Q&A: The Philosopher in the Kuzari
The Philosopher in the Kuzari
Question
With God’s help,
hello Rabbi. I have several questions, please, about the philosopher in the Kuzari.
1. What does he mean when he says that God is not connected to the world, and that the world is eternal? Does he believe in some kind of spiritual being, only one that is detached from the world? What does he mean when he says: a. “God never created man, for the world is eternal”? b. “Everything is from the First Cause, but not by its intention; rather by way of emanation. From the First Cause a second cause emanated, and from this the third and fourth causes emanated”? What is the logical sense of these two arguments? I simply do not understand the logic in saying that everything emanated from this supreme God who is detached from reality, and that He did not create man but rather man was simply created. And what is the logic in saying that the world is eternal? At some point it had to have a beginning, no?
2. If I understand correctly, the philosopher’s serious problem is God’s will. If we say that He wanted to create a world, then He is lacking something, and therefore He is not God? (If I’m mistaken about this, I’d be glad for an explanation.) And if we say that He is connected to the world, why would He bother with small things, and with our desires, etc.? He is so great and we are so small. My question is: why can’t one say that דווקא because He is so, so great and infinite, He is capable of wanting small things too, and He also cares about us, etc.? After all, He is omnipotent, so He can also will things, and that would not be a paradox.
3. How can we speak about Him at all in terms of wanting or not wanting? To us that looks like desire and therefore like lack. Maybe with Him it is not like that?
4. Why does the philosopher remain with the position (at least at the beginning) of a philosophical God? What prevents him from saying that God is in fact involved in reality?
5. Is it correct to say that there is no significant difference between such a philosophical God and the absence of God?
Thank you very, very much!
Answer
Hello.
I am not well-versed in the Kuzari, and at the moment I do not remember what the philosopher says there (and it also does not seem very important to me). If there is a specific question, please bring a full quotation and ask what is troubling you. Preferably one at a time.
Discussion on Answer
It does not matter whether He wants small things or great ones. The argument is that the very fact that He wants means that He lacks something.
I am not at all certain of this:
1. It is not clear that willing necessarily expresses lack. For example, we want the world to be good for value-based reasons, and not necessarily because of need or lack.
2. It is not clear that it is correct to say that He wanted in the ordinary human sense.
3. It is not clear that if He lacks something, then He is not God.
Thanks.
1. I did not understand #3. How can one say that God is infinite, and also lacking? A lacking God is self-contradictory, no?
2. Regarding #2, I understand that one cannot raise objections about God based on our concepts. But still, at the end of the day there is a world that was created by God. Does that not express a lack in Him that we come to complete? (I am asking about the claim itself. I know there are many answers: perfection through self-perfection, etc. I am asking about the claim itself, before whatever answer may be given.)
3. Is it logically coherent to argue that God is omnipotent and therefore He can also be both infinite and lacking? Since He determines the “rules of the game,” from His standpoint it could be that He both wants and yet is not lacking. Is that a logically valid argument? If not, I would appreciate an explanation.
Again, thank you!
The numbering got switched around. I’ll use yours.
1. Who says He is infinite? That is the accepted view, but I am not sure it is necessary. He is at least strong enough to create a world.
2. I already wrote that it does not.
3. It is a question of how the concepts “infinite” and “lacking” are defined. If they logically contradict one another, then you cannot say both of them simultaneously even about God.
Thank you very much. I’ll ask one by one.
There is a well-known philosophical claim that if we say God wanted to create a world, then He is lacking something, and therefore He is not God? (As I understand it, this is the philosopher’s claim in the Kuzari, but as you said, it does not really matter to whom the claim is attributed.) My question is: why can’t one say that precisely because God is so, so great and infinite, He is capable also of wanting small things, and this still would not detract from the “divinity” in Him? After all, He is omnipotent, so He can also will things, and that would not be a paradox. (And if one can say that, on what basis does this philosophical claim stand?)