Smart people and the marketplace of ideas

It’s not what you say, it’s how you said it.

My dad can take the complete wrong tack in anything and I still can’t convince him he’s wrong even when he KNOWS it. Sometimes I start to find myself convinced that maybe the murder of JFK really was a conspiracy.

Really smart people know that in the clash of ideas, there is very often no way to qualitatively determine which is “better.” From an objective standpoint, the validity of ideas really is subjective. So the person who “wins” in such circumstances usually is judged so based on the articulation of his idea–which does not give an idea merit above another in and of itself. (It can sometimes be telling, though.)

For a good source of the marketplace of ides in Judaism, please read a classic book, “Chazal- Emunot V’de’ot”, Efraim Urbach z”l.

Chazal indeed presented a plethora of ideas on almost every topic. Calling it a marketplace is disrespectful, but the range of ideas is immense, and there really is very little that is absolute.

Kanoi: Of course Judaism isn’t always rigid black/white right/wrong! Even aside from the historical examples mentioned above, if that were the case, there would be no concept of halachic controversy (as there certainly is, even if you only look at the mishna and gemara, forget about other sifrei halacha), no concept of different legitimate paths of yiddishkeit, no concept of minhagim… there is plenty of room for a marketplace of ideas, even in Judaism (even if that may not be the best term, in context).

However, it did seem like PBA was bringing the term up in a secular context- for instance, like how my dad practically convinced me today that dictatorship is the only logical form of government. Logically, I know it isn’t. Emotionally, I know it isn’t. Ethically, I know it isn’t. But he was able to convince me, for those crucial three seconds, that maybe I was wrong and Stalin was right.

There is room for agreement or disagreement in matters like that, without it being for or against the Torah. And still, even in Torah, it’s often the best speakers (or writers of seforim) whose opinions were aired and adopted- think how many of the seforim we refer to were written beautifully, and how many poskim were also rabbanim, with influence and an ability to convince their kehillos and the local government of their positions. No doubt they were right in their opinions, but they had a much easier time of making their opinions heard.

I understand that according to halacha in many circumstances it is prohibited to read certain views. However, I find this difficult to justify on the level of ?? ?? ????? ????????. In other words, if an intellectually honest, truth-seeking individual were to ask, “why can’t I read this book?” I don’t think there is a satisfactory answer.

Here’s how the discussion would go, from that person’s perspective:

Me: You are not allowed to read ___ ___ ________. It is pure kefira, and it is against halacha to read kefira.

Intellectually honest non-religious person: But why should I accept halacha?

Me: Because [continue for six hours arguing that] it is logical and reasonable to do so. (Obviously I cannot argue that he should accept it even if it isn’t logical and reasonable for him to do so; if I would, he’d slam the door in my face. And rightly so, if I may add.)

IINRP: How can you possibly claim anything is logical and reasonable if you are intentionally ignoring certain arguments to the contrary?

See, here I am in a bit of a pickle. I can’t really answer that once I am convinced my way is true, I can logically ignore any further arguments to the contrary. That’s a nice emotional argument, and maybe even pragmatic, but it won’t satisfy someone searching for truth.

If you are convinced that something is true, that might be enough to justify teaching it to your kids and not teaching them otherwise. But for a mature, intellectually honest adult, banning any avenue of intellectual exploration is not something which I think can easily be justified. Except by saying azoy shteit, but that will not help regarding ?? ?? ????? ????????.

So what you’re saying is that it’s not pragmatic to keep the halacha regarding this.

I don’t care, I’ll keep the halacha anyways. If b’derech hateva, that means that I have fewer tools with which to do kiruv, so be it. If He made the rules, I’ll leave it up to Him to take care of His children where the amount of hishtadlus I can do is limited.

Yitayningwut, depending on what “da mah shetashiv” means, it may not be out obligation to argue at all.

Besides, pba made a pretty decent argument for censorship. If your IHNYRP can’t understand that there are other convincing factors besides logic, maybe he’s not so IH.

Thus is stated.

This is a very abstract conversation.

What are you getting at, Popa? I have a feeling you’re not suggesting that the government censor certain viewpoints. So maybe you’re referring to what we should teach children in school, or whether people should go to college (or non-frum colleges)?

Certainly, in the school context, we should not expose children to all points of view. They shouldn’t read apologetic literature trying to convince people to become Reform Jews or Xians. But should we teach them only one very narrow hashkafa, without teaching them about different viewpoints within Orthodoxy? I don’t think so.

