Q&A: Spartanism
Spartanism
Question
Does it seem sane to you that a believing person should be Mr. Perfect—keeping everything without cutting any corners at all? That he understands that this is how one ought to live is obvious. But most people are not Spartan. And the fact that you understand that something is true still doesn’t mean it will motivate you to act.
If I have honesty, then when you present me with facts and convince me, and let’s say I really was convinced, then honesty obligates me at least to admit to myself that I’ve been convinced [and that I’m obligated to act according to what I’ve understood]. But for that to automatically lead to action—that would only be if the person is anxious, obsessive, or righteous, it seems to me.
Answer
I saw a very general and trivial statement. Is there a question here?
Discussion on Answer
No. Sometimes there are convincing arguments, but intuition says there’s something wrong with them. See my columns on paradoxes.
I’m talking about a situation where your intuition tells you that it really is true. So even here, a person who as a result does not observe the commandments is still an honest person, because he agrees that it’s true, and honestly chooses not to observe.
He does what he shouldn’t and refrains from what he should, with full awareness.
So you’re just defining terms. Define it however you want. According to your definition, that’s obviously what comes out. So what’s the question?
Maybe he is doing something improper when he acts contrary to what he himself believes. But he isn’t lying to himself. Unless, despite being convinced, he contradicts himself and says, “It’s fine, it’s permitted,” even though he doesn’t really believe that. Is that correct?
Wow, I’m done. You keep repeating the same trivial definition over and over. I’ve exhausted this.
If a person is honest/sincere, and you convince him of something important in life that one should live by, and he is convinced—for example, you convinced him, and he himself admits that he was convinced, of the existence of God and the truth of the Torah (all this only in a case where he really was convinced and isn’t just saying it)—if after all that he says, “I don’t think that’s true,” or “maybe not,” then in my opinion he is not acting honestly here. But if he says, “It’s true, but I don’t have the strength/desire to observe it,” then here he still remains honest. There’s a tendency to mix those two up. So I asked: am I right about this distinction?