Q&A: Criticism
Criticism
Question
From a critique someone wrote:
“And here is one of the points that bothers me most about the Rabbi: he keeps insisting all the time that if something cannot be explained and conceptualized in the ordinary way, then it is nonsense. In my opinion, what the Rabbi very much lacks here is the understanding that there are layers that require spiritual work in the literal sense, and not conceptual intellectual work.”
What does the Rabbi say?
Answer
I see your use of the phrase “spiritual work in the literal sense and not conceptual intellectual work” (and many others use it similarly) as an evasion of intellectual work. When a person does not know how to define something, he should work harder on it instead of sending me off to work and explaining that what is needed is spiritual work rather than intellectual work. That is nonsense. It is supposedly profundity, but in fact it comes to cover up laziness. Of course work is required in order to define things, but not spiritual work—rather intellectual work. And as is well known, a lack of explanation is a lack of understanding.
So yes, that kind of understanding is indeed lacking in me, and I am glad of it. It is simply from experience: when something is hard to define, the easiest thing is to say that it is complex and cannot be defined. But when one makes the effort, one succeeds in defining it better. There is not always an explicit definition, but usually one can at least explain what one means. See my series on poetry (post 107 and onward).
Of course, if there is a logical contradiction in the matter, then it is real nonsense. But even when there is no contradiction, if one does not define things, usually a vacuum is hiding behind the words.
Discussion on Answer
Sorry for jumping into the discussion,
Apparently this is not a dispute but a way of looking at the world—intellectual contemplation and experiential contemplation.
I don’t think the Rabbi denies that there is experience, only that one needs to understand what it is saying.
There certainly are contents that are difficult to express in words. But that is true of every basic concept. After all, every definition uses concepts, and necessarily there is a set of basic concepts that cannot be grounded in more basic concepts. But in any case, one can clarify things. The use of spiritual experiences and all that sort of thing in these contexts serves as a cover for laziness. Obviously I can experience love, but when I talk about love I must clarify what I mean. Through implications, or incidental expressions, or in any other way. Moreover, love is a concept familiar to all of us, so it is reasonable to use it as a basic concept without defining it.
I was careful to write that this does not have to be a definition in the mathematical sense.
I understand, but I still don’t agree with you that essential spiritual work has no significance apart from the ability to conceptualize and clarify. In my opinion there is no ability at all to create concepts, and certainly values, without that initial attentiveness that cannot be expressed on the intellectual level. Is that not so?
That is not so.
You need the initial attentiveness, but if you do not know how to express it, then in your soul fulfill Wittgenstein’s command at the end of the Tractatus: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Is it not possible to imagine that there are contents that cannot be expressed in words? For example, life? love? And really, essential contents in general cannot be given a comprehensive reductionist definition. I think that in many areas, like prayer, prophecy, devekut, maybe even things having to do with the spirit of Jewish law (I know that here I’ll get you going), none of them can be summed up in definitions. There are things there that exist and are meaningful even though we cannot talk about them and state them adequately. Is there nothing to that?