Regarding 2B, do you think there's a stop at the rational commitment to human rights or do you think rationality should lead to regard for all sentient beings' rights?
Different premises lead to different conclusions, and it is not clear to me that there are strictly rational groundings for one set or another. Certainly Christian origins stop at humans. The other consideration is that humans have a voice in the global conversation with other humans (though many peoples were ignored for a very long time, and some still are today).
On the other hand, now that life is no longer a struggle for survival for those of us who live in developed societies, it also seems natural to extend our sympathy to the larger mammals. I'm glad we no longer support slaughtering apes and whales, for instance. But if "all sentient beings" is supposed to include mosquitos, I'm off the boat.
I predict that different subcultures around the world will set different boundaries. But humans are the most important case by far in my view. I wouldn't want to sacrifice human life for animal life. If that means exterminating mosquito populations, I'm all for it.
I have, for the last month or 3, been referring to this idea as:
"Principle vs. power"
At some point in the history of the world, the idea that opinions could be about transcendent, person, god, and opinion-independent TRUTH came about. I'm happy to call out the greek philosophical history (Thales?) as the foundation in western culture of that position ... though one could probably argue for talmudic scholarship as well. I think that's your central claim (and #1 on your list).
The Jewish-Greek claim that there is something more than allegience and obedience -- there is understanding.
The Greek rational tradition certainly pre-dates Socrates. Odysseus, while not a philosopher, is certainly a more rational thinker than is anyone in the Illiad, and his ongoing flirtation with Athena, the goddess of wisdom, is strikingly unlike most human - god interactions. The fact that we see so much rational argumentation in Greece by the 5th century is most striking. The Platonic Socrates formalizes it into a concern for consistency and coherence in the Theateatus.
As an aside, there is an interesting book called The Geography of Science by Harold Dorn that argues that with the exception of Greece, science around the world arose to serve the needs of "hydraulic kingdoms," the irrigation systems of Babylonia, Egypt, China, the Mayans, etc. In those areas, geometry was developed for land measurement and astronomy was developed to predict seasons. But speculative science, science for its own sake, rational theory, only developed in Greece. He argues that the diffuse geography of thousands of islands prevented the rise of the hierarchical governments and the rain fed agriculture, plus trade among the islands, created a surplus without top down government.
I'm very interested in the interactions between the Hellenistic world and Judaism. But my sense is that the tradition of Greek rationality preceded talmudic scholarship and, indeed, influenced it towards the discursive style for which it is known today. Do you have a reference that shows an earlier Judaic rational tradition?
The Judaic rational tradition has its clearest roots in Biblical exegesis (which is reminiscent of the way Homer is analyzed in Platonic Dialogues). I haven't seen anything earlier.
Biblically speaking, Job is quite the philosophic book, presenting a culture of dialectical disputes amongst Job and his friends. Abraham Ibn Ezra suggests that its possible that the book is not originally Hebrew, while Talmudic tradition claims Moses is the author. Either way, Rabbinic Judaism certainly saw Job as part of the cannon.
My impression is that Talmudic rationality is very different than philosophical inquiry because the range is much narrower. It's much less an inquiry into abstract ideas and much more a dialectical debate about textual analysis and legal reasoning.
Philo is an interesting historical phenomenon of really integrating Greek philosophy with Judaism. I'm no historian, but I wonder if there are any parallels from other cultures who created such a blend. If he is unique, it would point at Judaism being fertile ground for rationality at the least.
I hadn't thought of Job as rational argumentation, but it has been many decades since I've read it. I also had not realized how old it is. In the fullness of time I'll get around to re-reading it for this reason.
And, yes, Talmudic rationality is much narrower, but my sense is that even with textual analysis there is the expectation of consistency and coherence of interpretation.
For Talmud, it's interesting that there are two main medieval traditions. The tradition of Andalus and Iraq (Muslim ruled) was to treat discrepancies between distant Talmudic passages as a natural occurrence of editing. The tosafotists in Christendom treated these contradictions as a puzzle to be solved. Ironically it was the irrationality of assuming a perfectly consistent compliation that spurred on the rigorous tradition of analysis.
The Talmud itself does demand consistency and coherence as I assume any serious legal tradition must. Otherwise you leave decisions to the judges whim.
Regarding 2B, do you think there's a stop at the rational commitment to human rights or do you think rationality should lead to regard for all sentient beings' rights?
