Reflections on the Core: Epilogue - The Romantic Revolution

    I am starting the read this book, and it already feels like a great dessert to the amazing "Contemporary Western Civilization" course I took this year.

... “But the relationship between the between the two cultural paradigms has always been a dialectical, not cyclical. The romantics were not repeating their ancestors. On the contrary, they brought about a cultural revolution comparable in its radicalism and effects with the roughly contemporary American, French, and Industrial Revolutions.

By destroying natural law and by reorienting concern from the work to the artist they tore up the old regime's aesthetic rule book just as thoroughly as any Jacobin [a 18th century political French club] tore down social institutions. In the words of Ernst Troeltsch​: "Romanticism too is a revolution, a thorough and genuine revolution: a revolution against the respectability of the bourgeois temper and against a universal equalitarian ethic: a revolution, above all, against the whole of the mathematico-mechanical spirit of science in western Europe, against a conception of Natural Law which sought to blend utility with morality, against the bare abstraction of a universal and equal Humanity." [Unquote Troeltsch]

As will be argued in the subsequent chapters, it was Hegel who captured the essence of this revolution in his pithy definition of romanticism as "absolute inwardness" [absloute Innerlichkeit - in German - אינערליכקייט]. It will also be argued that its prophet was Jean-Jacques Rousseau​: if not the most consistent, then certainly the most influential of all the eighteenth-century thinkers.

Writing in 1907, Lytton Strachey​ caught Rousseau's special quality very well: "Among those quick, strong, fiery people of the eighteenth century, he belonged to another world -- to the new world of self-consciousness, and doubt, and hesitation, of mysterious melancholy and quiet intimate delights, of long reflexions amid the solitudes of Nature, of infinite introspections amid the solitudes of the heart." Percy Bysshe Shelley, who derided the philosophes as "mere reasoners," regarded Rousseau as "a great poet."

- Tim Blanning​, The Romantic Revolution, pg. XVI-XVII

-----------------------------------------

    I am not new the philosophy, and neither to enlightenment. However, until this year when I took this amazing course covering all its classics from Plato and The Greeks, Epicurus, Epictetus, and the Bible, to Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, William E. B. DuBois, and the Frankfurt School - until now, I knew about it, but I did not know it. Now, at least I know what I don't know. It gave me the basics skills on how to go on and read, analyze and understand on my own the philosophical mind of our human kind, and how to look at the world and its civilization/s. 

Yet, that is when I realized that something is missing.

    We read all about the Scientific Revolution, all which brought about the American and French Revolutions that with no doubt were a clear effect of the mind blowing thinkers who implanted the ideas on what they were build. In turn, these events are what make up "Contemporary Western Civilization." BUT, there is so much missing. If that is all, than we get the clear feeling that this is over. It looks like the times when great thinkers led the masses are over. I read lately Al Gore’s amazing book “The Assault on Reason,” that cries out on the lack of intelligence in today's politics and public civic discourse, and it is almost heart breaking. We are taught that all these great revolutions that got us out from the so called "Dark Ages" were a direct result of the power of reason and critical thought (and with no doubt, they were), and today, so many do not adhere to that. Our masses our moved by art, not by philosophy.

    Here I think I found the missing piece, and the answer. The Romantic Revolution (that I only started to read), seems to offer a great epilogue to all these critical thinkers, and a beacon of hope for our future. This part of the 17-18th centuries revolution, that arguably, is now at its peak, is missing from the classical education of contemporary thought. Yet when added, adds it all up. I guess we need to focus on that more, and adore it more.

    On a more personal level, I think the romantic revolution is the answer to the New Age Atheists (to quote Rabbi Arthur Green​ in Radical Judaism: Rethinking God and Tradition​) who cannot grasp how and why, in the age of reason, people will still run after religion, almost in a fanatic way. Over a century after Nietzsche rightfully declared the "Dead of God," at a time that denying evolution is not faith, but rather ignorance, religion seems far from death. Again and again, people who openly declare that they don't really believe in any kind of traditional God/s (a great account on that can be found in the above mentioned Radical Judaism), go after religion. In classic philosophy, that doesn't make any sense.

Is it really simply ignorance?

    I think this book, and train of thought can provide some kind of baseline thinking, and a wonderful approach and how to approach it.

