To clarify the matter:
From the answer it seems that the Rabbi agrees with the assumption the questioner is making, that it’s impossible to reach the truth because everyone reaches a different conclusion.
If that’s true, then what exactly is the gain in investigating through the intellect if we already know in advance that “everyone has his own truth”? Why is that better than not investigating? In both situations we won’t reach the truth, right?
.

He answered you that one can reach truth, just not absolute truth. Isn’t that a gain?

The goal is to smash the foundations.
Because there aren’t any. They’re an illusion.

I know this isn’t related to the exchange, but apparently everything that A. wrote will be deleted, so I’m writing here. More power to you, A., for going back to trolling, as is your sacred custom. Every one of your troll posts makes me smile. Keep rising and trolling!

The question is very simple and I didn’t get an answer to it.
If it’s impossible to reach the truth through intellectual inquiry,
then what’s the benefit of it?
Just investigating and thinking for no reason?

Hello Moshe.
You’ve gotten an answer more than once, and you apparently don’t bother to read, or don’t try to understand what you read. It is possible to reach truth, even if not certainty, and that is the purpose of inquiry.

Despite the flattering superlatives the Rabbi handed out to me, I still haven’t received a satisfactory answer to my question.
I’ll ask it one more time, in greater detail.

1. Let’s start with the fact that every person has a different level of intelligence, a different way of thinking, a different store of knowledge, and a different education.
So in any subject you take up for discussion among a group of people, each one will have a different conclusion and a different opinion. Understood?
Great, let’s continue…

2. After we understand that, it’s hard for me to understand the Rabbi, who claims that each person should use his own intellect in order to understand the foundations of Judaism and everything related to the Jewish worldview. In a situation of independent thinking and inquiry, each person will reach a different conclusion, each according to his own intellect, his own knowledge, and many other things that differ from person to person. Therefore, in complete contradiction to my conclusion, my friend will reach a completely opposite conclusion! So: 1) what is the truth? 2) how can one rely on a person’s independent thinking and inquiry in order to understand and arrive at the truth in Judaism?

3. My difficulty becomes doubly intense when we’re talking about Judaism, whose foundational worldview is written in the Torah and in thousands of different books. Seemingly, if a person doesn’t have the same data found in those books, he can’t even begin to discuss and delve into the Jewish worldview, because he doesn’t have all the information—just as we wouldn’t expect a gentile or an ignoramus to discuss complex Jewish topics when he lacks the basic data!

4. There is another difficulty here: Judaism also has spiritual components that a flesh-and-blood person has no ability to understand or discuss, certainly not through independent thinking.

I’d be happy to receive a logical answer (without unnecessary superlatives, if possible).
Moshe

Hello.
True, I’m not Rabbi Michael, but I think that sometimes there’s an obsessive motive behind questions like these. (Also, you mention a question that was asked here in the past.)
You’re looking at human activity as cause and effect, and deciding that there are some people with a different mechanism, which might prevent them from believing.
And maybe that is what’s bothering you, and causing you to ask this question, in a question you asked before, precisely at this time.
I assume an example of what you mean would be expecting an animal to keep the commandments.
But you’re deciding—and apparently obsessively dealing with—a question that has no resolution (the question of free will). And by the way, even if we assume there is something in favor of determinism, that still doesn’t mean you should sit and wait for things to happen.

I think that everyone has his own path, but truth is one and the same. Some cases of physical impairment have a certain status in Jewish law. (For example, a deaf person, a legally incompetent person, etc.)
And apparently the expectation from each person is to do the maximum he can.
It is written: “Hillel says: Do not judge your fellow until you reach his place.” (Mishnah Avot 2:4)
I saw on the page from which I copied this a detailed discussion of the statement:
“…But do not judge a person’s deeds and thoughts until, in your own thought, you reach his place and his time and his stage among the stages of his life. Every stage in a person’s life is a unique world unto itself, in its deeds and habits and in matters of fitting and shameful taste, and of knowledge of good and evil. Do you want to know the soul of a child? Come enter the world of a child, and see yourself becoming childlike, as though you yourself were in the days of your childhood—and this is the doctrine of education and the right-hand pillar on which pedagogy stands… Rather, that is the whole trouble: that the old judge and educate the young not according to their path in the world of childhood, in which they themselves once were when young, but according to this world of theirs now, the world of judges and educators in their old age.” (“The Book of Beasts,” by Mendele Mocher Sforim)
I don’t know whether the source is religious, but its intention is clear.
In the end, the Creator of the world judges, and we have the ability to make an effort. If there is a psychological problem that prevents us from making that effort, then our effort is to treat it.

Hope I helped.

There were no superlatives here, since I answered you entirely to the point. Since you want more detail, I’ll write it again.
1. Perfectly understood, just not agreed. It is plainly not true that every person reaches a different conclusion. Usually there is a great deal of agreement among people. Sometimes the argument is about different angles or different wording of the same thing. And sometimes one of the sides is simply mistaken. I addressed this in my columns about philosophy (“The Meaning of Philosophical Disputes”).
2. Even when there are disputes, I explained in the column on peer disagreement why that should not weaken your resolve.
3. I wrote that indeed there is no hope of reaching absolute truth (because it is always possible that you are mistaken), but you are not required to reach it. You are required to clarify the truth to whatever degree of probability that can be done. The possibility of error always exists, and all you can do is try to minimize it.
4. A person has all the information needed to decide. The Sages and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) had no information that you do not have. There is no need whatsoever to be familiar with the thousands of books written in this field. What’s mainly needed is to think, talk, and then think again.