I’m an Orthodox Jew (Modern Orthodox). Since Mr. Yudkowsky’s work is—obviously—apikorsus of the highest level, I read it l’havin ul’horos, mostly, but enjoy the thinking in it anyway.
“apikorsus” has a range of meanings including “heretic”, “damned person”, “unbeliever”; the term may or may not be derived from the name of Epicurus.
[EDITED to add: As pointed out by kind respondents below, I was sloppy and mixed up “apikores” (which has the meanings above) and “apikorsus” (which means something more like “the sort of thing an apikores says”). My apologies.]
“l’havin ul’horos” means “to understand and to teach”, as opposed to “to agree” or “to practice” or whatever. In the Bible, when the Israelites invade Canaan they are told not to learn to do as the natives do, and there’s some famous commentary that says “but you are allowed to learn in order to understand and to teach”.
[EDITED to add: I am not myself Jewish, nor do I know more than a handful of Hebrew words; if I have got the above wrong then I will be glad to learn.]
More accurately: Apikores = heretic in modern parlance; apikorsus = heretical views.
As an aside, Maimonides is the medieval Jewish authority generally associated with the view that the term apikores is not derived from the name Epicurus. Maimonides was a world-class Aristotelian philosopher and quotes Epicurus several times in his works. Since the words apikores and Epicurus have identical spellings in medieval Hebrew, the fact that Maimonides proposes a different etymological theory begs for an explanation. Maimonides’ theory is that the term is from the Aramaic “apkeirusa” (this is hard to translate, especially in the way Maimonides seems to be using it; I think it implies something like “people doing whatever they feel like instead of listening to authority figures”). I’ve long felt that this derives from the fact that the Talmud’s discussion of the term doesn’t have anything to do with dogma or heretical beliefs but rather with belittling authority figures. Maimonides himself, however, converts the term in his other works into the current usage of referring to heretical beliefs. Based on this, I strongly suspect that Maimonides thought that the original term does stem from Epicurus (who held precisely those beliefs that Maimonides identifies as heretical), but that the rabbis of the Talmud borrowed the term and used it as a sort of Aramaic-Greek pun to refer to belittling authority figures.
Also in case anybody else is curious, Modern Orthodox is as opposed mainly to Ultra-Orthodox (also known as “hareidi” or “frum”). Hassidim are their own sub-group of Ultra-Orthodox.
As an interesting intellectual challenge, try steelmanning some of the hareidi sociopolitical positions, such as their extreme opposition to the Israeli draft law. And it does need steelmanning—I personally know several very well-thought-out, very smart, very well-meaning, very knowledgeable rabbis who strongly agree with the hareidi positions.
As an interesting intellectual challenge, try steelmanning some of the hareidi sociopolitical positions, such as their extreme opposition to the Israeli draft law. And it does need steelmanning—I personally know several very well-thought-out, very smart, very well-meaning, very knowledgeable rabbis who strongly agree with the hareidi positions.
I think that actually if you accept a certain basic worldview, they have a rather strong case. I strongly disagree with that worldview, but that’s a diffrent matter.
Let’s lay it out:
Axiom 1: Everything happens acording to God’s will.
Axiom 2: If we behave righeously, God’s will will be favourable.
Example: Again and again in the past, this has happened.
“בכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו והקדוש ברוך הוא מצילנו מידם”
[Rough translation: “In each and every generation our foes have tried to destroy us, and each time the Holy One Blessed Be He saves us from them.]
Corollary 1: If we are righteous, we can expect this to carry on in the present and the future.
Axiom 3: The most righteous thing to be doing is to be studying the Holy Texts.
Lemma: We need to have as large a number of people as possible studing in yeshiva as their day-to-day occupation.
Proof of the lemma: Follows from Corollary 1 and Axiom 3.
Preposition: “Much as it pains us, we acknowledge that not everyone has it in them to spend all day studying Torah. We don’t want to force people who don’t want to study in yeshiva to do so (much as it aches the very bottoms of our souls), but at least you can let those who want to do so get on with it, and not waste their time on your secular ‘army’ nonsense, which has nothing to do with our defense, as our only true defense is God.”
Proof of the preposition: The lemma says that we need lots of yeshiva bochers, so let’s provide them! If you don’t have the proper כונה we cannot effectivly force you to study Torah (even if the hareidim had the political power), but at least we can take the masses of willing hareidi young men and allow the to do their job for the defense of our people, in order to protect what fragment of spiritual defense we still have.
Corollary 2: The state of Israel shouldn’t draft the yeshiva bochurs. Doing so removes our only true line of defense, and so is taramount to the genocide of the Jewish people.
If you accept the three axioms, it leads invariably to the Preposition, and so to Corollary 2.
