Q&A: Values and Meaning.
Values and Meaning.
Question
Answer
Hello D.,
Obviously there are no questions that are forbidden to ask. Forbidding questions is absurd. Maybe an idol worshipper is also forbidden to ask questions, and then everyone just remains with whatever outlook he was born into? A person has to formulate his own position, and that cannot be done without asking questions. At most, one might forbid someone from delving into certain topics just for the sake of it, but if he needs it in order to clarify his own position, then there is certainly no way to forbid it. From another angle: as long as I have not clarified my position, I do not know that there is a God and that I am obligated by His commandments, so I also would not listen to a prohibition against examining my faith.
I am not sure that I accept Maimonides' thirteen principles. You should know that at least some of them are disputed (and certainly their status as principles), and nobody has any authority regarding facts (for several reasons). Maimonides also inserts parts of Aristotelian philosophy and physics into the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, even though it is clear that this is a collection of nonsense Aristotle invented out of his fevered mind. This is not an accusation. Maimonides did what he understood; but that is exactly what each of us is also supposed to do—act according to what he himself understands.
As for the Creator's attributes, nobody can know anything, except what was transmitted to us by tradition (and it is not clear, in these matters, what was really transmitted and what developed over the generations). As for His being unlimited/infinite and having no deficiency, I am not sure there is a source for that. It is simply a commonly accepted belief, nothing more (“Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?” can be interpreted in different ways). As for His still existing—that is written explicitly. Whether He is one is a question of definition (what counts as one. For example, the human body is made up of many cells, so is a person one thing or not?).
In general, there is not and cannot be certainty about anything. A person is condemned to live in uncertainty, and so too regarding faith. There is nothing wrong with that, and anyone who says he has no doubt at all about something is either a liar or a fool (or a prophet). Certainly, certainty is not necessary in order for life to have meaning. Life has meaning by virtue of the fact that the Creator gave us the Torah, and in doing so gave our lives meaning. I do not have certainty about this, but this is what I think, it seems very plausible to me, and for me that is enough.
The question of how to relate to people with other views is not a simple one. But two things must be known: 1. There is never certainty about anything. But that does not mean I do not form my own views about things. That is what I have, and with that I act. I also cannot be an expert in every field and learn everything, and so there is no escaping making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not make unreasonable demands of His creatures, and if a person did the best he could, nobody can blame him even if he was mistaken. 2. If I have my own position, the mere existence of other positions should not cause me to change it (except perhaps to reexamine it). It is precisely this point that I am about to address in my next post on the site.
In general, if you search the site, I think you will find discussions of many of the questions you raised here. I only warn you that this will not necessarily be a conventional approach that would be accepted in the circles familiar to you. 🙂
Discussion on Answer
I don't think the opponents have an answer. In my understanding, there cannot be an answer.
On the issue of authority regarding facts, you can search the site. See a short explanation here:
I once thought there was providence over views and beliefs; today I do not think so. I know of no source for this, and even if there were a source I probably would not accept it (unless it were clear that it came by tradition from Sinai). Beliefs are the result of a person's thinking and formulation. If the Holy One, blessed be He, plants them in us, what is the point of them? And how do people make mistakes or think incorrectly? Why didn't the Holy One, blessed be He, plant it in them too? And what about the many issues under dispute that have several different opinions? (Maimonides, and also Nachmanides and some of his students regarding verbal analogy, wrote that any Jewish law over which a dispute arose was apparently not a tradition from Sinai.) Up until Maimonides the Holy One, blessed be He, planted other beliefs and then changed them? After all, Maimonides introduced quite a few innovations. None of this seems plausible to me.
I believe in the Torah, but not with certainty. There is no certainty about anything. The Torah may be absolute truth, but I, as a flesh-and-blood human being, cannot know that. After all, I form my belief in the Torah for myself, so why assume that I cannot be mistaken? As I said, the hope for certainty is childish. A person must decide what seems plausible to him and act accordingly.
I do not accept the providence of the Holy One, blessed be He, at least not in our generations. I wrote about this, for example, in column 243 here on the site and in several responsa and elsewhere. In my opinion this is not plausible and is not necessary within the framework of our faith.
I presented my outlook in the fifth notebook here on the site. You can try reading it (under the “Miscellaneous” tab).
Meaning means that this is the right way to act. Like moral behavior, which obligates because that is what is right and not because of some external reason for it (this is self-evident). Whether this is out of coercion or not, each person will decide for himself.
How does the Rabbi think meaning is created?
For example, if we take as an example Dolly the sheep, who has free choice—even if you created her and placed her in a whole world that you created for purpose X, namely that once a week she should eat two brown grasses in an olive-bulk measure and drink red blood juice in a cheekful measure.
That still doesn't mean that for her there is meaning in doing so.
The fact that you want something, and even created someone for it, does not mean that the other has meaning in the matter. Maybe she has an obligation to do it because of ontological gratitude, which the Rabbi is trying to establish. But what is the connection between gratitude and meaning?
How can meaning be conferred?
(The Questioner—since the name above is not the questioner who has been asking you throughout this whole discussion so far, I'll add to my name here: another questioner, A.Q.)
You are conflating two planes of meaning (two senses of the term “meaning”): the philosophical and the psychological. The philosophical one is always determined for you. The meaning of your existence is determined by whoever created you. On the psychological plane, meaning is a feeling, and as such there are no rules about it. Whoever feels it, feels it; and whoever doesn't, doesn't. But if there is meaning and you do not feel it, that is a kind of blindness (and in such a case it would not be correct to say that you have no meaning).
I devoted a column to this (search: meaning, or Shimon Buzaglo).
Shimon Azulay, column 159.
Here D. responded again:
As for questions that are forbidden to ask, the answer makes complete sense. I wonder what the opponents answer. (Maybe you know?)
You wrote in your answer: “and nobody has any authority regarding facts (for several reasons).” Could you expand on that? I didn't understand what you meant.
As for Maimonides, from the perspective of someone who believes in God, wouldn't it be right to assume, in hindsight, that the Holy One, blessed be He, watched over / watches over whoever would be accepted among the Jewish people as a transmitter of the Torah and worldview? And over the beliefs that would become established over time among His people? In the sense of “for it shall not be forgotten from the mouth of his offspring”? Because other outlooks, seemingly, do not survive among our people over time.
You wrote: “As for His still existing—that is written explicitly.” I conclude from this that you believe in the truth of our Torah. If so, then why say that “a person is condemned to live in uncertainty, and so too regarding faith. There is nothing wrong with that,” if faith is seemingly stated explicitly in the Torah?
And regarding the matter itself, as I wrote, unfortunately for me even the truth of the Torah and His providence are not clear.
Do you know of lectures / articles / a particular book that explains the matter clearly? (In the Arachim lectures all I got was the information that the Creator is wise far beyond our comprehension, and maybe also that prophecies were fulfilled. But why should I have to live according to His demands—just so I don't get in trouble with someone all-powerful? Fear of punishment? Or expectation of reward—which I don't even know anything about—in the distant future?
And likewise what you wrote: “Certainly, certainty is not necessary in order for life to have meaning. Life has meaning by virtue of the fact that the Creator gave us the Torah, and in doing so gave our lives meaning. I do not have certainty about this, but this is what I think, it seems very plausible to me, and for me that is enough.” Maybe I don't know what meaning is (I thought it meant: to live in a way that is 1. right and 2. chosen pleasantly and willingly—not out of coercion/threat), and if so, how can there be meaning if it is not clear to me what it is?