Saturday, December 1, 2007

Lonely Voice of Reason - Explained

The title of this blog is at first glance a bit (or more then a bit) arrogant and overly ambitious. However, I hope a thorough and comprehensive explanation will make the title slightly more tolerable.
The title has many facets to it, each of which should be addressed in turn. Firstly, let us explore the meaning of ‘Reason’.
Reason vs. peer pressure: I have always detested all forms of peer pressure. Whether the result be a harmless change in preference or a reshaping of ones viewpoint on any given issue, both are equally abhorrent. It reflects a wholly skewed outlook on life, where “how should I live” is logically equivalent to “how can I fit in”. Modern orthodox circles are plagued by this phenomenon. It fills the Yeshiva high-school, the motivating force behind drugs, alcohol, cheating, promiscuity, and even prevents proper growth, intelligence and thoughtfulness, ridiculed as ‘uncool’. It is the motivating factor behind the choice of Israel Yeshivot, and remains the main feature of the year in Israel, each Talmid trying to fit into a chosen mold. It permeates throughout the adult population as well. Parents do not decide even the most personal decision based on “what’s right for my kid” but rather on “what’s smiled upon by the neighbor next door”. Reason here is thus meant as the antithesis of peer pressure, thought and deliberation serving as the basis for each and every facet of life, as opposed to the mindless robotic existence that is a life of peer pressure.
Reason vs. foolishness: The world is filled with foolishness. By foolishness I do not mean opinions which are not “right” or “objectively true”. Rather I mean foolishness in the real sense of the word – stupidity. This includes people who simply act based on instinct or because they “feel like it”. We each know many people who simply “don’t care”, who do what they please. Foolishness also includes childishness. By this I mean a lack of vision, an inability to see outside of the moment and into the future. Infants cannot think ahead of time, they live entirely in the moment and act accordingly, free from the consequences. If only this were local to children! How many people do we all know who do not live for the future, who do not care or realize that there are consequences? Similarly, this lack of vision includes not realizing that life is a constant process. Each step of the past contributes to who you are in the present, and the present shapes who you will be in the future. Reason here means the effort to live a life based on logical analyses and rational thought, as opposed to a primitive existence requiring no thought or justification, but simply based on the most recent whim.
Reason vs. close-mindedness: If there is one thing I despise and disrespect, it is close-mindedness. Close-mindedness = simple-mindedness is the motto by which one must live his life. To dogmatically reject certain fields and studies is to admit defeat. If you are right, then prove it. There is nothing that reason cannot solve. While in previous generation the Right was stereotypically viewed as the close-minded, in our generation this is not true. The ‘liberal’ left are inclined to listen to the right no more then they are inclined to listen to the left. This is true in the political arena as well as the religious. Charedi and extreme Zionist factions will not enter conversations with the left, but neither will the less religious or high class liberal left engage in conversation with the right. This is true outside of the world of Judaism as well. Conservatives will never even contemplate voting for a Liberal, nor will the inverse be true either. It is for this reason that the title includes a picture of the Tower of Babel. We live in a world where everyone speaks but no one is willing to listen. Charedi’s walk in the street screaming ‘Shabbat!’ at the passing car while the driver turns up his volume so that his existence is known to the Charedi a block over. The Yeshiva world is unwilling to communicate with the University, scholarly research is deemed Kfira and worthless. The failure to entertain other possibilities, to actively engage in dialect with the various groups, leaves all worse off as a result. Reason is thus the willingness to contemplate all opinions, thoughts and claims, and to grow from the endeavor.
We shall move to the other half of the title, and explain the meaning of ‘lonely voice’:
Firstly, the voice of reason is a lonely one because of its rareness. Reason is rare, as the saying on the title bar reads “common sense is not that common”. Most people fit into one or more of the categories listed above, such as childishness, close-mindedness etc. Thus, the voice of reason is lonely by the sheer statistics, outnumbered by those who would live out their lives opposed to or indifferent to the pursuit of reason.
Secondly, the voice of reason is lonely because of the very pursuit. The more one contemplates, the more individualized he becomes. He formulates an outlook on the world, and even attains a better understanding of each of his various traits and characteristics. The constant study of oneself and the world automatically leads to a sense of loneliness. It is to this category that Rav Soloveitchik refers to in Lonely Man of Faith (though with an existential twist which we will hopefully discuss at a later point).
There is one last potential meaning, that which caused the readers original dislike for the title, namely, that I am the only voice of reason. Though each of us subconsciously believes that he is always right, on the conscious plane I have no more claim to truth then anyone else. Rather, I hope for an open forum, where we can pursue reason together, and perhaps become less lonely in the process.

