Q&A: Rabbi Shagar and Postmodernism
Rabbi Shagar and Postmodernism
Question
Hello Rabbi, I read in Truth and Not Stable that you strongly oppose Rabbi Shagar’s view that one can be a postmodernist and believe, and that this is the proper way to believe in our time.
I wanted to ask whether there is any essential principled difference between Rabbi Shagar’s conception—that faith is a choice and an existential feeling—and what you say. After all, you also agree that in order to think philosophically one must first choose to trust our thinking, and the statistical proof you presented (in several places) does not really prove anything if one can always cast doubt on everything—causality, induction, what we see. If so, you too begin from a choice or a feeling; is this not only a quantitative difference between you and Rabbi Shagar?
Or perhaps Rabbi Shagar held that one should choose to believe in God, whereas you chose to believe in our thinking and from there arrive at belief in God, and the difference lies in the free choice each of you made.
Answer
Absolutely not. The question is what you mean by “choose.” Is this an arbitrary decision, as implied by Rabbi Shagar’s words, or is it an intuition that points me toward the truth, as in my approach? This is somewhat connected to my article on arbitrariness in Leibowitz’s thought: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%25A9%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%25A8%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599%25D7%2595%25D7%259ת-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A8%25D7%25A6%25D7%2595%25D7%259F-%25D7%2591%25D7%259E%25D7%25A9%25D7%25A0%25D7%25AA%25D7%2595-%25D7%25A9%25D7%259C-%25D7%259C%25D7%2599%25D7%2591%25D7%2595%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%25A5-%25D7%25A4%25D7%2595%25D7%2596/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi4i_ORtd2EAxWlavEDHXeAAkUQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2TfVqEVjDIahVTQqLFB-_q
If this is an arbitrary decision, then there is no factual claim here. You choose to believe in God or to be committed to His commandments not because that is what ought to be done—and you therefore make no demand of others to do so—but because that is how you are made / that is what you feel like, and so on. In my view, you choose to believe and to be committed because that is what ought to be done. That is a demand made of everyone.
In short, the question is whether intuition is something arbitrary or a tool for grasping the truth even if you have no argument that establishes it.
Discussion on Answer
You can challenge whatever you want, but that does not mean the decision is arbitrary. One can also challenge relativity theory, so is adopting it arbitrary? For every claim you raise, I can offer an alternative claim. But this one is more reasonable and that one is less so. Therefore the decision goes in favor of the more reasonable one, and that is definitely not an arbitrary decision.
I understand. Thank you.
Thank you. I think I understood the principled distinction, but in any case, do you agree that anything one says—like the definition that “intuition is a tool for grasping the truth”—is also a basic assumption that can be challenged as to why it is true, and in the very end we will need to arrive at an arbitrary choice? (The difference being that this is one additional stage.)
It’s like an absolute skeptic who can also challenge the claim that 1+1=2, even though I can explain that there is no difference between 1+1 and 2, because he can challenge that explanation too.