A Contemporary, Empirical Perspective on Secular Studies

Let's talk a little bit about secular studies. To have the full discussion, so there would be different components to the discussion. One component would be ahistorical in the sense that it would discuss obviously through the prism of the Rishonim going back to Chazal, the place that chochmah occupies in the curriculum of a ben Torah. Should a ben Torah be studying chochmah? How much time should he be devoting to chochmah? And ahistorical in the sense that not a function of specific historical conditions at the time one lives, but the same conversation that could have happened in the twelfth century in Ashkenaz, in Sefarad, and in Provence. On the one hand, that discussion is ahistorical in that sense. On the other hand, interestingly enough, it's also subjective in that when all is said and done, what the answer is will very much depend upon the individual, not the individual because he's living in ה' תשפ"א, but the individual because of his techunas hanefesh, his kochos hanefesh, etc. And for that reason, it's probably not as productive to have that part of a conversation in a broader setting because at the end, it really needs to be individualized. But then there is very much a historical dimension to the conversation. Historical dimension factors that are relevant in the time that one lives, which weren't necessarily relevant in the time of the Chachmei Ashkenaz or the Chachmei Sefarad. Two of those historical factors: number one, parnassah. That many, many professions today, entree to those professions require advanced secular education. Even there, the conversation has to really distinguish between the personal level and the communal level. A person could arguably on a personal level say, I'm very, very good with my hands. Very good with my hands. I like fixing things, taking things apart, and I think I would be a very good car mechanic. So I want to go and I want to have a repair shop. So obviously if a person has those kochos and those netiyos, so that's very, very important and very, very relevant on the personal level. The Chovos HaLevavos writes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us all different types of kochos and all different types of netiyos because the world needs a wide variety of people. Society's not going to function if everyone's a doctor. Society's not going to function if everyone's an accountant. Society's not going to function if everyone's a lawyer. We need the variety. So how did Hakadosh Baruch Hu provide that that need should be met? He gave us different natural kochos. We all have different natural abilities and natural interests and temperament, and those point a person to so that's true on a personal level. But even if on a personal level, it may be true for a particular individual that the historical dimension The Jewish communal is well-served by having our own expert doctors, our own expert accountants, our own expert scientists. So, one would need to distinguish between the the personal level and the communal level. The other historical factor, and and this is what I just wanted to touch briefly upon, the other historical factor, meaning a factor which is present in in our day and may or may not have been present in earlier generations, is is the following. Let's begin with a mashal. We know that it's often the case that if there's a certain individual or maybe a certain group of people, maybe a certain institution, a certain school, and one has never encountered that individual, one's never encountered members of that group, one's never ever visited that that school, so often there are stereotypes associated, be it with the individual, be it with a certain group of people, be it with a certain school. Sometimes there's a kernel of truth to stereotypes and that explains how the the stereotype emerged in the first place, but it's virtually always guaranteed that that stereotypes are not nuanced and stereotypes sometimes they're totally off, but even if they're partially on target, it's it's very hard to imagine and and it would be a very very rare occurrence to have a stereotype which was really 100% accurate, on target. Most most stereotypes are are at best partially true, at best, and lav davka, lav davka partially true. So when a person encounters not the stereotype but the reality, so then the person sees. The person sees the nuances. The person sees shades of colors, sees a whole spectrum, doesn't just see extremes, doesn't just see black and white, sees nuances. The question that that we need to ask ourselves, for ourselves as as parents, as future parents, for for our children, is to what extent in our generation—and the question is an empirical sociological question. It's not a conceptual philosophical question. And the empirical sociological answer may not match up conceptually or philosophically, but a reality is a reality. An empirical reality, I think in in modern Hebrew there's an expression that haratzuy vehamatzuy don't always don't always converge. They don't always match and tally the way we would like them to or perhaps with a little bit of naivete expect them to. So the question that that we need to ask is absent secular education, absent that encounter, first-hand encounter with branches of secular wisdom, and often that also means the encounter with a secular world, often those two go hand in hand. Do we find that we, our children, have a correct, accurate, sufficiently nuanced understanding of the state of secular knowledge, of what's happening in the secular world, or do we just have a stereotypical understanding? Now again, the reason we said before that the question is a sociological and empirical one is that philosophically, conceptually, there's no reason for there to be any correlation between the two. Philosophically, conceptually, if one thinks about it again in the abstract, a person should be able in theory to have an appropriate, discriminating, and nuanced attitude towards secular knowledge even without encountering it firsthand. A person should be in a position to reject what masquerades as knowledge, but isn't knowledge, what's political correctness dressed up as knowledge, and what's legitimate chochmah? Conceptually, thinking about it in the abstract, there's no reason that a person has to encounter it to have that nuanced understanding, to have that appropriate discriminating understanding. And the same thing is true in terms of the secular world. A person in theory doesn't need to have been exposed to be able to be ready to filter and discriminate between the pseudos, between the bad, and whatever there is of value. But the question which needs to be asked and I pose it as a question for people to think about and to ponder and ultimately to answer for themselves is not philosophically or conceptually, but practically, empirically, sociologically, what do we find again, and this is one of the historical dimensions to the question, what do we find in our generation? Do we find again that ability to avoid just resorting to stereotype? And again, since stereotypes don't have nuances, they often then lead to extreme depictions. Or no, or no; maybe again as is theoretically possible, maybe practically it's also true that our generation has succeeded in not resorting to stereotypical characterizations and indiscriminate generalizations. No, maybe our generation has succeeded in that. And that's a crucial question to ask oneself because even if when one thinks about secular studies in the ahistorical perspective, what the role of chochmah is, a person says in terms of my kochos hanefesh, I hear it. I hear what the Rambam has to say about it and I hear what the Rama has to say about it and I hear what the Maharshal has to say and I hear what the chachmei Ashkenaz have to say about it. But in terms of my kochos hanefesh, okay, so I am where I am. And even according to the historical dimension of what it means for me on a personal level, even if neither of those... considerations legitimately point a person to the importance of secular studies for himself and or again at the next stage of life for one's children, it's crucial that we think about and look to answer, you know, again, not, it's not, it's not something that one can be a rocking chair scientist with because it's an empirical question, it's a sociological question, it's not a philosophical question. To what extent has our generation succeeded in having a correct nuanced discriminating, not discriminatory, right, discriminating, a correct nuanced discriminating understanding and grasp without firsthand exposure? And again, and just think in terms of the moshel, think in terms of the moshel, think why the question is a valid question and why it needs to be researched, how often it is that we hear oh so and so and then we're taught a certain stereotype or such and such a place, such and such an institution, and then when there's firsthand exposure, so then we have the correct balanced nuanced understanding. That's the question to be pondered and it's a question that I think everyone should seek to answer for himself. Okay rabosai, everyone should be well and safe, a gutten shabbos to everyone. kol tuv.