Q&A: Postmodernism and the Trilogy
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Postmodernism and the Trilogy
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have not yet read the new trilogy (congratulations on its publication), but I follow the Rabbi’s blog and articles, and I have also read most of the Rabbi’s previous books.
I have two questions on the subject (a bit weighty):
- The Rabbi has often attacked the postmodern-analytic approach. According to this approach, there is no objective truth, and the entire “world of the spirit” is nothing more than a collection of imaginary and subjective stories devoid of meaning. But it seems that the trilogy itself is trying to “build a new story” of Judaism, so that a contemporary person who wants to continue holding on to Judaism can do so without giving up rationality, morality, etc. This construction of the story requires giving up some of the assumptions and accepted views of “faithful Judaism.” Is not the very aspiration to “build a story” for Judaism itself a practical implementation of the postmodern approach?
- Returning to the basic issue of modernism versus postmodernism: one of the implications of postmodern thought (which the Rabbi attacks) is that human language is not analytic, and yet successful communication between us is still possible. Our intuition tells us that we are discussing concepts that contain within them (at least on some level) a degree of objectivity. But from this the Rabbi concludes that the explanation is that there exists an abstract, spiritual reality (dualism?) that we observe with the mind’s eye. However, one can hold a modernist-synthetic view and remain a convinced materialist. If we look at the animal world, for example, we immediately notice a number of simple behavioral principles (predator-prey relations, hierarchical relations within the same species, symbiosis between different species, empathy among animals, parent-offspring relations, and more). By contrast, the structure of the human brain contains a sort of older “animal core,” on top of which there are additional layers for processing information (the neocortex). One could say that the postmodern confusion stems from that advanced ability to construct many analogies—complex and confusing ones—which of course can be completely baseless. But at the core of things, we operate according to a finite number of animal behavioral principles. According to such an approach, our intuitive feeling about objective dimensions does not point to the existence of an abstract spiritual world; on the contrary, it testifies to a connection to our more basic and animalistic layers. I hope I have made myself clear. I would be glad to hear the Rabbi’s response to this.
Answer
Hello.
- Absolutely not. I am not building a story but making claims. The fact that they differ in some respects from what is commonly accepted does not mean that this is “construction,” as postmodern discourse assumes. On the contrary, my claim is that the traditional discourse is a kind of “construction” that has no real basis. In short, you are begging the question. In the trilogy I try to present reasons and arguments, not to build stories, in complete contrast to our postmodern cousins.
- I did not understand the second claim. I experience directly the mental processes taking place within me, and from this I infer their existence in other people. Why should I assume that they do not exist? This has nothing to do with various behaviors, whether similar or dissimilar to what happens in the animal kingdom. We are talking about mental processes, not the behaviors that express them.