A Look at Adulation – In the Wake of Kobe Bryant, of Blessed Memory (Column 273)

With God's help

As someone who devotes quite a few hours of his nights to the astonishingly athletic activity of watching NBA games, and enjoys them enormously (this is art of a wondrous order. Truly uplifting), it is impossible not to address the tragic and untimely death of the revered Kobe Bryant, one of the greatest basketball players we (= citizens of the world) have had. He perished in the crash of his helicopter, together with his daughter and seven other people, apparently because of bad weather and poor visibility. In the wake of this tragic event, the whole world is in turmoil. Almost two weeks have already passed, and the Kobe Bryant carnival refuses to die down. In the first days we received hourly updates on all the networks (one example among thousands here), an open broadcast for days on end. Eulogies by celebrities and political leaders from all over the world were constantly being published (including Bibi, and even Erdogan and Ahmadinejad, who simply do not know how they will be able to go on living without Kobe, of blessed memory).

There is no doubt that the fellow was an impressive basketball player, and probably worthy of professional appreciation and perhaps personal appreciation as well. He helped quite a few young players, and beyond the talent, I understand that he was also devoted to his profession and worked hard to reach his achievements (as our sages said: no free lunch). All of these certainly entitle him to full credit. At the same time, the man also has stains in his past, such as the dubious closing of a rape case, which a journalist at the Washington Post who dared mention it at precisely these holy moments was immediately suspended for (there are limits to freedom of speech even in our great friend across the sea),[1] his problematic treatment of teammates in the locker room, and other troubling points that this difficult hour is not the time for (as it is said, It is a time of distress for Jacob (Kobi), but from it he shall be saved.).

Why am I rousing elephants from their lairs? Why not let the Jew rest in peace on his couch? Because with all the respect I have for the man, and all the sorrow over his untimely passing, and no less so over the other eight people killed in the helicopter crash, the whole business seems to me somewhat deranged and hysterical. I prefaced this with my warm feelings toward the field of basketball, and the NBA in particular, so that I not be suspected of indifference, unfamiliarity, or lack of concern about the subject (in the sense of He too would withdraw and weep.). Even so, something here strays a bit beyond good taste. The world is full of disasters and miserable people, and almost nobody opens his mouth. Some of you are surely thinking that at least a few hundred of those miserable people around the world do not die while flying in a private helicopter with their daughter to basketball practice in order to save time in traffic, and even when they do die, it is not always in circumstances that, on the face of it, look somewhat reckless (the reports say that helicopter takeoffs were forbidden in Los Angeles airspace at that time because of the weather). There are quite a few people in the world who are murdered or die under torture or from hunger. Others live in terrible suffering for years, perhaps their whole lives. There are places where this happens on a massive and agonizing scale, but the world and its leaders are currently occupied mainly with Kobe, of blessed memory.

What is the meaning of this strange phenomenon? My feeling is that it is an expression of a troubling, though probably unavoidable, human phenomenon called adulation, and that is what I would like to touch on a bit here.

The trigger

I thought of writing about this subject about two months ago, when in our Middle Eastern province two cosmic events occurred that stirred in me gloomy thoughts about the adulation that some mortals feel toward other mortals.

The first was the arrival of Leo Messi, the greatest of them all (except for LeBron James, with forgiveness from Kobe and from my wife Dafna), in the Holy Land. The stormy carnival around him included people wrapped in flags as if they were prayer shawls, sleeping all night outside the hotel so that they might merit to behold the face of the king. It really felt to me like the carnivals around various Hasidic rebbes, albeit with one important difference: unlike many of the rebbes, Messi really does possess special talent (and perhaps also worked hard for it. I assume so, though I do not know enough. His problem is that he does not play in the NBA).

The second cosmic event was an appearance by Bibi, King of Israel, in which he again warned against the 'existential danger to the State of Israel' if a minority government of Gantz were formed with Arab support (I no longer remember whether this was in election round A, B, C, or D. There you have it: we still exist. The Eternal One of Israel does not lie.), Heaven preserve us from such thinking.[2] There too one saw hysterical displays of adulation among the tribal crowd, who roared battle cries against the enemies of the aforesaid King of Israel and cries of adoration toward him from the depths of their bleeding hearts (see for example here).

