Q&A: Absoluteness with Respect to the Holy One, Blessed be He – Continued
Absoluteness with Respect to the Holy One, Blessed be He – Continued
Question
You compared in your answer an axiom in geometry to choosing an Archimedean point that one must fulfill God’s will. But in my opinion there is a very clear distinction between them: we confirm the axioms of geometry through observations, and it is very likely that they are true. But the axiom of “the need to fulfill God’s will” by definition cannot be true, as you agreed — an absolute Archimedean point for a will that obligates objectively, and so on, is something impossible. To choose God’s will as that Archimedean point is just arbitrary, with nothing behind it that is even possibly really true.
Answer
Too bad you didn’t raise the question in the talkbacks on the column in question (395).
How exactly do you confirm by observation that there is no other straight line between two points? Or that parallel lines never meet? Did you follow them all the way to the end? That’s how it seems to you from looking at the situation, but that is a claim with no empirical basis.
There are claims that seem clearly true to us intuitively, and that is enough for us. That is true of claims of morality, religious obligation, and the axioms of geometry.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand the question. It is not true that there cannot be a reason, and it is also not true that there needs to be a reason for this.
If it isn’t intuitive to you, then it isn’t. Each person does what he understands.
The truth is that the concepts of “good,” “bad,” and “obligatory” are simply not defined. So I can’t say whether there is such a thing as objective “good” (if there is, it is likely that the Holy One, Blessed be He determines it or knows what it is) or objective “obligation.”
How can I or you discuss such undefined concepts? Do you have a definition for them so that we can discuss this?
I don’t, and there’s no need to. It is well understood both by me and by you.
I simply see many times that this is true. That’s confirmation, not refutation.
But the whole point is that I’m trying to argue that this is essentially different. There are axioms that we claim will always be true, but we have no way to check them out fully, like parallel lines. But here this is an axiom that cannot be true — there cannot be a reason why some will would objectively be the “right” thing.
And in general, what am I supposed to do if this really is not intuitive to me?