20.6.15
The Torah is Never The Principle
When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some Torah or halacha, only to get tangled up very quickly in contradictions.
Mostly it's laziness (or shallowness) and an attempt to seize the moral high ground. It's hard to defend specific issues when you're confronted by someone who simply rejects your basic premises. How do you find out what lines of argument they would find persuasive? (Hint: ask them. Say "what exactly would you accept as proof that I'm right?" Most of the time they don't have a clue, because most people only think about why they're right, not how they might be wrong.) It's far easier to enunciate some broad, high principle like Torah or Halacha, except that it's very easy to get tangled up in contradictions.
So What Is the Principle?
Who Reaps the Rewards?
Both Reform Jews and the insane religious world argue that the reward system of society should favor those who do the most for the society. For Reform and Conservative, that's workers and intellectuals, without whom there would be no labor force to accomplish anything. Conservative Jews argue that any Third World country illustrates what labor alone can do without vision, capital and direction. Conservative Jews believe the rewards should favor those who provide the vision, direction, resources and structure to make labor productive. The insane religious world argue that they do the most by invisible means.
Who bears the Costs?
Reform Jews tend to assume that social problems stem from inequality and lack of empowerment. Their suggested approach is to redress the inequality by redistributing wealth and limiting the powerful. In the face of some social problem, their approach is to restructure society to minimize the problem or restrict actions that contribute to the problem. Conservative Jews, on the other hand, tend to assume that social problems stem from sociopaths or stupid individuals. Their approach is to protect the law abiding population while restricting the sociopaths and allowing the stupid to endure the consequences of their actions. Both groups want to place the burden on the people they consider the root of the problem.
the insane religious world want the wealth to be redistributed to themselves and by that they think all problems will disappear. And to eliminate Reform Jews and make Baali Teshuva into the worker class.
Reform Jews want to place tax and regulatory burdens on the wealthy and privileged, conservatives want to place them on criminals and the nonproductive.
Nobody Really Wants Equality or a Classless Society
Since both liberals Jews and conservative Jews favor some groups over others, it's clear that neither group really believes everyone should be equal. Both have their own hierarchy they would like to see in power. The liberal theory is that groups that have been systematically deprived of a place in American society should be empowered, while the forces that have denied them a place should be held in check. Superficially, this attitude looks a lot like favoring equality. Looking below the surface, we find a widespread sentiment that the middle class morality is inferior.
The disdain for the "middle class" on the part of liberals suggests pretty strongly that they consider the middle class drones, whose only value is to generate tax revenue for social programs to benefit the "real people" of society, who don't allow their authenticity to be sullied by deferred gratification. After all, a self-styled "civilized person" says the middle class has no values because they are "99% driven by imitation" and their expressed values are "merely oft-repeated platitudes."
Conservative Jews hold that "socially constructive" people should govern while the "nonproductive" should change their lifestyles and work their way up. In practice this means conservatives favor
The wealthy over the poor,The managerial class over the working class, Property owners over non-owners, The law-abiding versus criminals, The self-supporting over those on assistance.
Nobody Really Wants a Meritocracy
More specifically, nobody wants a meritocracy based on actual accomplishment. What both camps really want is a meritocracy of values, that is, an aristocracy in which position is dictated by attitude and conduct. Class is neither race, nor wealth, but behavior, though different socioeconomic classes have distinctive behaviors that identify their members.
The problem with meritocracy is there has to be a definition of merit. And liberals and conservatives hold radically differing views on the subject.
When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some Torah or halacha, only to get tangled up very quickly in contradictions.
Mostly it's laziness (or shallowness) and an attempt to seize the moral high ground. It's hard to defend specific issues when you're confronted by someone who simply rejects your basic premises. How do you find out what lines of argument they would find persuasive? (Hint: ask them. Say "what exactly would you accept as proof that I'm right?" Most of the time they don't have a clue, because most people only think about why they're right, not how they might be wrong.) It's far easier to enunciate some broad, high principle like Torah or Halacha, except that it's very easy to get tangled up in contradictions.
So What Is the Principle?
Who Reaps the Rewards?