That would work… but the Chareidim don’t actually believe in their defenses (they flee places getting bombed and leave the soldiers to defend people’s lives), nor are these defenses backed up in any way by halacha (they’re misinterpreted that one text they use as a source). Also, they don’t allow anyone in their community to go into the army. Ever. And they don’t let non-Chareidim join them in their learning for defense, either.
I suspect noonehomer’s correct in part and that the chareidim don’t actually believe everything that Username says.
Also, I don’t think it’s true they don’t let anyone go to the army (or at least it didn’t use to be), just that it’s discouraged.
If anyone’s interested in my own thoughts, I posted them in a comment here. Just look for the comment by iarwain. Sorry, you may need to understand some hebrew terms to understand it. But then again, you’ll need to understand hebrew terms to read Username’s comment as well.
the Chareidim don’t actually believe in their defenses
Yes.
What I wrote was a steelman of their positions, and must be taken as such. They themselves do not have such sophisticated mental models of the world. The answer to why they hate the IDF and the state of Israel is simply one of tribal affiliation. <>
[Edit: Also see point 3 in iarwain1′s linked comment. It explains the hareidi attitude to all this.]
The hardest part of reading things l’havin ul’horos is that I can’t recommend them to anyone else because it’s assur for non-learned people to read them (possibly even non-Jews, in this case). And yes, iarwain1 is correct that apikorsus is a thing and an apikores is a person. But thank you for translating.
Can you recommend such things to other people considered learned? (And: is there an important distinction between “assur” and “forbidden”? A little googling suggests that “assur” is less emphatic somehow; is that right?)
Almost certainly I can. But right now I’m in high school, so I don’t know that many people who qualify.
Um… assur means you can’t do it. It’s not less severe than “forbidden”, I don’t think. It literally means “bound”. It’s important to note that it doesn’t mean something’s morally wrong, but in this case, independent of the prohibition (non-literal translation of the noun form, issur) the act of reading foreign philosophy without knowledge of the corresponding arguments in one’s own can cause stupid questions, not smart ones, and is considered to be wrong, not just forbidden (in my father’s circles, anyhow).
I commend you for your self-control in not telling other people about these issues. I’d also add that for many people who aren’t the intellectual type, you’d be doing them a major disservice by exposing them to arguments that can easily cause them massive psychological stress issues. As I know from personal experience with people who that happened to.
It might be worth thinking about switching to a different high school where there are more intellectual-type people around. Also, if you go to Yeshiva University for college you’ll find plenty of smart people, both staff and students, who are quite educated in foreign philosophies.
I’m an Orthodox Jew (Modern Orthodox). Since Mr. Yudkowsky’s work is—obviously—apikorsus of the highest level, I read it l’havin ul’horos, mostly, but enjoy the thinking in it anyway.
In case anyone else is curious, it appears that:
“apikorsus” has a range of meanings including “heretic”, “damned person”, “unbeliever”; the term may or may not be derived from the name of Epicurus.
[EDITED to add: As pointed out by kind respondents below, I was sloppy and mixed up “apikores” (which has the meanings above) and “apikorsus” (which means something more like “the sort of thing an apikores says”). My apologies.]
“l’havin ul’horos” means “to understand and to teach”, as opposed to “to agree” or “to practice” or whatever. In the Bible, when the Israelites invade Canaan they are told not to learn to do as the natives do, and there’s some famous commentary that says “but you are allowed to learn in order to understand and to teach”.
[EDITED to add: I am not myself Jewish, nor do I know more than a handful of Hebrew words; if I have got the above wrong then I will be glad to learn.]
More accurately: Apikores = heretic in modern parlance; apikorsus = heretical views.
As an aside, Maimonides is the medieval Jewish authority generally associated with the view that the term apikores is not derived from the name Epicurus. Maimonides was a world-class Aristotelian philosopher and quotes Epicurus several times in his works. Since the words apikores and Epicurus have identical spellings in medieval Hebrew, the fact that Maimonides proposes a different etymological theory begs for an explanation. Maimonides’ theory is that the term is from the Aramaic “apkeirusa” (this is hard to translate, especially in the way Maimonides seems to be using it; I think it implies something like “people doing whatever they feel like instead of listening to authority figures”). I’ve long felt that this derives from the fact that the Talmud’s discussion of the term doesn’t have anything to do with dogma or heretical beliefs but rather with belittling authority figures. Maimonides himself, however, converts the term in his other works into the current usage of referring to heretical beliefs. Based on this, I strongly suspect that Maimonides thought that the original term does stem from Epicurus (who held precisely those beliefs that Maimonides identifies as heretical), but that the rabbis of the Talmud borrowed the term and used it as a sort of Aramaic-Greek pun to refer to belittling authority figures.
Also in case anybody else is curious, Modern Orthodox is as opposed mainly to Ultra-Orthodox (also known as “hareidi” or “frum”). Hassidim are their own sub-group of Ultra-Orthodox.
