Psychotherapy is basically the attempt to help people who are experiencing psychological stress or suffering by using conversation to help them improve their behaviors, and thus, the quality of their life experiences.
In science, it is extremely important, if not integral, to approach something with NO preconceived notion. Any preconception is a form of cognitive bias, which could easily lead someone to come to faulty conclusions.
Nowhere is this more evident than when Judaism coincides with psychotherapy. Because, for all its historical problems, psychotherapy, at least, was trying to help people in the best way it could given the understanding of the times. And, as science progresses, we can get better at helping people.
Religion and dogma, on the other hand, attempts to throw a monkey wrench into the entire premises of psychotherapy. Moshe Halevi Spero wrote a book Handbook of Psychotherapy and Jewish Ethics (Jewish ethics = a misnomer, in my opinion). In it, he attempts to show a "Halakhic Perspective on Jewish Values and Techniques" regarding therapy.
You would think that the simple humanistic intention to help people would be all you need to do therapy. But it seems that Mr. Spero wants to highlight what should be "added" to this field, in his opinion. On page 112-113, he says:
... one notes that Halakhah cannot accept the view that man is not born free but subservient to genes and education. Jewish ethics recognizes these influences, and accepts the notion of relative attenuation of personal freedom in cases of pathology and during some stages of development, but cannot accept that man's creative and regressive potentials are exhausted by rudimentary psychophysiological endowments or environmental influences. It also considers education and training as ways to facilitate wise and prudent choices and the purposeful use of personal freedom ... It recognizes the need for balance between complete autonomy and dependence, but cannot accept continuously supplanting individual choice with external control.
First of all, psychotherapy is about not only helping the patient, but ideally, allowing the patient to come to the understanding that they can help themselves, and allowing that understanding to empower them to further heights of confidence and comfort. What does the philosophic "view" of whether we have free will or not have anything to do with that?
Second of all, we probably do NOT have free will, at least not in the libertarian sense of "absolute free will." I'm not even convinced we have any free will, though some atheists such as Dan Dennet are compatibilists, which mean they have some "version" of free will that they espouse. Regardless of what the actual truth is, how would this affect therapy? Whether we have free will or not, this wouldn't affect anything, because even if we don't have free will, we would still simply act as if we do. That's how we act all the time. In fact, if we don't have free will, we couldn't act otherwise.
So why this fixation on "free will"? Because believe it or not, the entire religion of Judaism comes crashing down if there is no free will. Judaism's entire premise is that Hashem created the universe to test man, and thus, "free will" is obviously the key component. In order to "test" anyone, he needs to be able to choose. If he cannot choose ... the test falls apart, and the entire point of creating a universe is shown to be completely silly.
Hence, the insistence by Spero about how Halakhah "cannot" accept that humans are literally effects from former causes which they had absolutely no control over. Once you accept the "Jewish" premise with no evidence, everything falls into place. Man's mental health and well-being are no longer important - rather, his subservience to Halakhic actions are the entire point of everything. So even if it makes the patient depressed, mad, suicidal ... that's all fine, under a Halakhic view. Those hormones and neurology are a mere "relative attenuation" of personal freedom, and said freedom must continue to be cultivated. And if you ultimately cannot bring yourself to be happy while being an observant Jew ... well, obviously you have a moral failing, and you need to work on yourself even more. This is because human wellbeing is secondary to man exercising his "free will" to God's whims.
In this light, it's obvious why Spero can title chapters such as, "An Examination of the Halakhic Status of Homosexuality: Female Homosexual Behavior, And Homosexuality as Oness" - without even realizing how offensive that sentence is. Homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, and the fact that he attempts to label it as an "Oness" (roughly defined as someone who has diminished responsibility according to Halakhic status, and thus, cannot be prosecuted) is in fact divisive, even if it was well-intentioned.
The secular-humanist view is based on rationality and evidence, and the axioms about enhancing human well-being. This is what makes it far superior to Judaism. In a secular view, the patient is the most important being, the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes health, and everything in the psychotherapy is centered around that. Adherence to the patient's mental-health is what drives the therapy ... not outward allegiance to a static, fixed dogma that cares more about what you do ... than who is actually doing it.
