contains an internal contradiction or a logical loop, it is not scientific because it does not meet Popper’s primary criterion of falsifiability (a criterion that preceded Popper, but it is convenient to refer to Popper as a point of reference). In that situation there is no research here, and one cannot demand that it be granted the status of research.

I’ll put it in the language of software testing. If a test does not meet the test conditions, it gets an error and cannot be reported. If it meets the test conditions but fails, it gets false and is reported. If your theory does not meet the requirement of logical consistency, you cannot proceed from it to testing the theory. It is in an error state. In that situation, first make sure your theory is consistent and not self-contradictory, and only then turn to research that will verify or falsify your theory. If you do not ensure that, then you are simply doing your work deceitfully, and do not be surprised if the attitude toward you is accordingly.

I agree that sociology is a difficult science (and that it is still unclear whether it has a right to independent existence), but its difficulty does not justify giving up this simple and clear requirement. And if you are unable to meet it, go look for another occupation (software testing would always be happy to take you).

You are repeating yourself in an impressive “loopiness.”

And since you brought the example of software testing, take for example the field of natural language processing and computational linguistics, which express the challenges at the interface between human language and mechanical computer language, and the metrics and modes of research; and there is a close two-way connection between human language and its development and sociology, between the subject and the measurable and unmeasurable object, etc. Linguistics, by the way, belongs to the humanities.

I did not say there is no connection between subject and object, and I can certainly accept one recursive model or another. I only claimed that the way this is done today in the field that sees itself as scientific—sociology—is poor. And by the way, it seems to me that the fact that in computational linguistics they understood that such a connection exists in natural languages still did not help them understand what is going on there.

But Hazal did indeed see value in a more loving attitude toward those close to one, as stated: “Do not hide yourself from your own flesh,” “the poor of your city take precedence.” And as I explained, even what is rooted in natural feeling requires cultivation. There are also more frictions and accumulated resentments among those close to a person, which may cast a shadow on the natural feeling of fraternity, and therefore fraternity toward those close to us requires extra cultivation.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger.

As I understand it, “the poor of your city take precedence” is practical guidance, unrelated to love. Morality deals with actions, not feelings. What to feel and what not to feel is not a matter of morality. Moreover, if you belong to another city, then your practical obligation shifts there. And today belonging is determined not by place but by a sense of belonging (therefore a custom is not the custom of a place but of an ethnic community, and “do not form factions” regarding two courts in one city does not exist with respect to a city but with respect to a community).
And beyond all this, “the poor of your city take precedence” is guidance for efficiency (if everyone takes care of his immediate surroundings, that comes out more efficient), and not necessarily for morality.

With God’s help, 16 Heshvan 79

Postmodern criticism, which finds the fissures and cracks, the failures and sides of falsity in various methods that claimed to give an exclusive answer to the world’s problems, may lead to complete despair of any attempt to reach truth. Why seek truth if everything is “bogus”?

But after all, one cannot live in a world devoid of meaning and hope. “At the end of the day,” all methods and ways are founded on sparks of truth, except that it is partial truth. The full picture is a kind of “puzzle” composed by joining the scattered pieces into one overall image.

The fissures in each part of the “puzzle” are precisely the signs that another piece must be joined here, whose “mound” complements the other’s “groove.” As the Viennese doctor said in his Yekke accent: “With puzzle I founded the State of the Jews” 🙂

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

With God’s help, Thursday of Parashat Vayera 5779

What I explained regarding the importance of love for those close to us, from which love also grows for those far away, opened my eyes this morning when I went up to the Torah, to understand what drives Abraham to receive with royal honor three unknown strangers. This is more than a natural feeling of compassion toward weary and thirsty travelers.

Abraham has now received the vocation to be “the father of a multitude of nations,” and he internalizes it. Every inhabitant of the world is now his child, and he receives him with the same devotion and love with which a father receives a son who has just arrived from a distant journey.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger

With God’s help, 28 Heshvan 79

Abraham’s all-embracing fatherhood as “the father of a multitude of nations” requires the balance of Sarah, who expresses in her name and her way the dimension of rule, firm leadership, which also knows how to “draw the line” and say: “Enough.” When Sarah sees the maidservant’s son mocking her son, she demands firmly: “Cast out this maidservant and her son,” and the Lord vindicates her and instructs Abraham to heed her voice.

As an individual, Abraham usually works to spread faith by gentle means, through explanation and personal example. But now the house of Abraham must become a nation that calls in the name of the Lord, a nation that radiates faith, justice, and kindness, but also knows how to preserve its independence firmly and to fight for its values against its enemies and those who seek its life.

From the opposing traits of Abraham and Sarah grows the nation that turns to humanity both as a loving and educating father, and when necessary as a minister imposing his authority in full force.

Regards, Sh. Tz. Levinger