The Promethean desire The intellectual roots of the 20th century from Rousseau to Foucault / David Ohana. Mossad Bialik Publishing House, 440 pages, NIS 138.50
Michel Rebel
Dr. David Ohana's book "The Promethean Desire" presents us with an in-depth picture of the forces that guide the cultural, moral and scientific development of humanity in the modern era. He very cleverly describes the complexity of these forces and how the different ideologies work in history and cause distortions, sometimes disasters, in the line of development. Since I am not a historian but
A scientist, I will choose to address only one aspect of the book, which is the analysis of the forces driving scientific research.
Already from the discussion in the first chapter, the statement emerges that the development of science is guided more by man's desire to be his own master than by his aspiration for progress and the correction of the world, which are supposed to be the main promises of the Enlightenment. Science has become a tool through which modernity seeks to give man power and independence, and the result is that man controls
in his destiny and society's destiny and marches in directions other than the correction of the world according to moral and religious values. It is hard not to feel that the "Promethean passion" is actually expressed in science, and perhaps it is science.
Wasn't Prometheus the father of human technology, and used it to rebel against the gods, as the author mentions at the beginning of his book: "Prometheus was gradually the symbol of man putting himself in the place of divinity and even pretending to create man in his own image."
And how does Prometheus deal with the gods? Being "the representative of the human race who steals the fire from the gods and spreads the light of knowledge and reason among mankind..." (p. 3). Fire, the most basic technological tool, is a sign of rebellion because "Prometheus' search for light and his struggle to obtain fire embodied... man rebelling against arbitrary forces outside himself."
And these arbitrary forces are not only the idols of ancient Greece but also the biblical divinity towards which the quote by the German philosopher Fichte is directed in the name of modernity: "You need nothing outside of yourself, not even God. you yourself
Your God is yours." The discussion raises the question: Are science and technology necessarily a rebellion against G-d
And religious values? And another question: Is there still a role for the recognition of the divine absolute in the age of science? And a final question, which also emerges from the discussions in the book: Is it possible to deal with the moral and existential dangers that science and technology seem to often pose, for example following the discovery of nuclear energy or engineering
genetic?
Is science and technology a rebellion against God? There are, as we know, different positions regarding the relationship between science and the traditional religions of mankind, and they are: uncompromising conflict between science and religion; complete separation between the fields and mutual disregard; And alternatively, cooperation between them. Personally, I am closer to the position that sees religions (including a large part of philosophies) as a basis for moral thought that defines: A - the essence of "good", and B - the way in which science can be used for the benefit of man as a whole. For this, science needed ethics, and the definition of the laws of ethics in any group of people depends very much on the worldviews offered to this group by the religious, philosophical and cross-cultural traditions.
The field of relations between science and religion is vast. But here we will limit ourselves to a glimpse of the discussion about the "Promethean" nature of science and technology, as a rebellion against the gods, whose goal is to liberate man. An echo of this claim is clearly heard today when one wonders, for example, if genetic engineering is not an attempt to put ourselves in the place of God and play the role of the creator. As soon as man discovers science, does he rebel against God's will? Are there other answers about the role of science?
It's interesting to start with the symbol of Prometheus' rebellion, the fire that he "stole" from the gods, this important technological tool that apparently was not supposed to be in the hands of man. The Talmud refers to the question of the source of fire in the discussion in the Passover treatise of the Babylonian Talmud (page 45a).
The question that is discussed in this issue is: Why do we bless the fire on Shabbat night (in the Hafdalah ceremony)? Among Rabbi Yossi's answers, this one stands out: "The fire and the coals are not from the six days of Genesis, but are more important than the six days of Genesis... Datanya Rabbi Yossi says: On Shabbat evening, the Almighty gave a view of man as a kind of example of a higher one and brought two stones and ground each other and light came out of them, and brought Two beasts and he put them together and a mule came out of them..." And in his translation, Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz explains what "an opinion is a kind of example of excellence", the one "that has the power of creation and creation". According to this Jewish view, the fire was not stolen in man's rebellion against the Creator, but on the contrary: God gave a view in man, that he would also
He creates and creates, because he was created in the image of God. As Maimonides says in the Sefer al-Hamad, "Halchots Yesodi HaTorah":4, 8, "Man will be made in our image after our likeness, meaning that he will have a form that knows and grasps the opinions." With this opinion, man invented fire. Therefore, the fire was not created by the Creator in the framework of the creation that preceded man, but was created by man, on Shabbat evening in Genesis, when human history began. And on top of that, the fire is used as a blessing in distinguishing between Shabbat and Hol, meaning that technology itself is a blessing. And not only fire is mentioned, but the technology that is perhaps the most talked about these days, genetic engineering, which gives man the power to produce animal species, such as the mule, which is a cross between a horse and a donkey. There is definitely a concept here that can be defined as "anti-Promethean".
