Q&A: Questions about the Book Truth and Unstable
Questions about the Book Truth and Unstable
Question
Hello Rabbi,
If I understood correctly, at the center of the synthetic approach stands intuition—that is, the ability to observe or sense something not through one of the means we are used to, but rather through the “eyes of the intellect.”
In addition, intuition is subject to criticism and examination of the conclusions drawn from it, and the inference or understanding does not rely on it alone but is reinforced through tests and critique.
This solution really does allow a reasonable explanation for our generalizations and understandings of the world, such as Euclidean axioms, the force of gravity, and so on.
In the book it was explained that the control mechanism in matters such as values and ideals is through discourse and through trying to look at values from different angles or to see their different implications,
and that the explanation for people’s differing views on these matters is a kind of “blindness” in their ability to perceive some idea.
I had difficulty understanding what distinguishes the synthetic approach’s explanation for differences regarding values and ideas from fundamentalist views. That is, the fundamentalist argument is that you do not grasp this understanding because it is not rational, and in order to grasp it you need to use different tools, and even then there is no guarantee that you will understand it… and so too in the synthetic approach—you do not see this value because you are “blind” to it, and this is the truth, and it is fitting and proper that you too should act this way even if you do not understand it.
True, the synthetic approach allows for discourse and does not shut its ears, but the mode of understanding is similar, and a person with a synthetic approach also would not change his belief in God, for example, even if difficult arguments were presented to him and he were forced to rely only on his perception through the “eyes of the intellect.”
The distinction between understandings like the force of gravity and values stems from the fact that not everyone merits perceiving certain ideas, and many are defined as “blind” to them, as opposed to the force of gravity, to which few people, if any, are “blind.”
And because of the great gap in understanding, and between different kinds of blindness in perceiving ideas, an explanation is needed here for these gaps. Following this, I understand the need of the analytic philosophers to define the difference in the choice of values as an expression of a difference in psychological and educational structure.
So in essence, the synthetic approach seems to me to be a kind of fundamentalism—admittedly more limited and minor, but with both of them it is possible to arrive at conclusions without being able to critique them.
I apologize in advance if the question stems from a misunderstanding.
Answer
There is no need to apologize for questions at all, even if they contain some misunderstanding. And especially not for your question, which is an excellent one and points to a very good understanding of what I wrote.
Let me begin by saying that there is indeed a similarity between synthetic thinking and fundamentalism (this is how I explained why, accordingly, it is no wonder that the youth identifies the adult standing before him with the child that he himself had been at the previous stage. That is because there is a similarity between the third stage and the first). In both cases, you accept claims without proof in a dogmatic way.
And still, there are important differences. First, it is important to understand that there is no other option. Synthetic thinking is not mysticism or fundamentalism as opposed to intellect and reason. Intellect and reason themselves are based on synthetic assumptions. From this it follows that there is no reason to treat religious claims differently from scientific claims. Both these and those are subject to critical tests. Therefore, in the synthetic view, you are attentive to criticism, you examine yourself, and you are also willing to retract and change your position. That is not the case with a fundamentalist position, which does not subject itself to critical examination.
Let me sharpen the point further. If someone stands before me who does not see faith in God, that in itself indeed will not persuade me that I am mistaken. From my perspective, I would relate to this as a kind of blindness (and I would also try to open his eyes, that is, to persuade him). But if he raises arguments in favor of atheism, I will listen very carefully, and if I am persuaded I will retract my position (I hope I will be honest enough to do so). That is the difference from fundamentalism.