Beyond the question whether Kobe, Messi, or Bibi deserve the adulation shown toward them these days (at least on the sporting plane, in my opinion there is room for no small amount of appreciation for all three of them—especially Bibi), the phenomenon of adulation as such is worth discussion. Its causes belong mainly to the field of psychology and mass communication, as well as the psychopathology of the individual, in which, to my sorrow, I am not sufficiently skilled, and so here I will only touch on them. But its meaning and its consequences, in my opinion, also require discussion, and that already belongs to the plane of values.

The phenomenon of adulation: a description

Never in my life have I managed to understand the phenomenon of adulation, especially in these contexts. An athlete, actor, model, politician, or one artist or another wins adulation from people who literally go into ecstasy upon meeting them. Every word they utter makes hearts tremble and changes worlds. Paparazzi photographers chase after them and leap over the coffins of the dead to behold the kings of Israel or of the nations of the world—who, if they are fortunate, may perhaps barely distinguish between such figures and the grass of the field (Berakhot 19b).

It may be proper to divide the discussion between adulation for people who were simply endowed with some gift—beauty, talent, or physical power of one kind or another—and people of exceptional achievement or exceptional intellectual, moral, or spiritual level. Or perhaps it is better to divide between those endowed with some gift, spiritual or otherwise, and those who acted in ways worthy of appreciation and consequently reached achievements. The mere existence of such a gift does not at all justify adulation, and in my opinion not even appreciation. But even in cases of special achievements (athletic, spiritual, or intellectual), and even if those achievements involved work and toil worthy of appreciation, the matter still justifies appreciation, not adulation.

Adulation is not appreciation. Adulation contains an element of worship and excitement, and that is a completely different phenomenon from mere appreciation, which at root is a matter of sober intellectual judgment and can even be cold. Adulation is something that I doubt is worthy of being felt or bestowed on anyone at all, and certainly its contemporary manifestations (some of which were described above) are problematic.[3]

Take, for example, our attitude toward politicians. What is there to adore in them? Why seek their proximity at all?[4] I truly cannot imagine a reasonable and rational person who bothers to come to some party's ’emergency rally' and enthusiastically bellows, in a hoarse voice trembling with excitement, while vigorously waving one flaglet or another as King Bibi, or some other emperor, delivers his nonsense from the stage. In whom, for heaven's sake, do these things arouse such emotions and such excitement? How are we to portray that mysterious creature belonging to those sweat-soaked herds of cattle and sheep? What sort of psychological makeup must this admirer have in order to arrive at such degraded conduct?

All this is true even if the politician in question were saying sensible things (that too can happen on rare occasions). But it is certainly true when what is involved is manipulative and baseless nonsense, in Bibi's manner and that of others. How does it happen that the same hoarse-throated admirer does not ask himself how even this 'tangible and immediate existential danger' to the State of Israel somehow does not suffice to persuade the King of Israel to vacate his royal chair, which would apparently solve most of the problems and at a stroke remove this terrible existential threat from over all our heads? For if the adored King Bibi, who is so deeply concerned for the State of Israel because of dependence on the Joint Arab List, were to vacate his chair, then immediately the verse would be fulfilled among us: And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid.. If he resigned and there were another Likud candidate, there is a very decent chance that candidate would be elected. But even if not, a national unity government of Likud with Blue and White would probably come into being fairly quickly, exactly as he himself claims to want. So what is the problem? Perhaps the danger that he himself, in his own honor, will not rule over us is greater than the terrible danger that would be brought upon us by the government of the leftist tyrant Gantz,[5] Gabi Ashkenazi, Bogie, Lapid, and their 'helpers,' Heaven preserve us? I am not raising these questions for their own sake, but only as a basis for wondering at the conduct of the herd that fails to notice them.

