|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:44 |
 |
| |
Ethics is something I decided as ethical, something society agrees to be ethical. You cannot bring all the 613 commandments into this argument.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:48 |
|
| |
Ok ok, first things first. Are we in agreement that what is commonly called ehtical behaviour is a system that is actually rewarding it's adherers ?
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 08:59 |
|
| |
Once we will agree on the above point about ethics being rewarding we will then have said that any code of law that claims that it's underlying basis, its raison detere is so as to make sure we are all ethical then inasmuch as it will prove itself to be the case we will have to agree that by obeying its guidelines one will be rewarded and by disobeying one will be punished. (please note that the reward I'm referring to is the natural chain of events, NOT societies enforcers (police etc.)
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 09:31 |
|
| |
Tzuriel,
You surely give me food for thought, thanks.
Please understand that we are all humans (most of us) and we can't live with pure philosophy all the time or even most of the time. The Republican party is in essence all about a philosophy of life and government [as is the Democratic party] yet they have all kinds of rituals the NationalConvention and all it's rituals come to mind, they have a mascot, a song, and so on. The hype is necessary for the masses and yup even for the elite. Hence all the rituals in Judaism, it is to give the philosophic ideas some emotion some human touch if you will.
מאכלות אסורות
I don't know if other religions in the biblical times had prohibitions on certain foods but if the practice of Sacrifices can be of any guidance we should assume that it was common among religions to proscribe certain foods. And if every Chasidus today has its own songs and way of dress so as to have a sense of identity, Judaism needed one then and still now.
Let's not assume irrationality on the part of the originators of Judaism. Macholoth Asuroth has its roots either because that was what religion was commonly supposed to possess, or maybe it was an original idea on the part of Judaism (Judaism does boast after all with propagating some highly original concepts).
There's a strong chance that some food was prohibited due to it being eaten as part of a pagan ritual, others may be due to the sensibility that these animals are simply disgusting and a self-respecting person shouldn't eat, say, cow dung (sorry) even if he likes it (ugh).
Then there is the most important rationale on limiting our meat and fish diet, it being simply unethical to kill for your stomach. Whatever is allowed may be a concession to the level of civilization in those days, it's like saying 'ya know, I really would love that you don't eat meat at all but at least don't go around eating everything imaginable. Eat your domesticated animals (except maybe those dung wallowing pigs) and maybe some delicacies from the undomesticated animals too, But in truth we should really refrain from 'all' meat intake.
תפילה
As a general rule; if a ritual has any kind of sense when looking at God as an anthropomorphic entity, i.e. a King with somewhat similar traits to ourselves albeit in a much larger dimension, then that ritual will also make sense when looking at God in it's deeper and purer form namely, Existence.
The above is dependent on one condition, you will have to peel away some layers of the ritual, ascribing those aspects to the anthropomorphic metaphor in which it was, and still is, presented.
We should expect the anthropomorphic version of God as presented in the Bible to have all its rituals presented along the same lines. Yet just as Orthodox Judaism has rid itself a long time ago of an anthropomorphic God, it has relegated the meaning of many terms on God as metaphors for the deeper concepts of God, so can it relegate the meaning of many rituals as metaphors for the deeper point that is being conveyed.
For a person who needs a metaphor of God in the form of having hands and feet, we tell him to ask this (his) God to help him out, to advise (his) God on how to deal with him, what to give him etc. We cannot tell this man to realize that all is One and that he really has no wants. On his level he has realized that his wants will be fulfilled only when God will agree to these wants.
For a person understanding God as Existence he can understand the real idea behind prayer, he too will understand that his wants will only be fulfilled when Existence agrees to those wants
 |
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 10:12 |
|
| |
Tsuriel,
By the way, you happened to mention רפאנו, it's interesting that this Beracha has exceptionaly strong conotations to the deeper concept of Tefila.
רפאנו ה' ונרפא,
we are repeating to ourselves that if Existence will give us health we will have it and if not we won't.
הושיענו ונושעה
if Existence will help us we will be helped.
