Answer

I didn't understand the question. What do you mean by an idea? A value?
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Yes, but more like Lewis's Tao in The Abolition of Man.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I don't understand the question, nor the concepts. Try to explain more.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
When I say that a picture is a beautiful picture, what do I mean? Is the picture beautiful in and of itself, or does the picture evoke feelings of beauty in me, and so on?
From several of your articles I understood that you hold the first view, and even call it a value-laden fact, and thus your approach can justify absolute values.
My question is: how can one distinguish between a value-laden fact and an emotion, and can that same value-laden fact be developed through education, etc.?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
If you read Lewis's book, he explains there very well the difference between saying that the picture is beautiful and saying that the picture arouses some feeling in me. The first claim says something about the world. Still, that does not necessarily mean that beauty is objective; rather, it means that you are claiming something about the world (and not only about yourself), and it can still be a subjective claim. In addition to what Lewis says, I argue that there are indeed objective concepts of beauty and goodness (though there may be ranges in which there is room for several opinions). These concepts can be expressed in different forms under different circumstances. Beautiful music for us and beautiful music for the Hottentots may be different, but the beauty in both cases is the same. In other words, beauty is not a property of the music in itself; rather, it expresses a fit between it and its circumstances and audience. Just as logic does not say that some conclusion is true, but that it follows from the premises. But given circumstances and an audience, there is an objective concept of beauty (just as there is an objective logical inference given the premises). For that audience and those circumstances, there is an objective beautiful and not-beautiful (and that is really not the same thing as a relative conception of beauty).
And from this it follows that education can certainly develop aesthetic judgment, just as it can develop logical and ethical judgment. If beauty were only the feeling that I experience, then there would be no room to speak of education contributing to it, since at most education would change me and then I would feel differently. But that new feeling would not be better than the previous one in any sense. But in light of my definition above, there is objective beauty, and therefore there is room for aesthetic and ethical education that improves and refines them.
I will only note that what is developed is not the value-laden facts themselves, but our ability to arrive at the correct facts.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Thank you very much for the quick answer, but I still did not understand two things, which may be related to one another.
First, how can one distinguish between an emotion and a "value-laden fact," and second, how can one know whether education will improve or ruin, since when you say improve and refine, you are assuming a specific trait that one ought to aspire to. By contrast, it could be that when I received a values-based education, I destroyed the original trait I was supposed to aspire to, namely destructiveness, pride, killing people, and so on.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
1. Even in the physical world one can ask how you distinguish between factual cognition and a hallucination. From my perspective, it is very similar. When you understand that what is inside you is an emotion—then it is an emotion, and if you identify it as a value-laden fact, then it is a value-laden fact. Of course mistakes can happen, but we have no other tool besides our immediate perception.
2. Here too there are no clear algorithms, and obviously there can be errors. How will you make sure that your moral education is not destructive? According to the best of your understanding. What underlies this question is skepticism (because you are not asking how to attain humility, but whether humility is indeed the right thing), and skepticism has no answer. If you do not accept your immediate cognitions, then any answer I give you will be vulnerable to those very same difficulties. This is a discussion with no way out, and you must decide what your view is about it.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
In that case I have another question: is it possible to judge morally people who do not have this immediate cognition, and how can one know that they are not right and we are the ones who are mistaken (those who have immediate cognition)?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
It is impossible to judge such people if they truly do not have that cognition (I am not sure such people exist), because they are coerced. How can one know? One cannot, except by the best exercise of one's judgment. Just as if you were to meet people who claim that what you see does not really exist, you would not be able to know whether you are right or they are. What you can do is form a position according to your best judgment.