Q&A: Educated True Stereotypes in the Service of Fundamentalism and the Beauty of Nature
Educated True Stereotypes in the Service of Fundamentalism and the Beauty of Nature
Question
Hello to the holy philosopher, may he live long.
1. The Rabbi has claimed several times that even if a stereotype is correct, he still would not act according to it—for example, even if women are weaker than men, he would still let them serve in the army, and even if Arabs are more violent than Jews, he would not suspect them first, etc. And the question is: why?
2. Please forgive me for troubling your holy thoughts again with a question about fundamentalism and modernity (by the way, I recently started reading Stable and Unstable Truth), but I had another puzzle about smart, educated people in the service of fundamentalism. Take, for example, the lecturers on Hidabroot—people who for the most part are highly educated and even have a certain capacity for philosophical analysis—and yet they continue to defend fundamentalism with ridiculous excuses, and I don’t really understand why they simply don’t abandon it in favor of a more modern way of life?
3. Our planet is not only suited to human beings, but the way it is structured is also beautiful in human eyes; that is, we perceive nature as beautiful. Isn’t that another proof for the existence of an intelligent force?
Answer
- I never wrote such a thing. What I wrote is that if possible, it is preferable not to follow a stereotype, but rather to examine each case on its own merits. See my response now to Shahar on the latest post (about racism at Barkan Wineries).
- Ask them. I assume they probably think that this is what is required of a believing person.
- Maybe. But one could perhaps say that evolution implanted this in us.