4 comments:

Toviah Moldwin said...

"There is nothing that reason cannot solve."

You don't really mean this, do you?

Eilu Ve'Eilu Fellowship said...

If you are asking whether I believe reason, as in pure reason or logic, can solve all problems, like proving the existence of G-d, the answer is obviously no. I mean that the approach to life based on reason, as in thought and analysis as the guiding forces in ones life, then yes. It is not about the answers, but rather about the approach.

Tzvi Feifel said...

Simcha - you should copy the posts from facebook to here.

Eilu Ve'Eilu Fellowship said...

Meir Buchnick (no network) wrote
at 12:55pm on December 2nd, 2007
wow!! very well written. I liked it a lot, not necessarily did I agree with everything but I did with most and thought that the rest was interesting

can I forward it to ppl?
Message - Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 1:58pm on December 2nd, 2007
Thank you. Please forward it, the more the merrier, i want the discussion to begin. I still need to send you the methodology Shiurim, ill send it now
Sim
Delete

Chaim Mark Stauber (Israel) wrote
at 4:50pm on December 2nd, 2007
Interesting, very well written.

I was wondering about the comparison between the life of the staunch rationalist and that of the lonely man of faith...where do they tie in exactly?

Not necessarily kashur to this, but what do you think about Rationality vs. Faith (are they opposing concepts or possibly parallel ones)
Message - Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 6:01pm on December 2nd, 2007
Staubs,
The relationship between the staunch rationalist (in your words) and the lonely man of faith is in their parallel (though different) pursuit, both of which attempt to understand the world at large as well as their place within it. The pursuit of reason or thought in general, creates a more introverted temperament. No two people have the same questions and dilemmas, nor the same goals, and thus each individuals pursuit is entirely idiosyncratic. It is to this that I referred to when I paralleled the loneliness experienced by both the rationalist and existentialist.
Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 6:01pm on December 2nd, 2007
Regarding Faith and Reason: I don’t claim to be any sort of expert in epistemology, but nonetheless ill give it a go. The contradiction mentioned assumes that faith is illogical. This would depend on how you define logic. If we assume that logic is based on objective reality, then in the post-modern world within which we live, which claims that morals are relative, would indeed brand all forms of religion and faith as illogical. However, this is not local to ethics; history and other such fields are no longer considered objective studies as a result of the post-modern revolution. (Of course Post-modernists have to deal with such problems like why don’t you cross the street when the light is red, after all there are no truths, and how they can know that post-modernism is right, after all there are no truths…)
Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 6:01pm on December 2nd, 2007
If logic is defined more loosely (or better yet - differently) as the use of the human faculty to make decisions, then I am not sure why they should contradict at all. It is highly reasonable to accept the cosmological or teleological ‘proofs’ for G-ds existence. Again, this is not an objective fact, but nonetheless I believe this would fall under the rubric of reason. This, I assume, is what you were referring to when you mentioned reason and faith being parallel pursuits. Both of them are based on the human faculty of reason.
Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 6:01pm on December 2nd, 2007
There is another possibility. Perhaps “truth” and “faith” are not parallel or contradictory, but rather two wholly separate pursuits. Truth establishes the way things are, while religion and faith address the things ought to be. Belief in G-d is a paradox, since it falls somewhere in the middle – it would be both factual as well as moral. There are certain things you cannot prove, and the existence of G-d is one of those (at least it hasn’t been done yet). The inability to prove something as true does not imply that it is false. Rather, it leaves it in the realm of faith. They are thus not parallel pursuits, but rather complementary.
This is what i can come up with for now, let me know what you think.
Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 8:53am on December 3rd, 2007
Staubs,
I was reading the Rav's article Confrontation, and came upon a quote which elucidates your first question:
"Simultaneously with man's realization of his inner incongruity and complete alienation from his environment, the human tragic destiny begins to unfold. Man, in his encounter with an objective world and in his assumption of the role of a subject who asks questions about something hitherto simple, forfeits his sense of serenity and peace. He is no longer happy, he begins to examine his station in this world and he finds himself suddenly assailed by perplexity and fear, and especially loneliness. "And the Lord God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone'." The I-experience is a passional one and real man is born amid the pains of confrontation with an "angry" environment of which he had previously been an integral part."
Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 8:53am on December 3rd, 2007
If you haven't read confrontation you owe it to yourself to read it, its beautiful.
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchik/
Delete

Danny Shulman (no network) wrote
at 12:51am on December 4th, 2007
Simcha -

Before I share my thoughts I want to commend your clarity in thought and presentation. Thought I am skeptical, if you do manage to accomplish your goal and help alleviate some of the loneliness people often feel, I will be impressed and indebted.

