Non-existent Discussions

By: Jonathan Seidel

The task of contemporary Judaism is far too perceptive in its attempt to ensure a stable dialogue. Jewish philosophy today has recoiled in its prestige and impact. Authors are writing philosophical books concerning Judaism but they remain strongly academic. The philosophical style while present is not the theme of present literature. Jewish philosophy today is rabbinic criticism and analysis. 

Looking at 21st century Jewish philosophy and the number of books published is minute. There are a few exceptions: Shagar, Sacks and a few academics. The first thing to note is that the rabbinical sphere has twin heroes to look up to. There is the rationalist Sacks and the mystical Shagar—up until recently the collection for the category was either Sacks or an older thinker like Soloveitchik or Berkovits. This is to such a degree that a few years ago another Shagar book came out and this year Maggid republished Sacks’ first three philosophical book. Beyond these thinkers there lacks a compelling rabbinical figure spouting a systemic philosophical program. With the exception of a few academics namely Lebens, Segal and Gelllman there isn’t much else to cheer for. Philosophy was of the 20th century. Growing more popular amongst the orthodox at the turn of the century till the passing of the Rav. It was his generation and its successor that poured over philosophical texts to cultivate a novel perception of Judaism. Not because they believed Judaism needed it but because they desired to do so. There lacks that affinity and training towards that style.       

Despite an entire genre uninhabited and unrecorded, books upon books are published yearly. The genre of machshava still has many books. Many authors are compiling previous leaders’ works or translating their works. Putting forward philosophical books but those that are retooled texts. Many books are rightfully called machshava as they fail to engage the philosophical tradition, legacy and style. The intellectualism may be there but the goal is rather textual or spiritual. Mending the bridge between philosophy and Kabbalah. Using simple titles and word choice to inspire meaning in Jewish life. To some degree this is more approachable and conceivable than the complexity of either Sacks or Soloveitchik. The average person finds basic argumentation and more so quoted traditional literature as a barometer of understanding. The published books of rabbinical figures squares with this same theme. Drawing on themes of derech eretz, emunah, and nishama. Upon investigation the literature is dissimilar to its previous counterparts. This may be frustrating for some older folk used to their philosophical heroes yet they are compensated with newly published versions of collections to keep their heroes alive. For the youngster, his world is caught in between with no contemporary hero to look to for guidance. 

Machshava has remained intact but its profound density has met a lighter spirituality to guide its methodology and ideology. For many this is sufficient. It illuminates the philosophical side of Judaism without submerging in its character. It may be unfair to chastise the current generation. While the Rav was not the sole figure of philosophical education, he was the sole representation. R Lichtenstein for all his knowledge and erudition wrote philosophically-less essays and books. Profound titles with deep meaning but it was a tier in between the Rav and the present rabbi. While expressing the range of vocabulary the articles were more inclined toward machshava. In all fairness they may be even more philosophical than R Hirsch, implying that it was truly the turn of the century that accelerated a novelty into philosophical thinking. From Rosenzweig to Soloveitchik to Wyscholgrod to Sacks. While Machshava has pressed on, it has dwindled in its efforts to capture the gold standard of yore For apparent reasons it doesn’t intend to. Just as the early modern era revered medieval philosophy refusing to pen their own revolutionary strata so too 21st century Jewry feels similarly. One can write about pressing issues and their relation to Judaism but to write a level headed philosophical treatise is of the revered post-holocaust era. Now those scholars are glorified and republished without desire for a new path. 

In truth, the question raised is why? What has happened to machshava? This isn’t a new question but one afforded since the turn of the century. The passing of the great leaders and their grievances to their displeased students warrants consideration. The Rav’s students have primarily published legal works or faith works. Tackling inquiries of religious wisdom rather than imploring the depth of philosophy. The same unhinged though quieter sneakier version of the maimonidean controversy has laid its roots. Philosophy is dangerous and destitute. Reading Sacks’ old works to his new ones finds his language toned and his arguments simpler. It is not about being hard to understand but about employing novel gestures and fascination. Philosophy has lost the battle to biblical criticism. With more acceptance to the literary techniques and socio-historical variables there are more novelties but in special spheres. These include biblical and rabbinic studies. The maggid tanakh series including a whole wing for evaluation of topics beyond the books themselves re-characterises much of the traditional perception into a glorified conceptual themed novella. Truly fascinating but not philosophy. To some extent this is the era of interpretation: publishing old manuscripts of Berkovits, writing long essays on Rav Kook and re-analysing the Torah anew. 

