Please see
The Corona Virus: What are We to
Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 4
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 5
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 6
It has been some time since I last wrote a post within this series and there are two reasons for this. One is that I basically said what I needed to say in regard to this issue. The second is that I became more concerned with another issue within society -- especially American society -- and that was the hostility within their political system. In certain ways, what I presented in regard to weaknesses within the responses to Covid were even further highlighted within the present realm of American politics. There is no thoughtful discussion. It is one group yelling 'I'm right and you're wrong' and the other yelling the same thing. At a time when thought should dominate, reason is so absent in many places within our present world. This was a major theme in regard to my Corona posts. It has now become, for too many, the normative response to almost everything in our world.
This has actually now taken me back to Covid. Our response to this pandemic should be the issue and the objective should be how best to deal with this difficult issue on its many different levels. As we have stated -- the issue is most complex and touches upon various medical, psychological and financial concerns. The further problem is that Corona seems to be -- again, for too many -- just part of another agenda. The American Presidential Election seems to have taken centre stage. The reporting on Corona and the directives concerning Corona seems -- to a, sadly, large extent -- to have more to do with what will best serve to ensure the desired election result than what is the best response to Corona.
This is not to say that the actual experts involved in dealing with Corona are so obviously biased in their responses. With such a complex issue as Corona, we should expect to find divergence in learned opinion. The problem I am addressing actually occurs on the next level -- how people respond to such legitimate divergence in thought. Do you see people honestly presenting both views on a matter? Do you see people being honest about how their choice of the opinion to follow actually reflects agendas in other regards? Of course not, for actually showing the complexity of the matter would only impact negatively on the desired agenda. This agenda is served by presenting the solution simply and without issue.
The result is then conflict. We are not talking about debate, even heated debate. In the honest voicing of disagreement, divergent views are at least presented and, as such, all positions become subject to analysis, critique and evaluation. What we are experiencing today, though, is the dominance of presentations of one viewpoint as the only legitimate position; an advocate of a different perspective is only mocked. There is little if any desire, let alone opportunity, for dialogue and discussion. The result is, therefore, a development of conflict, even hostility. This may not be because those, on this level, maintaining these positions necessarily have the associated agendas. It is because the ones with these agendas are able to voice these underlying views as if they are the only legitimate opinions -- and this is what is passed on. This conflict actually serves their desired goals better. The response to Covid is complex but an agenda is simple -- and it just has to be sold. The one hearing only one side of an issue is an easy person to bring on board. A hostility toward the divergent view actually serves the agenda because it will hinder dialogue and the chance to think which could lead someone to reject the agenda.
The events within the book of Bamidbar actually reflect this teaching about how the avoidance of dialogue can be used to further negative agendas and how such dialogue, alternatively, can be applied to reach the greater good. The spies and Korach's people not only voiced their agenda but they wanted to prevent any further dialogue and consideration of the issues. This is because their goal was solely their agenda with no consideration of the further issues. In distinction, the cases of the B'not Tzelaphchad and the tribes of Reuvain and Gad actually initiated discussion. This is because, while there were certain positions which were being advocated, a consideration of the broader issues and the greater good was also present. The outcome yielding the achieved conclusion was thus the result of discussion. Thought triumphed agenda. More so, agenda positively transformed into the greater good reflecting the true Will of God through this discussion and thought. (In the case of Reuvain and Gad, this would seem to be clear within the text itself. In the case of the B'not Tzelaphchad, this is, perhaps, more obvious within the midrashic literature on the matter.) Agendas can yield conflict because such distancing from honest dialogue serves agendas. Thought, however, demands true dialogue yielding a real consideration of what is best. This must be our goal.
This would now seem to be a further problem in our world today in regard to Covid. It is being used to serve other agendas and, thus, the issue is not being addressed with a true consideration of its depth but in the light of these other agendas. Conflicts, as such, which may arise in our lives due to Covid may have some legitimacy but they would then be recongnized as really demanding of us, for the betterment of all, to recognize the need for further dialogue and investigation of the issue. We are now, though, encountering conflicts whose sole purpose is to foster conflct and avoid such discussion, We must be truly careful of an outside agenda furthering its goal of hostility to serve its objective.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Showing posts with label Corona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corona. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 August 2020
Sunday, 14 June 2020
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 6
Please see
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 4
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 5
In my last post on this subject, I described the present reality that people are indeed taking this matter seriously and, as such, are attempting to approach this issue with consideration and thought. People are thinking about how to respond to Covid-19 and this is good. The problem I also identified, though -- as is often the case when confronting complicated situations -- is that many do not consider the certain complexity of the issue. As a solution is, as such, not easily forthcoming, the result can be an abundance of simple answers which do not reflect the true depth of the matter and can even create more problems. We can be left with a bottom-line based solely on the arguments - I'm right; no, I'm right. The result is but solely a dogmatic fight between warring factions, each promoting their insufficient solution to the problem.. A further lesson we should be learning from this situation is that we are all on the same side and that such a fight is the worse possible response to this type of problem. In that the true best solution to this pandemic would be beneficial to all humanity, this situation may actually provide us with an excellent opportunity to learn how we really should respond to problems.
What do I mean when I say that a matter is complex? It is that the various different considerations we must contemplate in order to properly respond to a problem may all have a place in the solution even as they may also be somewhat contradictory in nature. A simple response to an issue involves choosing one position or another. The matter is defined as black-and-white with one option being the correct choice and the other option being the wrong choice. When it is obvious which of the possibilities is the correct one to choose and which is the wrong one, a simple answer is then, indeed, possible. A difficulty emerges, though, when there is a disagreement as to which of these choices is actually the correct one and the answer is not really so straightforward. The argument may still, however, remain solely which choice is the correct one.