In Israeli thought, man is considered a partner in the act of Genesis. The contemporary Jewish philosopher, Avraham Heshel, expresses this well: "God needs man because He willingly made him a partner in his actions, a partner in the act of Genesis (...) From the first day of creation, God wanted a partnership with the world below... and therefore 'They made me a temple and my neighbor among them'" ("Between God and Man, p. 14).
Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik describes in his book "Ish Hamona" how the Torah defines two faces to man. One aspect, in the first chapter, is "in the image of God created him" and commanded him "and fill the earth and conquer it". The second part in the second chapter "And they will be placed in heaven to serve and guard".
The rabbi (who here gives a wonderful example of studying the Bible to its conceptual depth) sees in the first aspect "Adam A" who is the creative scientist: "There is no doubt that the term "in the image of God" in the description of A refers to man's power as a creator. (...) The first man - in the image of God - was blessed with great enthusiasm to produce and create, and with the powers to accomplish this goal, with the most prominent power being intelligence, the human intellect (...) "And he will lack a little of God, and you will adorn him with honor and glory" (Psalms, 6).
Magnificence is interpreted in man's ability to govern his environment and control it. The ancient man who could not fight diseases (...) did not have citrus. Only the person who builds hospitals, discovers healing methods and saves human lives, is blessed with the degree of respect. Man A is engaged in a creative craft out of an aspiration to resemble his creator.. The modern scientist does not try to clarify nature, he multiplies it, fertilizes it..." And against this: "The second person: his interest towards questions of the metaphysical type. He wants to know why? what is? who is Why was the world created? What does the big challenge mean? Who influences me? Love and fear (...) The revealed God and the hidden God (...) Adam B accepts and preserves the world as in Genesis."
But, the rabbi continues: "The Torah is essentially dialectical and is based on the fact that Adam A and Adam B are not two different people but one person who is in conflict within himself. The 'I' of person A stands against the 'I' of person B. In every person there are two: Adam A is creative and majestic, Adam B is humble and submissive. No matter how big the gap may be, we must all identify as a complete person consisting at the same time of a man who is the creator of a king and a man who is a benefactor (...) God created two people and a time for both of them. To reject one of man's views is like denying the plan of Genesis that God called 'very good'" (...) Man A learned from Adam B's custom, and wants to succeed on the spiritual side as well: "He excels not only in science but also in the ethical-moral and aesthetic field" .
If the two opposite faces in a person come together in a pairing of opposites that complement each other, the person truly becomes a partner in the act of Genesis. And according to the Zohar, this is the deep meaning of being "with God", as it is written in Isaiah (16:51): "'To plant the heavens and the foundation of the earth, and to say to Zion, You are my people'": that is, you are my people, in partnership. I began the worlds and you finish them" (Zohar Genesis XNUMX in the scale, page XNUMX and page XNUMX, in the commentary of Rabbi Ashlag). We don't play to be God, but that is man's destiny and mission.
And to the question of whether there is another role for the recognition of the divine absolute in the age of science. The completion of the creation of the world is first of all the completion of man himself and the correction of society. But, Ohana reminds us, "Prometheus also claims to create man in his image", and he asks "is the old desire to create a new man on our own connected with the death of God?"
And in mentioning the golem that, according to legend, the Maharal of Prague made, a golem that stood up for its maker, he says that "Gershom Shalom deduced this from the story of the golem on whose forehead is written the Lord God is true." The letter A fell, and "dead" remained. And Prof. Shalom did compare the Golem to science when he said that the first computer built at the Weizmann Institute of Science was similar to the Golem from Prague. The claim that "God is dead" is a claim made by Nietzsche and that many modern scientists strive to find in science the basis for all the values on which human society is founded. But Nietzsche himself did not believe in science as a value.
If science alone determines the values, then there is no escape from seeing religious morality - which in almost all religions is commanded to help the weak and sick and to behave with mercy and compassion towards everything - as an antithesis to the laws of nature revealed by science. Helping the weak and the sick means acting against the strong law of survival, which is the law of nature. Therefore in this view, religion is the enemy and maybe it is not needed at all in the age of modernity. And Ohana rightly states that "religious ethics was converted into the theory of the laws of nature" (p. 13).
