Is it Intellectually Honest to Present only one side of an issue as being THE correct interpretation and to consciously ignore and omit that there are differences of opinion on the issue?
This could apply to secular matters just as much as it can to Torah matters, but I'm focused primarily on Torah matters.
EG, Once a Yeshivah Student "Proved" to me a Halachah from the Talmud. He said the Talmud required X. I looked at it and Rashi - right on the spot - had TWO l'shonot, one saying X and the other stating "NOT X". *
Was this fellow being honest?
Would Intellectual Honesty at least require him to acknowledge another point-of-view - albeit he rejects that POV?
Or since he "FEELS" it's his way or the highway therefore he can purposefully quash any dissension by omitting it from the discussion?
Shalom
RRW
* PS in the interest of Shalom - I'm neither identifying the individual nor the issue. But I am willing to share the details of the issue in private.
-RRW
4 comments:
But is the person aiming for intellectual honesty in the first place? Some people, convinced by their self-righteousness, don't feel they need to mention other opinions because they have a reason why their opinion is the only one that matters. Thus convinced, why tell you about others?
I find this happens a lot with my local Chabad shaliach. He'll tell me "Well you know X is the halacha" or "Well Chazal said Y is how that happened" and when I point out that X is not universally held and that Y is not the only opinion with weight behind it, he looks befuddled. After all, X is what the Rebbe said to do and Y is what the Rebbe said is the authoritative version of what happened so how can I give credence to other opinions?
I saw a pdf of the Chabad chumash as well which clearly claims that the branches of the menorah in the Temple were straight (al pi the Rambam's picture) and that even considering curved branches or drawing a curved branch menorah is forbidden. This would illustrate similar thinkings.
I guess the question must be: Why would Rabbi Wolpoe even consider the person who only presented the one opinion intellectually honest? Garnel's point is well-taken. People who don't present variant opinions are more committed to their agendas than intellectual honesty. So why even consider them within this context?
It may be that there are two different types of individuals who do not present variant opinions. One is the person who can't even see the divergent opinions, who at the onset is not even goreis any deviation. This person is not arguing his position based on intellectual veracity so why should he even bother with intellectual honesty. There is, though, another type of person who presents only one opinion. This is the individual who knows the divergent opinions and made a decision as to which position he thought was correct. The reason such a person may not then pass on the variant opinions may be because he is so sure of himself -- I've made my decision, thus the divergence is irrelevant. But it may also be that this person does recognize the depth of the issue and the value of the divergent opinions yet does not wish to share it with the other because he does not trust the other's method of analysis. He believes that the other is not competant to make a decision intelletually or will make a decision in an altogether unacceptable way such as chose a halachic opinion to follow because it is the most lenient. Is it intellectually honest for a person in that situation to choose to not share with another the divergent opinions? That's a tougher question.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
RBH
«I guess the question must be: Why would Rabbi Wolpoe even consider the person who only presented the one opinion intellectually honest? Garnel's point is well-taken. People who don't present variant opinions are more committed to their agendas than intellectual honesty»
Good point
Let me explain that certain people SEE this fellow as "intellectually honest" - perhaps because he highlights a contrarian or unusual POV.
So, I'm not really impeaching the fellow, rather I'm piercing his "veil" - as did Toto with the Wizard of OZ
Shalom
RRW
"EG, Once a Yeshivah Student "Proved" to me a Halachah from the Talmud. He said the Talmud required X. I looked at it and Rashi - right on the spot - had TWO l'shonot, one saying X and the other stating "NOT X". *
Was this fellow being honest?"
The fellow knew that Rahi himself had two versions of how to read the Passage in Sha"s
By stating the Gmara says X - when he knew Rashi himself allowed Y - was IMHO completely dishonest.
My point is that I would no longer trust his opinion on anything because of his display of bias without even trying to be honest at all
Unfortunately MANY are out to further an agenda and NOT trying to present Torah as it is. I guess we all do it subconsciously to an extent.
RRW
Post a Comment