    We romanticize religion not because we want to stick to an old time faith based on divinity, revelation, and superstition, but because we follow enlightenment. In addition to the Political Revolutions, the Scientific Revolution, the Philosophical Revolution, we have to take into account the Romantic/Artistic Revolution. Here he got the full picture.

    These are just my thoughts after reading a bit, I will look on this as a pre-view., and a potential topic for a in depth exploration of "The Death of God: The Rebirth of Religion."

    Yes, in ideal we can get rid of the old fashioned name calling such as God and religion altogether. But Romanticism is teaching us to art value of it. Using these old names is not old fashioned, but rather an enlightened fashion.

* Note: this is a long post that might look annoying to some. I think that a lot of people wouldn't know what the heck I want, but I had to share my thoughts. *

Pre-view of Shulem Deen's All Who Go Do Not Return

“I wasn’t the first one to be expelled from our village, though I’d never known any of the others. I’d only heard talk of them, hushed reminiscences of ancient episodes in the history of our half-century-old village, tales of various subversives who sought to destroy our fragile unity. The group of Belzers who tried to form their own prayer group, the young man rumored to have studies the books of the Breslovers, even the rebbe’s own brother-in-law, accused of fomenting sedition against the rebbe.
          But I was the first to be expelled for heresy.”

-  Shulem Deen, All Who Go Do Not Return, Chapter one

I cannot think of any better paragraph that one could have used when starting to write, and read, a book about this community. It captures in depth the essence of the Hasidic life style today as a whole, and even more specifically the one of New Square. It shows what they value, and it shows where their heads are. While I do not know if Shulem chose these three examples (Belz, Breslov, Rebbe’s brother in law) direct, it is interesting that two of them are people that without them there would have been no New Square.[1] Yet, the second generation has no problem expelling them. This view of ‘we have a goal (in this case - ensuring the kingdom of Duvid Twersky, AKA the Rebbe) and everything, regardless of morals and ethics is okay in order to get there,’ is something that speaks a lot about 20^th century Hasidic society. After that, they struggle with something they cannot grasp - Heresy. The irony is amusing.

I refused, until today, to pick up this book, knowing that I will not be able to put it down, and you know, School. Now, for the traditional Jewish celebration of freedom, I am starting to read it. I know that I will not acquire any freedom in my mind while reading it, and reliving my own experience. From what I understand, knowing bits and pieces of Shulem’s story and from what I read in reviews, All Who Go Do Not Return is, thus far, doing the best - written - job in reassembling my own life experiences. There is something exceptional about reading a memoir and relate to it in so many ways, it takes you over. Henceforth, I believe that it helps reflect on one’s own experience, and get a purer image of the past, and through that, a greater vision on the future.

            I am not from New Square, but I did live for three years in the Village of Kaser. I was not part of the Skver’er sect, but I was part of a scat that is strikingly similar - Vizhnitz. From this standpoint, Shulem’s experience in the cult(ure) of New Square is one that I strongly relate to. Even more, Skver is/was part of my identity; it is in my blood - literally, something that I will never be able to run away from, my family heritage is, and should be un-exchangeable. In addition, I was raised with an extremely romanticize view of New Square and his late founder, my uncle “The Skverer Fether” with whom my paternal grandfather has an excessive fascination. So, I feel closely related to this place - which at the current point in my life, I strongly abject. Yet, I cannot run away from the deep two fold - emotional and intellectual - interest to read a firsthand experience, written by such an amazing fellow.

             Shulem’s writings were among the first so called “OTD (- Off The Derech) Blogs” that I read when I was on my way out. I have a tremendous respect for his intellect, and even more the work that he is doing for our community.[2] When I first met him, it felt like meeting a celebrity, but I quickly realized that he as down to earth and ready to help a new comer, as much as possible and beyond. Shulem was the first person, with whom I discussed Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, it was an amazingly informative conversation, and some of it guides me until today. In addition, I only realized after that how amazing he was at listening to my fresh perspectives, at a time that most of my reflections were narrow minded, and even foolish. He was talking to me as if I am equivalent to him in the subject; this is a skill that I admire most.

