Q&A: Absoluteness of Our Knowledge and Decisive Observance of Torah and Commandments
Absoluteness of Our Knowledge and Decisive Observance of Torah and Commandments
Question
Hello and blessings to Rabbi Michi,
For many long months now, I’ve been enjoying dropping in on the site from time to time, to taste a bit of pure rationality and straight thinking.
For a long time I’ve been troubled by the following question—I saw that you answered it several times, and also referred people to many other answers on the subject—but I couldn’t find anything that really hits my question exactly. If you can direct me to a precise question that addresses what I’m asking, I’d be happy.
So here is my question: in simple terms, a believer thinks his faith is absolute. That is, he doesn’t think the Torah is true—rather, it is clear to him that the Torah is true, one hundred percent. His faith is absolute. In my opinion, that is how most believing people see things, in all religions (except maybe the Eastern ones, but they don’t really deal with the question of whether we are right or not; everyone is right).
I saw that you argue there is no such thing as absolute knowledge—and that is also the conclusion I have reached. My question arises because I am unable to live in a world in which my beliefs are not absolute (I’ll explain the reasoning shortly), and therefore I am looking for the basis on which to make my assumptions decisive—that is, to make them absolute.
Why do I claim that there is, simply speaking, no way to reach absoluteness? Because all our tools of cognition are partial and finite; therefore, any cognition we arrive at will always remain doubtful. All the evidence may point in a certain direction, but it will always remain in the realm of a possible assumption, nothing more.
Even revelation, which would seemingly be the optimal way to arrive at and grasp the absolute—even that is subject to doubt. Even if prophecy were as certain to a person as seeing a black wall—well, sight itself is also subject to doubt. True, it is a very remote doubt, one that almost never arises for us; but still, by definition there is doubt here as well.
If everything is doubtful, then how are there nevertheless people with an orderly, certain worldview? In my opinion, there is some kind of “inner spark,” something inwardly present in a person, the view suited to his face, if we want to put it in the language of the Sages, and it paves the road before him. That is what leads Rabbi Yishmael not to understand the Torah like Rabbi Akiva, and Beit Hillel not like Beit Shammai. The logical and factual claims are organized and settled—but after all that, those essential gaps remain, and there is almost no way to resolve them. That’s how I see things! Why? I don’t know. That’s just how I see them.
That is, a person really can reach a certain absoluteness; when? When it is experiential for him, when it emerges from within him. Nothing in reality has changed, no exotic ontological proof or brilliant logical demonstration has been produced. Simply—this is how he feels. And who can tell him what to do, who can tell him how to act?
And here comes my question: if there is no “absolute truth,” but only a truth that belongs to the individual alone, plus conjectural assumptions—then how can we nevertheless speak about Torah, God, and so on and so forth—many things that are presented as such absolute values? And fine, if they were just beliefs in abstract entities—God, Torah—go take a course on proofs of their existence, and that’s that. But they obligate us, and bind us within such a rigid framework!
Will I really listen to them when I am doubtful of their truth, and there is weight on the other side of the scale, even heavier weight?
After all, my belief in them is based on some rational foundation. If the belief is absolute—that is, it forms a boundary that cannot be breached no matter what—excellent. Its truth is not dependent on me, and I am utterly nullified before it. But if I am the one who determines that the belief is true, a truth that depends on a certain rational foundation—then when a counterconsideration arises for me, strong enough, I will no longer obey that belief!
Let me explain further: rationality, to my mind, contradicts cleaving. If everything is conditioned by my own understanding, and the moment something seems truer to me I will act accordingly, then I will never be able to reach cleaving. Cleaving means my self-nullification before something loftier than me. If I see only myself, I can never reach something more exalted. In my view (this is a somewhat mystical side of me), only such cleaving, absolute cleaving, can elevate a person to a higher spiritual level. And in a certain sense it makes sense: because if I am constantly judging the faith, and I stand above it, and it is always only a guest in my life, and its very existence is in doubt, and it never acquires a permanent dwelling—then we will always remain strangers to one another.