This phenomenon is astonishing to me. Thousands of excited creatures come to these gatherings gripped with excitement and adulation for Bibis of all kinds—indeed, for bibim, sewers. A cynical manipulator plucks at the emotions of the herd of beasts before him and plays them like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and all of them answer after him amen, excited and bright-eyed. This idiotic adulation prevents anyone who belongs to that howling herd from understanding things that every child understands. The herd mentality and infantilism I described are only symptoms of the essence of adulation and its consequences. The first question that troubles me is how a reasonable person can descend to so low a human, spiritual, and intellectual level.[6] This is part of the wonders of the human psyche, and to understand it requires a psychopathological and anthropological inquiry (though perhaps it would be more accurate to call my feeling here a zoological question). The second question is what is so bad about it? What are the consequences of this phenomenon?

Defining adulation

As I wrote above, adulation is different from appreciation. This is not only a quantitative difference, but a qualitative one. Appreciation is (or at least ought to be) the result of critical judgment. A person has reached achievements and/or taken actions worthy of appreciation, and so that appreciation is due to him by right. Beyond the fact that he deserves the appreciation, its existence is also important for us. He may teach us and serve as a model that advances us in proper directions. Human beings of flesh and blood succeeded in reaching such goals, so perhaps it is proper—and possible—for me as well to strive toward them.

My point of departure is that evaluating phenomena and personalities is important. This can be seen in two similar verses that appear in the book of Proverbs. One is in chapter 17, verse 3:

The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests hearts.

And the second is in chapter 27, verse 21:

The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, and a man is tested according to his praise.

The Holy One, blessed be He, examines a person's heart according to what he praises. Praise is the symptom that refines the person of his dross and reveals his hidden treasures. Thus the Holy One examines what is in his heart. Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner cites Rabbeinu Yonah, who explains that these verses teach us that from what a person praises one can understand what is important in his eyes. If he praises wisdom or kindness, those are apparently the things important to him. If he praises celebrities, then fame is apparently what matters to him. Appreciation is due to the person or phenomenon that deserves it, but it is also an important educational tool and a means of advancing the one who appreciates.

But again I must say that adulation is something else. You see some person and your heart begins to beat quickly. Adrenaline pumps the blood, the pulse rises, and you hang calf-like adoring eyes on him and pine for every word that comes out of his mouth. Everything he says is holy in your eyes, and you answer amen after him. You use bizarre superlatives about him (emperor, god, King of Israel), and when it comes to a god, critical judgment is of course left aside. You always judge him favorably (even when that makes no sense). You obey him without rational control, and in certain ways act simply because he told you to.

The problem with adulation: the figure of the leader

Unlike appreciation (at least the kind worthy of the name), the phenomenon of adulation is problematic in several senses, especially on the two planes I mentioned above. First, without critical judgment you have no control over whether the adulation is being given to someone who truly deserves it. Beyond that, adulation will not advance you to places worth advancing to, since you do not choose the object of your adulation by any criteria or exercise of judgment. You go with the herd and howl together with everyone else. The belly leads you, not the head.

I have always wondered at the phenomenon whereby in various music groups the members speak of the 'leader of the band,' as is customary in packs of animals and flocks of birds. Perhaps I do not know the phenomenon well enough and in fact this means a person who guides and leads them, rather than adulation in the sense described above, but the expression has always bothered me. The impression is that at least in some cases this is mere charisma. Needless to say, as part of the phenomenon of adulation, a 'leader' is also a problematic phenomenon in my eyes. What a person says should be judged through our cognition and our tools of judgment, not by virtue of the fact that he, as a 'leader,' said it, nor because of his charisma. Charisma is a negative phenomenon, because it gives a person tools to sway others emotionally and irrationally in directions that interest him. People should form positions on the basis of arguments and reasons, not on the basis of someone's charisma.

A brief comparative glance: adulation and love

Love of a person is a phenomenon similar to adulation. Thus, for example, a man sees a beloved woman and feels his heart pounding; adrenaline courses through his body, just as in adulation. There too he loses the ability to judge critically, and judges favorably.[7] Love and adulation both describe one person's relation to another that does not pass through critical thought. Love too is opposed to intellectual appreciation and judgment in ways similar to those we saw above. So why does adulation seem problematic to me and love less so? If you think about it for a moment, you will discover that this question is rather embarrassing. It is very far from simple to explain why love is all right while adulation is not.

