At fifteen, I consider going off the derech. I'm not particularly enjoying my lifestyle as it is, and I think I would fit in much better among the "cool" kids. I'm not outstanding at all right now, but maybe that would make them pay attention and start caring about me. At the very least it would show them how much I'm hurting, and maybe they'll learn a lesson. And besides, I really do wonder what it would be like to be someone different.
I do a little cost-to-benefit comparison and end up just about equally drawn in both directions. Then I ponder what would happen if I made the wrong decision:
If I stay frum and in five years I realize I've made a mistake and there's nothing here after all, I can stop right then. A few more years down the drain, but not such a big deal.
If I go off and in five years I realize I've made a mistake, I will have lost all my old friends, estranged my parents, and nobody will want to marry me. My name would be tainted forever.
On that basis, I decide to go with the program, at least until I can figure out what the best path for me really is. It feels like a solid decision, purely logical. I feel a surge of pride -- who would have expected this from the girl known for impulsivity and poor judgment?
It still isn't fun to be a nobody in the frum world, but my mind is at peace because I know I've made the smartest decision of my life so far.
5 comments:
not logical, rational.
it is rational not to go off the derech in order not to lose your friends/family. logical would be if it made sense for you to stay frum (or not frum).
Rationalization is just that; doing a cost-benefit analysis and picking one.
But then again, its just semantics as you rationalized staying frum
Like the open frankness of this blog. Just wondered...how do you feel now? Do you think that you made the right choice?
Harry-er, I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I don't think it was rationalization, I just picked the choice that made the most sense.
Floating, yes I'm quite sure I did.
i'm not using rationalization in the classical sense.
There is a famous argument for belief in g-d that the ramifications for belief in g-d are less risky than non-belief (pascal's gamble). that is a rational argument. you can't prove it, but can't prove otherwise so believe in it.
when they talk about a leap of faith, i believe this is exactly it. belief in g-d is not intellectual, not emotional, rather rational.
you can be irrational, but then you are just an athiest. you could choose to say i don't know, and then you are agnostic. or choose to believe, and then you have emunah.
Intellectual arguments are open and free, and can come to open-ended conclusions. rational arguments are based on assumptions.
I was planning on posting about this in the near future
http://ayeshivishharry.blogspot.com/2009/05/rational-intellectualism.html
finally posted it
Post a Comment