This problem is then exacerbated as this issue continues to still be seen as a simple one demanding but a choice between two seemingly black-and-white alternatives. The answer may actually be that one choice should be dominant in certain circumstances while the other choice should be more dominant in other circumstances. The answer may not be black-and-white but involve the evaluation of different meshings of the ideas presented, under considerations based on a thorough recognition of the circumstances. This is complexity and it demands a further level of thought which many actually wish to avoid. As such, there can be intense pressure to try to continue to define the matter and the choice as simple. This, however, is truly what is not necessary.
Working in the realm of simplicity and black-and-white solutions allows people to follow their emotions, to accept what they like. Thought can challenge an individual, force one to reconsider ideas that have even become inherent to one's personality. Having to face complexity can, as such, become a challenging experience. It is not just the intellectual difficulty of the further demanded study which would impede one from continuing but there is also the possible confrontation with one's own identity which may ensue. There are reasons why people wish to avoid complexity. It indeed makes decisions -- including moral and ethical ones -- much more difficult. The reality is that, in so many situations, arriving at the proper decision or decisions is indeed most demanding.
Striving to maintain the simplicity can thus become part of one's goal. It is then not enough to just present one's opinion but it becomes necessary to further argue that the other view is absolutely wrong and has no validity. In situations where there actually is a battle between two forces, such a response is somewhat understandable. In wartime, and peace is not a possible, true option, it is understandable that, as one wishes to further the position of one side, the other side may be portrayed in the most negative of ways. A perception that the other side has some validity would only lessen the necessary commitment and energy for the fight. The caricature presentation of soldiers of the Axis countries during the Second World War flowed from this recognition. There could be no opening to allow one to have doubts about the validity of the Allied cause. Such caricature presentation of the other side is, however, obviously problematic when there is some merit in both arguments, when a peaceful solution is actually possible and provides the best solution. The demand for simplicity still, however, promotes such caricature. Opposing forces are defined with each side declaring 'we're right and you are wrong', 'we are good and you are evil.' Dialogue and further study are, in themselves, attacked. As dialogue and further study are actually most necessary in responding to a complex situation, this is clearly not just a problem but dangerous.
This pandemic should cause us to see through this type of erroneous response as the very development of opposing forces on the many issues involved should obviously be seen, in this case, as an indication of a challenge of complexity and thought. The goal is the same for all -- for all humanity to respond to this pandemic in the most productive way. This should bring us together and cause us not to see the opposition as attacking us but as presenting another view which we should also consider in the overall evaluation of the issues. It's not us-versus-them so why are we behaving as if it is. It is all of us against the circumstance of this virus and the subsequent call should be to come together to accept the complexity of the matter in order to find the best solution that serves all of us.
This, unfortunately, though, is not necessarily happening as it should. As it is with many modern issues, many individuals are so committed to their emotions and a need for simple solutions, that they prefer the fight even as working together is the real answer. We should rather be learning from this virus that unity in confronting a common adversary such as this virus is really the only true solution. As we develop different perspectives on an issue, the call cannot be just to pit one against the other. The greater call, arising from the actual complexity inherent in this Divine Creation, is to see how this divergence actually comes together in the reflection of the One God. The greater call is for us to come together, for the realm of ideas to come together, through the intensity of true thought, in a unified solution that truly serves all.
The classic statement from T.B. Eruvin 13b of Eilu v'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim [These and those are both the words of the Living God] does not mean that every viewpoint inherently is correct. There are views and positions that human beings have invented over the centuries which are clearly wrong, even evil. This also does not mean that when a viewpoint has value, it is inherently equal to all other viewpoints. What this statement is declaring is that given the complex nature of God's Creation and Torah, many views -- even as they may seem contradictory to each other -- do have value and should be recognized as such. The formulation of how these positions should then be balanced in the solution that brings them together to serve humanity is actually a task which God then left for humankind to solve applying wisdom including, of course, the Divine wisdom of Torah. Of this we must be reminded as we absolutely must come together to respond to a problem, such as this virus, which affects all of us.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 4
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 5
In my last post on this subject, I described the present reality that people are indeed taking this matter seriously and, as such, are attempting to approach this issue with consideration and thought. People are thinking about how to respond to Covid-19 and this is good. The problem I also identified, though -- as is often the case when confronting complicated situations -- is that many do not consider the certain complexity of the issue. As a solution is, as such, not easily forthcoming, the result can be an abundance of simple answers which do not reflect the true depth of the matter and can even create more problems. We can be left with a bottom-line based solely on the arguments - I'm right; no, I'm right. The result is but solely a dogmatic fight between warring factions, each promoting their insufficient solution to the problem.. A further lesson we should be learning from this situation is that we are all on the same side and that such a fight is the worse possible response to this type of problem. In that the true best solution to this pandemic would be beneficial to all humanity, this situation may actually provide us with an excellent opportunity to learn how we really should respond to problems.
What do I mean when I say that a matter is complex? It is that the various different considerations we must contemplate in order to properly respond to a problem may all have a place in the solution even as they may also be somewhat contradictory in nature. A simple response to an issue involves choosing one position or another. The matter is defined as black-and-white with one option being the correct choice and the other option being the wrong choice. When it is obvious which of the possibilities is the correct one to choose and which is the wrong one, a simple answer is then, indeed, possible. A difficulty emerges, though, when there is a disagreement as to which of these choices is actually the correct one and the answer is not really so straightforward. The argument may still, however, remain solely which choice is the correct one.
