Q&A: The Meaning of Life
The Meaning of Life
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw in several places that the Rabbi writes that a person cannot create meaning for his own life, but can only receive meaning for his life from some other factor that is a value.
I didn’t understand why a person can’t create meaning for his own life from himself. What is the flaw here? Why can’t a person create his own values?
Answer
This is, of course, partly a question of definition. A person can invent values for himself, like the obligation to stand on one leg for ten minutes during every even-numbered hour. The question is whether these are really values, and what validity they have. I do not see a way to give values validity unless at their foundation there is some factor that legislates them and gives them validity. Otherwise, this is just our own subjective invention. If the value of human life is something you invented and decided upon, and it has no objectively binding source of validity, then on what basis can you come with claims against another person who murders? He did not legislate this value for himself, and so from his perspective it is not valid. My inventions are not a basis by which I can demand things of someone else. If God stands at the foundation of the matter, then one can demand of others as well a commitment to these values. If they do not recognize His existence or the validity of the moral laws, then they are acting under compulsion, but they are still obligated. But if the values are our own subjective invention, then they are not obligated at all.
Discussion on Answer
To know what the meaning of life is, start by investigating how a single living cell works. But I don’t think that’s what you meant.
You mean the emotional question of what will make you stop wondering about the question of what will make you stop wondering.
One of the proven methods for stopping this recursive questioning is to find an occupation or a hobby, or to be in a situation where you have to do something. Then the soul won’t have enough free resources for these kinds of recursive questions to come up.
And then the wondering won’t arise. And in that way you’ve solved the problem.
Except that… sometimes it isn’t a problem but rather something enjoyable, and then it comes back.
RO, it definitely does matter, because the question is not why I do it, but why I am obligated to do it. And if one is obligated to do X, then everyone is obligated to it.
Why does the fact that God legislated some law give it more validity? After all, you’re the one who decided that God’s laws obligate you, and if someone else didn’t decide that—on what grounds can you make a claim against him?
And besides—maybe one could say that since the Rabbi thinks murder is immoral, apparently he’s mistaken, and therefore that should obligate him.
I am absolutely not the one who decides. Just as I do not decide that morality or the laws of the state obligate me. I do have a choice whether to fulfill my obligation or not (and bear the consequences).
As I understand it, the definition of a value is: answering the question, “Why am I doing x?” with the answer, “Because x ought to be done.” That is, x is its own reason. But if so, then it makes no difference whether other people are obligated to fulfill x or not.
Seemingly, even if I answer for myself the question of what the meaning of my life is by inventing a subjective answer, it still meets the criteria of a value.
(For example: “What is the meaning of your life?”
Answer: “To stand on one leg during every even-numbered hour.”
Question: “Why do you do that?”
Answer: “Because one ought to stand on one leg during every even-numbered hour.”)
Why does the Rabbi make the question of meaning depend on obligating other people?