Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: We are Free
We are free because we are not merely objects. We are subjects. We respond not just to physical events but to the way we perceive those events. We have minds, not just brains. We have thoughts, not just sensations. We can react but we can also choose not to react. There is something about us that is irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.
–Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
This description of the human being is so poignant to me. It’s so easy to get mired in the day-to-day yuckiness, obsessing about our difficulties, and stressing ourselves out. We forget that we are special: we have the power to think, contemplate and reason. We have the ability to learn, grow and improve ourselves, no matter what is going on. We are empowered to not only be successful (which can be measured in countless ways), but to help others achieve their dreams and overcome adversity.
It helps to remember that G-d created us in His image, and sees us as His co-creators; that’s pretty awesome stuff. In that role, we can look to each other to move our lives forward, to move the country forward and to benefit the world.
We are much more than we can imagine.
And we are free to experience it all.
Published in Group Writing
I like that quote Susan, and I would add that we are subjects with a soul, a spirit that belongs to God. I was prompted to think of that with all this AI sh– going on!! I wonder how free we will actually be ….
Yes, FSC, let’s remember our soul and spirit, too. Your point about freedom is valid!
Fascinating that you posted this, today. My post (also today) on initial thoughts on Dr Jordan Peterson’s latest book, We Who Wrest With God, also takes the “man as co-creators” perspective. No doubt because Peterson is examining closely the Hebrew text and consulting with Jewish scholars. This is in apparent contradistinction with C.S. Lewis’ description of God’s omniscience:
I pulled the quote from an article by Matthew Chicoine that I found while unsuccessfully searching for a different C.S. Lewis quote from my memory. Interestingly, Chicoine explained this quote by referencing his own experience as a father in giving his children certain choices and correctly anticipating which choices they would make. They were free to choose (to “create”) but he knew what they would choose (“create”). He attributes that anticipation not to impinge on freedom, but to correctly predict its exercise. So the question really arises whether God knows the choices that will be made (C.S. Lewis) or whether God can see all of the potential choices and, by knowing mankind correctly, predicts its exercise?
Again, from Jewish theology, G-d is outside of time, but that is separate from his decision to not know our choices. He could have chosen to know, but chose not to. There are so many times in Torah when people did what they shouldn’t have done. Would G-d have stopped them if he knew what they would do, or would he let their free will reign?
Yes, we can choose. G-d wants us to choose rightly. Perhaps some of us don’t want that burden, or probably all of us don’t want it at some point.
*******
This post is part of the Quote of the Day group writing project at Ricochet. There are a few days left to signup in January. For those who want to plan ahead for February, the next month’s QOTD signup sheet is here: https://ricochet.com/1775161/february-2025-quote-of-the-day-signup-sheet/.
Everyone likes the spirit of Sacks’ comment, but I don’t think it holds up as reason.
If somehow his last sentence does logically follow from his observations, then I don’t see it. I think it’s an error to say that anything, including our own consciousness, must be supernatural because we can’t explain it. That’s arrogance.
Regarding today and the future, we are free to act however we choose. However, when looking at the past, we see the hand of God in every choice we made.
He didn’t use the word, supernatural. You did. I’d say he was simply saying that we are so much more than we can imagine. But we sense that quality, feel our way into, draw from it, to deepen our lives.
Typo on “supernatural”?
(Do we blame autocorrect? I’m sure autocorrect deserves it.)
I didn’t get the impression Sacks was saying that “There is something about us that is irreducible to material, physical causes and effects” was a conclusion from his preceding sentences. It looked like an explanation of a viewpoint to me, not an argument.
Oh, it was a typo, all right!! I did mean to repeat supernatural. And I think it expanded on what he’d already said, and wasn’t intended to be an argument.
Puh-leeze. He said “irreducible to material, physical causes and effects.” That is super-natural. That is what he was “simply saying.”
Why assume that all natural things are physical?
Some very important philosophies, e.g. Aristotle’s, say otherwise. It’s not old-fashioned either; every hylomorphist philosopher says natural things include non-physical things. Hylomorphism is the majority view in the history of philosophy, and still a (currently minority but important) position these days.
Anyway, the important thing is: I think he did not mean it as a conclusion. Supernaturalism or not–it was further elaboration of his view, not a conclusion to the preceding sentences.
(Had I world enough and time and a page or two of context, I could reconsider this!)
I understand your … objection, I guess, I know there’s a better word. I was hoping to hold you in abeyance while I responded to Susan’s thread, which was easier to handle.
How about if I sidestep the supernatural question and say instead
I’ve never known anyone to say that.
What is your issue about supernatural? Here is a definition:
The meaning of SUPERNATURAL is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. How to use supernatural in a sentence.
When we connect with G-d, relate to him, and some people even speak with him, is that not supernatural? Why don’t you tell me what you think instead of just criticizing Rabbi Sacks?
Oh, I don’t think God has to “predict” anything. He knows, and is not limited by time.