This problem is then exacerbated as this issue continues to still be seen as a simple one demanding but a choice between two seemingly black-and-white alternatives. The answer may actually be that one choice should be dominant in certain circumstances while the other choice should be more dominant in other circumstances. The answer may not be black-and-white but involve the evaluation of different meshings of the ideas presented, under considerations based on a thorough recognition of the circumstances. This is complexity and it demands a further level of thought which many actually wish to avoid. As such, there can be intense pressure to try to continue to define the matter and the choice as simple. This, however, is truly what is not necessary.
Working in the realm of simplicity and black-and-white solutions allows people to follow their emotions, to accept what they like. Thought can challenge an individual, force one to reconsider ideas that have even become inherent to one's personality. Having to face complexity can, as such, become a challenging experience. It is not just the intellectual difficulty of the further demanded study which would impede one from continuing but there is also the possible confrontation with one's own identity which may ensue. There are reasons why people wish to avoid complexity. It indeed makes decisions -- including moral and ethical ones -- much more difficult. The reality is that, in so many situations, arriving at the proper decision or decisions is indeed most demanding.
Striving to maintain the simplicity can thus become part of one's goal. It is then not enough to just present one's opinion but it becomes necessary to further argue that the other view is absolutely wrong and has no validity. In situations where there actually is a battle between two forces, such a response is somewhat understandable. In wartime, and peace is not a possible, true option, it is understandable that, as one wishes to further the position of one side, the other side may be portrayed in the most negative of ways. A perception that the other side has some validity would only lessen the necessary commitment and energy for the fight. The caricature presentation of soldiers of the Axis countries during the Second World War flowed from this recognition. There could be no opening to allow one to have doubts about the validity of the Allied cause. Such caricature presentation of the other side is, however, obviously problematic when there is some merit in both arguments, when a peaceful solution is actually possible and provides the best solution. The demand for simplicity still, however, promotes such caricature. Opposing forces are defined with each side declaring 'we're right and you are wrong', 'we are good and you are evil.' Dialogue and further study are, in themselves, attacked. As dialogue and further study are actually most necessary in responding to a complex situation, this is clearly not just a problem but dangerous.
This pandemic should cause us to see through this type of erroneous response as the very development of opposing forces on the many issues involved should obviously be seen, in this case, as an indication of a challenge of complexity and thought. The goal is the same for all -- for all humanity to respond to this pandemic in the most productive way. This should bring us together and cause us not to see the opposition as attacking us but as presenting another view which we should also consider in the overall evaluation of the issues. It's not us-versus-them so why are we behaving as if it is. It is all of us against the circumstance of this virus and the subsequent call should be to come together to accept the complexity of the matter in order to find the best solution that serves all of us.
This, unfortunately, though, is not necessarily happening as it should. As it is with many modern issues, many individuals are so committed to their emotions and a need for simple solutions, that they prefer the fight even as working together is the real answer. We should rather be learning from this virus that unity in confronting a common adversary such as this virus is really the only true solution. As we develop different perspectives on an issue, the call cannot be just to pit one against the other. The greater call, arising from the actual complexity inherent in this Divine Creation, is to see how this divergence actually comes together in the reflection of the One God. The greater call is for us to come together, for the realm of ideas to come together, through the intensity of true thought, in a unified solution that truly serves all.
The classic statement from T.B. Eruvin 13b of Eilu v'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim [These and those are both the words of the Living God] does not mean that every viewpoint inherently is correct. There are views and positions that human beings have invented over the centuries which are clearly wrong, even evil. This also does not mean that when a viewpoint has value, it is inherently equal to all other viewpoints. What this statement is declaring is that given the complex nature of God's Creation and Torah, many views -- even as they may seem contradictory to each other -- do have value and should be recognized as such. The formulation of how these positions should then be balanced in the solution that brings them together to serve humanity is actually a task which God then left for humankind to solve applying wisdom including, of course, the Divine wisdom of Torah. Of this we must be reminded as we absolutely must come together to respond to a problem, such as this virus, which affects all of us.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Sunday, 24 May 2020
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 5
Please see
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 4
What we seem to be seeing in our world today, somewhat in response to this pandemic, is a myriad of opinions on a variety of matters. It seems that almost everyone affected by this situation, each in his/her own way, is involved in some type of investigation of what all this means and has an opinion on how one now should proceed with life. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I promote a law demanding everyone to wear a mask? Is such a law, though, a negation of liberty which I should rather support? There seems to be much consideration and re-consideration on various issues within life. The reality is simply affecting people's thoughts and ideas in a variety of different ways, including, often, yielding contradictory results. Some with which we may personally agree; some with which we may not.
The point is that this pandemic is also causing people in general, each in their own way, to further consider their own lives and existence specifically and in general. It is causing people to think about different issues within life, even matters they, possibly, may have never considered before. We may now thus ask; what are we to learn from this increase in questioning in response to this pandemic? What are we to then learn from these thoughts and perspectives people are developing in response to this situation? Individuals are strongly voicing opinions and acting upon them in response to the present reality. How are we to consider all this and respond ourselves? What are we to learn from this human reaction in thought to this pandemic?
Of course, on a basic level, it would seem to be generally good that people are thinking more. Pursuant to Torah thought, it would seem to be clear that God values human beings thinking about reality. The results of such investigations are usually more positive than the conclusions reached without any true thought. As T.B. Sotah 3a states, sin is, on some level, a product of foolishness. It is clear, according to many midrashim, that Avraham Avinu found God because he asked the right questions and would not shy away from the intellectual and thoughtful undertakings necessary to find the correct answers to those questions. In a certain way, this is also the basis upon which our pursuit within this series is based. We have a problem we are facing within this world. What are we to learn from this? It would seem that this is also a reflection of the basic question which is bothering most people -- and that would seem to be good.