            All of the above are my overall reflections that I encounter when I am ascending on the journey of reading, and re-experiencing this book. This whole post might sound weird to some people, but I felt the need to express them, so to get the most out of it. I contentedly think that every article, and obviously so much more, book, that is being written on these insular communities, and the experience of these leaving it, is another crack in the iron curtain. This is not just a memoir that tells an inspiring story, but it is another step towards making the Jewish world, and the whole world, a better and freer space. Take my post not as a review, but rather a pre-view of All Who Go Do Not Return, what I personally hope to get out of it, and hope it will effectively help others.

            Now I can go read, feel, experience and reflect, And maybe write a re-view on my pre-view.  

---

[1]. The Belz’e Hasidim in America clinked with the late Skver’a Rebbe being that his wife was one of the only three grandkids of the previous Belz’a Rebbe that survived the holocaust. After the war (and in some sense already after world war I) there were only a handful of original Skver Hasidim that survived, and most people that identified with the late Skver’a Rebbe were new comers, with a big percent of them being Belz Hasidim. When New Square was founded many of the Belz Hasidim helped out, and where among the very first residence.

The Rebbe’s brother in law is the Rabbi Chai Yitzchak Twersky of Rachmastrivka, son in law of the late Rebbe. He was his father in law right hand and go to person when he founded New Square, and he was the one who helped the current Rebbe take power after his father passed away.

[2]. First with his sites, like his blog, and later on by founding Unpious - Voice of the Hasidic Fringe, that gave a voice to the unheard and sometimes silenced voices. As well as his numerous articles in several online magazine that raised awareness to issues unique to our OTD community.

In addition to that he joined the board of the our amazing lifesaving organization “Footsteps,” which helps so many individual make a health and safe self-determined transition from into the world. 

Just as a note: this post was written as an assignment for a class at Columbia University.

Reflections on the Core: On the Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

(To give some context to the upcoming quote: Rousseau talks about how in the Pre-Monotheistic world culture, religion and politics where all one and the same. Every State had his God that was fighting for the best of his people, a war was a war between the Gods, and when you lost, it meant that your God lost. A concept such as a nation in exile simply did not exist. If a nation was exiled, their nationality disappeared, and they became part of a new nation and God/s)

“But when the Jews, while in subjection to the kings of Babylon and later the kings of Syria, wanted to remain steadfast in not giving recognition to any other god but their own (think about Haman’s arguments in the Book of Esther), their refusal, seen as rebellion against the victor, brought them the persecutions we read in their history, and of which there is no other precedent prior to Christianity.” 

“Since this new idea of an otherworldly kingdom (-that Jesus speaks about) had never entered to head of the pagans, they always regarded Christianity as true rebels who, underneath their hypothetical submission, were only waiting for the moment when they would become independent and the masters, and adroitly they pretended in their weakness to respect. This is the reason for the persecution.” 

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Book IV, chapter 8

Throughout generations they were, and are, countless probes to explain Anti-Semitism. None of them are valid excuses, but the questions stands, why the hate? To some extend his first explanation is something that explains it a bit, as well as the hate that every culture until the modern era had against minority cultures. However, it will be foolish to say that this is the main reason. True, minorities were persecuted, but historically none of them had it as bad as the Jews. In every place, in every generation, and in almost every society, the Jew was the devil. If someone should understand their refusal to surrender it should have been Christians, but in fact, they oppressed them the most, and the worst.

Nevertheless, in the second explanation that he gives - the feeling that they are hypocritical towards the local government got me. Until today, this explanation is valid, and I have to say, understandable (although not excusable). A society that is living in a land they will never consider their homeland, a land that they pray three times a day that its government should be destroyed, is hard for anyone to swallow. Right they were told to respect to local authorities, but isn’t that exactly “pretending in their weakness” (in our case physical weakness, or a religious believe of having to wait for the Messiah) that he talks about? While in reality, they are hoping, and waiting to be “the masters.”

I cannot talk for all religious Jews, but I can talk for the culture I was raised in, they definitely think so. Moreover, when reading Rabbinical texts from the Talmud to the last generations, this is their attitude. 

