Intellectual Isolation

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Philosophy intellectualism and loneliness

The Rav’s openness to philosophy stemmed from two possibilities: interest and protection. Philosophy has its curiosity and its defence system. The young Rav may have found it endearing or found it comforting.

I do not wish to imply about the Rav that which he never mentioned or I haven’t found. Yet there is something unique Rabbi Lamm  pointed out the Rav was lonely. His brilliance was unparalleled and had no one to relate to. In a way this is backed with the Rav’s  own admission in the final chapter of from where you shall seek where he would sit with the greats learning with them. This can be read as the Rav noting the imagined experience when learning Torah but it can also construe his personal endeavor in this solitude with the Sages of past. This is but anecdotal but the Rav himself according to Rabbi Lamm lived as a loner in his world of Torah.

This loneliness contributed to his intellectualism. To be so above in intellect is to be caught in it. Socially, the lacking is asymmetric and docile. It is through loneliness that one's focus is redirected internally rather than externally. Some may use that time to meditate and others to ponder. It an anti-social type but one that copes with the struggling solitude. A way around the deepening sorrow is to distract with enjoying thinking. Using the intellect quite noticeably for more engagement. Prioritising rationality rather than emotion. Logic is the analytical patterning that remains in the abstract day-dream dialogue. 

Philosophy stems from both curiosity and loneliness. Enjoyment is but a desire for more knowledge and understanding. Philosophy seems to be a rather selfish endeavor. Hoping to procure the secrets of the universe. This hope for knowledge is truly adventurous. Yet this is not the reason for Jewish philosophers. They defended Judaism on such intellectual grounds. The use of a pragmatic science to demonstrate legitimacy is a plausible demand of religious growth. Understanding God through the natural lens. It is more than a defense, it is a remodeled view. A novel conceptualisation that privies a logical deductive scenario of the faith. 

This logic is but parcel of a universal response. A way of interpreting the faith through the rational faculty. Tradition provided its own veracity but this was but a single measure of authenticity. Judaism could be conveyed and verified through the logical model. This is the Maimonidean effort. Tradition is one valve. It isn’t so much to prove to others but derive separately. A dual metric of understanding and interpreting Judaism. It is validating insofar as proof is adduced. Whereby Socratic rationality is sought. The truth found in the logic of the universe. Evidence to tradition by natural means. 

There is another reason for philosophy. This has to do less with rational verification and more with the intellectual onslaught. The joy of the rigour and the salvation form intellectual stimulation. The lost concept in the philosophical interest is not curiosity but comfort. The intellectualisation is not some cool motto but a mode of existence. A way of dealing with the complexity and sorrow of life. The perplexity is solved by rational engagement. Not to solve the big inquires but apply the logic of the neurological mould to the core of religious identity. It is not a manner of evidence but characterisation. The need for more. The need for the brain to reckon with the tedious simplicity. To be inspired and to revel in the sheer adornment of intellectual growth. 

The Jewish hope is to be comforted rather than tormented by one’s intellect. The normal spirituality provides little solace nor serenity to the Jew. For many this may be the desire to synthesise tradition with philosophy. For identity to match with logic. Yet this is the model of intended defence. While the intellectual is more interested in ensuring his own sanity. The intellectual did not of his own accord seek philosophy but it was the only option left standing. He desired the stimulation. He needs the stimulation.

The road for philosophy is aiding the perplexed not because they do not believe but because the regular models are too shallow. They aren’t sufficient for his integration, for his solace. Understandably, one could remark that the sugyas could benefit. There is an intense logic to rabbinic literature. Such an alternative is a fair proposal. Yet intellectualising the sugya will lead you to pilpul or brisk. Both cases lead to a conceptualisation. The conceptualidation is the philosophical alternative. Don’t read Kant read the Ketzot. There is little problematic with this approach. May more scholars follow this route. This is the priority of the intellect. Electrifying tradition through this avenue bolsters one’s conception of tradition. 

