Q&A: Philosophical Writing and Philosophical Ideas
Philosophical Writing and Philosophical Ideas
Question
I want to raise a point here that generally bothers me about the site, and in my opinion it’s quite important.
On the one hand, you deal with fundamental topics and at a fairly high level,
in philosophy, logic, ethics, Jewish law (although in Jewish law, in my opinion, the discussion is fairly superficial; there are no serious halakhic discussions from the sources themselves and the methods of the halakhic decisors in the standard way of the accepted responsa literature, and your mode of decision is also often based on gut feelings).
On the other hand, you devote many posts and discussions to dumb topics like sports, current events, or various matters of emotion and desire. True, you approach these topics philosophically, analyze, define, refute, and build arguments—but what is the point of making fine distinctions on topics that are, by their nature, esoteric? Maybe these topics get better ratings, or maybe you see them as a kind of fun (a sort of Purim rabbi in philosophy), but in my opinion you would do better to devote more time and words to important topics (which you do in fact discuss often).
Answer
There are several important points here, and I’ll address them briefly.
1. There is value in dealing even with topics that are not important.
2. I disagree with you about the criterion for what is important and what is not (sports, current events, emotion, and desire, in your words, are not important. So what is important: second-generation secondary taste transfer within a day?).
3. Even if the topic itself is not important, sometimes the lesson learned from clarifying it is important. For example, the post about basketball teaches about the definition of quality and vague concepts in general, and about the relationship between intuition and definition. A highly valuable lesson in many areas.
4. The main value in engaging with different topics is not the conclusion one reaches, or understanding the topic itself, but the mode of analysis. By the way, that is the value of the Talmudic pilpul of the sages throughout the generations: to teach the sons of Judah the bow, and to try to bring them to know how to analyze things and not accept vague claims uncritically.
5. Even if there is a topic that is completely worthless, one is still allowed to enjoy oneself and have a little fun. I object to the attitude of “too good to be kosher.” What’s wrong with a Purim rabbi and Purim Torah?
6. Indeed, on my site I do not deal with Jewish law. There is no post written as a halakhic inquiry. The exceptions are posts 147-8, and even they are not purely halakhic but are meant to illustrate a halakhic point. If I’m asked a halakhic question, I answer briefly.
7. In general, I don’t always like the standard mode of analysis found in many responsa. In my view, a good logical argument or good conceptual analysis is worth a thousand sources. Sometimes when you do conceptual analysis, you see there is no need to bring sources because everything is clear even without them, and sometimes you see that the sources are mistaken or irrelevant to your issue. And in general, why is the gut feeling of halakhic decisors preferable to my gut feeling? Since it’s mine, my own belly is dearer to me—the somewhat shrunken one, because of my sins—than the bellies of nobodies, even if their girth is thicker than my waist (which at this point is not saying much).
In any case, of course everyone is free to read what he wants and ignore what he does not want. To each his own taste.
Discussion on Answer
With God’s help, 14 Tammuz 5778
To the questioner—greetings,
Matters of “current events, emotion, and desire” are not “dumb” things. This is the reality in which we live, around which our worries and joys revolve. The ability to analyze the problems that occupy us using rational tools and to establish moral and utilitarian standards for them enables us to solve our problems efficiently, and therefore it is important to analyze them with all the intellectual tools at our disposal.
With blessings,
S. Tz. Levinger
A basketball game may have no value in itself, but it has value as practice. We set ourselves an artificial goal, but the tools we use to achieve it are tools that will serve us in achieving our real goals.
In a game we practice: strategic thinking, quickness in analyzing a situation and responding to it, teamwork—and all this while being committed to the “rules of the game,” whose violation distances us from achieving our goal. The game is the parable, and life is the lesson.
1. Indeed, it is impossible to determine what an important topic is, since this is a subjective concept, although it seems to me that most people would agree that “important” means either a theoretical topic (philosophy, logic, epistemology, and any scientific field), or a topic with practical benefit, or a topic in which many people are mistaken, or a halakhic matter (for one who recognizes Jewish law as binding). Broadly speaking, I assume that even without a clear definition, most people would agree on what is an important topic and what is just chatter.
2. Regarding the value of dealing with unimportant topics: if it’s for fun, that’s great—but why mix serious articles together with quips? I’m not against enjoying life, but work is one thing and pleasures are another.
If it’s in order to teach a mode of analysis, definition, criticism of vague arguments, etc., that can be done just as well with serious topics.
Or alternatively, one could direct people to practice formal logic (psychometric exams are an excellent idea, though they don’t cover all intellectual functions, and this is not the place to elaborate).
I have no problem with engaging in these matters, but in my opinion you would do better to separate between serious/heavy topics that have value in being discussed, and lighter topics that are fun to bandy about in a non-committal way (by the way, one can also make pilpulim about fairy tales and telephone books). Again, I’m not trying to define what is important and what is not, but it seems to me that the distinction is fairly clear (and in doubtful cases one may be lenient).
By the way, in such light topics it seems to me that you are not much better than a standard journalist (or than a pair of journalists on opposite sides of the divide), and if you separated the fields, you would make it easier for everyone to turn to his preferred place. Ephraim Kishon, toward the end of his life, moved to more current-events writing, and he writes—I think in the introduction to My Beloved Partachia—that he met two people: one told him he started reading him because at last he was writing about serious topics, and the other told him he stopped reading him because he was no longer funny.
And another suggestion: it would be worthwhile to gather on one page all the questions that have been asked by topic and not only by the order in which they were asked—causality, induction, epistemology, etc. That could save a lot of duplication.
3. Regarding responsa, I meant not responsa from our own generation but earlier ones (from about a hundred years ago and back). I have never found in them things that are pointless; even if they write briefly or without order, with a bit of effort you can see how they touch precisely on the important points.
By the way, I distinguish between understanding the topic of the question, clarifying concepts, mapping out the plane of discussion, and raising the different sides of the issue, on the one hand, and deciding between them, on the other. While in the whole process of discussion every reasonably educated person can say his piece (each according to his level), the process of decision—if it is not done by means of conclusive proofs, but on the basis of indirect proofs and various logical considerations—is entrusted only to the greatest professionals, those whose understanding and intuition are the best; that is to say, to the leading Torah authority of the generation.
3. Regarding halakhic discussions, no