Q&A: Discussions from an Objective Approach — Is There Such a Thing?
Discussions from an Objective Approach — Is There Such a Thing?
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi.
I asked a similar question in another thread, but I want to discuss it in a different way, and therefore I opened a new question.
If we examine the world in general, we will find that the number of people who have changed their approach to life in a drastic way is extremely small proportionally. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that there are so many emotional components that prevent it. One of the most significant things is society and family: the desire not to abandon one’s family, and the need for social recognition. Of course, every society and family has its own codes and its own rules, and the parts that are harder vary, and there is no need to get into details.
I assume that even those who did make significant changes had emotional components that helped them do so.
My question has several parts.
A. What guarantee is there that I am capable of entering a discussion in such an open way that I would change my mind and my personality if I were mistaken?
B. Is my opinion not automatically influenced and emotionally biased?
C. Honestly, isn’t it strange that the place you believe in is exactly the place you were born into? (Of course, my question is not personal, but expresses an idea; it may be that this does not apply to you.)
D. Do you think that a person, for example an older person with a family and an established way of life for himself and his children, should come to a discussion with an open approach as though he were able to change his life? Does that sound reasonable to you?
Thank you very much.
Answer
A. I don’t know.
B. Probably yes.
C. Not strange, but definitely worth examining.
D. Yes.
Discussion on Answer
I do not know what rhetorical flourish you are aiming at. I do indeed hold in contempt people who rely on their upbringing as an argument. If someone says, “I act this way because that’s how I was educated,” that is indeed worthy of contempt. But if someone offers arguments, and from the outside it appears that he is influenced by his upbringing, that is not worthy of contempt. We are all like that, although it is proper to try to overcome this failing. You have no way of knowing that you have overcome it, and you will probably never really succeed completely. You can make an effort. The contempt is for someone who does not make any effort at all.
Thank you for your brief response, which serves as an opening to my discussion. I’m turning a bit personal in order to sharpen the question.
To my second question you answered, “probably yes.” I assume you did not mean me personally, but every person as such. If that is the case, I would be glad to understand why I sometimes see contempt (also from you; I do not behave this way) toward certain groups who act according to upbringing and the like. In what way are they worse than any person whose opinion is influenced by his emotions, one of which is upbringing? And what is the secret sauce by which one can know that I (that is, you for example) am not influenced by the sum total of your emotions?
Thank you, and sorry for the style — it is genuinely in order to understand.