Okay okay, you got me. I’ve got the daughter. I’ve got the life of secular morality with its manifest inability to speak to our moment. I want some flavor of this so badly. But it’s hard to apply that corrective in the absence of any organic connection to an actual tradition. Do I just take Pascal’s advice and fake it until it feels right? Because you’re right to point to a metaphysical deficit. But if you don’t take a faith’s code metaphysical claims seriously, how do you not feel like a fraud?
One of several problems I have with this article is its misconstrual of liberalism, or I should say liberalism-capitalism, since each is an aspect of the other. Liberalism is not a synonym for 'secular modernism', whatever that may be. Liberalism, as specified by Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Mill, Rawls, Nozick, etc. etc. -- all the usual suspects -- is an attempt to find a minimal set of rules by which people of diverse interests and opinions can get along, without harming their self-possession and possession of property. With liberalism, ou can be as religious or irreligious as you like -- liberalism doesn't care as long as you follow the (minimal) rules. Selection of a religion, or meaning in life, or favorite ancient book, or sangha, or whatever along those lines floats your spiritual boat, Selection of Judaism seems as reasonable as any other set of choices. The fact that many people do not adhere to a religion may have something to do with the notion of religion itself, rather than some dubious ideological prejudice assumed about people in San Francisco. (But I don't know. I'm not what most people would call a liberal, but they taught me about it in school. Maybe some actual liberals will testify.)
I disagree with you a lot on the Israel-Palestine issue, and came to this post ready to disagree given the association, but loved every word even though I'm an atheist. Your writing makes me uncomfortable because I disagree with you often, but never sense any phoniness, forces me to rethink deeper.
The analysis of the failure of secular ethics sounds like something I just read in Jonathan Haidt’s book Happiness Hypothesis. The western approach to ethics went from virtues, proverbs, fables, maxims and role models to unworkable utilitarianism and lowest common denominator human rights. This may be good for the legal system but it is not how people actually make decisions in their lives.
Thanks for articulating so well things I've felt for a while. I do believe this question of reintroducing spirituality to our life is the life and death problematic of this century. Maybe literally, given our specie's increased ability to hurt itself in its ignorance.
So, I’m listening to your interview with Andrew Sullivan—and based on it, and this essay, may I strongly suggest that, in regards to Judaism and especially the question of the tension between particularism and universalism, take a listen to Rabbi Soloveichik’s Bible365 podcast. It is behind a pay wall, but R. Soloveichik is a brilliant expositor of a traditional, well-informed, extraordinarily well educated Judaism. It is produced by the Tikvah Fund.
I find this fascinating, revivifying, and to my surprise, somewhat of a relief. There’s obviously something missing out here, though the grand operation in front of us won’t admit to that. So you have to realize it and deal with it on your own. I wonder how many others are doing this.
Does this mean you believe in God? Where do you see yourself on the orthopraxy/orthodoxy boundary? I won't call it a line because i think it's much more fractal.
Very thought-inspiring! Thanks for writing this. It really is against the contemporary form of secular liberalism or modernism or whatever our lowest-common denominator is culturally right now. It's you not just peering into the abyss, but shouting into it: "What are you? Where are you taking us?"
And you caused a personal conversion experience in me, too: I went from free lurker to paid subscriber. :-)
Okay okay, you got me. I’ve got the daughter. I’ve got the life of secular morality with its manifest inability to speak to our moment. I want some flavor of this so badly. But it’s hard to apply that corrective in the absence of any organic connection to an actual tradition. Do I just take Pascal’s advice and fake it until it feels right? Because you’re right to point to a metaphysical deficit. But if you don’t take a faith’s code metaphysical claims seriously, how do you not feel like a fraud?
One of several problems I have with this article is its misconstrual of liberalism, or I should say liberalism-capitalism, since each is an aspect of the other. Liberalism is not a synonym for 'secular modernism', whatever that may be. Liberalism, as specified by Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Mill, Rawls, Nozick, etc. etc. -- all the usual suspects -- is an attempt to find a minimal set of rules by which people of diverse interests and opinions can get along, without harming their self-possession and possession of property. With liberalism, ou can be as religious or irreligious as you like -- liberalism doesn't care as long as you follow the (minimal) rules. Selection of a religion, or meaning in life, or favorite ancient book, or sangha, or whatever along those lines floats your spiritual boat, Selection of Judaism seems as reasonable as any other set of choices. The fact that many people do not adhere to a religion may have something to do with the notion of religion itself, rather than some dubious ideological prejudice assumed about people in San Francisco. (But I don't know. I'm not what most people would call a liberal, but they taught me about it in school. Maybe some actual liberals will testify.)
I disagree with you a lot on the Israel-Palestine issue, and came to this post ready to disagree given the association, but loved every word even though I'm an atheist. Your writing makes me uncomfortable because I disagree with you often, but never sense any phoniness, forces me to rethink deeper.
* Mathew → Matthew.
The analysis of the failure of secular ethics sounds like something I just read in Jonathan Haidt’s book Happiness Hypothesis. The western approach to ethics went from virtues, proverbs, fables, maxims and role models to unworkable utilitarianism and lowest common denominator human rights. This may be good for the legal system but it is not how people actually make decisions in their lives.
Thanks for articulating so well things I've felt for a while. I do believe this question of reintroducing spirituality to our life is the life and death problematic of this century. Maybe literally, given our specie's increased ability to hurt itself in its ignorance.
This really moved me. Appreciate your writing.
So, I’m listening to your interview with Andrew Sullivan—and based on it, and this essay, may I strongly suggest that, in regards to Judaism and especially the question of the tension between particularism and universalism, take a listen to Rabbi Soloveichik’s Bible365 podcast. It is behind a pay wall, but R. Soloveichik is a brilliant expositor of a traditional, well-informed, extraordinarily well educated Judaism. It is produced by the Tikvah Fund.
I find this fascinating, revivifying, and to my surprise, somewhat of a relief. There’s obviously something missing out here, though the grand operation in front of us won’t admit to that. So you have to realize it and deal with it on your own. I wonder how many others are doing this.
Does this mean you believe in God? Where do you see yourself on the orthopraxy/orthodoxy boundary? I won't call it a line because i think it's much more fractal.
Rosenzweig/Rosenstock-Huessy's "Judaism Despite Christianity" is supposed to be good.
Very thought-inspiring! Thanks for writing this. It really is against the contemporary form of secular liberalism or modernism or whatever our lowest-common denominator is culturally right now. It's you not just peering into the abyss, but shouting into it: "What are you? Where are you taking us?"
And you caused a personal conversion experience in me, too: I went from free lurker to paid subscriber. :-)
Beautifully written
Thank you.