Q&A: Two Questions
Two Questions
Question
- Is there any value in pleasure? And if not, does the conclusion mean that there is no good reason at all to enjoy oneself?
- On the one hand, you wrote that values require a legislator. On the other hand, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world in order to achieve some external purpose, meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, must also have values that apply to Him. Who legislated those?
Answer
Pleasure in itself has no value (there is value in the contentment it brings to the soul), but that doesn’t mean there is no reason to enjoy oneself. Do you spend your whole life dealing only with things that have intrinsic value?
2. I didn’t understand the casuistry. Ask Him.
Discussion on Answer
I disagree with the idea that a person shouldn’t do anything value-neutral. It is permitted to enjoy oneself.
By the way, see Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah, chapter 1 of Avot, on the five types of speech: obligatory, desirable, neutral, inappropriate, and forbidden. The middle category is neutral, and there is no problem engaging in it.
One can always claim that pleasure is necessary in order to feel good, which will in turn help in the service of God. That drains the question of content.
I’m not asking from a halakhic standpoint — of course it is halakhically permitted to enjoy oneself — but philosophically: is it rational to want pleasure? Why do you decide to eat chocolate?
Because I like chocolate.
How does that justify it?
I’m deliberating whether to eat chocolate or not. I like chocolate. Convince me why you think the right decision would be to eat it.
Anonymous,
Who said that in order to eat it, that has to be the right decision?
You’re confusing a reason with a value.
The question of whether it is rational to enjoy yourself is obscure; it’s not on that plane at all. It would be relevant if you were asking whether it is rational to eat chocolate because the pleasure in it gives me energy to help my father build a sukkah.
Is it rational to be bored?
If I understood what you’re asking, then the answer is no… your pleasure has no importance and there is no value-result to the matter.
You are free to stop enjoying yourself from now on
1. I really do try to engage only in things that have value. If you ask someone why he eats chocolate, he’ll say, “Chocolate tastes good, and it’s good that it tastes good to me.” You’re claiming that there is no value in the fact that it tastes good to him, and according to that there is also no reason to eat chocolate.
You could also ask it differently — what is the difference between pleasure and suffering? Seemingly these are just mental phenomena, one of which the human body likes and one of which it doesn’t. Why is the fact that my body tends to like chocolate a philosophically sufficient reason to eat chocolate?
That’s always how I understood the saying, “Let all your deeds be for the sake of Heaven.” And that seems to be Maimonides’ intent in chapter five of Eight Chapters.
What exactly are you disagreeing with here?