Nassim Taleb says that something is antifragile if it improves when exposed to volatility. The hydra grows extra heads each time you chop one off. Exposure to small amounts of poison—what the ancient pharmacologists called hormesis, and what we, today, call vaccination—can strengthen overall health.
Writers and artists are antifragile, in that the more you try to “cancel” them, the better they do, says Taleb. Banned books are a form of distinction. Being hated proves you aren’t boring.
So, does antisemitism improve Judaism? Or is Judaism simply robust (capable of withstanding persecution) with no net loss or gain? Or perhaps Judaism is, indeed, fragile, so that it diminishes over time?
I ask about Judaism, but you might swap any religion, philosophy, or culture in for it.
So much, of course, depends on how you define Judaism. And one could say that major rifts in the Jewish community hinge on how each side answers the question. If you think Judaism is antifragile, you are more likely to welcome modernity, since shocks to the system are good. If you think it’s fragile, you are more likely to oppose it, since Judaism is like a piece of china that can be shattered at the slightest tremor.
I tend to think Judaism is antifragile in the same way that love is. The more difficult it is—up to a point—the more valued it will be. The early Church similarly benefited from being persecuted. Start-ups are more efficient, productive, and energetic than legacy enterprises in great part because they still need to prove themselves.
I think not. Just as talking about The Inquisition does not help to improve Christianism. But there is a point of compassion when you read about all de iniquity in this world and makes you bless the point in the Civilization when we are right now. I think only love and Knowledge can improve things.