Wittgenstein, Bridge and Sport

There is a Judicial Review underway around whether Bridge should be classified as a sport or not.

My initial thought – as I’m sure would be the initial thought of anyone reading the article – is what would Wittgenstein say?

Sport England, taking its lead from the Council of Europe, defines a sport as an "activity aimed at improving physical fitness and well-being, forming social relations and gaining results in competition".

The later Wittgenstein wouldn’t countenance that any definition or analysis of the word “sport” (indeed, any word, meaning or function) that would act as a ‘rule’ that would satisfactorily cover all eventualities – classifying an activity in or out. 

Even if such rules were theoretically possible (which they aren’t), an ‘imposed’ definition such as the one from Sports England would not do justice in many cases as to how we actually use the term – what we do or do not in fact use “sport” in relation to. 

It makes sense to call Snooker a sport, but am not sure how much it is “aimed at improving physical fitness” or successful at doing so, in comparison to SAS training, which would not generally be thought of a sport

There is no “right” answer but nonetheless how we use the term (according to Wittgenstein) forms a ‘grammar’ of the term.  The grammar does firstly, mean that someone would look at you weirdly if you said “Pencil is a sport” – you would know that they cannot mean the same thing as you or that they are talking nonsense.  Secondly, it establishes some things as more representative of “sport” with others bearing more or less family resemblance to it.  Third, it will establish associations and disassociations with other concepts such as “hobby”, “leisure activity” and “game” 

Sports England argue: 

It has argued that bridge is no more of a sporting activity than "sitting at home, reading a book".

First thing, why couldn’t reading a book at home be a sport?  One could certainly come up with a scenario (e.g. multiple people reading the same book as fast as they can against the clock, and then answering 20 questions about it) where it might more plausibly thought of as so.

As such, Wittgenstein says there is no reason why one couldn’t call Book-Reading a sport.  Yet, they are probably right that the family resemblance is more like a second cousin-twice removed than an identical twin. Comparing bridge to book reading is a good rhetorical point, therefore, but probably a disservice (Bridge does at least have competition, for example)

My thoughts, in brief, then are:

1. If you were going to call Bridge a sport, first you would have to admit that it is not an archetypal sport; and second, go on to explain its family resemblance
2. Ultimately, if you were discussing it in the pub, people would “know what you mean” but someone else might be “you must be kidding, mate”.  Ultimately though, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other
3. Bridge players are therefore entitled to call it a sport but not sure they can simply do so because they want some funding from Sport England if they didn’t already.
4. Judges are entitled to decide whether there is any legal reason why it is somehow wrong to deny them funding (but seems dubious if on the basis that they are the right people to “define” the word(even if that were possible)
5. Sports England are too entitled to define who gets funding based on their mission and mandate, however defined, and this can well exclude bridge.  This though would not seem to depend on the meaning of a word.

If you were to press me though, Bridge isn’t a sport

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Ambivalences and Indifferences: PMQs

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  Being friends with dictators, fascists, anti-Semites, murderers and terrorists is something that  should disqualify him immediately.…  It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

To start with an ambivalence….  Prime Minister’s Question Time

Jeremy Corbyn introduced the “new politics” by creating a very civil question time, asking questions from the general public and without any of the bickering or theatre.

First ambivalent thing about this is the questions from the “public”.  It is of course, the public’s opinions that should be at the heart of politicians’ questions, and in their interests in which they serve.  It is also good that people ‘feel’ involved in politics.

Yet, these questions are never and never will be ones drawn from the tombola – otherwise why would one need a Jeremy Corbyn?  And, if the tombola selected one which was very searching of him, it would make for an odd result  

Now, given that there will be as diverse opinions as there are members of the public (and given that a great many of those would support the Conservatives, given the election result) the questions are presumably the ones Jeremy Corbyn himself wanted to ask.  And, if he wanted to ask them, why not just go ahead and do so?  What does adding that Nick, Steve or Maureen asked the questions contribute other than being its own bit of theatre?

Second, isn’t theatre the point of PMQs and isn’t that why people watch?

It is a good thing to have a sensible and sober analysis of policy and governmental action, focusing on the issues, working together where appropriate and weighing evidence. 

Yet, does this not happen already?  There are parliamentary debates highlighting the different points of view on bills going through the House.  There are parliamentary select committees with cross-party representatives scrutinising experts and outside witnesses.

And is this not already available to view?  People can watch serious politics all day long if they so chose on BBC Parliament. but I very much doubt that many do.

Yet, the “Punch and Judy show” of PMQs is watched (more) and does showcase what the different sides stand for.  People might “love to hate” PMQs but it is these exchanges that people tune in for.  Once the novelty of the new approach wears off, will the majority of people be even less engaged than before?

People should refrain from personal attacks, but fierce and entertaining attacks on the policies of another party is surely a key element in informing the public

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Ambivalences and Indifferences: Intro

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  Being friends with dictators, fascists, anti-semites, murderers and terrorists is something that  should disqualify him immediately.  This is not an issue of left or right, but of core values that underpin liberal democracy and more mundanely: common decency.  Pointing out the truth about someone’s allegiances is not a smear campaign, but a necessary expose of undesirable viewpoints. 

