Testing a Philosophy by Living it

A couple of days ago the following idea caught my eye in a book review, the reviewer recalled Nietzsche as having said that in order to test a philosophy you should find out whether you can live by it. He argued that this is the only way to critique a philosophy and to prove something. I was first taken aback by the simplicity of the method but when thinking about it realized that I found it quite an attractive proposal.

Im not sure I fully get his idea because these one-liners usually allow for more interpretations than the author intended but the idea as it seems to me would be expressed in taking a philosophy or way of life and trying to live according to it for a certain time.

There are some problems with this approach because if for example a person were to test a very ascetic form of Buddhism which involves self-flagellation it is probable that he or she would be able to conclude within a short time span that this philosophy is very flawed, but for a person who is attracted to those types of expressions it might be very fulfilling. So there seems to be a very strong element of subjectivity in it. Perhaps Nietzsche’s idea was narrower than this, perhaps he proposed this as a complement to theoretical inquiry instead of a substitute thereof.

Nevertheless in broad lines I think it can serve as a helpful way to look at a philosophy. I personally have found it very useful to try to live certain ideas, some of which confirmed their truth- and usefulness, while others turned out to be less so and therefore were rejected or subjected to greater investigation, before persisting in them.

An example of this would be fixed prayers. I used to think that these were a detriment to a prayerful life and lacked any sense of meaning. The first time I tried it, it was somewhat confirmed but when I persisted in them, I slowly started to see their efficacy and have now come to a point where I can hardly live without them.

It seems we often act like our beliefs and ideas are all based on strict logic and that we wouldnt engage in something we havent arrived at rationally, but actually we often also employ reasons that are not wholly rational. Take the idea of prayer, if one would before engaging in it deliberate about its use and efficacy, in the face of the idea that God is unchangeable and the many unanswered prayers, it would seem to be considerably more difficult to get up everyday and utter prayers. But the fact is that many, including myself, do. While I certainly dont deny the idea that God is unchangeable or the seeming gap between demand and supply I do manage to wake up everyday and pray.

And while its difficult to discern all reasons, rational and irrational that play a part in this decision (which essentially assents to the idea of prayer), I do think much of it is based on the fact that it seems to work for me, I can live by it, and it is helpful.

Im sure there are exceptions to this theory but in broad lines I think it could be [and in many cases is already] a good complement to theoretical inquiry.

Subscribe in 10 days or be Excommunicated

That was the choice put by Cyril from Alexandria to Nestorius.

Nestorius who was enthroned  patriarch of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) in 428 C.E. differed on certain points with Cyril of Alexandria over Christology which after a letter exchange ended up into a synod where his views were condemned and Cyril was ordered to take make sure he was treated as excommunicate.

Their main difference was over whether or not the title Theotokos (God-bearing or mother of God) was applicable to Mary or like Nestorius argued, Christotokos (Christ-bearing). The implications of both these titles were quite grand and as such Pope Celestine convened a synod in 430 C.E. where it was decided in favour of Theotokos.

Nestorius was told that he was to adjure his teachings within 10 days of receiving the notification and get in line with the Church of Rome, Alexandria and the whole Catholic Church or else be treated as excommunicate.

Cyrils letter contained 12 anathemas (curses) which can be found here (scroll down) as well as Nestorius’ replies.

What amazed me while reading all this was the ruthless charge, “subscribe to these beliefs or be excommunicated”. Especially after reading Nestorius’ Christology which certainly was no less philosophically sophisticated than that of Cyril’s. Evidently here were two men who put hours and hours into thinking about this issue and they just ended up with different beliefs.

Still, one was forced to accept the others position (which he didnt). And I wonder in what sense the synod expected a person who holds beliefs to change those within 10 days of notification. You either believe it or you dont would be my guess.

Which brings me to the following: can a person be held accountable for beliefs? I read a discussion of this in light of Rabbinic sources but unfortunately dont have Shapiro’s book to my disposal at the moment. I personally incline to attach more significance to actions, though its hard to separate belief and actions.

Any thoughts?

You Make It Evil

Whenever one talks about God as the Creator of this world and the presence of evil both within us as well as around us, the following objection can arise:

If God is the Creator and is a perfectly good being why did he implant within us an inclination to good and to evil. Some will immediately resort to the Fall and explain that it was not God who put it in us, but that evil is only the result of the Fall, but for this post, I’d like to focus on the idea that we have both of these inclinations and that they belong to the creation of God.