The obvious explanation is, first of all, the consequences. Adulation is directed toward a person who moves us to action and causes us to think differently and act differently. He plants values and ideologies within us. Love, by contrast, usually remains on the personal plane. Therefore the consequences of adulation are more problematic than those of love. But my feeling is that beyond that there is also a difference in the very phenomena themselves. Love is not supposed to be based only on cool calculation. A couple choose to love one another because there is a psychic bond between them. That is perfectly fine, for such is the nature of love. Love is a kind of contract between two people, and as is well known there is freedom of association. A person may choose a partner as he wishes.[8] But adulation, beyond the question of consequences, is problematic even as a phenomenon in itself. Although in both cases we are following the heart without passing through rational control, there is something more problematic in adulation. I will now try to clarify this a bit further.

Two sources of adulation: ideology and collectivism

It seems to me that adulation of a person can come from two places: the ideological and the psychological. On a second look, one can also point to a connection between them.

The ideological aspect is based on attachment to an idea. People adore a person who represents an idea. Marx in relation to communism, Hitler in relation to Nazism, or one rebbe or another who represents the color of the socks customary in the faction that he inherited from his father. Adulation of that person expresses attachment to the idea. In such a case, seemingly, the consequential damage does not exist. A person chooses an idea that speaks to him and with which he identifies, and from that the person who represents it wins his adulation. According to this description, the direction in which that person will go as a result of the adulation is the direction he himself chose. Therefore, apparently, there is no consequential problem here. And yet, in my opinion the dimension of adulation here is itself problematic, and in the end it has consequences as well. After all, one could adhere to this ideology because one believes in it, even without resorting to intermediary figures.

The power of symbols as expressions of ideas is very great. It is somewhat hard to believe, but soldiers have died and do die for the flag. The flag began as a symbol of something greater, but in practice the flag has become the concrete object for which people die. Afterwards people create ad hoc justifications (morale and so on), but in practice that is the situation. The anthem makes hearts tremble and the flag makes them quiver. So too with the president of the state or the chief of staff (cf. Mercaz HaRav on Jerusalem Day). All of these are symbols that ostensibly merely express ideas, but in practice they receive an emotional relation, and as such it is very problematic. If I were to hear that my son gave himself over for the flag, I would kill him. Not only because in my opinion symbols are a degraded matter (beastly; see below), but first and foremost because he died in vain.

The psychological aspect is built in a very similar way. If the ideological aspect rests on an idea, then at the basis of the psychological aspect stands the herd and the collective. There is a herd instinct embedded in almost every human being. People have a strong need to belong to some collective (herd), and a herd needs a leader. The king is 'one of the people' because he makes the people one. Perhaps here too this is a concretization of something abstract. The collective is an abstract thing (beyond the individuals who compose it), and the king is its concrete expression. Only when we see Bibi before our eyes do we understand that we are part of the herd he shepherds. Thus we feel ourselves part of something larger than we are.

In that sense, the king functions in relation to the collective exactly as the symbol functions in relation to ideology. The king begins as a servant of the collective, but at some point his status becomes detached from that instrumentality. The king becomes an adored person in his own right, period. At the base, the sense of belonging was the reason for the adulation, but in the end it becomes its result. The symbol, which is itself devoid of importance, suddenly acquires self-standing importance detached from the idea it symbolizes. This brings us to the idea of idolatry and the importance of the struggle against it.

Mockery as a response to idolatry

The description I gave above greatly resembles the beginning of the Laws of Idolatry in Maimonides. He describes there how people began to accord honor to the heavenly bodies as representing the Holy One, blessed be He, until in the end they received independent standing. Therefore the prohibition of idolatry, in his view, exists even when we worship the idol or heavenly body while being aware that it is only a representative of God. There is still idolatry here. The common understanding of his words is that the prohibition of such a situation stems from the concern that in the end people may come to worship the idol itself, but in my opinion the very state of needing a concretization is problematic (not only because of its consequences). When one needs a concretization of an abstract idea, that means that the connection to the idea itself is weak. The idea itself would not have moved us to action. Therefore we enlist the beastly dimension within us. Concretizations arouse emotions and enthusiasm in us that the idea itself fails to arouse, and thus we are moved to action. I think that the very concretization and the relation to the symbol as possessing value in itself are problematic both because here our lower dimensions are being harnessed toward a direction (which may in itself be positive) and because of the consequences (the distortions that emotions create in us).