Nevertheless, one is in danger of quite a common thing: the truth is heard so much and is so obvious that people begin to disbelieve it (e.g. Hamas using human shields).  It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong.  People can jump on the small truths to ignore the big lies.  Part of people ultimately making the right decision will be based on a balanced view of what is being said.

Of course, the balanced view is simply my view.  Nevertheless, I feel compelled to think about the items I like, the items which (although others may think terribly important) I am rather indifferent about, the ambivalent items where I am pulled in many directions and the many dislikes.

As ambivalence is my primary emotion that will be my first port of call…

Hirsch and Kabbala II

Introduction

This is the follow-up to my post which- perhaps misleadingly- was called R' Hirsch against Kabbalah. 

Here I quoted from The Nineteen Letters Rav Hirsch’s view that, through misconception, Jewish observances had become “magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds”.  Seeing the concept of mitzvot as affecting “extra-mundane dream worlds” had led the mitzvot to be seen as mechanical devices for affecting the spiritual world

In contrast, one should view mitzvot as making man better able to fulfill a this-worldly mission.  The following is part of an interesting correspondence based on that post.

Adam

From all I've experienced of 'current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism' the entire kabalistic view of Jewish life and purpose is no different than the very non-kabalistic. Both hold the the point of life is to utilise this world for the sake of achieving something higher than this world. Both hold the way to do this is through indentifying the which decisions are the right decisions, conquering 'self' and consistently making the right choice not the easy choice.

Both hold this is done (only) in the realm of the physical, the ritual [although I am of the opinion that there is no act that is considered purely ritual in Judaism - every act has personal meaning and is performed to enhance the actor's relationship with Hashem - and not (only) in some lofty spiritual way, but in very 'real' (as if the other , isn't!) intellectual and emotional terms], the emotional and above all the day-to-day.

To suggest otherwise for either on behalf of one betrays a lack of knowledge of the other. (Not that I claim to have expertise in either, but just the opposite. It's clear to anyone who has had a little education in either that the above is true)

Also, I would suggest that the comments from R.Hirsch above are talking about those throughout history who pervert Kabalah by turning it into a pseudo-religion or who use it for personal benefit. who the past and current 'Chassidic and Charedi world' also disown. Obviously having not seen the text inside, this may be incorrect. Quotes in context will prove one way or the other.

Neil Clarke

You are both right and wrong here, Adam. The first point to reiterate is that, as I said in post, the issue is not with Kabbalah itself, whatever that actually means. The issue is with the beliefs that people (Orthodox Jews) teach as 'kabbalistic beliefs'.

How else can I use the word? What else shall we call the mystic teachings which he is rejecting?

The area, therefore, in which you are absolutely right, and I made the same point myself, is that there is nothing wrong with the 'sources' of Kabbalah and that mode of learning. You are further right that Hirsch bemoans the misunderstanding of those sources. He says that they "are an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud, which has unfortunately been misunderstood".

The question then is what the misunderstanding consists in, and this is where we will disagree. Hirsch is not saying that people have misinterpreted these other worlds, or been taught by the Kabbalah Centre! The misinterpretation lies in taking them to be·
talking about other worlds in the first place.

In their 'aggadic context' they are invaluable in helping us understand the world and leading to the purification and betterment of man. As such, a lot of the symbolism discussed in the Horeb is based on Zoharic explanations. But (just as he makes clear with regard to aggada generally) ones we take them as 'literal' we have misunderstood them.

Now you must admit that when elements of the chassidic and charedi worlds talk about 'other worlds' and utilise mystical explanations they take this, in some sense, literally. Now when I say 'literally' I'm not accusing anyone of crude anthropomorphism [or whatever the word is which builds those worlds in terms of our own] . This is why I said 'in some sense' they are 'real' worlds.

The real question is that does he think people have misunderstood the nature of these real worlds or does the misunderstanding consist in taking the kabbalistic sources to be talking about other worlds in the first place? I take it from your comments that you agree with the first, whereas I suggest the second.

When he comments on the Korbanot saying "they are neither a transitory concession to a generation still steeped in heathen views, nor do they form a chapter of kabbalistic, magical mysteries.... Their meaning and purpose is teaching the way to keep the ideals of the Torah". Here he first takes issue with Rambam (as he does often) and then with a kabbalistic view talking about the mysteries of the universe. If he accepts the Zoharic explanations but says they don't talk about mysteries of universe, then he is saying that to do so is a misunderstanding.

Both sides to the above question have been held. The first position, that whilst he didn't USE mystical teachings, he was in no way against them was held by Dayan Grunfeld and Rabbi Elias.

