Q&A: Question about an idea in the Conceptual Analysis series
Question about an idea in the Conceptual Analysis series.
Question
Hello Rabbi.
I watched episode 5 in the series on conceptual analysis, and first of all I wanted to say more power to you for the series; it is truly very enlightening and important.
I had difficulty with a certain point that came up during the episode, and I would be glad if the Rabbi would answer the problem I had when I watched it.
My understanding of the point the Rabbi presented was that there are places where there is a goal and then there is a means, and therefore the means—that is, the characteristics—come only after the concept. So too in the case of a Jew. First they wanted to create an ideal human being (a Jew), and only afterward did they determine his definitions. But when a person today argues about the concept of a Jew, he is arguing for no reason, because the concept was already conceptualized in the past, and that is where its validity comes from, so there is no longer any room to challenge it. And even if I connect this to what the Rabbi said at the end of the episode, that changes can be introduced, that is true, but even the changes that come will come on top of the basic assumptions of the matter, and those will not change, so that the concept is still not really open to debate, since the ideas and the foundation were already conceptualized in the past, and all that we see today is only the necessary and unquestionable derivative. I would be glad if the Rabbi would respond to the problem I had with the topic, thank you.
Answer
First of all, a Jew is not an ideal human being. I did not say that, and I do not think that.
I am not sure I understood the question. The debate about the definition of a Jew concerns the question of what its character is today. A concept can change over time, and therefore disagreements about it can arise. Beyond that, there can also be disagreements about the concept itself (not only about changes), if people see it differently (with the mind’s eye).
Discussion on Answer
You are mixing up a conventionalist view with an essentialist view. In an essentialist view, there is no time at which a concept is created. It has existed forever. There may perhaps be a time when we grasp and conceptualize it, and there can still be disagreements between people or groups regarding its characteristics. One person grasps it this way and another grasps it differently. In addition, there may be disagreement about changes in the concept (even if that is only its application to new circumstances, there can still be disagreement about how to do that).
The Jewish example was only an example.
I will rephrase the question: the Rabbi said in the lecture—and I agree with him—that the characteristics are created as a result of the concept. But if so, once the concept has already been conceptualized, it is no longer possible to argue about it, unlike what the Rabbi said, that one can argue even after it has already been conceptualized. At the end of the question I added what the Rabbi said at the end of the episode, that changes can still happen in the concept, but I argue that even those changes are not real changes but rather a necessary development of reality (like the example you gave about the tribe that stops wearing a bathing suit once it leaves the desert, but in essence remains with its values even though its appearance has changed). My point is that even though the characteristics are created as a result of the concept, once the characteristics have been attached to the concept, it is no longer possible to argue about their basic points, but only about their necessary derivatives—unlike what the Rabbi said, that even the root can change, according to what I understood.