There really isn’t much hope for a shift anytime soon. This model is working and it is intriguing. Even the academic world is tied up. While they are pursuing novelty it is few and far between in the philosophical sphere. Avi Sagi, Ariel Picard, Moshe Meir are among the few Hebrew thinkers who have written their own philosophical thinking. Meaning they are looking to the future with their academic disciplines pulling from philosophy to present their ideas. They are still academics with an analysing ideal rather than a straightforward presentation. Most others including these names have written on past thinkers or are embroiled in the new thing. The new topic of rabbinic literature. The maggid series is of Tanakh while many others have invested their time into talmudic and halakhic investigation. This side of academic talmud or halakha, analyses the texts orienting them into the thesis presented. It is not about rereading the talmud through a diachronic lens but through a conceptual one. If briskers went academic for fun. The onslaught of rabbinic fascination from the more diachronic scholars to the conceptual ones drifts from the plain philosophical sphere. Philosophy is a far cry from interesting. It is not the enjoyable crusade of old but a contemplative confusion. The machshava compilation focuses on specific issues and analyses them. No more systemic philosophy hello specified philosophy.

What is this to say of the state of philosophy? It is just not desired. Why write a book that anchors itself in contemporary philosophy when the traditional sources can shine a brighter light. In light of Shagar’s most recent examination using Lacan and Derrida, the postmodern which has befallen must be redeemed with a new model. To be frank this disinterest may also stem from a looming tug on the contemporary philosophical scene. Are they still stuck on Lacan and Derrida? Are their revolutionary philosophers spouting new ideas and presenting true novelties that are shaking the discipline? Some of the names that come to mind are Chalmers, Dennett Nagel and Nussbaum, yet these thinkers are all in their later years. If the brightest are in their elder years, what does that say of the discipline itself? What does that say of the future of philosophy? Many of the postwar era philosophers became entrenched in feminism and critical theory. Given that the philosophical approach is breaded in its era thus Soloveitchik with neo-kantianism and Sagar with postmodernism. A writer today would be forced to look to poststructuralism or meta-modernism—a field that has yet to be discerned. Yet there is strong pushback to the postmodernists. People desire truth and complacency. A sense of tribalism and familiarity. The particularists are rebranding and it through this that Jewish philosophy can be revived. Not under Chalmers or Zizek or Agamben but rather a philosophy that mirrors the trends which again may drawn upon these scholars. 

It is a possibility to put forward a philosophy of perception, while not well rounded or thought out here, the communicative ideologies of Habermas and Chomsky alongside the hyperreality of Zizek and Eco may lead to some interesting conclusions. Given Shagar mentions many of these names in his own postmodern philosophy and the illusionary truth, the last recourse is to promote a well grounded possibility. One that acknowledges pitfalls but liberates the necessary variables. It is probably too soon to construct a new ethos as the moving parts are still in motion. Yet the growing centre of libertarian minded folk alongside the increase in religious observance may continue to rise as more opposition to the liberal horrors haunts its victims. The universalists while still strong have met a fierce adversary. A desire for community has aroused surrounding ideas rather than culture. It is a testament to feeling in the right place lest be bullied. It is this sort of anti-free thinking and critical thinking that must rename its communitarian ethos. An ethos that while yearning for that camaraderie sacrifices its liberty. Will this communitarian fragmentation envelop into vertical hierarchy or a horizontal society? So far the former is winning. The tyranny of the vertical spectrum is an alignment by ideas and fanfare. It isn’t about roles and respect. It remains to be seen if such diversity can co-exist. Liberal advancements have been made that have been accepted in some areas while others lambast such attempts. Is there a modified way? Is there is a promising future? 

To be fair, one need not write a systemic philosophy to be considered philosophy. It is writing about issues in a systemic way. Orienting oneself to decipher the key issues instead of promulgating the same talking points with a sliver of spiritual focus. There is an obvious amount of bias here and desire for more hardcore rationalist thinking in Judaism but that need not be the future of Jewish thought. Judaism may not need another systemic philosophy. Observance rates are rising and people are finding spirituality. Unlike Maimonides era and the Rav’s lifetime, we have a Jewish state in the ancestral holy land. It is a profoundly different time. It may not hinge on the heels of the messianic age but it is a charisma booster. It is a familial longing and close knit relation to the peoplehood. Jewish thinking can be simplified for a people drawing back into the fold. It also must represent the people. Unlike Andalusia and postwar America, the twenty first century is not one of philosophical vibrance. The unengaged is not due to lacklustre capabilities but a shift in faculties. What is important is not the complexity but the simplicity. This need not be translated into spiritual monographs but rather legal affinity. Having stronger kavanah when performing a commandment. Enjoying the small excerpts of inspiration. While Jews of the 1990s enjoyed R Sacks’ philosophical entourage the Jews of 2010s enjoyed R Sacks’ brief comments of elation. R Sacks merely simplified his language and his message. Not only as a chief rabbi but also as an educator to an era of committed individuals who benefitted from secular wisdom tied to the traditional literature. Finding gems to divulge and magnify.          

There is certainly a hopeful gaze on the horizon. Maybe in a few years more engrossment will occur or not. Yet what does seem to be true is that observance is rising and commitment is expanding. Yet on the philosophical side, if no one else will do it then, might as well pick up slack and do it myself. If I cannot read new philosophical works, I will just have to write until they are realised.