tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post962191886848577800..comments2023-11-27T11:16:11.797-05:00Comments on Skeptic but Jewish: Judaism and FreedomBaruch Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-74805778596274314622010-11-24T17:33:43.141-05:002010-11-24T17:33:43.141-05:00"In every sphere of life there are people who..."In every sphere of life there are people who would seek to control other people, either mentally or physically. Religion is just one of these spheres. Work is certainly another. Yes there is the implied contract that one considers when one chooses to work for someone but if one needs to put food on the table is there true freedom?": <br /><br />How can the Soviets make themselves believe they were free? How can the Nazis make themselves believe they were free? How can the Juden make themselves believe they are free? <br /><br />The answer is that they redefined "freedom". Freedom is a very simple concept, freedom is free from rule of other people (be it an individual, a group of people, or the state). That is all it means. This is what it means in the 18th century. In its modern meaning "freedom" has a completely different meaning. This is why you hear people speak of "right to education" or "right to a job". Because they imagine freedom living a life without worries and complications. But this is not what it means, freedom, in the classical meaning, does not need to always be a pleasant life, sometimes it sucks. Freedom does not mean that your life is free from worries, it just means no one rules over you. Sometimes the nature of your circumstances may compell you to act in a certain manner, but this does not negate freedom, any more so than the law of gravity negate your freedom of flying. People in history who fought against freedom always did this by pretending they were fighting for freedom, except they redefined what it is supposed to mean. <br /><br />"but it is still the individuals choice to adhere to the Mitzvot and God does not force anyone to do so.": <br /><br />Non-sense. If people, in Biblical Israel, transgressed God's commandment they would be killed or physically punished for doing so. This is freedom? Do kids have a choice between being Juden or not being Juden? No. They are made to believe what their parents believe. This is not a choice, it is forced upon them. And in the end, people who disobey God will be punished by God for choosing not to follow him. This is freedom? If you think this is freedom then I am not surprised how you can think that the state violently beating up tax resistors is still freedom - since you have some messed up notion of freedom. <br /><br />Can a Jewish or non-Jewish person decide to serve an idol? No, he will be stoned to death. Can a Jewish person pick sticks on Shabbos? No, he will be stoned to death. Can two gay men have buttsex with one another? No, they will be executed for doing so. Tell me exactly how this is freedom. <br /><br />Does it not sound that Biblical Israel and God are the worst despotisms in history?Baruch Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-81908849045011052682010-11-24T09:11:54.990-05:002010-11-24T09:11:54.990-05:00In every sphere of life there are people who would...In every sphere of life there are people who would seek to control other people, either mentally or physically. Religion is just one of these spheres. Work is certainly another. Yes there is the implied contract that one considers when one chooses to work for someone but if one needs to put food on the table is there true freedom?<br /><br />I think your argument holds true from a limited vantage point. Yes, the Jewish religion espouses a heteronymous viewpoint with regards to observance of the Mitzvot, but it is still the individuals choice to adhere to the Mitzvot and God does not force anyone to do so. People can choose to believe that God commanded observance and do them as a result. Thus they are choosing a worldview for themselves that included faith that they do not own themselves. That is still freedom...its freedom to conform to an ideal.<br /><br />In fact, the idea that we own ourselves is somewhat of a delusion in and of itself. To own something is to be able to use it as you see fit. The more control one has, the more one can be said to own something. We have very limited control over ourselves (some less than others). To the extent that one can do something that one regret, it is easy to see that freedom of action is not quite as simple as it appears. Is someone who is afflicted with mental disease truly free? Are they autonomous really? To some extent they are, but perhaps in other areas they are not. Can they not be said to own themselves? <br /><br />Ultimately to truly own oneself is to be in control of oneself. To the extent that Judaism imposes tasks that allow a person to learn self discipline it can become a tool for enhancing freedom.Herr Snooblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235146307373159873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-53403843219448109972010-11-24T08:46:53.688-05:002010-11-24T08:46:53.688-05:00I think you're right, but I also think you'...I think you're right, but I also think you've spent too much time thinking about/arguing with a proposition that's ridiculous on its face. Depriving someone of his choices does not enhance his freedom.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.com