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, at the beginning of his book Pahad Yitzhak – Purim, cites the saying of the sages (Megillah 25b):

Rav Nahman said: All mockery is forbidden except mockery of idolatry, which is permitted, as it is written: “Bel bows down, Nebo stoops,” and it is written: “They stoop, they bow down together; they could not save the burden,” etc. Rabbi Yannai said: It is derived from here: “The inhabitants of Samaria tremble for the calves of Beth-aven, for its people shall mourn over it, and its priests shall rejoice over its glory, because it has departed from it.” Read not “its glory” but “its heaviness.” Rav Huna bar Manoah said in the name of Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika: It is permitted for a Jew to say to an idolater, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tav.”

He explains that the essence of idolatry is attributing importance to something that is devoid of importance in itself. The essence of mockery is puncturing a balloon, that is, deflating the importance of the thing. Therefore mockery, which in principle is forbidden, is permitted with respect to idolatry. Deflating importance is permitted only with respect to things whose problematic root lies in giving importance to something unimportant.

By the way, this provides a paradigm for my own mockeries. When a person is mistaken, that is not a reason to mock him. But when a person gives importance to something unimportant, in many cases (though I agree not always) the way to deal with it is mockery: to puncture his balloon in order to return him to his real dimensions.

The connection between the two aspects

There is a connection between these two aspects, the psychological (belonging to the herd) and the ideological. Ideas are generally driven by collectives (see the questions I received here and here—on the very day I began writing this column). Sometimes the proper order is reversed: it is not that the idea leads to adulation, but that adulation leads to adoption of the idea. The need to belong is what constitutes attachment to the ideological infrastructure. The need for belonging and adulation can cause a person to adhere to an idea not because he really identifies with it, but for emotional reasons. Adulation and the sense of belonging serve as a substitute for a critical and rational view, that is, for arguments and reasons. Moreover, beyond the plane of consequences, the very conduct of a person who acts on the basis of adulation and a sense of belonging instead of on the basis of judgment is conduct according to our beastly part (the beastly soul; see below), and therefore I see this as a problem in itself (even without regard to the consequential effects). To act like an animal is problematic, even if all you are doing is grazing grass and not doing anything bad. In this perspective, the possibility that you may come to do something bad without rational control is an indication of the problem, not its very essence.

Many of us are inclined to think that if charisma, adulation, and the sense of belonging lead in positive directions, then they are good and worthy instruments. I disagree. The moment all these are used as the engine for adopting values and courses of action, positive or negative, that itself is problematic conduct, even if the values and directions in question are good and worthy. People who are moved to do good only because there is a charismatic person who spurs them on to do so, or because of a desire to belong—they are a herd not worthy of appreciation. Once collectivism and adulation turn from instruments into values or path-determiners, the conduct is beastly.

Beastly soul and divine soul

The boundary is fine. Sometimes a person can use emotions as a motor for action. So long as he is aware that they are a motor, and the action itself is based on judgment, this is reasonable and perhaps unavoidable; the intellect is a rather weak engine for activity. Emotional reinforcement will move us more effectively and more quickly toward our goals. Therefore it is reasonable to harness the emotional dimension so that it drives us more powerfully toward our goals and values. But if emotion is not only the engine but also the steering wheel, that is a loss of direction.

The author of Tanya, at the beginning of his book, distinguishes between what he calls the 'divine soul' and the 'beastly soul.' In my book Enosh Kaḥatzir, in the first intermezzo (p. 205), I explained this distinction, and I will briefly repeat it here. In contrast to the accepted distinction between good and evil as the basic struggle of human beings, the author of Tanya argues that the fundamental struggle is between cognitive-intellectual motivation and emotional-instinctual motivation. A person who acts from the divine soul performs his deeds, for good or ill, on the basis of judgment. Emotion serves as an auxiliary, a motor that helps him move toward the goals set by the intellect. By contrast, a person who acts from the beastly soul is one whose emotions and impulses move him. For him the intellect is an instrument used to rationalize his impulses and spontaneous feelings. But it is these that choose the path and steer him. Not for nothing is the latter mode of conduct called the 'beastly soul.' A person can do good all his life and still conduct himself like an (intelligent) animal.

