Q&A: Purpose
Purpose
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’m working hard at reading the trilogy (not a simple undertaking. Possibly also because I’m secular), and I’m enjoying both the effort and the substance. Thank you.
I was wondering: even when one receives an answer to the question “Is there…,” the question of purpose still remains.
I learned that there is discussion of the passage, “It would have been better for a person not to have been created, but now that he has been created, he should examine his deeds…” (a completely inexact quote).
My question is about purpose: that is, there is God, and He is the creator and engineer of the world. But what is the purpose? What is the reason for creation?
Is it possible that there was no choice but for there to be creation (for the world, for man), and if so, what is the meaning of that?
I apologize for the simplicity and oversimplification, but I’d be interested to hear your view.
Thank you,
Answer
Hello T.,
I don’t think I have the tools to uncover God’s purpose in deciding to create the world. My conceptual world was created by Him and belongs to the world He created, so it is hard to assume that I have the tools, by means of it, to arrive at the reason why He Himself acted as He did. Therefore all that remains for me is to “examine my deeds,” meaning to understand what I am supposed to do. In the first book I present arguments that lead to the conclusion that there must be some purposes for creation, and those purposes lie outside it (not morality, for example). Apparently there is some need of the Holy One Blessed be He Himself (in the language of the Sages: the service is a need on high). What are those purposes, and what is that need? As I said, I don’t have the tools. It is like an ant asking itself why people build rockets to the moon, or make movies, or swim in water. It does not have the tools to understand.
I just thought that perhaps this is also how one can interpret the statement of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, who argued whether it would have been better for man to have been created or not to have been created: after the debate they understood that one cannot really reach a conclusion on such a question, and therefore they determined (“they took a vote and concluded”) that even if, for the sake of discussion, we assume it would have been better for man not to have been created, he should still examine his deeds (focus on what is incumbent upon him). That is, there is no point engaging in such a metaphysical question when we do not have the tools to reach a conclusion about it. What remains for us is to carry out what is incumbent upon us.
Discussion on Answer
Hello again, and thank you.
So then why the contraction and withdrawal from “everyday reality” after creating the laws of nature and giving responsibility and freedom of choice to man for his actions?
After all, it isn’t reasonable that this is the purpose, and if there is a purpose, isn’t it proof of existence?
Thanks again, T.
I didn’t understand the question.
The purpose is achieved by human beings who have freedom of choice. If the purpose were only to reach some state, the Holy One Blessed be He could have done that Himself and not be dependent on our choices. So it is clear that there is importance to the way in which one reaches the desired state (through choice). Think about it: would you agree to be hypnotized so that you would forever do only good and avoid doing evil? I wouldn’t. The reason is that although I do aspire to do only good, it has to be done by my choice. Programming me in a way that neutralizes choice will not achieve that goal (it will achieve the desired state, but not in the desired way).
Rabbi, does “they took a vote and concluded” mean that they said, “even if you want to say”? Isn’t the plain meaning that the House of Shammai convinced them?
What is this question doing here? What do you mean? In the future, please write less carelessly and in the relevant place.
The meaning is that they convinced them.
Sorry, I forgot these were questions from the email and that a long time had already passed.
If so, then how does that fit with what you wrote here: “and therefore they determined (‘they took a vote and concluded’) that even if, for the sake of discussion, we assume it would have been better for man not to have been created, he should still examine his deeds (focus on what is incumbent upon him).”
That’s a major novelty. I understood it to mean that the House of Shammai convinced them that it would have been better for man not to be created. And it seems that you just answered now that they did convince them. So I didn’t understand.
Since so much time has passed, you already forgot that a lot of time passed? And why here?
I don’t know in what context those things were written. I maintain that they convinced them.
Wow, the lack of communication is rough.
I think this question is from the email, and that’s why it felt strange to you that I referred to it and you didn’t understand where I suddenly came from, even though it was only published two days ago. So from my perspective not much time has passed, but from yours it has.
You wrote “there” in the answer (which is here before us above) that the House of Shammai did not convince the House of Hillel, and that sounded puzzling to me. And it seems it’s puzzling to you too, because in fact now you’re denying that you wrote that.
But no problem if you changed your mind; that’s not the only change that has happened 🙂 (many people would be happy if that were the only change instead of thin theology).
And I’ll quote the part you wrote:
“ I just thought that perhaps this is also how one can interpret the statement of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, who argued whether it would have been better for man to have been created or not to have been created: after the debate they understood that one cannot really reach a conclusion on such a question, and therefore they determined (‘they took a vote and concluded’) that even if, for the sake of discussion, we assume it would have been better for man not to have been created, he should still examine his deeds (focus on what is incumbent upon him). That is, there is no point engaging in such a metaphysical question when we do not have the tools to reach a conclusion about it. What remains for us is to carry out what is incumbent upon us.”
Hope everything is much clearer now, while the lack of clarity regarding the text here remains.
I just thought that maybe this is also the ending of the Book of Ecclesiastes. After it discusses philosophical questions of good and evil and the purpose of man, it ends the book: “The end of the matter, all has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man” (= according to my suggestion: this is what a person can arrive at).