Q&A: Are We Not Smarter Than Our Ancestors?
Are We Not Smarter Than Our Ancestors?
Question
Hello and blessings,
Are we not smarter than our ancestors? After all, the sage already said: “The eyes are in front and not behind” (Maimonides in his letter to the sages of Marseille). What is the scope of “Ask now about the former generations”? What could they possibly renew for us that we do not already know? Is not asking the former generations meant as a critique of their ignorance and their opposition to proper reforms—reforms that could have saved them from all the evils that befell them?
With blessings, Benjamin
Answer
In my book Two Wagons I argued that at the level of IQ there is apparently an ascent of the generations. But intuition depends on closeness to the source. “Ask now about the former generations” was not said about consulting people wiser than us, but about transmitters of the tradition and witnesses to historical events. So there it is not really connected to this issue at all.
Discussion on Answer
This parable is ancient, and much ink has been spilled trying to decipher its original source. In any case, it is quite clear that it is not of Jewish origin. But that really does not matter, because there is truth in it, and that is what matters.
Indeed, a dwarf sees more than a giant in terms of what he sees. And still, there are also advantages to the giant. The fact is that Amoraim do not disagree with Tannaim, and medieval authorities (Rishonim) do not disagree with Amoraim, even though the Talmud established that the Jewish law follows the later authorities. The picture is more complex, and in Two Wagons I explained some of the different factors in each direction.
And even if there is an advantage to the ancients, that does not mean we have no right to disagree with them. For at least two reasons: 1. There is value in autonomy, in doing what I think even if I am mistaken. 2. Even someone wiser can sometimes be wrong.
Medieval authorities disagree with Amoraim? Where?
Doesn’t that contradict the authority of the Talmud?
Read it again.
If intuition depends on closeness to the source, from where do we get the power to disagree with the words of the ancients? After all, even Rabbi Isaiah of Trani argued, “And if you place the dwarf on the giant’s neck, who sees farther? You must say: the dwarf, for his eyes are now higher than the giant’s eyes” (Responsa of the Rid, section 62). So what intuition exactly is the Rabbi referring to? Does the Rabbi disagree with the dwarf parable above?
P.S. As is well known, the Rid copied this parable from the book of John of Salisbury, the outstanding student of Bernard of Chartres, who cited this parable in the name of his teacher.