Both Reform Jews and the insane religious world argue that the reward system of society should favor those who do the most for the society. For Reform and Conservative, that's workers and intellectuals, without whom there would be no labor force to accomplish anything. Conservative Jews argue that any Third World country illustrates what labor alone can do without vision, capital and direction. Conservative Jews believe the rewards should favor those who provide the vision, direction, resources and structure to make labor productive. The insane religious world argue that they do the most by invisible means.
Who bears the Costs?
Reform Jews tend to assume that social problems stem from inequality and lack of empowerment. Their suggested approach is to redress the inequality by redistributing wealth and limiting the powerful. In the face of some social problem, their approach is to restructure society to minimize the problem or restrict actions that contribute to the problem. Conservative Jews, on the other hand, tend to assume that social problems stem from sociopaths or stupid individuals. Their approach is to protect the law abiding population while restricting the sociopaths and allowing the stupid to endure the consequences of their actions. Both groups want to place the burden on the people they consider the root of the problem.
the insane religious world want the wealth to be redistributed to themselves and by that they think all problems will disappear. And to eliminate Reform Jews and make Baali Teshuva into the worker class.
Reform Jews want to place tax and regulatory burdens on the wealthy and privileged, conservatives want to place them on criminals and the nonproductive.
Nobody Really Wants Equality or a Classless Society
Since both liberals Jews and conservative Jews favor some groups over others, it's clear that neither group really believes everyone should be equal. Both have their own hierarchy they would like to see in power. The liberal theory is that groups that have been systematically deprived of a place in American society should be empowered, while the forces that have denied them a place should be held in check. Superficially, this attitude looks a lot like favoring equality. Looking below the surface, we find a widespread sentiment that the middle class morality is inferior.
The disdain for the "middle class" on the part of liberals suggests pretty strongly that they consider the middle class drones, whose only value is to generate tax revenue for social programs to benefit the "real people" of society, who don't allow their authenticity to be sullied by deferred gratification. After all, a self-styled "civilized person" says the middle class has no values because they are "99% driven by imitation" and their expressed values are "merely oft-repeated platitudes."
Conservative Jews hold that "socially constructive" people should govern while the "nonproductive" should change their lifestyles and work their way up. In practice this means conservatives favor
The wealthy over the poor,The managerial class over the working class, Property owners over non-owners, The law-abiding versus criminals, The self-supporting over those on assistance.
Nobody Really Wants a Meritocracy
More specifically, nobody wants a meritocracy based on actual accomplishment. What both camps really want is a meritocracy of values, that is, an aristocracy in which position is dictated by attitude and conduct. Class is neither race, nor wealth, but behavior, though different socioeconomic classes have distinctive behaviors that identify their members.
The problem with meritocracy is there has to be a definition of merit. And liberals and conservatives hold radically differing views on the subject.
my comment on Maggie's Farm Maggie's Farm
... The word "liberal" in the way of common usage in the USA ... is Socialism. That is the reason the word "extreme" is being attached to it. It is not referring to the type of liberal philosophy of John Locke that the USA was founded upon.
And Socialism can in fact be accurately defined as extremist because its methods and goals are extremist. The reason for this is that the socialist recognized the smallest social unit as society, not the family nor the individual. With no individual rights and no freedom, Socialism can rightfully be called extreme in the most prejudiced type of way.
... The word "liberal" in the way of common usage in the USA ... is Socialism. That is the reason the word "extreme" is being attached to it. It is not referring to the type of liberal philosophy of John Locke that the USA was founded upon.
And Socialism can in fact be accurately defined as extremist because its methods and goals are extremist. The reason for this is that the socialist recognized the smallest social unit as society, not the family nor the individual. With no individual rights and no freedom, Socialism can rightfully be called extreme in the most prejudiced type of way.
For Believers in "Rights" You believe that gay marriage, Internet access, food, and health care are rights. Okay, prove it.
My own idea about this issue is the need to learn about Natural Law starting with Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Aquinas and John Locke. And then to develop an actual legal system based on natural law and natural rights. Not manufactured rights.
From Steven Dutch
For Believers in "Rights"
You believe that gay marriage, Internet access, food, and health care are rights.
Okay, prove it.
"Proof" does not mean using the Caps Lock key and lots of exclamation points, or calling names or using invective. Anyway, "Fascist" proves nothing except your emotional response to an issue.
