Such a thought-provoking and beautifully-written piece. In particular, your discussion of one law for the lion and the ox made me think about a discussion of drug legalization I read recently. (I think it was in Astral Codex Ten.) The author argued that high conscientiousness is actually quite rare—about 20 percent of us have it—and is one of the greatest privileges there is. High conscientiousness leads to success in our work and personal lives, and it makes us less vulnerable to all kinds of temptation.
So, to someone who is highly conscientious, legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other “sin crimes” seems obvious, because conscientious people will not get into trouble with addictions. But most people are in fact quite vulnerable to problems in these areas, and making them legal increases the likelihood of addictions of all kinds—it places a stumbling block in front of the blind, if you will.
I am by nature libertarian, and so I have supported making cannabis and sports gambling legal and taking the Swedish approach to prostitution (in which johns can be arrested and prosecuted but not prostitutes). But I am also highly conscientious, and I had never thought before reading the article about how freedoms that are no problem for me could be dangerous temptations for those who struggle with self-regulation. So maybe we do need one law for the lion and the ox after all.
Also, tee hee: “while the president of the shul was speaking.”
I would argue that the fences and the structure of Judaism, but even generally monotheism, are so essential to being human that people who don’t comply with traditional morality create their own morality as a polar opposite. In a world after Abraham shared monotheism, and Christianity spread the idea to so much of humanity, perhaps what passes for creative thought is a point by point rejection of Biblical morality, claiming to be random, but actually stating the exact opposite of Biblical verses every time they emerge with an innovative new perspective.
There’s a hole in the human psyche just the right size for religion and when we fill it with something else, that thing, whatever it is, morphs into something remarkably like religion: rituals, etc.
Judaism’s cheerleading of the individual, as I see it, is a historical answer to the pagan idea that the collective was worth more than the individual, not an ode to individualism, per se.
But there is recognition of people having different natures-Kind David was “admoni.” Red. There’s a concept in Jewish law about someone who is especially sensitive to hygiene, etc, as I understand it.
As far as separating men and women regardless of the individual leanings of each man being separated, like you say, perhaps it is more a statement about what it is to be human, and the role of fences, and a serious attitude towards that which is holy. Perhaps that is why separating men and women in a prayer situation, even when men and women mix together all day, still makes an impact. It sets a tone in our lives.
Such a thought-provoking and beautifully-written piece. In particular, your discussion of one law for the lion and the ox made me think about a discussion of drug legalization I read recently. (I think it was in Astral Codex Ten.) The author argued that high conscientiousness is actually quite rare—about 20 percent of us have it—and is one of the greatest privileges there is. High conscientiousness leads to success in our work and personal lives, and it makes us less vulnerable to all kinds of temptation.
So, to someone who is highly conscientious, legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other “sin crimes” seems obvious, because conscientious people will not get into trouble with addictions. But most people are in fact quite vulnerable to problems in these areas, and making them legal increases the likelihood of addictions of all kinds—it places a stumbling block in front of the blind, if you will.
I am by nature libertarian, and so I have supported making cannabis and sports gambling legal and taking the Swedish approach to prostitution (in which johns can be arrested and prosecuted but not prostitutes). But I am also highly conscientious, and I had never thought before reading the article about how freedoms that are no problem for me could be dangerous temptations for those who struggle with self-regulation. So maybe we do need one law for the lion and the ox after all.
Also, tee hee: “while the president of the shul was speaking.”
I didn't read the whole book, but I loved what I read. Brilliant.
I would argue that the fences and the structure of Judaism, but even generally monotheism, are so essential to being human that people who don’t comply with traditional morality create their own morality as a polar opposite. In a world after Abraham shared monotheism, and Christianity spread the idea to so much of humanity, perhaps what passes for creative thought is a point by point rejection of Biblical morality, claiming to be random, but actually stating the exact opposite of Biblical verses every time they emerge with an innovative new perspective.
There’s a hole in the human psyche just the right size for religion and when we fill it with something else, that thing, whatever it is, morphs into something remarkably like religion: rituals, etc.
Judaism’s cheerleading of the individual, as I see it, is a historical answer to the pagan idea that the collective was worth more than the individual, not an ode to individualism, per se.
But there is recognition of people having different natures-Kind David was “admoni.” Red. There’s a concept in Jewish law about someone who is especially sensitive to hygiene, etc, as I understand it.
As far as separating men and women regardless of the individual leanings of each man being separated, like you say, perhaps it is more a statement about what it is to be human, and the role of fences, and a serious attitude towards that which is holy. Perhaps that is why separating men and women in a prayer situation, even when men and women mix together all day, still makes an impact. It sets a tone in our lives.
I appreciate your analogies, as a frum Jew who majored in English 46 years ago.