The problem is that even as someone may ask the right questions, the answers reached may not necessarily be positive or proper. Avraham was not the first to ask the questions he asked. There were obviously many people who were bothered by the questions our forefather asked about reality. He was, though, specifically the first who arrived at the correct answer. This was, in part, because he would not settle for the incomplete answers that others were accepting. Idolatry was, for example, the accepted response in explaining the nature of the world -- although it obviously still contained many difficulties in properly explaining reality. People, though, wanted to accept it. It may be that they were too lazy or too confused to truly pursue the issue. It may be that they were satisfied with the answers they reached because they served their self-interests. Maybe many individuals were absorbed and/or overwhelmed by the basic ordinary demands of existence. Thinking is good but then one also has to accept the further and demanding challenge of thinking coherently.
Something within the present reality is causing individuals to question and think - and on issues they would normally set aside. As part of our learning experience, we may then wish to further examine this response, with all its variances, to this extended stimulus of thought. What are we to learn from not just peoples' actions in response to this pandemic but also from these thought processes which are resulting in these actions? Given this variance in responses, there may actually be many different insights into humanity which we may be able to learn from this event. The first significant factor which we may want to consider, though, is actually this very fact, that there is such a spectrum of responses. Why is there such diversity -- even such conflict -- in the responses to this reality?
People are arguing over who is responsible for this pandemic. They are arguing over how to respond. They are battling over values. In many ways, we may say that this is not new. What does stand out, though, from my perception, is the intensity that is being expressed. Everything is seen as so tied to life and one's and one's own family's personal well-being. that every viewpoint which a person may adopt is given significant status. The further problem, though, is that the issue is actually most complex. The answers are thus not easy. Precisely because the issue is most serious and answers are demanded, such complexity only presents a further problem; it means that an answer is not easily forthcoming. It can thus cause people to accept simple answers which don't reflect the true complexity of the matter and, thus, are inherently problematic. This leads to the bottom-line argument -- I'm right; no, I'm right -- and is that not what we are also seeing in many of the responses to this pandemic?
God clearly wants us to think -- but he wants us to think properly and to then recognize that even what we determine to be the best possible answer may still contain challenges. A conclusion based on serious thought is still, however, much better than all the alternative simple answers which ignore the true complexity of the matter. Avraham Avinu's answer of monotheism still contained the most difficult question found within Torah -- why do good things happen to evil people and bad things to good people? Idolatry -- especially, for example, in the form of Zoroastrianism -- was supported by the theory that such conflicts in reality emerged from the divergent 'godly' forces some of which were good and some bad. That argument, however, was inherently simplistic and Avraham easily refuted it and thus arrived at the true answer of One God. His answer, though, was still complex and did not erase all the human questions. That is the reality of thought and the challenge of thinking.
In many ways, this is an idea which is truly being played out in our world today and something we must learn and continue to learn. There are people voicing opinions strongly advocating for one course of action or another. The question is whether they are considering the whole picture, evaluating all the facts most studiously and arriving at their conclusions most industriously. It still may be that there are legitimate reasons for differences in opinion and this is to be properly noted. It may also be that such divergence in opinion, however, simply reflects weakness in analysis and thought in many ways.
From this pandemic, people are actually learning that there is a need to think, to consider their lives and how to best live. The further matter we are to learn, though, is how to do so properly, considering the complexity of life and the influence of our own selves in our answers. Honestly being aware of this challenge is also a matter we can and must learn from experiencing this virus with proper considerations.
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 4
What we seem to be seeing in our world today, somewhat in response to this pandemic, is a myriad of opinions on a variety of matters. It seems that almost everyone affected by this situation, each in his/her own way, is involved in some type of investigation of what all this means and has an opinion on how one now should proceed with life. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I promote a law demanding everyone to wear a mask? Is such a law, though, a negation of liberty which I should rather support? There seems to be much consideration and re-consideration on various issues within life. The reality is simply affecting people's thoughts and ideas in a variety of different ways, including, often, yielding contradictory results. Some with which we may personally agree; some with which we may not.
The point is that this pandemic is also causing people in general, each in their own way, to further consider their own lives and existence specifically and in general. It is causing people to think about different issues within life, even matters they, possibly, may have never considered before. We may now thus ask; what are we to learn from this increase in questioning in response to this pandemic? What are we to then learn from these thoughts and perspectives people are developing in response to this situation? Individuals are strongly voicing opinions and acting upon them in response to the present reality. How are we to consider all this and respond ourselves? What are we to learn from this human reaction in thought to this pandemic?
Of course, on a basic level, it would seem to be generally good that people are thinking more. Pursuant to Torah thought, it would seem to be clear that God values human beings thinking about reality. The results of such investigations are usually more positive than the conclusions reached without any true thought. As T.B. Sotah 3a states, sin is, on some level, a product of foolishness. It is clear, according to many midrashim, that Avraham Avinu found God because he asked the right questions and would not shy away from the intellectual and thoughtful undertakings necessary to find the correct answers to those questions. In a certain way, this is also the basis upon which our pursuit within this series is based. We have a problem we are facing within this world. What are we to learn from this? It would seem that this is also a reflection of the basic question which is bothering most people -- and that would seem to be good.
The problem is that even as someone may ask the right questions, the answers reached may not necessarily be positive or proper. Avraham was not the first to ask the questions he asked. There were obviously many people who were bothered by the questions our forefather asked about reality. He was, though, specifically the first who arrived at the correct answer. This was, in part, because he would not settle for the incomplete answers that others were accepting. Idolatry was, for example, the accepted response in explaining the nature of the world -- although it obviously still contained many difficulties in properly explaining reality. People, though, wanted to accept it. It may be that they were too lazy or too confused to truly pursue the issue. It may be that they were satisfied with the answers they reached because they served their self-interests. Maybe many individuals were absorbed and/or overwhelmed by the basic ordinary demands of existence. Thinking is good but then one also has to accept the further and demanding challenge of thinking coherently.