No, proof means starting from basic axioms and reasoning, step by step, using logic that can be demonstrated to be valid. See an old-time geometry text for how it's done.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Well, that's the Declaration of Independence and those rights exist because they are "endowed by their Creator." That, by the way, is the only theory of rights in any of our founding documents. So those sentiments have been nullified by separation of Church and State. Talk about your law of unintended consequence
My own idea about this issue is the need to learn about Natural Law starting with Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, Aquinas and John Locke. And then to develop an actual legal system based on natural law and natural rights. Not manufactured rights.
Now Rav Shach I think would not agree with this. I have heard that he held from Torah as the only valid form of government and law. But that was just yesterday that I heard this from my learning partner. But in Torah we do have the law "the law of the country is law" when it does not contradict the Torah. In any case, in a practical sense it is best not to give power to people that think they know Torah. Democracy might be the only safeguard to prevent people that think they know Torah from taking power.
Clearly the theory of the Rambam is that natural law is necessary in order to be able to keep and understand Torah law. [That is from the Guide.]
Clearly the theory of the Rambam is that natural law is necessary in order to be able to keep and understand Torah law. [That is from the Guide.]
See this essay Essay by Kelly Ross
19.6.15
Rav Elazar Menachem Shach
Rav Shach [Elazar Menachem Shach] was connected with Navardok. He was in fact the Rosh yeshiva of Navardok for a number of years.
It seems to me that most people that did were great in learning Torah passed through the doors of Navardok at one time or other.
And the thing about Navardok was that it was a Musar [Jewish Ethics] yeshiva. And Musar (Ethics) in Europe meant something very different than what it means nowadays. It was a whole program devoted to character improvement. It was not the twenty minute period before Mincha that you see nowadays.
Also I should mention that every school of Musar had one particular facet of Musar that they emphasized.
For Simcha Zizel was into order. Slobodka was in the greatness of man. Navardok was into trust in God with no השתדלות (with no effort).
So what I wanted to mention now that I have been able to get on the Internet, are two things. One is the importance of the book of Rav Shach. That is called the Avi Ezri. If he would not have gotten on everyone's wrong side by insulting and offending everyone, his book would be the most popular book in the Jewish world today. In my opinion it rivals the Chidushei HaRambam of Chaim Soloveitchik. It is that amazing. Deep and yet completely clear and understandable all at the same time.
[I should mention he was not into secular knowledge. And as a rule he was right. It is just in teh two filed that that Rambam recommended I have to defer to the opinion of the Rambam, that is Physics and Metaphysics.]
The other thing I wanted to bring up is in fact Navardok and that whole idea of trust without effort.
It is known that this is an argument between the Duties of the Heart and the Ramban and Gra.
If you put it all together you get a path that looks similar to what I saw at the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. That is that one can learn Torah and does not have to worry about making a living. Though I am no where near this grand vision and ideal still it seems to me to be an admirable path and one worth emulating as much as one can.
It seems to me that most people that did were great in learning Torah passed through the doors of Navardok at one time or other.
And the thing about Navardok was that it was a Musar [Jewish Ethics] yeshiva. And Musar (Ethics) in Europe meant something very different than what it means nowadays. It was a whole program devoted to character improvement. It was not the twenty minute period before Mincha that you see nowadays.
Also I should mention that every school of Musar had one particular facet of Musar that they emphasized.
For Simcha Zizel was into order. Slobodka was in the greatness of man. Navardok was into trust in God with no השתדלות (with no effort).
So what I wanted to mention now that I have been able to get on the Internet, are two things. One is the importance of the book of Rav Shach. That is called the Avi Ezri. If he would not have gotten on everyone's wrong side by insulting and offending everyone, his book would be the most popular book in the Jewish world today. In my opinion it rivals the Chidushei HaRambam of Chaim Soloveitchik. It is that amazing. Deep and yet completely clear and understandable all at the same time.
[I should mention he was not into secular knowledge. And as a rule he was right. It is just in teh two filed that that Rambam recommended I have to defer to the opinion of the Rambam, that is Physics and Metaphysics.]
The other thing I wanted to bring up is in fact Navardok and that whole idea of trust without effort.
It is known that this is an argument between the Duties of the Heart and the Ramban and Gra.
If you put it all together you get a path that looks similar to what I saw at the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. That is that one can learn Torah and does not have to worry about making a living. Though I am no where near this grand vision and ideal still it seems to me to be an admirable path and one worth emulating as much as one can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)