Q&A: Existing Social Structures
Existing Social Structures
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Jordan Peterson in his books devotes quite a few pages to the principle of “don’t disparage existing social structures,” by which he tries to say that society has refined its conventions wisely over the course of history, and that these structures, built by the wisdom of the many, probably do in fact hold our society together.
I heard you in a talk about the trilogy, where in the second book you basically come to tear down the existing conventions, in your words, of course in order to build something new and better.
Why not try to work within the framework of the rules of Jewish society as they have existed over the years?
I’d be glad to hear your opinion,
Thank you
Answer
I have no interest at all in tearing anything down. On the other hand, when I have an argument that is correct (in my view), I adopt it even if it runs against what was accepted before. According to your suggestion, today we should still be holding onto the science of Adam and the values of Terach or Cain.
Discussion on Answer
- I don’t know what you quoted, but as far as I remember, I never said that I have any interest in tearing things down. I’m interested in doing the right thing, even if that changes what exists. That’s all.
- It definitely does relate to science. There too you could make the same argument: if this is what people have thought until now, then it’s probably true. There is no difference between that and social structures. I didn’t bring up science in the context of changing social structures. By the way, those who want to change things are also religious apologists. Atheists don’t have a monopoly on that.
- I absolutely do try to promote what I believe in. Where did I say otherwise? But I have no interest in tearing things down, only in advancing what is correct. Sometimes that changes what exists, and by definition that is what advancing means. Change always comes at the expense of what already exists.
In general, I do not disparage existing structures, but I do not sanctify them either. Each matter should be judged on its own merits.
To conclude, my impression is that either you don’t understand what I say and write, or your tendentiousness is getting in the way. That’s a shame. As far as I’m concerned, this discussion has run its course. All the best.
Hello,
1. Regarding the matter of destruction, I was quoting you from a talk I heard here: https://youtu.be/7eajo-ohOLM
2. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand. It has nothing to do with science at all. A scientist throws ideas or explanations out into the world and lets the community do its thing; he generally has no interest in changing social structures, except, for example, pseudoscientists or outspoken atheists.
3. Correct arguments are excellent, and I agree with a large part of them, but you are in fact trying to actively change social structures and not merely express an opinion. And that’s where my question comes in: why didn’t you see fit to lay out your doctrine in a more “scientific” way and let the community carry it forward?