Something within the present reality is causing individuals to question and think - and on issues they would normally set aside. As part of our learning experience, we may then wish to further examine this response, with all its variances, to this extended stimulus of thought. What are we to learn from not just peoples' actions in response to this pandemic but also from these thought processes which are resulting in these actions? Given this variance in responses, there may actually be many different insights into humanity which we may be able to learn from this event. The first significant factor which we may want to consider, though, is actually this very fact, that there is such a spectrum of responses. Why is there such diversity -- even such conflict -- in the responses to this reality?
People are arguing over who is responsible for this pandemic. They are arguing over how to respond. They are battling over values. In many ways, we may say that this is not new. What does stand out, though, from my perception, is the intensity that is being expressed. Everything is seen as so tied to life and one's and one's own family's personal well-being. that every viewpoint which a person may adopt is given significant status. The further problem, though, is that the issue is actually most complex. The answers are thus not easy. Precisely because the issue is most serious and answers are demanded, such complexity only presents a further problem; it means that an answer is not easily forthcoming. It can thus cause people to accept simple answers which don't reflect the true complexity of the matter and, thus, are inherently problematic. This leads to the bottom-line argument -- I'm right; no, I'm right -- and is that not what we are also seeing in many of the responses to this pandemic?
God clearly wants us to think -- but he wants us to think properly and to then recognize that even what we determine to be the best possible answer may still contain challenges. A conclusion based on serious thought is still, however, much better than all the alternative simple answers which ignore the true complexity of the matter. Avraham Avinu's answer of monotheism still contained the most difficult question found within Torah -- why do good things happen to evil people and bad things to good people? Idolatry -- especially, for example, in the form of Zoroastrianism -- was supported by the theory that such conflicts in reality emerged from the divergent 'godly' forces some of which were good and some bad. That argument, however, was inherently simplistic and Avraham easily refuted it and thus arrived at the true answer of One God. His answer, though, was still complex and did not erase all the human questions. That is the reality of thought and the challenge of thinking.
In many ways, this is an idea which is truly being played out in our world today and something we must learn and continue to learn. There are people voicing opinions strongly advocating for one course of action or another. The question is whether they are considering the whole picture, evaluating all the facts most studiously and arriving at their conclusions most industriously. It still may be that there are legitimate reasons for differences in opinion and this is to be properly noted. It may also be that such divergence in opinion, however, simply reflects weakness in analysis and thought in many ways.
From this pandemic, people are actually learning that there is a need to think, to consider their lives and how to best live. The further matter we are to learn, though, is how to do so properly, considering the complexity of life and the influence of our own selves in our answers. Honestly being aware of this challenge is also a matter we can and must learn from experiencing this virus with proper considerations.
Thursday, 30 April 2020
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 4
Please see
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
It would seem to be that the basic concern of ethics is how we should properly balance consideration for the other with consideration for the self. It is thus within these axioms that many people wish to evaluate the present call for social distancing in response to the dangers from Covid-19. Of course, social distancing will necessarily affect the balance of the self and the other. The connection to the other is obviously affected. The call for social distancing may, however, be initiated from either consideration. The call to wear a mask, for example, does not necessarily indicate a greater concern for self for this call may equally arise from a concern for the other. One person may wear a mask because of concern for self -- he/she does not wish to catch the virus -- while another may be motivated because of concern for the other -- he/she does not want to harm the other. But regardless of the reason, the very wearing of a mask still reflects a barrier between one person and another. To express this more bluntly, we may practice social distancing because we are concerned for self or because we are concerned for the other. Nevertheless, there is still an effect on how we thereby interact and this does impact our modern ethics.
As ethical interest and discussion further developed within society over history, this endeavour to find the best and most proper balance between the self and the other actually became more challenging. The interaction of individuals became more and more intense. The nature of the collective groupings within societies and of societies became more and more multi-dimensional. The spectrum of ideas expanded. The demand of proper balance, as such, became much more complex. There was also a further recognition of the mutual co-dependence of individuals within the societal unit. This led, often, to a perspective that the optimum conclusion for the one would also be the most beneficial option for the other. As society developed in certain ways, the demands of the self and the demands of the other were not necessarily deemed to be completely at odds with each other. While there could, of course, still be conflict between the self and the other, the determination of what was best for the unit as a whole, for the grouping itself, became a powerful factor in the determination of the proper ethic. The group itself became a substantial focus and the focus of choice included what was best for the group as a whole.
This had a major impact on the very nature of society. Of course, the factors of concern for self and concern for the other still demanded balancing. A further consideration, however, was what form of grouping would be best for the group as a whole. For example, the Capitalist argument against Communism was no longer solely that the latter option was an ethically improper method by which to balance concern for self and concern for the other. It was further contended that the Communist model would not be a good alternative, over time, for the group, and its members, as a whole. The dynamics of the group would flounder. As we are all connected, we will all suffer. The recognition and even promotion of the connections and the interrelationship of the factors of the group became significant considerations in our ethical determinations.
It is in this regard that the call for social distancing can be seen as significant. Social distancing, by definition, promotes the separation of individuals. This is especially significant in modern times for, while we basically do respect the needs of individuals for space and privacy, there is also a strong ethical call for interaction. This flows naturally from a recognition of our inherent connection within the setting of the group. As such, significant value is given to individuality which exists specifically within the context of the overall group. Our societies actually do take steps to ensure that individuality and the call of individuality do not necessarily challenge our social base. We may wonder, though, if the value of the individual and individuality, including the treasured importance of our distinctions in self, are being somewhat overlooked in the advancement of social interaction.