I know talking about that, and saying that is controversial. However, at least as liberal Jews when we try to tackle the problem of Anti-Semitism, perhaps this is something we should keep in mind. Several leaders of the nineteenth century Haskalah, including Theodore Herzl in the beginning, believed that the only way to solve Anti-Semitism is through assimilation. Henceforward, maybe we should listen to one of the biggest political thinkers in history - Rousseau, and reevaluate the way we think about our local governments - as Jews.

I know, a lot, and maybe most liberal Jews agree to that and feel the same, but it is still something that we need to work on. Just think about how some feel when it comes to Israel. Shhh... I did not say that.

Reflections on the Core: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman - Mary Wollstonecraft

"It appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground."

- Mary Wollstonecraft

When I am reading these basic texts, I am always amused by how people literally changed the world, in every sense, not with power, force, or money, but rather with words and wisdom. Hence, this is the most significant and appreciable power. I think that the above quote is a perfect summary of what they did; refuting everything they/we knew, and start from scratch. This seems to be the only way to see light with a clear mind.

Often when I argue with people about religion (if you never had an in length conversation with me - this is basically all I argue about...) I find this to be a major obstacle. It is naturally hard, and almost impossible for a human mind, to reject everything we know, and start from scratch. Sometimes society will label you right away, and sometimes we are paranoid from ourselves. Either way, this is the only way to enlighten ourselves and the world. By doing so it is mind boggling to see how much we can achieve. As Wollstonecraft writes, "Intellect will always govern."

We need more writers and minds like that. And on top of that we need to keep an open eye to make sure we are not shutting them down.

More reflections on her work might follow.

Reflections on the Core: The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith

“The difference of natural talents in different man is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour.
The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world … they were, perhaps, very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows could perceive any remarkable difference.
Without the disposition of truck, barter, and exchange, every man must have procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of life which he wanted. All must have had the same duties to perform, and the same work to do, and there could have been no such difference of employment as could alone give occasion to any great difference of talents.”

- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter II

I am reading this book with a famous Columbia joke in mind: A Goldman Sachs recruiter asked an applicant to put his hand on Smith’s Wealth of Nation, and take an oath that he renounces Marx(ism)… (both are required texts in Columbia’s Core Curriculum). Yet, while Smith’s is known as the father of modern day capitalism, it seems that he was far from being simply a material capitalist; he was a philosopher, and some kind of humanist as well. While he constantly ignores Rousseau’s (direct or indirect, I don’t know from an historical perspective if he ever read Rousseau) philosophy about inequality and the state of nature, he is very far from a modern capitalist. An urge for equality, between all sects of humanity bleeds through his words. But after all, maybe I should reconsider what I think about capitalism.

Reflections on the Core: Darwin - Charles Darwin

"This suggests some of the sources of Darwin's greatness. The universality of his talents and interests had preadapted him to become a bridge-builder between fields. It enabled him to use his background as a naturalist to theorize about some of the most challenging problems that pique our curiosity. And, in the face of widespread beliefs to the contrary, tual boldness, and an ability to combine the best qualities of a naturalist-observer, philosophical theoretician, and experimentalist -the world has so far seen such a combination only once, and it was the man Charles Darwin."

- Ernst Mayr, Who Is Darwin? (1991) - in "Darwin, A Morton Critical Edition"

The portrait of Darwin as explained in this article, is one that inspired me in the changes and struggles that I went through in my own life - on the way to a self valued life. HAPPY BIRTHDAY to the world, on the 206th birthday of the man that changed the life of the world as a whole, and my life as a person. Darwin was and is my personal Messiah in some sense. For both his work, but even more his thinking, his principles of science, and the power of coming out in saying 'this is what I believe (or better understand) to accurate' doesn't matter what popular opinion is.

Happy ‪#‎DarwinDay‬!!!

Reflections on the Core: What is Enlightenment - Immanuel Kant

I am reading this article by Immanuel Kant as an introduction to the second part of a "Contemporary Western Civilization" class. Just from reading the first two paragraphs, I was really fascinated by the clear presentation he gives of people who refuse to "grow up" and use logic. It is also astonishing how 250 years later fundamentalists are still working on the exact same (mis)logic, and refuse to grow up...

It is a short essay and totally worth reading.

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself.
Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous.
First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves.
Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts."

- Immanual Kant, Essay: What is enlightenment, 1-20.

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html