The Doubt-Sharing Buddy
Today I met for lunch with Asher, my doubt-sharing buddy.
This relationship is a direct parody of the "faith-sharing buddy" relationship explicitly organized and supported for voluntary participants in the Madhouse. Nevertheless, I think we both intend to undertake our discussions seriously.
It so happened that he ran into Davy-Bell today--it's good that they met. One day, the swollen, low-hanging cloud of differing opinions about mutual interests might burst between them, but it was not the time nor place to my right to instigate. Instead, I waited while they spoke together in Hebrew. I'm sure Asher can see the cloud now--unless he simply doesn't care.
It was interesting for me anyways.
After Davy left, we talked for a bit about things of common interest. Eventually, I brought up what I thought would be an appropriate first doubt-sharing subject--why I'm not a Christian and why he's not a Jew.
It led to a point I'd thought of before, but not have new thoughts on, thanks to him. The question is about whether self-identification as an X ought to qualify one to be X.
As I've mentioned before, having self-identification as X be the necessary and sufficient property of X is ridiculous.
But what about self-identification being necessary, but not sufficient? Social acceptence would then be the other criteria.
But then what of the person who identifies as X, but whom nobody else identifies as such?
Or what of the person who does not identify as X, but whom everybody else identifies as such?
Asher said he was a case-in-point of the latter. He says the Jews on campus "won't let him go," but he wants out. Is he a Jew?
It seemed paradoxical to me at the time, but I think I have a solution...which unfortunately I don't have time to answer right now. Dinner calls. But maybe another time.
This relationship is a direct parody of the "faith-sharing buddy" relationship explicitly organized and supported for voluntary participants in the Madhouse. Nevertheless, I think we both intend to undertake our discussions seriously.
It so happened that he ran into Davy-Bell today--it's good that they met. One day, the swollen, low-hanging cloud of differing opinions about mutual interests might burst between them, but it was not the time nor place to my right to instigate. Instead, I waited while they spoke together in Hebrew. I'm sure Asher can see the cloud now--unless he simply doesn't care.
It was interesting for me anyways.
After Davy left, we talked for a bit about things of common interest. Eventually, I brought up what I thought would be an appropriate first doubt-sharing subject--why I'm not a Christian and why he's not a Jew.
It led to a point I'd thought of before, but not have new thoughts on, thanks to him. The question is about whether self-identification as an X ought to qualify one to be X.
As I've mentioned before, having self-identification as X be the necessary and sufficient property of X is ridiculous.
But what about self-identification being necessary, but not sufficient? Social acceptence would then be the other criteria.
But then what of the person who identifies as X, but whom nobody else identifies as such?
Or what of the person who does not identify as X, but whom everybody else identifies as such?
Asher said he was a case-in-point of the latter. He says the Jews on campus "won't let him go," but he wants out. Is he a Jew?
It seemed paradoxical to me at the time, but I think I have a solution...which unfortunately I don't have time to answer right now. Dinner calls. But maybe another time.