It is within this context that one who recognizes God may, perhaps, find an important message in the call of social distancing connected to this pandemic. The reality today as a result of the pandemic is clearly not the ideal. As individuals we are to socially interact and connect together as communal units (including within the overall grouping of one humanity). We, though, within our motivation to connect, can often overlook the nature of the distinctiveness of the individual. Our differences as individuals can greatly impact on our drive and ability to connect. Our social bonding is easier when everyone is seen as basically similar and/or distinctions can be easily discounted or ignored. While we may accept some level of individuality, we may also wish to limit its impact. What is lost, though, is what we may gain from the uniqueness of the distinctive individuality. To truly reach the highest ideals of the group, we must purposefully call upon the true individuality of the members albeit that the challenge of forming the proper, correct grouping would thus be more difficult.
Within Torah thought, there is the constant demand to thus find the proper connection of the individual to the group and the group to the individual. Individuality is important and the collective is important -- and we are called upon within Torah to highlight both. We thus see, within Torah, strong, almost contradictory statements, regarding the value of both. We must embrace both. We must, as such, be careful that, within society, the call of individuality does not impede the advancement of the value of the collective. Our society has actually been careful in this regard. In the same way, though, we must be careful that the call of the collective should not impede the advancement of the value of the individual. In certain ways, our society has been weaker in this regard as indicated in its weakness in dealing responsibly with divergent and even problematic ideas. Recognizing individuality calls upon us to truly see the other distinctively as we thoughtfully determine each person's proper place within the group.
Social distancing can thus serve as a reminder of this challenge of seeing each individual properly as we connect within society. All individuals are not the same and, while there is some value, in certain ways, in seeing everyone as the same and treating everyone the same, this can also be a problem. Individuals are different and distinct and we must also sometimes step back to see the other apart from ourselves. When we come together as a group and in our connection with Hashem, our individuality is a treasure we must also bring to the relationship as appropriate. This demands of us to see our distinctiveness. This demands of us also to evaluate these distinctions and determine the proper application. This may make our connecting as a unit more challenging and difficult but it is also most valuable and will necessarily improve our connection as a society. It may be that, in a certain way, what we are to learn from this pandemic and the call of social distancing is the necessity of confronting and thereby integrating into our beings the significance of individuality and individual distinctiveness..
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
It would seem to be that the basic concern of ethics is how we should properly balance consideration for the other with consideration for the self. It is thus within these axioms that many people wish to evaluate the present call for social distancing in response to the dangers from Covid-19. Of course, social distancing will necessarily affect the balance of the self and the other. The connection to the other is obviously affected. The call for social distancing may, however, be initiated from either consideration. The call to wear a mask, for example, does not necessarily indicate a greater concern for self for this call may equally arise from a concern for the other. One person may wear a mask because of concern for self -- he/she does not wish to catch the virus -- while another may be motivated because of concern for the other -- he/she does not want to harm the other. But regardless of the reason, the very wearing of a mask still reflects a barrier between one person and another. To express this more bluntly, we may practice social distancing because we are concerned for self or because we are concerned for the other. Nevertheless, there is still an effect on how we thereby interact and this does impact our modern ethics.
As ethical interest and discussion further developed within society over history, this endeavour to find the best and most proper balance between the self and the other actually became more challenging. The interaction of individuals became more and more intense. The nature of the collective groupings within societies and of societies became more and more multi-dimensional. The spectrum of ideas expanded. The demand of proper balance, as such, became much more complex. There was also a further recognition of the mutual co-dependence of individuals within the societal unit. This led, often, to a perspective that the optimum conclusion for the one would also be the most beneficial option for the other. As society developed in certain ways, the demands of the self and the demands of the other were not necessarily deemed to be completely at odds with each other. While there could, of course, still be conflict between the self and the other, the determination of what was best for the unit as a whole, for the grouping itself, became a powerful factor in the determination of the proper ethic. The group itself became a substantial focus and the focus of choice included what was best for the group as a whole.
This had a major impact on the very nature of society. Of course, the factors of concern for self and concern for the other still demanded balancing. A further consideration, however, was what form of grouping would be best for the group as a whole. For example, the Capitalist argument against Communism was no longer solely that the latter option was an ethically improper method by which to balance concern for self and concern for the other. It was further contended that the Communist model would not be a good alternative, over time, for the group, and its members, as a whole. The dynamics of the group would flounder. As we are all connected, we will all suffer. The recognition and even promotion of the connections and the interrelationship of the factors of the group became significant considerations in our ethical determinations.
It is in this regard that the call for social distancing can be seen as significant. Social distancing, by definition, promotes the separation of individuals. This is especially significant in modern times for, while we basically do respect the needs of individuals for space and privacy, there is also a strong ethical call for interaction. This flows naturally from a recognition of our inherent connection within the setting of the group. As such, significant value is given to individuality which exists specifically within the context of the overall group. Our societies actually do take steps to ensure that individuality and the call of individuality do not necessarily challenge our social base. We may wonder, though, if the value of the individual and individuality, including the treasured importance of our distinctions in self, are being somewhat overlooked in the advancement of social interaction.