You may say: indeed, it is impossible to reach cleaving. Well, that would pain me, but I could not accept it. I could not live that way. Beyond the fact that there are people who did reach there (admittedly very few, but I do believe in people’s spiritual powers), God and the Torah are too heavy a burden, too serious, and too demanding—for me to bear them just because “it seems that way to me.” There are too many things in the Torah that are unreasonable relative to the rational foundation on which I allow myself to believe in the Torah; and as I saw you yourself write, there is a high likelihood that if you encountered a case in which morally you felt it was impossible to act as the Torah commands, you would not do so.
Are such religious lives really reasonable? In my humble opinion, not so much. Religion and faith are immediately associated with nullification and subordination—of my desires, my thoughts, my opinions—to that absolute truth, or at least to something that claims to be such.
It’s a bit paradoxical: I myself argue that, as far as I can see, there is no way to reach such an absolute truth—so what do I want? But on the other hand, I don’t really see much point in bearing so heavy a burden in the form of Torah and commandments when they are nothing more than the product of my own limited final decision, and not something higher than that.
So my questions are: in your view, is it possible to reach cleaving? Seemingly, from what I’ve seen on the site, you are far from that. And that is hard for me to accept, because my eyes and mind show me otherwise. If I am mistaken, I’d be glad to be corrected in these assumptions.
And likewise, if everything depends on me—on my approval of the proofs for the truth of the Torah and its binding force in all its details—then in the difficult moments of the religious person, there will be no logic in continuing to observe the Torah. Because then we have made the Torah-foundation into the absolute, something that overrides my own reasoning.
One last thing, if I may (just so I can understand the concept): don’t you personally feel an inner contradiction in going to prayer and reading the books of Shalem Press, checking the box simply because apparently that’s what should be done? To live a whole life because maybe this is the truth? If it is the truth, fine. I subordinate myself to it one hundred percent. But to do things that I think are not true, just because of some strange ancient authority—isn’t that absurd? Isn’t that an extremely dichotomous life?
Thank you very much, and I hope this came out clearly. The later the hour gets, the weaker my ability to formulate things becomes….
[By the way: now I remember another point that in my opinion should be mentioned: all developments in the world were made, and all the central milestones were laid, only by people who believed in their principles absolutely. Again, as I said—because only in that way does one arrive at cleaving. And if one does not cleave, one will not reach the goal… not if it is distant, unrealistic, and hard to attain. The State would not have existed; the Jewish people would not have remained as they are; people would not have become great. Because if we do not believe in something absolutely, there is a limit to how much effort we will be willing to invest for it. And since it stands to reason that the world is not meant to remain in place, but to advance and develop, there is room to say that a person must believe absolutely in his beliefs. Is that true? Maybe not; but then we condemn the world to a Neanderthal human existence, beneath all development, even the most basic.
Answer
I have a hard time with something this long. I’ll respond briefly, in the order of your points. If you want to continue discussing something, please address the relevant numbered point in my answer (briefly, if possible).
1. Whoever says his faith is absolute is mistaken or misleading. Whether he relies on some spark or another, or on a revelation from Elijah. Maybe a direct revelation really would do that. I’ve never had one.
2. Needless to say, arguments about the need for absoluteness are not enough to prove its possibility or existence.
3. You do not need absoluteness in order to serve God, just as you do not need it for any other decision we make.
4. Whoever cannot live without absolute certainty should resign (from the world).
5. “That’s just how I am” is not an objection but a difficulty. People come to me with objections; with difficulties, they go to a psychologist.
6. Rationality does not contradict cleaving. In my view, cleaving is something entirely different from the experiences you are assuming (see Nefesh HaChaim, Gate 4).
7. If you cannot attain cleaving, then don’t attain it. In any case, it is clear that there are different levels of cleaving, and no one expects from you something you cannot do. At most, you are under compulsion.