This was started by the Greeks and Socrates, who put human reason and science in God's place when he said, "The man who knows by his reason what is good will refrain from doing evil." Human reason, i.e. science, is sufficient to determine what is good.
On the other hand, Baruch Spinoza, the philosopher who perhaps freed man more than anyone from the irrationality of belief, actually emphasized that the origin of morality is not in man or nature but in divine consciousness when he stated: "The good that every man desires for himself
Moral, he will ask for other human beings, and this to a greater degree the greater divine consciousness he has" ("Ethics", Part IV, Proposition "(37)
Why bring God in here? Because morality cannot be based on the laws of nature. And especially the root of morality is wanting the good for other human beings, that is, knowing the other person and his rights given to him as he is also in the image of God. Even in his weakness, in his differences, in his complete difference from me, the other is in the image of God, and I am commanded to preserve human dignity as much as possible. Even against natural reason. In this way I also command to preserve the world, the environment, because to change it only for the sake of the interests I define, may certainly harm another. The divine consciousness that Spinoza asks for is to recognize that I am not the owner of the house, but only a participant in something greater than myself.
Precisely in relation to others, the disadvantage of converting religious ethics into the laws of nature stands out. It's quite pathetic to see how sociobiological scientists try to understand how altruism came into human consciousness, how genetic evolution found a way to preserve a trait that works against personal benefit. A much easier answer is that concern for others is not a natural trait, but acquired through culture and education and originates in divine consciousness. "Why is he called a nerd even though you were a nerd? What is he called merciful even though you were merciful" (Rambam Haluchot De'ot, 6)
And in addition, science cannot talk about value except in the sense of the benefit of the general, because the private interest cannot stand against the benefit of the general and negate it. But the religious value seeks to respect the individual above the anonymous rule, as Maimonides says: "You don't learn from the rule because everyone is an exception. When they say all, they mean how many, so general conclusions should be avoided" (Commentary on the Mishnah, Kiddoshin 92a, 43a).
If every person is an exception, is he not free from nature? And as proof that these values are indeed accepted by today's scientists and bring them to the realization that man should not be reduced to the cruel laws of nature (because there is no mercy in them) but to declare the sanctity of man above nature, we can observe the way in which an international committee warns against the thought that man is dictated by these genes: "To all One has the right to preserve his dignity and human rights, regardless of his genetic makeup. Human dignity commands not to reduce the individual to his genetic traits, and to preserve his uniqueness and diversity (The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, UNESCO's International Committee on Bioethics, Section B)".
To the question of how to deal with the dangers of modern science: Ohana emphasizes the connection between the myth of Prometheus and the myth of Faust (who, according to Goethe, "represents the development of the human race"). Just as Faust makes a pact with Satan, many commentators have also pointed out similarities between Prometheus and Satan (p. 7). And at the same time one can wonder: has science made an alliance with the devil, that is, with evil? Does the modern man want so much to control himself and decide his own destiny, that he sells his soul to the devil and is ready to release the forces of evil to achieve his goal?
The question can, for example, be asked again in connection with the progress of genetics and the decoding of the human genome, which is sometimes presented (mistakenly) as a kind of formula for the creation of a new person. Then the legendary figures of the Golem from Prague and Frankenstein appear to frighten us in the face of the dangers of science. Ohana analyzes these dangers well: "Following the success of cloning a sheep, the issue of improving traits through genetic engineering came up for discussion... changing the balance of male and female numbers, choosing the sex of the newborn, targeting desirable traits, conditioning a new person and duplicating it (...) The Nazis' eugenics experiments There were the first buds of a distorted reality, in which dehumanization takes place at a time when modernity is rising over the Enlightenment" (p. 23). History indeed shows that modern man has not learned what the progress promised by scientific progress is - progress and enlightenment that were supposed to be good for man, and instead came the diabolical evil of Nazi racism.
And here the question arises, is there still a chance for progress? To answer it, one must first recognize that scientific progress itself does not pretend to guide man how to use the new powers offered to him. Science has no moral content. Secondly, the Nazis committed their crimes not because of the scientific knowledge of genetics but because of opinions
Qualifications and hatred of foreigners and the weak.
