Q&A: Intelligibles, Conventions, and Religion
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Intelligibles, Conventions, and Religion
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The matter of these three above confuses me in several respects:
1. An intelligible is something that exists objectively — what about the other two things? And if they all exist objectively, then what is the difference? And if they do not exist objectively, then what importance do they really have?
2. Can the other two be coerced?
3. What is the difference between intelligibles and religion?
Answer
- Intelligibles do not exist objectively; rather, they are objectively true. A proposition does not exist; it is true. Facts exist in reality, and the propositions that describe them are true (they do not exist). As for conventions, I devoted a column to that, and explained there, among other things, that these are norms grounded in convention, and nevertheless they are binding (there are social agreements that obligate us). As for religion, you need to explain what you mean. Jewish law? If the Holy One, blessed be He, exists and commands, then that is binding just like morality.
- It is possible to coerce with regard to intelligibles, conventions, or Jewish law, but only someone who deviates from them even though he knows that they are binding. Someone who does not believe in this cannot be coerced (except perhaps in cases where this causes serious social harm).