The Midrash Tanchuma, which can be seen as a collection of homilies or creative intepretations of the Torah, has the following story to relate:

Why did He [God] create the evil inclination?… You say that [if] it is evil, who can make it good? Said the Holy One Blessed Be He: “you make it evil!” Why? A child of five, six, seven, eight and nine years old does not sin, but [only] from the age of ten onwards, and from that time the evil inclination is strengthened. And if you say, “there is no man that can guard himself?” Said the Holy One Blessed Be He: “you made it evil!” Why? As a child you did not sin, and when you grew up you sinned. [1]

The reply in this story illustrates that the evil inclination is present in us from birth but only is strengthened and put to evil use when we grow up.

Another midrash has the following to relate:

[...] but were it not for the evil inclination, man would not build a house and would not marry a woman and would not reproduce and would not deal in business. [2]

This shows that some think of the evil inclination as devotion to self as opposed to devotion to God or God’s purposes which would be the good inclination.

In a book Im reading that sets forth a debate between Theism and Naturalism there is also a discussion about devotion to self and devotion to God:

If we are to choose to devote ourselves to God, there must be an attractive alternative and that such an alternative is in fact available: Devotion to self surely seems attractive to all of us. And this is the sort of thing we ought to expect if a perfectly good God exist… I am not suggesting that God must create us with desires to do terrible things, e.g., innate desires to maim, torture, and kill. But we do seem to be born with strong, innate desires to serve our own interests-such desires are manifest very early in life. (You can visit any local preschool if you want to test this claim empirically!) I would not say that a strong desire to serve one’s own interests is evil, but I would say that such a desires clearly provides temptations to do wrong. [3]

While he first seems to indicate that there is a fundamental choice between devotion to God on the one hand and on the other hand devotion to self (or something else), in saying that serving one’s own interest need not be evil at all times he seems to suggest that there is a combination possible. And this agrees with what was said above, that being self-interested is at times necessary and good.

For example the fact that Im studying at university, this is devotion to self but, hopefully, this will be used constructively in the life of my future family and to further God’s purposes. Hence the evil inclination does not need to lead to wicked and evil things though surely it can and is used for that purpose.

For those of you who are familiar with the Jewish prayer book you probably know the following request:

attach us to the Good inclination and to good deeds, and compel our evil inclination to be subservient to You; [4]

Thus the evil inclination/devotion to self (or others) is not evil in and of itself but can in fact be used for good, there is just a temptation for it to take over the primary role of the good inclination (devotion to God). This prayer serves as a reminder that balance is needed and that God does not tempt us beyond what we can bear.

———————————————

[1] Midrash Tanchuma Bereishit 7

ואם תאמר למה ברא יצר הרע שכתוב בו כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו (בראשית ח) אתה אומר שהוא רע מי יוכל לעשותו טוב אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אתה עושה אותו רע למה תינוק בן חמש בן שש ושבע ושמנה ותשעה אינם חוטאים אלא מבן עשר ואילך ואז הוא מגדל יצר הרע, ואם תאמר אין אדם יכול לשמור את עצמו, אמר הקב”ה אתה עשית אותו רע למה תינוק היית ולא חטאת, נתגדלת וחטאת

[2]Midrash Rabbah Bereishit 9:7

אלא שאלולי יצר הרע לא בנה אדם בית ולא נשא אשה ולא הוליד ולא נשא ונתן

[3] C.S. Layman, Letters to Doubting Thomas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 181-182

[4] Artscroll Siddur, p. 79

Is Naturalism Self-Defeating?

One of the books Im reading at the moment is a dialogue between Theism and Naturalism called Letters to Doubting Thomas. The author is a Professor of Philosophy at Seattle Pacific University and has written the book in a dialogue form between two fictious persons.

It is a very enjoyable book that I’d highly recommend, not only for its strong philosophical underpinnings but also for its format, the way the dialogues are constructed makes you almost feel like you are sitting in the room listening to their conversation.