Adulation likely derives from a positive evolutionary source. It is an expression of each of our desires to take part in greatness. One can say that it has evolutionary value in promoting people to achievements. It is the rivalry of scholars that increases wisdom. But envy also removes a person from the world. One must be careful to use these tools as instruments and not as the fundamental motor (or the steering wheel).

Years ago, when we established the journal (Meysharim) in Yeshivat Yeruham, an astonishing phenomenon was brought to my attention. People did not want to write articles lest the urge of pride grow stronger within them. When I heard this I became very angry and delivered a short talk in the study hall. I told people that in this way they were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yetzer (impulse) shares a root with yetzira (creation), and without impulse there is no creation. The aspiration to greatness, even if it stems from the urge of pride, is the engine that leads to achievement and creativity. The Talmud relates that when the Men of the Great Assembly abolished the urge for idolatry, they could not find a single hen's egg anywhere in the Land of Israel. Without impulse, nothing is created. People who work on the trait of pride in this way castrate themselves.[9] They will not reach achievements. Usually they will remain righteous ignoramuses with no connection to Torah. A connection to Torah is created through creativity and connection. But on one point they are right. It is important not to cross the fine boundary between using the impulse as an engine that will lead us toward positive directions that we have chosen, and acting from impulse and for the sake of impulse. Not for nothing do the sages expound: "With all your very being"—with both your inclinations.. And similarly in the midrash Bereshit Rabbah (9:7):[10]

Rabbi Nahman bar Shmuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Nahman: “And behold, it was very good” refers to the good inclination, and “and behold, it was very good” refers to the evil inclination. Can the evil inclination really be very good? This is astonishing! Rather, were it not for the evil inclination, a person would not build a house, marry a woman, beget children, or engage in business. And so Solomon says (Ecclesiastes 4): “for it is a man's rivalry with his neighbor.”

Adulation is a state in which emotion is usually what moves us. It is not a use of emotion in order to move toward goals that the intellect set before us. In my opinion, a person is required to overcome his psychology and emotions. Ideology should come from the head, not from emotional fervor. It is the intellect that should lead a person, not emotion. Emotion is at most a necessary instrument. A person has a divine soul, and he is supposed to conduct himself in accordance with it, not to behave like an animal.

Examples

We certainly do not lack examples of the dangers inherent in adulation: beginning with Moti Elon and Shmuel Tal (see, for example, column 224), continuing with the Rebbe of Gur, Vizhnitz, Bibi, and the rest of the celebrities. All of these create herds, or even private individuals, who conduct themselves problematically and believe nonsense solely because of their adulation for the leader. My claim is that the same mold is at work in all these cases, and therefore it does not matter whether the actions are for positive or negative ends, for the state of affairs itself is problematic. Following a leader leads to the loss of rational control, and that naturally leads to problematic conduct. Therefore I vigorously oppose adulation even toward exemplary figures, from the sages of the Talmud through all the great figures of the generations and spiritual personalities in the world. It is worthwhile to awaken rivalry of scholars, and perhaps to use the impulse in order to spur ourselves to advance there. The moment rational criticism is lost, we are no longer ourselves, but rather an animal ruled by external forces.

On adulation and fundamentalism

The point of departure for the entire discussion here is that nothing on earth ought to be immune from rational criticism. Not the Torah, not the sages, and not even the Holy One, blessed be He. In the end, the human being must make his own decisions and determine his own path. My trilogy tries to present a faith that is subject to rational criticism, and in that way to oppose religious fundamentalism. It is customary to educate religious youth toward uncritical devotion to faith. According to Kierkegaard, the lack of rational control is the essence of faith (living in paradox, the ability to sacrifice reason and morality before faith, are what characterize, in his view, the 'knight of faith'). This is what I define as fundamentalism. It is commonly thought that fundamentalism means extreme and violent actions, but from a philosophical perspective that is only a result of fundamentalism. In its philosophical sense, fundamentalism is placing faith, or any other principle/value, above rational criticism.[11] Zealotry and extremism are consequences of philosophical fundamentalism (see my discussion of this in the introduction to my book Emet VeLo Yatziv).

