Q&A: On Religious Postmodernism.
On Religious Postmodernism.
Question
With God’s help,
Hello Rabbi,
I heard a lecture the Rabbi gave about 3 years ago, after the publication of the book “Tablets and Broken Tablets,” on the topic: Is religious postmodernism possible?
I would like to ask a few questions about the short lecture.
1. The Rabbi said that the question can really be reduced to: is postmodernism possible at all? And the answer is no. Everything spoken about today regarding postmodernity is cultural, psychological, a kind of mental attitude that listens more and is more inclusive, but on the philosophical plane there is no such thing. (At least that is how I understood the Rabbi’s words.) If so, the Rabbi is fully convinced that there is one truth. My questions are: does that mean we have a criterion for reaching it? For understanding it? Or is it simply impossible to say that there is no one truth, but that does not at all obligate us to say that we will one day be able to reach it as well? (And if it is possible to reach it, how is that done?)
2. Why does the Rabbi claim at all that there is one truth? Is this a matter of faith, that it cannot be otherwise, or is it in a more rational sense?
3. The Rabbi explained that every statement must be either modernist—(meaning it can simply be understood in a more complex way and from different angles, but that really does not make it postmodernist)—or else it is nonsense. I wanted to understand a bit better what exactly that means. And if possible, an example please from the book, if the Rabbi remembers. (If the Rabbi does not remember the book, I would be happy with a complex example that sharpens the point for me.)
4. Even if rationally and intellectually the Rabbi explains that there is one truth, and that there is / is not a criterion for reaching it—what about the existential feeling that nests in the hearts of young religious people (yeshiva students, for example), who sit and learn and clarify the topics, yet find no peace? What about when, in the end, it simply does not sit right in the heart? If it does not succeed in building fear of Heaven within me?
I am not at all sure, from my limited acquaintance with the Rabbi’s writings, that the Rabbi identifies with questions of this type. But I tried.
Thank you very much.
Answer
Eitan, hello. Sorry for the delay (I didn’t see the question. Thanks to Oren the editor for drawing my attention to it).
- First, there is not necessarily one truth for every question. There are questions for which several correct answers are possible, but even that does not require postmodernism. Postmodernism holds that for no question is there one correct answer—or any correct answers at all.
- In my opinion, it is possible to reach it, but not with certainty. Contrary to the postmodernist view, truth and certainty are not synonymous. Our truths are not certain, but they are also not completely subjective (= as correct as their opposites).
- Truth, by definition, is one. These are the rules of logic. If X is true, then “not X” is false. If you believe in “not X,” then you do not accept X. Completely simple.
- In the lecture I gave the example of chocolate, and that is enough. Someone who says it is both tasty and not tasty is speaking nonsense. Someone who says it is tasty in one respect and not in another is making a simple modernist claim. And of course, if one claims that it is tasty but not healthy.
- As for feelings, I do not know what to do with them. For that there are psychologists. A philosophical doctrine is supposed to answer and discuss questions, not provide a response to feelings. But in any case, I do not see why postmodernist nonsense provides an answer to anything. If they tell you that you are both right and not right, does that calm you down? If you have a concrete question that you are struggling with, you are welcome to raise it and we will analyze it together. Maybe we will find an answer and maybe not, but one thing is clear: postmodernist verbiage will not help you at all.
- Let me just add one more thing: answers to questions are not judged by the criterion of whether they build fear of Heaven, but by the criterion of truth and logic. If the result of the truth is a lack of fear of Heaven, then that is what it is. There can be all kinds of strange approaches and claims that bring people to fear of Heaven, but that does not make them correct.
To conclude, I did not understand what it means to identify with a question. If you mean that the question is not difficult for me, that does not exempt me from explaining that very point itself (why it is not difficult). There is no such thing as a question I do not identify with. Either I do not understand it, in which case of course it can be explained to me, or in my opinion it is not difficult, and then I have to explain to you why.
All the best