Q&A: Trying to Understand What the Question Is
Trying to Understand What the Question Is
Question
Hello and blessings,.
First, I want to thank the Rabbi for his life’s work—for the seriousness of what he writes and the integrity that cries out from every corner..
Your words are nothing less than air to breathe for me, even though we come from different study traditions. So thank you..
For years now a question has been gnawing at me, and despite countless attempts and efforts to put my finger on it clearly, I’m having trouble presenting it right now as I would like. So I apologize if what I say is not well-defined for the Rabbi..
And perhaps besides a substantive answer to the question I’m trying to ask, I’d also ask the Rabbi to try to reflect my words back according to his understanding, in professional terms and language, so that I can finally understand once and for all what it is that my soul is asking..
I’ll say it directly and briefly..
I really think it’s impossible to know what is right and what is not in the world. Everything I ever say is basically influenced by my personal biography, so that this feeling of certainty I have about my path is just an illusion (or something like that. What exactly?).
And yes, I know that you hold that there is in fact no justification for absolute certainty about anything, and I agree with you on that point.
But if everything is culture-dependent, then even my identifying my path as more reasonable than another path is influenced by my personal history, and again that identification has no real value.
Now I understand that thinking things through—that is, intellectual analysis aimed at exposing the truth, while of course being honest and straightforward—is supposed to reduce the level of bias we have toward the worldview in which we were raised.
But whenever I use my intellect in an attempt to reach the truth and find a fit on some issue—meaning that something seems right to me and settles well in my soul—I again feel that same sensation I mentioned above: the feeling of certainty / the feeling that this is the reasonable view / the feeling of identifying with this particular content. And again the thought awakens in me that my opponent also thought things through (assuming that really is so), and his soul found integrity where I found distortion, and once again I return to relating to the experience I have in relation to my view as an illusion devoid of any real value.
All this leads me to the conclusion that I will never be able to know what is more correct and what is less close to the truth. Because in the end, “it’s all according to your own opinion,” as the postmodernists maintain.
By the way—I’d be glad to know what we are supposed to infer from the internal contradiction contained within the postmodern view?
That is, if by saying that it’s impossible to know what the truth is in the world, we have thereby said that this is the truth and not the view that says it is possible to know what is right and what is not—then we have contradicted ourselves. Is that supposed to make us conclude that the postmodern statement is necessarily incorrect?
Because on the one hand, it really is a contradiction that doesn’t allow for truth, and on the other hand, I do identify this view as more straightforward despite the contradiction. So what do we do?
Sorry for the lack of clarity. Again, I’d be glad if the Rabbi could, in addition to answering, also reflect back what I was trying to ask as he understands it, so that I can finally understand myself.
Thank you
Answer
If I understood your question correctly, you are raising a standard skeptical concern: how can I know that what I think is correct really is correct, given that the thought that what I think is correct is itself also my thought (which I take to be correct).
First of all, I should correct one imprecise point in what you wrote. There is no certainty about anything in any field. And still, there is probability one way or the other. As far as I’m concerned, probability is enough in order to accept some claim. Therefore, the fact that there is no certainty changes nothing about your question, and there is no need to invoke it. Moreover, if you accept our ability to reach the truth in a state of certainty, and your concern is only about a state in which we do not have certainty, I see no reason to deny the ability to adopt our positions also in a state of probability. After all, even if you are in a state of certainty, one could argue against you that perhaps that certainty itself is a result of your biography and your psychological makeup.
As for your question, it seems there are two parts to distinguish: 1. Suppose the whole world thinks the same thing (again, not with certainty) on a given question. There is still room to discuss whether it is true or not. It may be that this is simply how all of us are programmed to think, and it has nothing to do with the truth. 2. When there is a dispute—who says that I am right? The other person is no less intelligent than I am, and apparently each person formed his position according to his biography and psychological makeup.
Regarding question 1, no convincing answer is possible, because any answer given to it is vulnerable to this very same attack. If I offer an argument for why what we all think is correct really is correct, you will raise against me the claim that this too is just our thought. So here I can only say: it seems correct to me, and that’s it. Just as when I see a wall in front of me, and someone raises a skeptical concern—maybe there is no wall there and it is an illusion—I would not answer him. I see it, and it is clear to me that there is a wall. There is no possible answer here, since any reason I offer can be rejected in the same way (“you think that because that’s how you are programmed”). It is enough for me that I simply see, and that’s that.
Question 2 arises only if you answer question 1 positively—that is, only if you understand that what everyone thinks is probably correct (though not necessarily), and that there is no necessary gap between subjective thought and objective truth. Only now can you ask what the rule is in a dispute (how do I know that I am the one who is right). I answered that question in columns 247–248.