Fundamentalism, even when it is religious, has no justification. Action on the basis of religious values does not justify acts done in its name. The ability to criticize ISIS is based on the demand that a person also criticize his religious beliefs. Whoever thinks religious beliefs are immune from criticism should not be surprised by phenomena of fanatical zealotry in the style of ISIS. Responsibility for your misdeeds does not rest on God but on you. About a year ago there was a conference of religious leaders at ORT Ramla High School (an Arab school near us). There were imams, priests, rabbis, Druze religious leaders, and others. In my talk there I told the students that in my view the root of evil is fundamentalism in the philosophical sense. My problem is not with extremism and zealotry, because these are only symptoms of the problem. From here I also expressed opposition to the imams telling the students that extremism is evil (that was generally the sort of thing said there). The root of evil is obedience to leaders as such, not the content of what they say. Our fundamental duty is to educate people not to obey other people automatically, however charismatic and righteous they may be. Responsibility is always upon the individual himself, and he cannot hang on and seek justification in instructions he received from a religious leader.[12] Contrary to the prevalent conception, according to which leadership (religious or otherwise) has a moderating effect, in my opinion, if each of us feels personal responsibility and makes his decisions by himself, the world will look better and more moderate.

This is really a mathematical effect. Extreme phenomena are built out of the sum of many individual extremisms operating together in the same direction. How do they all synchronize and create the large-scale phenomenon? It is the phenomenon of the herd that goes after the leader. By contrast, when each person acts independently there is mutual cancellation among actions in different directions, and therefore it is highly unlikely that an extreme phenomenon will emerge.[13] Once again we have moved from the problem with the phenomenon itself to its problematic consequences.

A concluding note: the 'candle youth'

I cannot refrain from a brief discussion of the phenomenon of the 'candle youth.' After Rabin's assassination there were many boys and girls who lit candles in Rabin Square,[14] their eyes awash in tears and their hearts torn with grief. They looked utterly broken, as though they had just lost their beloved grandmother. Their guide had gone never to return, and they were left as orphans without father and without rabbi. I understood why people opposed the murder and thought it problematic (though even that got out of proportion). But it was difficult for me to understand the intensity of the feelings expressed there. As I understood and assessed it, they were not crying over the murder or over the social phenomenon it represented (which can itself be discussed), but over Rabin the man. They mourned the death of their god, or their collective father. It was an expression of adulation (which, admittedly, was created mainly after the murder and the brainwashing that followed it).

When I saw this heartrending (and somewhat horrifying) phenomenon, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Secular culture tried to develop a free and autonomous person, liberated from the chains of the authority of religious leadership. What it succeeded in creating was a herd with a cultural vacuum, muttering slogans in a manner that casts into the shade the greatest of the religious fanatics, with a deep lack of father figures and leaders, which is filled by figures that have nothing of their own. The brainwashing those miserable people underwent truly aroused pity in me. Not for their mourning and sense of loss, but for the low human level to which they had descended. I felt shocked by this herd phenomenon and brainwashing, which has not entirely passed even to this day. The cult of Rabin in general is an example of adulation (which, as noted, was created mainly after the murder) that leads to conduct and activity that do not pass through the rational filter. Rabin became a religion, and Rabin's assassination became a myth that gives rise to distorted attitudes toward various groups in the population, as well as principles that, through no fault of their own, have become sacred. This religion created taboos regarding what may and may not be said, and how one is supposed to relate to personalities and phenomena. Just think, in all these contexts, of the sanctified combination of words on the lips of every media figure and politician, that 'words can kill'; their attitude toward incitement and democracy; the talk about the 'murder of democracy,' or the 'murder of the peace process'; and the varied uses that have since been made of these expressions.

In my eyes this was, and still is, an indication of a troubling vacuum. When there is a vacuum of values and culture, figures enter it and receive mythical status through no fault of their own. Rabin stopped being the redheaded flesh-and-blood man that he was, and became a rebbe, or a myth. He receives the status of a father figure whose word is binding as if it came directly from the mouth of the Almighty. People cry over his absence and feel that their world has been destroyed without him, although they almost never heard anything intelligent or useful from him (though they certainly could hear from him a fair amount of malicious nonsense). He became holy, a man of peace and moderation, a symbol of taking responsibility, even though there were quite a few points in his life where he acted in precisely the opposite way to all these values (but of course one must not say this). And I have not yet spoken of his wondrous military achievements, which Uri Milstein already discussed in his book The Rabin File – How the Myth Swelled (and thereby became untouchable, a patricide, an apikores, and a traitor).