As an interesting intellectual challenge, try steelmanning some of the hareidi sociopolitical positions, such as their extreme opposition to the Israeli draft law. And it does need steelmanning—I personally know several very well-thought-out, very smart, very well-meaning, very knowledgeable rabbis who strongly agree with the hareidi positions.
I think that actually if you accept a certain basic worldview, they have a rather strong case. I strongly disagree with that worldview, but that’s a diffrent matter.
Let’s lay it out:
Axiom 1: Everything happens acording to God’s will.
Axiom 2: If we behave righeously, God’s will will be favourable.
Example: Again and again in the past, this has happened. “בכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו והקדוש ברוך הוא מצילנו מידם” [Rough translation: “In each and every generation our foes have tried to destroy us, and each time the Holy One Blessed Be He saves us from them.]
Corollary 1: If we are righteous, we can expect this to carry on in the present and the future.
Axiom 3: The most righteous thing to be doing is to be studying the Holy Texts.
Lemma: We need to have as large a number of people as possible studing in yeshiva as their day-to-day occupation.
Proof of the lemma: Follows from Corollary 1 and Axiom 3.
Preposition: “Much as it pains us, we acknowledge that not everyone has it in them to spend all day studying Torah. We don’t want to force people who don’t want to study in yeshiva to do so (much as it aches the very bottoms of our souls), but at least you can let those who want to do so get on with it, and not waste their time on your secular ‘army’ nonsense, which has nothing to do with our defense, as our only true defense is God.”
Proof of the preposition: The lemma says that we need lots of yeshiva bochers, so let’s provide them! If you don’t have the proper כונה we cannot effectivly force you to study Torah (even if the hareidim had the political power), but at least we can take the masses of willing hareidi young men and allow the to do their job for the defense of our people, in order to protect what fragment of spiritual defense we still have.
Corollary 2: The state of Israel shouldn’t draft the yeshiva bochurs. Doing so removes our only true line of defense, and so is taramount to the genocide of the Jewish people.
If you accept the three axioms, it leads invariably to the Preposition, and so to Corollary 2.
Q.E.D.
That would work… but the Chareidim don’t actually believe in their defenses (they flee places getting bombed and leave the soldiers to defend people’s lives), nor are these defenses backed up in any way by halacha (they’re misinterpreted that one text they use as a source). Also, they don’t allow anyone in their community to go into the army. Ever. And they don’t let non-Chareidim join them in their learning for defense, either.
I suspect noonehomer’s correct in part and that the chareidim don’t actually believe everything that Username says.
Also, I don’t think it’s true they don’t let anyone go to the army (or at least it didn’t use to be), just that it’s discouraged.
If anyone’s interested in my own thoughts, I posted them in a comment here. Just look for the comment by iarwain. Sorry, you may need to understand some hebrew terms to understand it. But then again, you’ll need to understand hebrew terms to read Username’s comment as well.
Yes.
What I wrote was a steelman of their positions, and must be taken as such. They themselves do not have such sophisticated mental models of the world. The answer to why they hate the IDF and the state of Israel is simply one of tribal affiliation. <>
[Edit: Also see point 3 in iarwain1′s linked comment. It explains the hareidi attitude to all this.]
I don’t know about “frum”. Badly educated and mistakenly chumradik is more like it.
The hardest part of reading things l’havin ul’horos is that I can’t recommend them to anyone else because it’s assur for non-learned people to read them (possibly even non-Jews, in this case). And yes, iarwain1 is correct that apikorsus is a thing and an apikores is a person. But thank you for translating.
Can you recommend such things to other people considered learned? (And: is there an important distinction between “assur” and “forbidden”? A little googling suggests that “assur” is less emphatic somehow; is that right?)
Yup, inexcusably sloppy of me. Thanks.
Almost certainly I can. But right now I’m in high school, so I don’t know that many people who qualify.
Um… assur means you can’t do it. It’s not less severe than “forbidden”, I don’t think. It literally means “bound”. It’s important to note that it doesn’t mean something’s morally wrong, but in this case, independent of the prohibition (non-literal translation of the noun form, issur) the act of reading foreign philosophy without knowledge of the corresponding arguments in one’s own can cause stupid questions, not smart ones, and is considered to be wrong, not just forbidden (in my father’s circles, anyhow).
I commend you for your self-control in not telling other people about these issues. I’d also add that for many people who aren’t the intellectual type, you’d be doing them a major disservice by exposing them to arguments that can easily cause them massive psychological stress issues. As I know from personal experience with people who that happened to.
It might be worth thinking about switching to a different high school where there are more intellectual-type people around. Also, if you go to Yeshiva University for college you’ll find plenty of smart people, both staff and students, who are quite educated in foreign philosophies.