However, R' Danziger says the following:

"A non-apologetic reading Of Rav Hirsch’s words will indicate he is referring to two opposing, rather than complementary, approaches. He is not complaining that the ethical does not complement the extramundane. No amount of apologetics can get around the hard fact that Rav Hirsch calls the extramundane worlds of (what is in his opinion) “misconstrued” kabbalah “external DREAM-worlds”"

Also R' Aryeh Carmell on why he follows R' Hirsch in using the Zohar despite omitting mystical references:

"This too is not surprising when it is remembered that Kabbala itself is essentially an exploration of the internal world of the unconscious mind and especially of the non-ego layers of the human psyche." [hence why acceptable]

Misunderstanding in Good Faith

Here is a draft of an essay I have written about Rav Soloveitchik entitled:  “Misunderstanding in Good Faith: Confronting Rav Soloveitchik’s Position on Interfaith Dialogue”:

Soloveitchik Interfaith.docx

This essay is being written for Degel which is the academic journal of the Alei Tzion community in Hendon. 

It is currently quite long and unedited.  However, any suggestions more than welcome which you can send to onlynameleftever[at]gmail.com.

Happy (and possibly confusing) reading!

Pesach Thought 2: Immigrants and Strangers

[See Pesach Thought 1: Hesed and the Prisoners Dilemma]

There are certain ideas, fears, sayings, criticisms and dangers that arise in every generation.  For example, when do you think the following was written?

The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence [respect] for their parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint; They talk as if they alone know everything and what passes for wisdom in us foolishness in them. As for the girls, they are foolish and immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress

Yes, that’s right- Peter the Hermit in the 8th Century!  You can find similar quotes from Hesiod (8th C BCE), Socrates (4th C BCE) and Seneca (1st C CE).  Another thing that rears its ugly head every generation is the fear of the immigrant and the stranger.  They’ll become too mighty!  They’ll take our jobs!  Their loyalty lies elsewhere! We’ll be overrun! 

This was exactly the attitude of Pharoah towards the Ivrim who, as the name connotes, were a landless people and a tribe of nomads. He believed that they would “become even more numerous… [and] join our enemies”.  However, this wasn’t anti-semitism or anything against our group in particular, but from a general attitude.  One text of theirs says, “strangers from outside have come into Egypt… Foreigners have become people everywhere.”  The Egyptians used the name Habiru to any group of nomads and their records show that they used other groups in their construction projects. 

It is our treatment at the hands of the Egyptians that informs much of the Torah’s approach to morality.  Time and time again we get statements such as: “You shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, having been strangers in the land of Egypt.”  Having been immigrants in another land, we are implored to act towards immigrants in a more humane way than we experienced.  The Torah, of course, is not a liberal document and there is debate about which injunctions to love the stranger apply to converts, which to non-Jews who agree to follow the Noachide Laws (a Ger Toshav) and which to just anyone who lives amongst you.  If someone, at least meets the middle category, then we must treat them “with the consideration and deeds of loving-kindness due to a Jew, for we are commanded to sustain them…” (Maimonides)

Whatever the precise halakhic ramifications, the spirit is clear, as elaborated by Rav Hirsch:

Whether a country is to be considered just depends less on what rights it accords its citizen, who are in any case secure and well-represented, and more on what rights it confers upon defenceless strangers.  In Jewish law, the complete equality before the law of the stranger and the indigenous citizen is axiomatic.  It is not nationality which entitles a man to right, but the acknowledgement of human rights which grants nationality.

Pesach is the ultimate re-living of history, showing us that the fears and (potential) events of history are destined to be repeated in every generation.  As such, our past experience must inform our present attitudes.  Per R. Hirsch, our experience teaches that “Harshness and cruelty follow[] automatically, as they always do and will, once the basic concept of human rights and justice is perverted”. 

Not that this proves I’m not racist.

Not Racist

I don’t know much about immigration policy, and have no more than vague feelings about numbers of immigrants we should let in.  Personally, I’d feel uncomfortable with a fixed and potentially arbitrary quota.  Surely the focus should just be on what they are here to contribute.  Nonetheless, I approach the issue with an open mind.

One thing, however, David Cameron is certainly right about is that we should feel free to discuss such issues without the threat of being labelled “racist”.  If “cultural sensitivities” prevent discussion in polite society, it leaves it to the extremists to make a meal of what are genuine concerns.

Here is Cameron addressing one such concern:

But as well as abuse of the system, there are other problems with the family route. We know, for instance, that some marriages take place when the spouse is very young, and has little or no grasp of English. Again we cannot allow cultural sensitivity to stop us from acting. That's why last November we introduced a requirement for all those applying for a marriage visa to demonstrate a minimum standard of English

Language is an important enabler for integration into wider society and entry into a culture.  It allows for access to education and the workplace.  Through the media, it allows the free-flow of information, opinion and analysis.  It allows for joint projects and projects and identities amongst different groups of people. 

And yes, dare I say it, it is about being British and feeling a sense of belonging and loyalty to this country.  The country isn’t merely a hotel that provides services.  Rather than residing in self-segregated cultural ghettos, people should contribute to projects wider than their own group.

Obviously, this has nothing specifically to do with Britain or Britishness. Anglos often do the same forming isolated communities in France, Spain or Israel.  It is equally wrong there, and it constitutes a certain arrogance if English speakers refuse to learn the language of their host country. 

Of course, having a national identity doesn’t mean any group turning the back on their own individual identities.  The aim is what the Chief Rabbi calls “integration without assimilation”.  If you disagree, feel free to call me a racist, but perhaps I could just be plain-vanilla wrong.