8. It is certainly possible that Jewish law obligates you to do things that radically contradict your conscience, and your level of faith does not allow you to do them. That is a natural and reasonable situation, and there is nothing problematic about it. So don’t do it. No one can complain about someone who acts according to the best of his understanding. At most, he is under compulsion. By the way, the Sages and later rabbinic authorities adopted various paths to work around the problem (through creative interpretation and by restricting various laws).
9. I do indeed feel a problem when I conduct myself in a way that I think is incorrect. That is a price I pay for loyalty to the system (up to a certain point). I have written more than once that this is a result of the historical accident—the absence of a Sanhedrin—which does not allow us to update Jewish law in accordance with contemporary conceptions. But the rules for repairing Jewish law are themselves part of it, and loyalty to it includes loyalty to them as well. In many cases it is possible to repair things. By the way, regarding prayer, I have no problem at all with the books of Shalem Press. Prayer has a role in setting a religious framework for our lives, and therefore even if not all its parts are relevant or speak to me, that is still a price worth paying.
10. Mark Twain already wrote at the end of one of his long letters: sorry I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
11. Even if you were right that every change/improvement in history was made by someone who believed absolutely (and of course you are completely wrong about that), so what? At most the outcome would be that there will be no changes from here on, at least not through me. Does that mean I am supposed to believe nonsense? To lie to myself? This is the situation, with all its implications, and ignoring it or wishing it away does not change it. In this context, it is worth seeing my Column 62 on ignorance / bourgeois conventionality. There too I point to advantages of stupidity and lack of education, and still I am not willing to adopt them despite the advantages. To the best of my judgment, that is not required of us either. “The wisdom of the poor man is despised,” but “an ignoramus is not pious.”
And pleasantness to the one who hears.
Discussion on Answer
To Papagio,
I’ll explain (now that it’s not after two in the morning, I can also do so better…):
My problem is that if there is no truth before which we must bend, some absolute truth, but only the inner truth found within us—then the whole Torah and all its commandments are one big lie.
If that is reality—well then, I’ll go off to the mountain of paganism and the hill of Hinduism, and I won’t remain loyal to the pure monotheistic religion whose most sacred principle, perhaps, is absoluteness: “I am right—and there is none besides me!”
And as Rabbi Benamozegh already wrote in one of his books: ‘…the course of reason proceeded in perfect coordination with the course of religion. Their rule continued in relative tranquility, until the day when the very principle of idolatry—on which the entire ancient world had been based—was breached by philosophy and Judaism, and then society itself, sensing that it was losing its former center of gravity, began as a result to search for a new religion…’
And enough said: logically, after deep reflection on the matter, I fully agree with Rabbi Michi. But in reality, I cannot manage to understand and accept it. Besides the fact that in practice only absolute faith has advanced the world (Rabbi Michi wrote that this is not true—I would be glad for an explanation, please. Thank you), the whole essence of the Torah is the banner of absolute truth.
That is, perhaps, the great secret of monotheism!
Therefore—and accordingly—the statement that I listen to my inner truth is equivalent to the statement that I do what I want. It just so happens that I arrived at the same conclusion as the rabbi, my father, or my friend—Moses is true and his Torah is true. And there is a God.
What is the meaning of this decision? What validity and standing does it have? Such a human choice, in my eyes, is merely a rational religion, and it cannot function as a religion.
Religion, in my eyes, is something I am permitted to worship.
Indeed, yes—to worship. Toward the divine, I worship. But toward the human, I can never worship! And something that emerges from my own reason is not something before which I can nullify myself. Because it can always be brought under the rod of criticism…
I have no doubt that the Sages in every generation invited questions and inquiry (well, some of them at least). But those were questions, not refutations. The moment you are no longer asking as a student to a rabbi, as a believer to his religion, but as someone outside the religion, judging it and examining it—from that moment on, you are a heretic. Maybe afterward you will become convinced—who knows? But even if you do become convinced, what is such faith worth? You think it is true. And a few other people do too. Other people think otherwise. You are no more right than they are!!