In one of the dialogues a very interesting argument developed by prominent philosopher Alvin Plantinga was put forth; the idea that naturalism is self-defeating. Allow me to explain:

Naturalism holds that our five senses, reason and memory are reliable, that is to say, these provide us with mostly true beliefs. The origin however of these cognitive faculties it holds to be the outcome of an evolutionary process without the involvement of God or any intelligent being/force.

Combining these one ends up with the following question: “how likely is it that our human cognitive faculties are reliable, assuming that Naturalism is true (and that our cognitive faculties evolved without guidance from any intelligent being)?” (33)

Plantinga says that the probability of this is low or beyond knowing and thus “Naturalism leads us to doubt the reliability of our cognitive faculties.” (ibid.)

As I wrote above though Naturalism holds that these cognitive faculties are reliable, hence in this way Naturalism is self-defeating.

The book relates that this was even bothering Charles Darwin:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (ibid.)

———————————————————-

C. Stephen Layman, Letters to Doubting Thomas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)

In Your light we will see light

The title of this post comes from Psalm 36:9 which reads:

For with You is the source of life; in Your light we will see light.

The reason I like this verse is because I think you can build a worldview on basis of it. Allow me to explain.

In our age of post-modernism the idea of universal truth is seen by some as old-fashioned and representing narrowness, things that were once thought of as universally true are now being framed as being true for you while not necessarily true for me.

And there is some truth:P to this, as, whilte I think there are absolute and universal truths, it is obvious that all things and issues we approach are framed and looked into from a certain paradigm. This paradigm has been formed over the years, some parts of it unconsciously, through our environment and some of it consciously through the input we choose to receive. But in the end there is often more than one way of looking at something and arriving at a reliable conclusion.

Naturally if this is the case the question becomes, what is the right way or valid paradigm through which to approach the world?

An example would be the human being, do we look at it from a perspective that considers life to be the product of mere chance? Or do we look at it from the perspective that considers it to be the product of divine will?

This makes a huge difference, as when you look at life from the perspective that its mere chance, then what value can you assign to ‘being’? Can you say its valuable? It seems that consistent with that paradigm would be the phrase used by the ancient Epicureans: “I was not, I am, I am not, I care not”.

However when life is seen as the product of divine will, ‘being’ takes on a very different value, divine will desired to create life and called it good, thus it is intrinsically valuable and not something that we can treat carelessly.

Hence we see that the paradigm that is adopted makes a very big difference, but how does one choose? Assuming one can distance him or herself from preconceived notions and ideas and is actually able to make a choice?

On what basis does one choose? It seems difficult to separate what comes first, the paradigm, and what follows from it, the ideas. As when one looks at the example I gave, to me at least, the idea of life being valuable is much more appealing than the idea that I am here because of mere chance and so the paradigm of life being the product of divine will appeals more as well… but isnt this kind of circular?

Quote on Plato & Christianity

Why is there no Platonic religion? Well, in a sense there is. It is called Christianity. Or at least Christianity took from Plato many of the most important aspects of his thought, and attached it to its own central teaching that Jesus was the supreme manifestation of God. Especially in its Greek Orthodox form, Christianity preserved the view that the things of time are, or at best can be, images of eternity (Jesus is, of course, the perfect image of the invisible god, and he is so described in the New Testament, in the letter to the Colossians 1:15) [1]

—————————————————————-

[1] Keith Ward, God: A Guide for the Perplexed (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003)

Attributing Sin to External Factors?

Last night I was in a club with some friends and while sitting at the bar I saw two guys who were standing close to me pull out a little package with some white powder, before I knew it one put some on his hand and sniffed it in his nose! Obviously the white powder was Cocaine and I was shocked as the guys looked quite young (not that I wouldnt be shocked if they were older, but you get  my point). I said to them that I wanted them to move to another place and not stand so close to me. Whereupon they just smiled, most probably ‘enjoying’ the experience.

Then one of them left and the other came to me and said “I know what you mean, its not nice that it happens next to you, but hey either its front of you or of someone else”. Then he said, “can I have some of your drink” Which made me laugh, as I thought, who does the guy think he is, so obviously I said “no, what are you talking about”. He then said, “do you see my right eye?”, and I had some idea where it was going to, so I changed the conversation, and asked him why he was wearing a cross on his neck.

He then told me that he made his girlfriend pregnant and that after 4 months she had a miscarriage. He said, “I dont believe in G’d and all that, I just wear it for my baby”.

