(Adam) One Giant Leap for Mankind: Rav Soloveitchik and the Space Race
đź§µ
1/13
Rav Soloveitchik’s _The Lonely Man of Faith_ is deeply marked by his excitement about space travel. David Schatz notes this in his foreword to the 2006 Doubleday edition: 2/
But Schatz’s comment doesn’t capture just how often space travel comes up, both in describing Adam 1 and in contrasting him with Adam 2. Here’s just a few examples: 3/
It’s all over his roughly contemporary essay, “Majesty and Humility,” as well. Space travel even stands in as a symbol for man’s technological, creative, “majestic” capacities more generally. 4/
That being said, it’s almost surprising that Rav Soloveitchik doesn’t make a bigger deal about the anti-communist role space travel held in American culture. He was deeply anti-communist, and not shy about it.
6/
He was a strong supporter of the Vietnam War, in public disagreement with his brother about it. (Image from David Luchins’ chapter in _Mentor of Generations_, ed. Rakeffet) 7/
His anti-communism was of a piece with his anti-fascism and his flirtations with anarchism—he was anti-totalitarian and pro-individual across the board. 8/
So if he’s broadly anti-communist, and talking about space travel in LMOF, why doesn’t he talk about the Space Race? Or at least give Soviet Russia as an example of “demonic” Adam 1?
9/
In fact, we’ve already seen one mention of the Russians (“atheist cosmonaut”) and it’s broadly positive (though not entirely; he’s contrasting the “dignified” Adam 1 with the (redeemed” Adam 2): 10/
The answer, of course, is that RAv Soloveitchik takes aim at a different form of totalitarianism in LMOF: totalitarian culture, rather than totalitarian government.
Demonic Adam 1 in LMOF is not the oppressive regime but the success-obsessed culture that suppresses Adam 2. 11/
He’s not concerned in LMOF with the government that won’t let yourpractice your religion. He’s concerned about the culture that says religion is great because it makes you a better worker, or looks great on a resume (credit to @nytdavidbrooks for the Adam 1-resume connection)
12/
In short, LMOF doesn’t mention the Space Race because it’s the obsession with winning he is trying to attack. The Space Race is just one example of a broader phenomenon—not uniquely American but that’s the culture in which he lived. And that’s the “demon” haunting LMOF.
13/13
“Thou Shalt Not Kill,” one of Avraham Yehudah Chein’s key essays, explores three different versions of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”: Collectivist, Individualist/Egoist, and the Jewish-Instinctive model.
đź§µ 1/
“Thou shalt not kill,” he points out, can be a way of protecting the collective. Any individual lopped off the collective hurts the collective, so the imperative maintains its health and integrity. However, because the imperative serves the aims of the collective,
2/
it can also be suspended for the sake of the collective. This is essentially what happens not only in war, he says, but also in capital punishment: the individual is killed in order to prevent further violence within or against the collective.
3/
Read this book over shabbat (also the last six shabbatot, and during the week, and still only finished it after shabbat)
The book gives “portraits” of different “anarcho-Jewish” thinkers. Here’s the ToC, where they’re grouped as activists, mystics, and pacifists:
“Portrait” is the right term. Each 20–30-page chapter has a brief biography followed by thematic sections exploring different aspects of each thinker’s “Anarcho-Judaism,” that being Rothman’s term for their different fusions of Anarchism and Judaism, seeing Judaism as
Sovereignty Divine or Sovereignty Serpentine?
More on Rav Soloveitchik's Political Theology
đź§µ 1/
Rav Soloveitchik broadly sees human sovereignty as a necessarily evil, granted conditional legitimacy under certain specifications. But I want to talk about the moment before that, when he discusses why human sovereignty is fundamentally illegitimate.
2/
In framing human sovereignty as fundamentally illegitimate, Rav Soloveitchik makes two differing, and I think actually contradictory arguments: 1. Sovereignty is divine. 2. Sovereignty is serpentine.
3/
The Theo-Political Predicament of "The Emergence of Ethical Man"
đź§µ 1/
"The Emergence of Ethical Man" (EEM) doesn't depict a "State of Nature," but it does present a "religious anthropology" (xii), and this anthropology eventually gives rise to what he calls the "theo-political" society of the Mosaic covenant.
2/
First, some political theory:
The "State of Nature" is a thought experiment in modern political theory seeking to explain the natural situation which leads to and legitimizes civilization and the modern state. For Thomas Hobbes, this situation is "a war of all against all."
3/
Some notes on the insufficiency of revelation in Parshat Balak
1. "Don't go with them" "Go with them"
While the story paints Balaam as clearly in the wrong, it doesn't pretend he was violating a clear command. The basic thrust of the narrative insists that the command is not
1/
clear. God's will and revelation are not identical.
2. This leads into the next step of the drama. If revelation does not guarantee access to the divine will, what does? Maybe you should look elsewhere? Maybe *the donkey* knows? This sort of expansive divine will contra
2/
a more narrow but more explicit revelation is a deep underpinning in lots of texts, perhaps most famously in Hasidut.
3. On a meta-level, the whole idea that "a prophet is the bad guy" is just wild. Many medieval pens were broken trying to argue that this is impossible. But
3/
Theodicy and State Violence: Political Theology & Rav Shagar
THREAD
1/
Adam Kotsko usefully expands Carl Schmitt's definition of political theology thusly: Political theology deals, writ large, with analogies between the problem of evil and political legitimacy—theological and political *justification*—in a given culture. 2/
At first glance, Rav Shagar would seem to lack any such analogy. In "צחוק המגילה" he discusses both divine and state violence, and both exceed any form of rationale or justification. Yet divine absurdity simply elicits a corresponding human absurdity. 3/ preview.tinyurl.com/yy7z3gpz