Even those who propose to use replication technology and genetic knowledge in order to change man, to create a new man, do so out of a mistaken belief in genetic dictation, in biological determinism. Eugenics, a theory from the 19th century, is an attempt by society to impose on the individual classification and discrimination according to hereditary traits. Eugenics offers a kind of "genetic hygiene", through the extermination or at least sterilization of those groups considered subhuman, and historical researchers have already shown the connection between the eugenic views in the United States of the XNUMXs and Nazism.
There is no scientific basis for genetic dictation, and the personal and behavioral traits of each individual are equally influenced by education and environment. The tremendous development of human culture since its inception does not result at all from genetic changes in Homo sapiens but rather from the transmission of knowledge and traditions, religions and philosophies that have been cultivated from generation to generation in the various groups of Homo sapiens on earth. The way to improve man is not in genetics but in education and the enrichment of the environment. Any eugenic theory can only be a source of discrimination and vicious racism. But the evil is in man and not in science.
As mentioned, science is morally neutral. Every scientific and technological invention can be used for good or bad. This is perhaps the main justification for seeing the tree of knowledge as good and bad - a symbol of knowledge, because knowledge can be good or bad, according to what one chooses to do with it, from fire through nuclear energy to genetic engineering.
And yet there is room for hope: it seems that humanity has succeeded, in the last thirty years, in establishing mechanisms capable of ensuring that the progress of science is used for the benefit of the individual. First, the Pogtash Conference was established, the purpose of which was to ensure the utilization of power
nuclear for civilian peaceful purposes. After that, bioethical committees were established that operate today in almost every hospital, above them a national committee operates in every country, and above them international committees such as those of the European Community and UNESCO.
The committees give their opinion on what is allowed and what is not allowed to be done with the new genetic knowledge and set guidelines for doctors and scientists. In general, the guidelines allow the use of genetic technologies in humans only for medical purposes of the individual, and without social dictates. This is because it was recognized that if society can decide what is good and what is bad genetically, then the danger of eugenics is very great.
But application, by the individual, of genetic testing and of the ability to decide whether or not to give birth to an embryo with genetic defects is not eugenics. The individual's decision must be free and autonomous, accompanied by expert genetic counseling
medical. Each case must be considered on its merits, because what is true in these circumstances may be different in other circumstances. The counseling must also take into account the different cultures and religions. The purpose must be a medical operation designed to treat a disease or defect known to medicine. Choice of physical attributes or illusion of influence on mental attributes are not medical indications. The bioethical committees constantly examine the issues, and being made up of scientists, lawyers, thinkers and religious people together with public representatives, they are ethically and morally balanced.
The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas defined the role of these scientific control committees: "The proper agreement, on theoretical issues and practical moral questions, cannot be achieved by coercion, whether it is the constraints of deductive logic or empirical proofs." In other words, it is not human reason nor facts that have not been fully proven that determine, but the pluralistic moral consensus on which the members of the committee manage to agree. It may be a compromise but it is the only hope for enlightenment.
Modernity, as far as what man does, is a challenge that must be faced. Do not decide that she sold her soul to the devil. Andre Nahar, one of the prominent Jewish thinkers of the post-Holocaust period, analyzes in his book "Faust and the Maharal from Prague", from which Ohana quotes, Faust's satanic passion compared to the Jewish Maharal's approach to science. Indeed, he says, there is a challenge here: "Let us become man, is God's call to man to say let us make man, you and me (...) God's great challenge to himself that he reduces when he introduces into creation a creature that has freedom of choice (...) and as he says, I wish he would stand The world" (according to Midrash Rabbah, 4, 9.
There is no assurance that we will succeed, but there is hope if we hear the divine call "Let us become a man" that unites all of us, human beings. The sin of the first man, says the Zohar, was not that he ate from the tree of knowledge, but that he ate from it alone, not together with the tree of life and with all the trees in the garden (Genesis XNUMX in Scale page XNUMX). Man can achieve science, but he must merge and combine it with all the values of life. And within these values, for the Jew the Torah is the tree of life for those who hold it.
At the end of his book, Ohana rightly emphasizes the importance of the individual, and the philosopher Michel Foucault's conclusion that progress is achieved by and for the individual. One must be careful of the illusion of a universal humanism that does not recognize "all the trees in the garden" as the best medicine to digest and internalize the terrible power of science.
The author is one of the senior researchers in the field of genetic engineering and the human genome
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~304534738~~~42&SiteName=hayadan