It is within this context that one who recognizes God may, perhaps, find an important message in the call of social distancing connected to this pandemic. The reality today as a result of the pandemic is clearly not the ideal. As individuals we are to socially interact and connect together as communal units (including within the overall grouping of one humanity). We, though, within our motivation to connect, can often overlook the nature of the distinctiveness of the individual. Our differences as individuals can greatly impact on our drive and ability to connect. Our social bonding is easier when everyone is seen as basically similar and/or distinctions can be easily discounted or ignored. While we may accept some level of individuality, we may also wish to limit its impact. What is lost, though, is what we may gain from the uniqueness of the distinctive individuality. To truly reach the highest ideals of the group, we must purposefully call upon the true individuality of the members albeit that the challenge of forming the proper, correct grouping would thus be more difficult.
Within Torah thought, there is the constant demand to thus find the proper connection of the individual to the group and the group to the individual. Individuality is important and the collective is important -- and we are called upon within Torah to highlight both. We thus see, within Torah, strong, almost contradictory statements, regarding the value of both. We must embrace both. We must, as such, be careful that, within society, the call of individuality does not impede the advancement of the value of the collective. Our society has actually been careful in this regard. In the same way, though, we must be careful that the call of the collective should not impede the advancement of the value of the individual. In certain ways, our society has been weaker in this regard as indicated in its weakness in dealing responsibly with divergent and even problematic ideas. Recognizing individuality calls upon us to truly see the other distinctively as we thoughtfully determine each person's proper place within the group.
Social distancing can thus serve as a reminder of this challenge of seeing each individual properly as we connect within society. All individuals are not the same and, while there is some value, in certain ways, in seeing everyone as the same and treating everyone the same, this can also be a problem. Individuals are different and distinct and we must also sometimes step back to see the other apart from ourselves. When we come together as a group and in our connection with Hashem, our individuality is a treasure we must also bring to the relationship as appropriate. This demands of us to see our distinctiveness. This demands of us also to evaluate these distinctions and determine the proper application. This may make our connecting as a unit more challenging and difficult but it is also most valuable and will necessarily improve our connection as a society. It may be that, in a certain way, what we are to learn from this pandemic and the call of social distancing is the necessity of confronting and thereby integrating into our beings the significance of individuality and individual distinctiveness..
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Monday, 13 April 2020
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 3
Please see
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The call of God is to reason and strive to understand. As such, when we confront challenges within reality such as we now experience in these days of Covid-19, we must recognize that we are thereby being called upon to think anew. There are changes in the reality that surrounds us. We must determine with our minds how best to respond. Our further goal must then be to attempt to gain some insight into what these changes, and their effects upon us, are supposed to teach us.
Our first subject within this topic of examination could possibly be the effect this virus has had on social interaction and, perhaps, in more specific religious terms, minyanim. Notwithstanding the clear Torah value in the minyan, there is now an almost unprecedented universal call across the spectrum of Orthodoxy that minyanim should not be formed. This was and is a thoughtful response to the reality of this virus. Groupings are problematic in this environment. Halacha, functioning with thought in the real world, as such, demands of us to forego the groupings of minyanim at this time. This is the reasoned halachic response of the greatest Torah scholars.
It would seem, in this case, what we thus find is that the response of the one who accepts Torah and the one who does not are exactly the same. The response of the reasoned theist and the reasoned atheist to the actual facts and circumstances of the situation is exactly the same. Acceptance of the reality of God is simply not a factor in the reasoned response to the matter itself. This is actually, most often, the case. The expected further challenge facing the reasoned follower of Torah, however, would be to try and determine the message from God embedded in these changed circumstances. If this reality, for example, demands of us to forego minyanim, what is the message, thereby, from God? We can then also ask: if communal interaction is a positive value, what is God trying to teach us from limiting such interaction?
(To be honest, it should be noted that a similarity in response from both the reasoned theist and the reasoned atheist is still not always necessarily the case. There are times when the reasoned follower of Torah will be called upon to act differently than those with reason who do not accept Torah. An investigation of such circumstances, however, is for a later presentation. We do hope to consider this further presentation and the one mentioned in Post 2 later in this series.)
The absence of minyanim, of course, should not be taken lightly. With an investigation of why God has created a reality which prevents their occurrence, one is not thereby trying to justify their absence. We are obviously missing, during this pandemic, a significant value within Jewish life. Perhaps, this is one of the very lessons we should learn from the absence of minyanim -- a further recognition of their value. The absence can call upon us to recognize and consider the loss -- and further appreciate the very value of the minyan.
The absence of minyanim could also call upon people to reconsider their practice of Torah in a determination of what they can undertake in the place of the minyan. This is, of course, not to say that when the ability to go to minyan returns than this new behaviour should continue in the place of minyan. What one could learn, though, is a new idea within Torah, a new perspective on Torah ideals. An example of this would be how many people are upset by the lack of minyanim because of the impossibility of saying kaddish for a loved one on a yahrzeit. When I am approached by people about this concern, my suggestion is for the person to learn some mishnayot in memory of the deceased in lieu of the kaddish. This is actually also a behaviour of great significance in marking the memory of a loved one. For some, however, this is even a Torah activity of which they never previously heard. We sometimes get locked into certain behaviours without any contemplation of other possible activities of value. What we can learn when such regular behaviours become unavailable is the possibility of alternatives -- which then can also be applied in the future as applicable. Recognition of the breadth of Torah understanding and guidance can be a positive result of confronting this pandemic
Again, this is not to say that the new behaviour should then substitute for the previous behaviour into the future. Of course, we may wish to extend our Torah behaviours as a result of our positive new Torah insights yet this should not be undertaken at the cost of the loss of previous positive undertakings. Even, however, as we may solely continue with our previous behaviours, these new thoughts we developed do still accompany us into the future. We learned new insights into Torah which we should allow to continue to influence our perception of Torah. For example, there are many who see Judaism more in communal terms. This pandemic possibly causes people to further recognize the personal side of Torah -- and this should not be forgotten.