And Judaism, for better or worse, explicitly says: I am more right than they are….
If anything, I’ll send here a few passages from Azriel Carlebach’s wonderful book, India: he describes there impressions from a journey he took in India—and presents long passages of discussions about the essence of Hindu doctrine, and through it about paganism as a whole. Highly recommended.
[I can’t manage to send it. Maybe I’ll upload it another way. In any case, I think I’ve said the essence of my point.]
Truthfully, I feel intense pangs of conscience toward Rabbi Michi, who read what I wrote yesterday in the middle of the night when my mind wasn’t clear, and it came out long and cumbersome. I hope that now I’m making myself clearer (even though he still answered to the point and responded properly… ah, the brilliant rational mind! A pleasure).
Is there no way to upload an image here?
It seems to me that you are mixing together two meanings of absoluteness: 1. Objective truth (whose truth lies outside me). 2. Completely certain truth. The second does not exist and is not needed. The first certainly is needed and does exist.
To Shlomo, thank you for the reply!
You claim that if you act according to your inner truth, it has no validity because it is just some arbitrary desire that exists within you, perhaps even in a deterministic way (Schopenhauer). But that is exactly what my words address—because my main claim is that one must distinguish between acting according to a desire that stems from lack of control over its source (whether due to drives, education, or innate and environmental traits), and a decision and choice that stem from inward reflection (sometimes a process that takes years) on existence itself.
And the difference in this choice is that it does not stem at all from an external perception outside the person, about which one can doubt its source or whether it even exists at all (whether an idealistic doubt or a doubt in the manner of David Hume), but rather from a choice and perspective that arise from the only existence that is certain—the inner experience itself! And therefore it cannot be doubted (for it is the person himself).
And here I would add that my opinion is that this point of truth (which arises solely from the experience of existence itself, by itself), is itself the divine revelation within a person—the image of God within him!
I hope I was clearer. 🙂
To Rabbi Michi—I’d be glad for an explanation, both regarding what you just answered, the distinction between objective truth and complete certainty. Does the objectivity of that truth not mean absolute certainty? Does it not mean that in attaining it I have descended to the absolute layer of that concept and matter?
I’d also be glad to know where we see doubtful people advancing the world. Seemingly, only people who believed absolutely in their views advanced anything.
And I’d also be happy to hear through what lens you see Judaism, such that you are able to see it as you describe—that is, as not claiming absoluteness, not rejecting other conceptions, and in other words—not pagan… I’d be glad to receive this lens, if it exists!
And again thank you, for the quick and wonderful responses.
In other words: the decision does not arise from “your own reason,” but from the perception of existence itself, which is the only thing whose existence you do not doubt!
To Papagio,
Do me a favor: no one arrives at the conclusion from within himself that one must keep the 613 commandments… At most, that there is a God. More than that—no.
So where do we get to these conclusions from? From recognition of something external to us; investigation and inquiry into it; receiving answers, rejecting them, more answers, muddling around for a few years—and a relatively final conclusion, influenced by countless internal processes embedded within us (you can call it a soul; by the way, there are sources among the Sages that claim Jews who converted to some religion sincerely and not out of desire, did so because of something soul-related. And I’m talking precisely about some of the more rational Sages I know… but that would take us too far), and external processes we have gone through, which also influenced the shaping of our final worldview.
If we really arrived at conclusions only from ourselves, by looking inward—something I agree is the truest and strongest experience, beyond which there is nothing—you would be a classic Hindu pagan. In no way a Jew.
The Jew, sorry to say, receives his truth from outside, not from within.
How is it supposed to be absolute for him—despite coming from outside? I haven’t the faintest idea. That is my question.
(By the way, here you sharpened an important point for me, so thank you.)