Yet this side of intellectualising differs from the philosophical side. Traditional methods only review the past, they don’t analyze the present nor other factors. Nothing on science nor politics. Philosophy isn’t necessarily an attack on Judaism but an alternative perspective. It is the natural vs revelational aspect. One side is focused on the “independent” logos. Judaism provides at most virtue ethics to the natural realm. The neutral realm is an entirely separate realm of knowledge. Judaism doesn’t purport on this area because revelation need not speak of facts but rather meaning. This may come across as irrelevant to the believer but just because the knowledge of science and politics isn’t commanded doesn’t mean it lacks divinity. God created science and politics before revelation. 

The natural side responds to the socio-economic issues. The biblical model corresponds to the monarch. The priest deals with the religious aspects and the king the political. One with sacred and one with the profane. Derech Eretz can also be construed as a separate ethic from legal mandate. It’s not supererogation but applied ethics. The law fashions the vectors and the ethic complements the strident rays. The ethic is the backdrop of action surrounding the legal parameters of or absent legality. The natural side fits the non-legal and emotional instigation of life itself. Empathy and patience lead to kindness. Such sensations encounter the law symbiotically—not liberal nor conservative—fully immersing the “dry” law with sensitivity. 

Pondering the natural world is not off-clash nor out of place. It is a normative pact of existence. A fabulous outcome of destined hope. The world is multicultural. Judaism on a national level interacts with others. Rabbinic documents the legal obligations but the sense exchange is built on mutuality. The law may permit or prohibit but the ethic endeavors to phrase engaged expression. Presiding in a diaspora community or even in Israel, the lacking messianic swing harbors diversity and social tends that can be analyzed and critiqued. This way, tradition doesn’t take a backseat but empowers the non-legal side to take note. Aggada, madda or chochma, whatever you call it, is parcel of human existence that the law doesn’t affiliate. 

Turning back to the revelational side, pondering the differences between different thinkers or merely analyzing the traditional program through a logical lens opens the door for what is called Jewish thought. Briskers may have conceptualised Maimonides’ code but such conceptualisation is not novel in Judaism. It is found in the Talmudic front. Maimonides conceptualised in both his legal and philosophical work. Transforming text into a logical framework is a portrayal of Socratic thought. An elucidation of tangential threads cohesively. Whether for the sake of systemic analysis or mere elaboration the aspect of examination is prodded on logical formulation. Turning the text from liturgical to conceptual.

In either case both are legitimate options. Rather the rationale is utterly divergent. Why conceptualise? Why intellectualise? There are two reasons curiosity or comfort. I desire to see how this operates or I endeavor to be soothed by this motion.  It’s the latter that receives too little attention. Philosophy is those of the brazen and overtly curious. Yet such interest stems from mellowed out disinterest. The normative isn’t fulfilling. There is an aspect of deal with it but that which is being cast out is only a greater appreciation of the divine. Though on the other end, is the stimulative protection. The preoccupation with ideas that muddled the struggles of life. There is a limit but confiding in the divine gift of rational faculty further ponders the joy of truth and prosperity. 

Desire for philosophy for the serenity seeker is a motto of regained hope. A necessity for sanity and solace. The mystical outlet can reach the needed threshold. His mind is racing in the cosmopolitan world. Exposed to the complexity of life his mind is ensnared by its surrounding travesty. There is too much as stake. The mind can’t be turned off, it must be confronted. It is realigned with the more pressing matters. Don’t ponder of the nonsense influencers but Torah instead. Learn of science without stepping into the puddle of dogmatic idealism. The mind distracts from the everyday. It collects thoughts and extends on them. Instead of daydreaming, one provokes understanding. Unveiling patterns and insights from various systems.
Transforming life into a symbolic framework. 

Philosophy or rather intellectual stimulation is not of the damned or the perplexed but rather to be perplexed. To be caught in the insanity of life and deliberate over it. To be certain and enjoy the perplexity stimulated by the wondrous ethos of life.