Though I am going to challenge the entire premise of this blog, hopefully this will still help contribute to the desired development of reasonable thought. In your opening remarks on the word “reason” you explain that your contrast with reason is peer pressure, foolishness and close-mindedness. I would like to focus on your comparison to peer pressure and foolishness. You state that
“Reason is thus meant as the antithesis of peer pressure, thought and deliberation serving as the basis for each and every facet of life, as opposed to the mindless robotic existence that is a life of peer pressure.”
Message - Delete

Danny Shulman (no network) wrote
at 12:51am on December 4th, 2007
(Continued)
“Reason here means the effort to live a life based on logical analyses and rational thought, as opposed to a primitive existence requiring no thought or justification, but simply based on the most recent whim.”
While I wholeheartedly agree with your rejection of peer pressure and foolishness being the barometer for making decisions, I do not think that your extrapolation to reason is necessarily correct. While reason represents a proper alternative to these mindsets, it does not represent the only viable approach.

There are those who feel that human rational is too limited to come to proper conclusions. In short, who said that I know everything? Who am I to say what the appropriate approach is? Am I really capable of coming up with answers that are correct?
Message - Delete

Danny Shulman (no network) wrote
at 12:51am on December 4th, 2007
(Continued)
Granted that following peer pressure or “the most recent whim(s)” is stupid – however there are stages betweens there and complete intellectual independence. While I personally agree with your approach, I feel that rejecting anybody and everybody who doesn’t share my world-view by placing them in one of your 3 categories is overly simplistic and, yes, arrogant.
Message - Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 1:15am on December 4th, 2007
Danny,
I attempted to define each category fairly clearly. I never suggested that the world population consists of two types of people - those in the negative categories, and those that use their faculty of reason. That was your 'Diyuk'.
I also explicitly stated that it is not a matter of my world-view with respect to others "Rather, I hope for an open forum, where we can pursue reason together". It is the pursuit of reason which is a conditio sine qua non, not the consequent answers we each pursue. I also stated this above that one who does pursue reason "formulates an outlook on the world" which is entirely his own. Meaning, i recognized the fact that different people come to their own conclusions, and have their own preferences. As long as these opinions emerged from the rigor of reason and holds in a forum of open dialogue then who am i to brand them as 'false'?
Delete

Danny Shulman (no network) wrote
at 1:07pm on December 4th, 2007
I think i failed to properly explain my comments. Your entire notion is predicated on the fact that reasonable thinking is the best approach to formulating a world view. However, if someone felt that reason was limited by the reason i mentioned, they would disagree with your basic premise. Ultimately, i believe at least, this is the overarching concern that leads to (often over)dependence on rebbaim. And, despite no “thought and deliberation serving as the basis for each and every facet of life” or “effort to live a life based on logical analyses and rational thought” these people have developed methods for dealing with issues which is not as negative as the options your presented as alternatives to reason.
Message - Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 6:18pm on December 4th, 2007
ah, i think i understand now,
Then your right, we do disagree. Living a life where a Rabbi decides every facet of your life for you is troublesome on two accounts - firstly, perhaps you will legitimately disagree, and secondly the decision process is part of being a Jew as well. Judaism is not simply a religion of ritualistic action, but tries to imbibe its members with a "Jewish-mind" one with which to confront the world at large (this is both fundamental and practical, for instance what if no Rabbi is available to make a decision for you...) I actually planned on writing my next piece on the issue you are touching on namely dependence on over dependence on Rabbi's. In what areas are Rabbi's authoritative and their jugdment absolute? What aspects and facets of religious faith are left for the individual to decide for himself? I personally feel that more areas are left to the individual then not, and that Judaism values the development of the self and ones own opinions.
Delete

Simcha Gross wrote
at 6:19pm on December 4th, 2007
I have even read books and articles which claim that Judaism is purposely vague on certain matters so that each person can develop his own theory. I think such a position is problematic, but such an extreme is enlightening nonetheless.
Delete

Danny Shulman (no network) wrote
at 8:16pm on December 4th, 2007
Wonderful - while we may find flaws in such a system, branding it as illegitimate without listening to their logic is both intellectually dishonest and arrogant. And if that entails being a charadi, then so brand me. I'm looking forward to the next topics discussion.
Message - Delete

Yigal Gross wrote
at 6:19pm on December 15th, 2007
Oy, such Gushies...