Let me add another source I found, with your permission, which demonstrates the matter wonderfully, though on another topic—which to my mind is identical to our issue. It is a description of the path of a certain Hasidic rebbe, who took an extremely radical line regarding acceptance of the rebbe’s authority, to the point of total nullification (extreme even relative to the other branches of Hasidism). And thus it says in the article dealing with it:
‘In the end, Rothenberg emphasizes, it is not what the eyes see that determines matters: there are righteous people who appear to lack qualities, but in truth possess great qualities and merely conceal them out of humility, and there are those who appear to be righteous figures full of power and fervor but are actually hypocrites. “Even someone who outwardly appears to us as a great righteous man may, God forbid, actually be one of the ‘Jewish demons,’ and we would know nothing of it” (ibid., p. 93). In a sophisticated move, the rebbe of Rozla thus brings the reader to a constructive doubt: he cannot free himself from the obligation to take a rebbe upon himself, because this obligation is necessary and eternal; but he can and should refrain from any judgment of the rebbe, because his power of judgment is fundamentally limited. The required conclusion, then, is the conservative one: he must cleave to the ‘establishment’ rebbe, and refrain from examining him or entertaining doubts about him.’
And isn’t this wonderful!
There is no other solution, except to shut one’s mouth…
Or in paraphrase of our Rabbis’ words (hoping they’ll forgive me for it): be silent and receive reward.
Papagio—in the reply beginning “Do me a favor,” I think my answer is formulated fully and clearly. Please respond to that. If you disagree with what is said there, I’d be glad to hear it.
To Shlomo.
I did not say that a person arrives at the conclusion “from within himself” that one must keep commandments. Rather, I said that the inner point of truth only decides what is a true and more plausible proof and argument, and what is a proof and argument that one wants to decide in favor of only because of external bodily constraints.
And this is for two reasons: 1. As we mentioned, a person can deny everything around him, whether it exists at all (and one might even say it cannot be spoken about), but the inner starting point cannot be denied, and therefore by means of it a person can reflect on where his tendency to decide in favor of one side of the proofs and arguments comes from.
2. I claimed that this point is the connection between the person and his God, whereas the external will is deterministic and nothing more.
What isn’t clear? When I say that the theory of relativity is an objective truth, that means it is not my hallucination but rather that I understood reality. But I still might be mistaken. There is no dependence between those two meanings of absoluteness.
The question whether doubtful people advanced the world or not is not important, as I explained. But factually, you are mistaken in your assumption, and I have no idea where you got it from. Where did you get this hypothesis that everyone who advanced the world was completely certain of his path? I don’t even know where to begin answering something that is not a question (and also is not important).
I didn’t understand the question about a lens. What does it mean, through what lens does one see something? Are you asking whether it illuminates or not? If you want to ask something, write it in Hebrew and don’t write a poem in the form of a question.
Judaism, like any other truth, is absolute in the sense of objectivity but not in the sense of certainty. It rejects other conceptions (such as atheism), and none of that has any connection to paganism. A lens? I don’t understand what that has to do with this or what exactly you are asking.
It seems to me that this discussion has already become completely scattered, so I suggest we stop here.
Shlomo, good evening!
I have to understand your claims—if you assume there is an inner experience that gives meaning to the external evidence (whether empirical evidence or a priori), then why are you still doubtful?
In other words: after all, the only thing that cannot be undermined is the very fact of self-experience (and I don’t mean Descartes, since he placed it on the logical level of “there is no claim without a claimant,” and that can be rejected by saying: who says there is a claimant? Rather I mean an inner experience that overlooks everything, even if the experiencer casts doubt on the existence of the external world altogether or even claims that nothing can be spoken about, like Wittgenstein. That, in my opinion, is what you meant!). So what is wrong with individual authenticity in fact determining what is true?!
That is, one could say that the purpose of evidence and rational thought itself is only to establish what is already inside you! Of course—only so long as a person keeps looking into himself again and again and checking why he decides to determine things this way and not another way: is it biased and stemming from an external tendency (in which case once again there is no validity to his understanding), or from an inner existential choice (which alone has real validity)?
I’d be glad to hear your opinion (I don’t usually comment like this)…