Q&A: The Place of Emotion in the Service of God
The Place of Emotion in the Service of God
Question
Hello and blessings,
In several places you praise the dimension of intellect in the service of God, as well as in ethics and morality. In practice, you argue that a person’s values reside only on the intellectual plane.
Therefore, a person who understands that he harmed another and did something wrong, and asks forgiveness, even if he is emotionally neutral—this is an act of the highest order! Similarly, a person who serves his Creator without emotions, and only מתוך an intellectual acceptance of God—this is excellent service!
With your permission, I would like to pause over these points, sharpen them, and ask your opinion:
I agree that the automatic eruption of emotion is meaningless. But, as you like to quote from the author of the Tanya about the divine soul and the animal soul, he explains that the divine soul is fighting for the whole stake; at the end of the process it also produces in a person a divine emotion, except that it begins with the mind. You do not have to accept this model, but there is certainly emotion in the service of God here as well.
It follows, according to the author of the Tanya, that a person who asks forgiveness because of emotion—that is the animal soul. Because of intellect alone—that is the beginning of the divine soul. Because of intellect, until even his emotions are filled with it—that is the ideal divine soul.
As stated, you do not have to accept these words of the author of the Tanya, but logically this seems right to me:
A. One can argue by way of indication. A person whose emotions are all filled with love of God has contemplated so much with his intellect that it has also reached his emotions, and therefore the value is the intellect, while the emotion is only an indication. It seems to me that you would agree with this formulation. Here the emotion is merely a revealing sign.
B. Beyond that, do you not see an advantage in a person whose emotions too are permeated with love of God? Is there not here a human-aesthetic value of a person who is more “elevated,” closer to divinity? That is, an automatic state of emotion is devoid of value. But a person who has worked on himself and succeeded in filling even his emotions with divine content is a “higher” person. There is a more “harmonious” and “whole” value here; this is an ideal. And according to this, a person should try to fill his emotions, and not settle for only a cold, alienated intellectual dimension.
I would be glad to hear your opinion on these two possibilities.
Answer
I have said and written more than once that if emotion is only an expression of internalization and an intellectual decision, then there is nothing wrong with it. However, it also has no value in itself, only in the decision it expresses. And the practical difference is for someone who was not endowed with emotion that expresses his decisions (that part of his brain is damaged), but has nevertheless decided clearly. In my view, he does not fall short of a person for whom this has emotional expression.
Discussion on Answer
There is something elusive here.
Maybe we can formulate it this way: there is value in the “result” in a person of intellectual dimension who also brought along the emotional layer. Indeed, such a result without intellectual “action” is devoid of value. But that does not mean that the value is exhausted by the intellectual layer alone, without developing the emotions.
A person who has no emotion—then he does not. That is fine. But for creatures who do have emotion, there is value in the emotion too being more elevated.
In my opinion, no. As long as the intellectual-volitional decision exists, its expressions are unimportant. If he sharpens it and as a result the emotion is aroused more strongly, that is of course valuable, but again I would say that it is not because of the emotion but because of what it expresses.
So we remain in disagreement?
It is hard for me to accept that the expression is not interesting. Is this not a clear example of an “aesthetic value” (see the column, etc.), creating a more ideal human figure?
It seems we will remain in disagreement.
But is there any point in a person trying to fill his emotions? Is there an advantage in a person who made an intellectual decision and developed his emotions over a person who did not develop his emotions?