Q&A: Question about Column 559
Question about Column 559
Question
The Rabbi wrote in the column that serving for its own sake is only for the sake of God because that is the truth, and that this is essentially the “love” Maimonides speaks about. It is difficult for me:
A. In the plain sense, love really is an emotion.
B. The example of loving a woman.
C. If there is a person who recognizes the truth of God’s existence but hates Him, according to the Rabbi can one say that he “loves” God?
D. The Rabbi argued that one who serves out of love is not serving for its own sake, and the Rabbi noted in parentheses Maimonides in the laws of idolatry, that a person who worships idolatry out of love is exempt. There it really seems that this is “love that depends on something” (“because he desired this form”), but one could say that love that does not depend on something is not considered utilitarian. If we say that there is a love that does not depend on something and arises purely from a pure desire to do good and receive nothing in return, then in fact love too can be for its own sake, and then Maimonides comes out straightforwardly.
Answer
I referred to places where I expanded on all this. Love is an emotional expression of a cognitive state. I argued that the expression is not the main thing.
The example of loving a woman is discussed there.
If he recognizes the truth, it is impossible that he would hate Him.
In my view, there is no love that begins as not dependent on something. The initial encounter always happens through something, and afterward it can become independent of that thing. And with the Holy One, Blessed be He, there is no real encounter. But, as stated, my remarks are not based on an interpretation of Maimonides, but on reasoning. Maimonides’ interpretation is a derivative result.