As stated, I would not endorse such an attitude even toward Amos Oz or other spiritual figures (I am against adulation as such), but there the adulation might at least have been tolerable in my eyes. That is adulation on the ethical-spiritual-ideological plane. But when such a phenomenon appears in relation to an average person devoid of substance like Rabin, it already belongs to psychopathology, and therefore it is heartbreaking and arouses pity. In truth, if I had any trust in what are somehow called 'professionals,'[15] I would say that this requires treatment.

[1] By now these matters are already surfacing a bit more. Mainly on feminist websites, but not only. The journalist in question has already been reinstated. Perhaps there is hope even for Yigal Amir and his partner Larissa Trembovler, may she live long.

[2] The only situation that seems worse to me than that is a government headed by Bibi.

[3] And yes, I assume that a person has some control over his emotions and feelings, or at least over the ways they are expressed.

[4] As for figures like Churchill, for me the relevant category is not politician but intellectual. There there is certainly justification for great appreciation. When I speak here about a politician, I mean a person who holds political office and wins adulation or appreciation only because of that, without regard to any achievements whatsoever (celebrity adulation). The psychopathology of the masses, as we have already said?

[5] Do not worry, I am not among his fans and certainly not among his admirers. But I do not see him as a tyrant, only as a rather anemic and pale person. He even seems to me positive at root, someone who probably does not have much to offer and is driven by PR people and the like. Simply the wrong man who found himself, against his will and without intending it, in the right place.

[6] In the background of these remarks, I should note that these are the people who influence the shaping of our leadership and policy. The collection of operatives and voters, the members of the party machines and party centers, determine who will hold which office and what the policy will be. But, as stated, my concern here is not the influence of this on us but the fascinating phenomenon itself.

[7] See also column 269 on friendship.

[8] Although, see my remarks in column 22, where I argued that love too must pass through the crucible of rational testing. In any event, even someone who agrees with me on that should agree that even if it does not undergo rational control, there is no intrinsic disgrace in this as there is in the case of adulation.

[9] This reminds me of an interview I once heard with a school principal in Tel Aviv, who proudly announced that he had abolished computer studies in his school because girls succeed in them less than boys. A true story!

[10] It is quoted at the end of the opening page of each of the books in my quartet. It is worth looking there in the midrash at all the homilies on this verse.

[11] One may ask why logic has a special status. Seemingly, it too should not be placed above critical examination, and uncompromising devotion to it would also be fundamentalist. But this is a mistake, because, as I have explained here several times in the past, the laws of logic are not laws in the same sense as the laws of physics or the laws of the state (which is why even God is 'subject' to them). Logic is the criterion by which positions and conceptions are to be criticized. It is not itself a conception (it is an ’empty' structure). Of course, if arguments or reasons are presented against my 'logic,' I must take them into account, but not because logic is also subject to something above it, but because perhaps that is not what logic says (not correct logic).

[12] By the way, I was surprised by how much resistance my words aroused among Muslim and other religious leaders (most of them moderate and preaching moderation). 'Da'at Torah' is apparently a universal idea.

[13] This is actually the basis for why quantum phenomena do not appear on the scale of our everyday lives. In quantum theory, when there is a body or a system composed of many particles, each of which has a quantum character, the complete system behaves classically (as a deterministic body that averages all of them). This is what is called the 'smearing' of quantum phenomena on large scales (decoherence).

[14] 'Kikar Malchei Yisrael' was its name then. But that is roughly the same thing. It is not the square's name that changed, but the king after whom it is named.

[15] Have you ever wondered why specifically psychologists are called 'professionals'? Why not plumbers, or physicists? It is probably connected to the phenomenon I once mentioned here in the name of my sister, who studied criminology. She told me that at the beginning of every course there, the lecturer devoted time to clarifying the question of what science is. I told her that with us in physics, for some reason, they never did that (which is a pity).