To me that is the real concept of Tefilla, to realize that we are very very limited in our power, we will realize that the things we are not in charge of is simply beyond our powers to make happen. We will be accepting the facts as they are we will live in harmony with all of Existence with peace in ourselves and in all. We will have no conflict in our conceptions of things conflicts which are the cause for all 'trouble'.
Leading a life of humility, a life of looking with clarity at the facts that Existence gives us, not denying the facts, seeing things as they are. is living the Ethical life. So that being humble before Existence is essentially being ethical.
[Let me tell you in a nutshell why I think that ethics is all about acceptance of the objective facts.
The objective facts are.
1- I am hardly to be credited for any of my 'accomplishments' (if at all)
2- I know very little what the future has in store for me, and I have very little control on it as well
3- My personal situation is not more significant objectively than anyone else's, it's all part of the general picture I have of the entire existence. Looking at my conception of reality, my picture of reality, looking at it objectively as an outsider, I won't zoom in on my part of the whole existence, my situations or predicaments will take up as much room in my consciousness as those of everyone else's. This in turn, will facilitate me doing for others as I would do unto myself.]
(
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 17:12 |
|
| |
''Ok ok, first things first. Are we in agreement that what is commonly called ethical behavior is a system that is actually rewarding it's adherers''
As a GENERAL rule, the answer is yes.
''By obeying its guidelines one will be rewarded and by disobeying one will be punished. (Please note that the reward I'm referring to is the natural chain of events, NOT societies enforcers (police etc.)''
Wrong. The only one rewarding or punishing is society. There is no natural chains of events. In fact, so may laws and social norms that are now the basis of modern culture would be considered the opposite in times bygone. What people decide to be the norm, the law, is what is punishable. Do you believe that animals have some sort of schar ve'onesh system working for them?
תוקן על ידי - hasid_emes - 23/10/2005 17:15:36
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 20:13 |
|
| |
Wait, I think I may have expressed myself wrongly here.
When I say natural chain of events I mean the way things are naturally without any artificial additions. If there won't be any artificial added enforcers can we still agree that a society in where all members behave ethically (please remember that ethics is usually about "doing unto others..." ) there will be more overall happiness.
So it is true that we can state a general rule claiming that ethical behaviour will reward you with general well being and happiness without the fact that enforcers will do the rewarding or punishing.
As you yourself wrote above "Overall, it pays to be ethical, but only because society will be a better one if they are. If everyone refrains from stealing then I will be never find myself locked out of my car – perhaps my wildest dream ."
Also " Ethics are just another way of watching one's own back so
that life could be slightly more tolerable"
(i would actually change the "slightly more tolerable" to 'immensely more tolerable' try living in a completely unethicall society for one week you'll see what I mean, that is in the event you'll still have your eyes at the end the week)
Again, by natural I mean 'the way of the world' the system how things happen
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 20:26 |
|
| |
I do agree with that.
But, you just caused me to think of another issue. According to Darwin's theory in which only the fittest survive, which is in fact the only reason how we came along to be who we are, then ethics is in fact not the way the world should live by, it is only how we humans define our behavior with each other so that life can be ''immensely more tolerable''. If the world would abide by morals millions of years ago, then we would still be a very primitive body without much capabilities of thinking.
We come down here to the same very issue of creationism vs. evolutionism. If god is the cause of all beings than schar ve'onesh is indeed the way the world he created lives by. However, if the world was evolved then schar ve'onesh is just a modern approach to selfish comfort. It might in fact decrease the chance of us humans evolving into who knows what. Just a thought.
תוקן על ידי - hasid_emes - 23/10/2005 20:26:31
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 20:51 |
|
| |
About your side-note regarding how ethics fits in the evolutionary model, I would say this;
The evolutionists themselves have grappled with the issue, namely how is it that we humans are ethical? Isn't it against the fight for survival concept, where anyone who fights better will be the one to presumably survive? Isn't 'fight for survival' diametrically opposed to the concept of ethics where one actually gives up from oneself, and while doing so, giving up a little bit of his relentless fight for survival?