People keep referring to the halacha, but what is it exactly? Does the Shulchan Aruch mention this? Regardless, can someone give a brief summary of the halacha? (And don’t just say “don’t read kefira” — that’s not specific enough.)

I feel like (an the only reason I feel like this is because popa agreed with what I said in my first post) the whole point of this isn’t that in the marketplace of ideas the smart people prevail (as the resulting discussion ended up) but that in the marketplace of ideas the people who can write/speak well prevail as they can make their ideas sound smart, regardless of their veracity.

your jewish mind tricks do not work on me…only money.

but really though, these aren’t the droids you are looking for.

DaasYochid –

I think you might agree with me, essentially, that logic trumps all. It’s just that there are many areas where logic does not demand one to go either way, and in those areas we have knowledge based on a host of other factors. But those factors are all secondary to logic; that is, if logic should definitively disprove something I had previously apprehended some other way, I would discard that thing.

My point is that even if our IHNYRP is perfectly willing to admit to things known through ways other than logic, he will still want to be able to ascertain that these things aren’t contradicted by logic, which is a better way of apprehending knowledge than any other. He would therefore quite reasonably want to be unrestricted from reading opposing views which – in his mind – might quite possibly offer logical arguments for their dissenting views. I am saying that it is quite difficult to rationally justify such a restriction to this person.

Your mind is the only way you know anything, that doesn’t mean that what you know must be the truth. In fact I would argue that the ability to accept that what you know is only from your perspective proves that whatever you know cannot be ultimate truth. Ultimate truth must be seen from all perspectives.

You know what, if I wanted to argue this, I would do my homework.

Torah613Torah –

that doesn’t mean that what you know must be the truth.

I didn’t say otherwise. But you cannot come any closer to the truth than through your own mind. You certainly cannot see the truth through my mind. At least not without it being through yours too.

RMBM defines the lav of “lo sasuru” as being overly confident in one’s ability to discern truth – hence the prohibition to read certain material.

He notes that this is a widespread affliction. Oh how true – just read this thread ’til now.

^^From his ???? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ???????.

As an aside – Torah thought is full of ideas we absolutely believe to be true, yet are utterly contradictory. Philosophically, Halachically,etc .

The term “Absolute Truth” [which by definition means that anything which negates it (by human understanding) is not true] was called by Rav Hutner a non-Jewish idea. (as heard from a talmid)

OK, I re-read your posts.

You agree we don’t have to know everything through logic. You question how one can be intellectually honest and not listen to other opinions which may contradict what he may believe, if logic trumps all.

This is precisely the point of the Rambam. Our decisions our all through our logic. But we VERY LOGICALLY understand that we very often overestimate our logical abilities, and so we curtail our own studies – according to the guidelines of Chazal, of course.

My other post wasn’t addressing you, but others who seemed to be going along this path. In any event:

I did not mean that there does not exist absolute truth. I meant that it is not the definition of truth we believe in. Something can be true, and not “absolute truth” in the usual sense.

Have you ever studied any work along the lines of, say, Nefesh haChaim ? The existence of this world is an (humanly) unsolvable paradox, for there cannot be any true existence except for G-d. A careful reading of these seforim show that they do not resolve this paradox, but show how we deal with each of these dual realities respectively. And the same for many other philosophical dilemmas.

the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to Judaism.

I can only understand that as a product of the concept of “eilu v’eilu”, but it’s really just using a different definition of truth.

Of course. your logic is all you have to go with – but you may still recognize its weaknesses. Perceive that you do not perceive all. As we’re quoting Rambam – like his mashal of life in utero. The issues under discussion, where one may or may not want to hear another’s opinion on, are generally not two plus two. Few things are.

I don’t think your second point is correct. We cannot fathom Him, but we can know what He is not, and cannot be. We can logically understand that He must be one, in the absolute sense, infinite etc – by understanding logically that it could not be different, even if we don’t understand what He IS. RAMCHAL deals at length – we define Him by what He is not. Therefore something which would contradict that – i.e. imply that He is something He cannot be – is a logical contradiction.

Charlie – could you elaborate, or give source ?

“Sof haDavar haKol Nishma… “

from Kohelet

An explanation that I heard is that “everything will be heard” because we are allowed (or even encouraged to) discuss all ideas. But as the end of the passuk says, we must have our anchor in Yirat Hashem and doing Mitsvot.

More like the “battlefield of ideas.”