Upon hearing this I felt sorry for the guy, he was only 19 years old, made a girl pregnant, had a miscarriage, and was now on Cocaine…

It made me wonder, how does Hashem look at such a person, obviously his actions are very wrong, but I was in particular thinking of his Cocaine use. Lets say for a moment that he started using Cocaine after the whole thing with his girlfriend, would it then be possible to attribute his sin to the situation where he had gotten in, the friends he associated with? Obvsiously he chose to sleep with his girlfriend without protection so it was his own fault but what if he was raised in an environment where this was not frowned upon. I mean, I understand that he in the end makes his own choices, as he has free will, but can you hold a person accountable that acts out of ignorance?

In a Philosophy class I took last year appeal was made for understanding people’s actions through situations that they are found in rather than characteristical factors as:

[...] behavior is often no more stable than the situations that shape it.[1]

Upon hearing this I asked my professor after class, where free will fitted in that model. Whereupon he explained that the author of that book did not really believe in free will, and consequently in sin. And as this is such a fundamental tenet of the Torah, I have to look for another explanation, which might just be that a person is held accountable for his actions, as they inflict damage, and this damage is not reduced, in absolute terms, through the persons intentions. And this is also what I found in Professor Rosenberg’s section on intentions and actions:

G’d judges us according to our actions, not according to our intentions or even our achievements. [2]

Still I find it difficult… I understand that in the end the person chose to sin, but what if he was not raised in a G’d fearing home… I mean, I am raised in a G’d fearing home and as such I know that these things ought not to be done, but he is probably not.

On the other hand “every man has the option of understanding the moral law and experiencing the unmediated and almost instinctual relationship with G’d. These [Noachide laws] are univeral and general commandments, and anyone possessing intellectual and logical capacities can infer them”[3]. And something similar can be found in the first chapter of Romans.

It remains difficult and Im glad Im not the one who has do the judging in the end…

—————————————————–

[1] Jon Elster, Explaining Social Behavior (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) p. 185

[2] Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, In the Footsteps of the Kuzari (New York: Yashar Books, 2008), p. 89

[3] Ibid. p. 160

The priority of theoretical Halakhah

While reading Halakhic Man I came across the following:

The foundation of foundations and the pillar of halakhic thought is not the practical ruling but the determination of the theoretical Halakhah. Therefore, many of the greatest halakhic man avoided and still avoid serving in rabbinical posts. They rather join themselves to the group of those who are reluctant to render practical decisions. And if necessity – which is not to be decried – compels them to disregard their preference and to render practical decisions, this is only a small, insignificant responsibility which does not stand at the center of their concerns. p.24

I was wondering what then would be the purpose of halakhic thought, if not the practical decision.

He cites his grandfather as an example:

R. Hayyim Soloveitchik, aside from his regular lecture at the yeshivah of Volozhin, would also deliver a parallel lecture on the tractates Zevahim [animal offerings] and Menahot [meal offerings]. p.24

I say “what relevance is there in studying the laws that cannot be applied today” to which Rav Soloveitchik replies:

Will the mathematician worry that the ideal, irrational number does not correspond to the real number? Both the halakhist and the mathematician live in an ideal realm and enjoy the radiance of their own creations. p.25

But then on p.29 I think Im beginning to get why he is saying it. He’s again comparing halakhic man to the mathematician:

When Riemann and Lobachevski discovered the possibility of a non-Euclidean space, they did not pay any attention to the existential space in which we all live and which we encounter with all our senses, which is Euclidean from beginning to end. They were concerned with an ideal mathematical construction, and in that ideal world they discerned certain features of a geometric space different from ours. Afterward, physicists as Einstein and his circle appeared, and they utilized the concept of a non-Euclidean space in order to explain certain physical phenomena. The ideal-geometric space then found its actualization in the real world. p.29

So would this be his point? The idea that in the future these things will be relevant again? Still I wonder about the present, doesnt the implementation of a practical decision bring ultimate joy to halakhic man, as his goal [...]is to subject reality to the yoke of the halakha. p.29

  

A fellow blogger who also has posts on Rav Soloveitchik works and pointed me to Halakhic Man can be found overhere:

http://talmudicquestionings.blogspot.com/