Different premises lead to different conclusions, and it is not clear to me that there are strictly rational groundings for one set or another. Certainly Christian origins stop at humans. The other consideration is that humans have a voice in the global conversation with other humans (though many peoples were ignored for a very long time, and some still are today).
On the other hand, now that life is no longer a struggle for survival for those of us who live in developed societies, it also seems natural to extend our sympathy to the larger mammals. I'm glad we no longer support slaughtering apes and whales, for instance. But if "all sentient beings" is supposed to include mosquitos, I'm off the boat.
I predict that different subcultures around the world will set different boundaries. But humans are the most important case by far in my view. I wouldn't want to sacrifice human life for animal life. If that means exterminating mosquito populations, I'm all for it.
I have, for the last month or 3, been referring to this idea as:
"Principle vs. power"
At some point in the history of the world, the idea that opinions could be about transcendent, person, god, and opinion-independent TRUTH came about. I'm happy to call out the greek philosophical history (Thales?) as the foundation in western culture of that position ... though one could probably argue for talmudic scholarship as well. I think that's your central claim (and #1 on your list).
The Jewish-Greek claim that there is something more than allegience and obedience -- there is understanding.
The Greek rational tradition certainly pre-dates Socrates. Odysseus, while not a philosopher, is certainly a more rational thinker than is anyone in the Illiad, and his ongoing flirtation with Athena, the goddess of wisdom, is strikingly unlike most human - god interactions. The fact that we see so much rational argumentation in Greece by the 5th century is most striking. The Platonic Socrates formalizes it into a concern for consistency and coherence in the Theateatus.
As an aside, there is an interesting book called The Geography of Science by Harold Dorn that argues that with the exception of Greece, science around the world arose to serve the needs of "hydraulic kingdoms," the irrigation systems of Babylonia, Egypt, China, the Mayans, etc. In those areas, geometry was developed for land measurement and astronomy was developed to predict seasons. But speculative science, science for its own sake, rational theory, only developed in Greece. He argues that the diffuse geography of thousands of islands prevented the rise of the hierarchical governments and the rain fed agriculture, plus trade among the islands, created a surplus without top down government.
I'm very interested in the interactions between the Hellenistic world and Judaism. But my sense is that the tradition of Greek rationality preceded talmudic scholarship and, indeed, influenced it towards the discursive style for which it is known today. Do you have a reference that shows an earlier Judaic rational tradition?
The Judaic rational tradition has its clearest roots in Biblical exegesis (which is reminiscent of the way Homer is analyzed in Platonic Dialogues). I haven't seen anything earlier.
Biblically speaking, Job is quite the philosophic book, presenting a culture of dialectical disputes amongst Job and his friends. Abraham Ibn Ezra suggests that its possible that the book is not originally Hebrew, while Talmudic tradition claims Moses is the author. Either way, Rabbinic Judaism certainly saw Job as part of the cannon.
My impression is that Talmudic rationality is very different than philosophical inquiry because the range is much narrower. It's much less an inquiry into abstract ideas and much more a dialectical debate about textual analysis and legal reasoning.
Philo is an interesting historical phenomenon of really integrating Greek philosophy with Judaism. I'm no historian, but I wonder if there are any parallels from other cultures who created such a blend. If he is unique, it would point at Judaism being fertile ground for rationality at the least.
I hadn't thought of Job as rational argumentation, but it has been many decades since I've read it. I also had not realized how old it is. In the fullness of time I'll get around to re-reading it for this reason.
And, yes, Talmudic rationality is much narrower, but my sense is that even with textual analysis there is the expectation of consistency and coherence of interpretation.
For Talmud, it's interesting that there are two main medieval traditions. The tradition of Andalus and Iraq (Muslim ruled) was to treat discrepancies between distant Talmudic passages as a natural occurrence of editing. The tosafotists in Christendom treated these contradictions as a puzzle to be solved. Ironically it was the irrationality of assuming a perfectly consistent compliation that spurred on the rigorous tradition of analysis.
The Talmud itself does demand consistency and coherence as I assume any serious legal tradition must. Otherwise you leave decisions to the judges whim.
I've heard more than a few folks argue for a Phonecian/Jewish connection, suggesting the influence went Jew->Greek rather than the other way around.
But I have no good source on the topic...more a topic