In science, it is extremely important, if not integral, to approach something with NO preconceived notion. Any preconception is a form of cognitive bias, which could easily lead someone to come to faulty conclusions.
Nowhere is this more evident than when Judaism coincides with psychotherapy. Because, for all its historical problems, psychotherapy, at least, was trying to help people in the best way it could given the understanding of the times. And, as science progresses, we can get better at helping people.
Religion and dogma, on the other hand, attempts to throw a monkey wrench into the entire premises of psychotherapy. Moshe Halevi Spero wrote a book Handbook of Psychotherapy and Jewish Ethics (Jewish ethics = a misnomer, in my opinion). In it, he attempts to show a "Halakhic Perspective on Jewish Values and Techniques" regarding therapy.
You would think that the simple humanistic intention to help people would be all you need to do therapy. But it seems that Mr. Spero wants to highlight what should be "added" to this field, in his opinion. On page 112-113, he says:
... one notes that Halakhah cannot accept the view that man is not born free but subservient to genes and education. Jewish ethics recognizes these influences, and accepts the notion of relative attenuation of personal freedom in cases of pathology and during some stages of development, but cannot accept that man's creative and regressive potentials are exhausted by rudimentary psychophysiological endowments or environmental influences. It also considers education and training as ways to facilitate wise and prudent choices and the purposeful use of personal freedom ... It recognizes the need for balance between complete autonomy and dependence, but cannot accept continuously supplanting individual choice with external control.
First of all, psychotherapy is about not only helping the patient, but ideally, allowing the patient to come to the understanding that they can help themselves, and allowing that understanding to empower them to further heights of confidence and comfort. What does the philosophic "view" of whether we have free will or not have anything to do with that?
Second of all, we probably do NOT have free will, at least not in the libertarian sense of "absolute free will." I'm not even convinced we have any free will, though some atheists such as Dan Dennet are compatibilists, which mean they have some "version" of free will that they espouse. Regardless of what the actual truth is, how would this affect therapy? Whether we have free will or not, this wouldn't affect anything, because even if we don't have free will, we would still simply act as if we do. That's how we act all the time. In fact, if we don't have free will, we couldn't act otherwise.
So why this fixation on "free will"? Because believe it or not, the entire religion of Judaism comes crashing down if there is no free will. Judaism's entire premise is that Hashem created the universe to test man, and thus, "free will" is obviously the key component. In order to "test" anyone, he needs to be able to choose. If he cannot choose ... the test falls apart, and the entire point of creating a universe is shown to be completely silly.
Hence, the insistence by Spero about how Halakhah "cannot" accept that humans are literally effects from former causes which they had absolutely no control over. Once you accept the "Jewish" premise with no evidence, everything falls into place. Man's mental health and well-being are no longer important - rather, his subservience to Halakhic actions are the entire point of everything. So even if it makes the patient depressed, mad, suicidal ... that's all fine, under a Halakhic view. Those hormones and neurology are a mere "relative attenuation" of personal freedom, and said freedom must continue to be cultivated. And if you ultimately cannot bring yourself to be happy while being an observant Jew ... well, obviously you have a moral failing, and you need to work on yourself even more. This is because human wellbeing is secondary to man exercising his "free will" to God's whims.
"I'm a Jewish therapist. Lie down, and I'll tell you what you should be feeling."
In this light, it's obvious why Spero can title chapters such as, "An Examination of the Halakhic Status of Homosexuality: Female Homosexual Behavior, And Homosexuality as Oness" - without even realizing how offensive that sentence is. Homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, and the fact that he attempts to label it as an "Oness" (roughly defined as someone who has diminished responsibility according to Halakhic status, and thus, cannot be prosecuted) is in fact divisive, even if it was well-intentioned.
The secular-humanist view is based on rationality and evidence, and the axioms about enhancing human well-being. This is what makes it far superior to Judaism. In a secular view, the patient is the most important being, the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes health, and everything in the psychotherapy is centered around that. Adherence to the patient's mental-health is what drives the therapy ... not outward allegiance to a static, fixed dogma that cares more about what you do ... than who is actually doing it.
Comments
Post a Comment