Monday, July 14, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
Modern philosophy, for all its brilliance and rigor, often suffers from a foundational flaw: it tends to treat abstraction as an end in itself. In its pursuit of purity, it frequently drifts into a mode of intellectualism that detaches thought from responsibility, treating moral dilemmas as puzzles, and ethical obligations as thought experiments. In this sense, modern philosophy can be seen as engaged in a quiet but profound flight from responsibility.
Think about philosophy's concept of "mind–body dualism," the idea that the mind and the body are separate entities. This can lead to profoundly unethical results, where actions are divorced from the mind, and responsibility for actions evaporates.
Or the idea of skeptical solipsism - the view that only one's own mind is knowable, casting doubt on the reality of others’ minds or the external world This can be used to avoid any relationships, any interaction with one's community and family, all in the name of philosophy.
But perhaps most of all is philosophy's love of abstraction - of puzzling out questions like "when does a pile of sand become a heap?" Solving theoretical problems is only meaningful when they can be leveraged to solve real problems, but too often philosophy elevates these questions as if finding the answers are themselves moral imperatives.
AskHillel, the secular framework for Jewish ethical reasoning, offers a radical alternative.
It looks at philosophy through the same prism that it looks at every human endeavor to see if it meets the preconditions for any ethical system to be morally trustworthy, what can be called the ethoskeletal axioms.
Corrigibility – Can the idea self-repair or evolve in the face of moral critique? Many philosophical systems treat themselves as closed; AskHillel demands iterative integrity.
Transparency – Can the reasoning process be laid bare, or does it obscure its premises behind jargon? Much of modern philosophy fails to show its scaffolding.
Dignity – Does the idea uphold the innate worth of human beings? Abstract systems like solipsism or utilitarian totalism often erase this.
Override Logic – Can the system resolve value conflict responsibly, or does it collapse into paralysis or binary thinking?
Relational Integrity – Does it account for roles, covenant, and responsibility within relationships? Philosophies of hyper-individualism often fail here.
Epistemic Humility – Does the idea acknowledge the limits of certainty, or does it weaponize doubt or claim moral infallibility?
To be sure, not all philosophies are equal, and each kind will respond differently to this test. But many classic philosophical constructs falter when tested against these axioms. Solipsism fails dignity, relational integrity, and override logic. Mind-body dualism often dodges corrigibility and relational grounding. Infinite regress paralyzes moral clarity under the guise of epistemic rigor. Even elegant thought systems, when left abstract, violate transparency and dignity by refusing to take a stand.
AskHillel challenges the assumption that philosophy must float free of moral gravity. It insists instead that ideas must be lived, not just theorized. Concepts must be inhabited, not merely defined.
The essence of AskHillel's way of looking at the world lies in a simple inversion: abstraction is not dismissed, but grounded. Its test is not whether a concept is internally consistent, but whether it helps sustain a moral structure that holds under pressure. In this sense, AskHillel doesn't just practicalize philosophy; it elevates it. By asking what any given abstraction demands of us ethically, AskHillel performs a kind of secular sanctification, adding meaning to what had been seen as a mind puzzle.
Take, for instance, the Ship of Theseus. This is a famous metaphysical riddle about identity: if every part of a ship is replaced over time, is it still the same ship?
AskHillel doesn't discard the question: it reframes it. When does a person, institution, or nation remain morally accountable despite internal transformation? If a company employed slaves in the past, is it still responsible to fix the harm many decades later after it has changed management, headquarters, employees, its own mission statement? This is no longer a riddle; it's a diagnostic for teshuvah, justice, and communal continuity. Abstract becomes actionable.
Or consider the Sorites paradox which asks when a collection of grains becomes a "heap." AskHillel hears a deeper ethical call: when does small acts of harm accumulate? When does silence become complicity? When does a fetus become a human? Jewish ethics is attuned to continuity as opposed to the discreteness often assumed in philosophy, but sometimes there is a line that is crossed - where exactly is that line? The question of a "heap" becomes a test of Areivut (responsibility) and dignity.
For this article, I created a completely new concept I called "qwertyism, " defined as the irritation felt when someone takes a parking spot you were eyeing. A traditional philosopher might analyze its taxonomy: Is qwertyism the same as seeing someone grab the last bag of chips? Or the elevator doors closing on you? What about when a spot looks open but has a motorcycle? A cone? A hydrant?
When I asked AskHillel how it would deal with the concept, it looked at it from a different perspective:
Does qwertyism expose latent entitlement that undermines gratitude? How should one ethically respond to feelings of minor loss or resentment? Is qwertyism a test of Anavah (humility) or Areivut (shared public goods)? AskHillel elevated what was meant to be a silly thought experiment into a path for how to become a better person.
Where traditional Jewish ethics grounds itself in divine covenant, AskHillel is secular. But it retains the structure of brit through shared axioms: truth exists, dignity matters, responsibility is binding. These values are not commanded; they are engineered into the system because without them, moral life collapses. AskHillel asks not "What is the good?" but "What kind of structure can people live in without their dignity breaking?"
This is the core reversal: modern philosophy often chases coherence. AskHillel chases consequence. Where the former admires ideas, the latter demands that they hold human weight. In this way, AskHillel turns philosophy back toward responsibility, restoring the bridge between reason and moral presence. Just as Judaism teaches that any object or idea can become sacred when used for sacred purposes, AskHillel says any idea can become meaningful when used for moral purposes. The abstract questions are not silly, but we need to reveal their moral core, and endow them with meaning: a secular version of kedushah, holiness.
Philosophy need not be abandoned. But it must be reclaimed. Its flight from responsibility is a major error. AskHillel offers a path for that reclamation.
It is not the end of abstraction. It is its elevation.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