It may also cause people to further recognize the personal side of prayer. This further understanding of Torah may then affect us in how we pray even within the parameters of a minyan. In any tefilla, there is the communal element and the personal element. From the lesson of the pandemic, we could learn to further value the personal side of tefilla. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Worship of the Heart, Reflections on the Amidah states:
With our present circumstances, this lesson is further articulated. True, there will, of course, be great happiness in calling out that first amein with a minyan. But, is it also not possible that we will have greater focus in our personal prayer even within the minyan as a result of our commitment to individual prayer within this time?
We do what is necessary in response to reality. The restriction on minyanim was one such response. The further question is: what should we learn from such responses? What, indeed, can we learn from the absence of minyanim? We may learn from the absence itself how to better value the minyan. We may also learn from the behaviour we undertake in the absence of the minyan a further value within Torah which we may usually not consider. There are lessons regarding Torah from this absence of minyanim. We are further called upon to learn and implement them.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 2
The call of God is to reason and strive to understand. As such, when we confront challenges within reality such as we now experience in these days of Covid-19, we must recognize that we are thereby being called upon to think anew. There are changes in the reality that surrounds us. We must determine with our minds how best to respond. Our further goal must then be to attempt to gain some insight into what these changes, and their effects upon us, are supposed to teach us.
Our first subject within this topic of examination could possibly be the effect this virus has had on social interaction and, perhaps, in more specific religious terms, minyanim. Notwithstanding the clear Torah value in the minyan, there is now an almost unprecedented universal call across the spectrum of Orthodoxy that minyanim should not be formed. This was and is a thoughtful response to the reality of this virus. Groupings are problematic in this environment. Halacha, functioning with thought in the real world, as such, demands of us to forego the groupings of minyanim at this time. This is the reasoned halachic response of the greatest Torah scholars.
It would seem, in this case, what we thus find is that the response of the one who accepts Torah and the one who does not are exactly the same. The response of the reasoned theist and the reasoned atheist to the actual facts and circumstances of the situation is exactly the same. Acceptance of the reality of God is simply not a factor in the reasoned response to the matter itself. This is actually, most often, the case. The expected further challenge facing the reasoned follower of Torah, however, would be to try and determine the message from God embedded in these changed circumstances. If this reality, for example, demands of us to forego minyanim, what is the message, thereby, from God? We can then also ask: if communal interaction is a positive value, what is God trying to teach us from limiting such interaction?
(To be honest, it should be noted that a similarity in response from both the reasoned theist and the reasoned atheist is still not always necessarily the case. There are times when the reasoned follower of Torah will be called upon to act differently than those with reason who do not accept Torah. An investigation of such circumstances, however, is for a later presentation. We do hope to consider this further presentation and the one mentioned in Post 2 later in this series.)
The absence of minyanim, of course, should not be taken lightly. With an investigation of why God has created a reality which prevents their occurrence, one is not thereby trying to justify their absence. We are obviously missing, during this pandemic, a significant value within Jewish life. Perhaps, this is one of the very lessons we should learn from the absence of minyanim -- a further recognition of their value. The absence can call upon us to recognize and consider the loss -- and further appreciate the very value of the minyan.
The absence of minyanim could also call upon people to reconsider their practice of Torah in a determination of what they can undertake in the place of the minyan. This is, of course, not to say that when the ability to go to minyan returns than this new behaviour should continue in the place of minyan. What one could learn, though, is a new idea within Torah, a new perspective on Torah ideals. An example of this would be how many people are upset by the lack of minyanim because of the impossibility of saying kaddish for a loved one on a yahrzeit. When I am approached by people about this concern, my suggestion is for the person to learn some mishnayot in memory of the deceased in lieu of the kaddish. This is actually also a behaviour of great significance in marking the memory of a loved one. For some, however, this is even a Torah activity of which they never previously heard. We sometimes get locked into certain behaviours without any contemplation of other possible activities of value. What we can learn when such regular behaviours become unavailable is the possibility of alternatives -- which then can also be applied in the future as applicable. Recognition of the breadth of Torah understanding and guidance can be a positive result of confronting this pandemic
Again, this is not to say that the new behaviour should then substitute for the previous behaviour into the future. Of course, we may wish to extend our Torah behaviours as a result of our positive new Torah insights yet this should not be undertaken at the cost of the loss of previous positive undertakings. Even, however, as we may solely continue with our previous behaviours, these new thoughts we developed do still accompany us into the future. We learned new insights into Torah which we should allow to continue to influence our perception of Torah. For example, there are many who see Judaism more in communal terms. This pandemic possibly causes people to further recognize the personal side of Torah -- and this should not be forgotten.
It may also cause people to further recognize the personal side of prayer. This further understanding of Torah may then affect us in how we pray even within the parameters of a minyan. In any tefilla, there is the communal element and the personal element. From the lesson of the pandemic, we could learn to further value the personal side of tefilla. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Worship of the Heart, Reflections on the Amidah states:
"Prayer cannot be separated from life...Man must discover the great privilege of coming before God outside the sanctuary, in the struggle of existence."
With our present circumstances, this lesson is further articulated. True, there will, of course, be great happiness in calling out that first amein with a minyan. But, is it also not possible that we will have greater focus in our personal prayer even within the minyan as a result of our commitment to individual prayer within this time?
We do what is necessary in response to reality. The restriction on minyanim was one such response. The further question is: what should we learn from such responses? What, indeed, can we learn from the absence of minyanim? We may learn from the absence itself how to better value the minyan. We may also learn from the behaviour we undertake in the absence of the minyan a further value within Torah which we may usually not consider. There are lessons regarding Torah from this absence of minyanim. We are further called upon to learn and implement them.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)