Q&A: The Value of the Intuitive Connection
The Value of the Intuitive Connection
Question
With your permission, I’d like to sort out two points:
1. In your view, observance of the commandments requires faith / belief — Ahad Ha’am never observed commandments in his life. Even so, you accept the fact that there are levels in the service of God. Meaning, the foundation is faith / belief. But on top of that foundation, if someone also adds intentions and the “repair of eternity within splendor,” that is certainly an added virtue. Is this (simplified) presentation mistaken?
2. In the past I presented you with two models of a person who believes in God. One, on the basis of this or that philosophical proof. The second, on the basis of direct intuition. I asked you whether you see any particular advantage of one over the other in one’s relationship with the Holy One, blessed be He, and you said that you don’t know how to measure relationships. I’d be glad if you could explain more. In other matters, regarding the idea of the good for example, don’t you see an advantage in someone who is endowed with a direct intuition toward the good over someone who arrived at it through other inferences? Seemingly, it is quite natural that the first sees the “substance of the matter,” whereas the second “only” knows of its existence. Seemingly, this is an understandable distinction between grasping the thing itself by means of intuition and hearing about it “secondhand” (the parable of the blind man and the room full of furniture, etc.). Or do you mean that although intuition may bring you to a more direct connection, in the end it has no value, because we were commanded only regarding observance of the commandments?
I would appreciate it if you could help me make order of this.
Answer
1. Correct.
2. Explain more what it is that I don’t know? Even when one reaches a conclusion by way of arguments, that too is based on intuitions (the premises), and the conclusion also enters our intuitions (we can grasp the substance of the matter). But regardless of that, I don’t see an advantage of one over the other.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, if you encountered causality directly (through intuition), then through it you also encountered God directly. That is certainly a possibility. Beyond that, even if the argument itself does not lead to a direct encounter, after I am convinced by the argument I may suddenly understand that there is also a direct encounter (accept that encounter and not reject it because of the argument).
But even if we assume that there are two people, one of whom experiences God directly and the other only through indirect proofs of His existence, I do not see a difference between them in religious terms. This is each person’s position, and this is how he arrives at God. Can there really be a demand that someone who does not encounter Him should encounter Him? What can he do?! He does not see Him directly.
You can of course argue that one is closer to God in some sense. That is mainly a matter of definition, and that is what I meant when I said that I don’t understand matters of connection to God. It is an undefined concept, and I have nothing to say about it.
Okay, that’s clear. Thanks
I’ll try to explain more:
1. Difference in the path — in the philosophical path one reaches a conclusion about the existence of God on the basis of other premises — for example causality — so that even after we have reached the conclusion about the existence of God, we do not encounter Him directly. In direct intuition toward Him (assuming such a thing exists), the person encounters the thing itself, God. Like the difference between a person who sees that so-and-so murdered someone, and a person who arrived at that through some inference. This is a significant difference in the path.
2. Difference in the result — a further stage: in a direct encounter with God, the person is situated closer to Him. He is more “exposed” to Him. Whereas in the philosophical path he knows God “from below,” out of the intuition that our world requires an explanation, etc., in intuition God Himself is disclosed to the person. This is more connected to “above.” There is here a difference from the first path in the nature of the product (the fact of God’s existence). A person who saw something — the object was disclosed before him. Whereas when a person arrived at the result by necessity, the object is still hidden, and only for him there is a necessity regarding it.
3. A religious advantage — the above difference constitutes an advantage for the intuitive path (in parentheses: of course this path in itself also has disadvantages), since from a religious standpoint there is value in a person who is situated closer to God, more exposed to Him, encounters Him more, etc. etc.
I understand that you don’t accept these points. I’d be glad if you could indicate which detail or details you disagree with.
Thanks for everything!