One answer is that on the contrary, those who didn't have this biological trait of ethical selflessness are the ones who have less chance of survival because they don't have help whenever in need (ethical altruism actually 'helps' for survival) and those who do happen to have this 'biological' trait (this trait having been acquired though random mutation) are better equipped for the life and death struggle that engulf us every minute.
As for myself, while I agree that ethics is an invaluable asset for our survival and wellbeing I don't find the above question to be too powerful. We all agree that if my feet would've been made of a much more durable 'material' we would have a stronger leg to stand on in our fight for survival. But does that pose a question as to how is it possible that we don't have this added durability? Surely not. It can simply be that we were still ahead of the game even without this added asset
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 20:55 |
|
| |
Think where there is more progress, evolution if you will. In war ridden fight for survival third world countries or in ehtical civilized western societies?
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-23/10/2005 21:04 |
|
| |
To be sure, the evolutionist position is actually the point I'm trying to make all along. Ethics causes survival, wellbeing, and happiness. Ethics ends up rewarding the society practicing it.
In its abstract philosophical form we can say that the ultimate ethical behaviour is when we care for everyone just as for myself so there is actually hundreds and thousands of helping hands for every individual, now you tell me if this is not an added advantage.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-24/10/2005 03:52 |
|
| |
I find myself agreeing with you much more than arguing.
However, the main point you made which implies a direct comparability between the relationships that ethics has with happiness and the traditional concept of schar ve'onesh is still a great stretch. Unless you want to redefine it's original meaning, it is closer in concept to a dictator punishing for his own impulsive craze.
It will be hard to twist it into meaning anything else. By saying that all the Mitzvos which are not understood today as ethical is just a way of 'bonding' the nation, ultimately makes it easy to change these laws, something that is more traditionally referred to as conservatism.
I recall accusing you of this before. Am I right? Understand though, that I'm not in a position to defend orthodoxy or to accuse you of anything. I would rather understand the issue fully, if it is at all possible.
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-30/10/2005 05:07 |
|
| |
If my memory serves me well, I wrote to you way back when about Plato's Republic where he says that in order to make sure that the masses will adhere to all the rational guidelines he has enumerated which will make the society optimal, he suggests to bamboozle them with 'Gods', i.e. tell them that all these rules are the will of the Gods.
So it shouldn't sound like too much of a stretch to say that to philosophically challenged people (am I pc enough here) we should talk their own language. Let go of this abstract concept of God being Existence and of being moral because it's the right thing to do, when talking to simple folk.
God to them should be something they can easily relate, and one should be ethical because otherwise this God will bellow forth some serious fumes from his Diefic nostrils (Charon Aff) and there will be hell to pay, now ya talkin.
Is it true? Yes, metaphorically speaking that is.
I am bending towards conservative thought, you say. How about this thought;
There is no such thing as 'doing Gods will', serving God is just a metaphor for being ethical, i.e. doing the right thing not for selfish ends but because it's right.
Where would you place me when saying the above thought? That one should forget about 'serving God', that one should understand that it's all a metaphor and that the true meaning behind it is that we should just be ethical period.
Or what if I would tell you that in truth there is no free will? Or maybe even say that God has no free will? Surely I'm off the beaten track by now? Well, not so fast. The way I understand a Sefer from a present day Mekubal (a very accredited and accepted author) he is the one saying all of the above concepts.
As I'm sure you know, kabalah is very seriously deep philosophy (I'm not talking about the idiots who say words not knowing jack**** what they are talking about).
The above just goes to show us that there is a large intellectual gulf separating the simple text i.e. the simple metaphors vs. the true deep philosophical meaning. The deeper philosophy will many times be radically different than what goes for the simple meaning, and obviously those who only know the simple meaning will cry heresy.
deep thinking will by definition end up giving you different concepts than conventional wisdom, sometimes radically so. The above Kabalistic thoughts are a case in point.
Truth is that this Sefer I'm refering to has come to my attention only recently and I'm aboslutely amazed about the depth and sheer audacity it possess all the while having Haskomos from the Heiligste Tsadikim in Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
