Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)
- This topic has 250 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by Chortkov.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 2, 2015 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #1090328Patur Aval AssurParticipant
Nope, I reject this parenthetical, because it contradicts what you were willing to accept above (that you don’t know what the value is).
I was only willing to accept it if there is personal value. If there is only a value to someone/something else then for all intents and purposes there is no value. If the value is personal then I am willing to accept that we might not know what it is.
What is the ??? if not the ultimate value of an act?
Good question. I can’t say for certain what the Rambam meant by ??? but if it’s just another value (albeit the best value) then there is no reason why it should be considered “better” to pursue this value over any other value.
No, because one value can be better or worse than another.
Certainly. $100 is better than $1. But you wouldn’t say that someone who takes $100 (legally) is a better person than someone who takes $1. Smarter, perhaps. But Better? If anything, the guy taking $100 is more “selfish” than the guy taking $1.
April 2, 2015 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm #1090329ChortkovParticipantWhat is the ??? if not the ultimate value of an act?
Good question. I can’t say for certain what the Rambam meant by ??? but if it’s just another value (albeit the best value) then there is no reason why it should be considered “better” to pursue this value over any other value.
Working with your argument, that Emes is a motivation because of its value – surely one can distinguish between two values. If a hungry person has a choice of eating a steak or leaving it for somebody else and chooses to leave it, simply because he wants to be nice to the other person, you would call him a better person. And the value of eating the steak is more than the value of leaving it, yet the decision to prioritize the ‘noble’ value over the more-valuable selfish one is Good. Would you not agree with that?
April 2, 2015 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #1090330Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
If there is only a value to someone/something else then for all intents and purposes there is no value.
So you reject the concept of altruism entirely?
If the value is personal then I am willing to accept that we might not know what it is.
How would you know whether it was personal or not if you didn’t know what the value was?
$100 is better than $1. But you wouldn’t say that someone who takes $100 (legally) is a better person than someone who takes $1. Smarter, perhaps. But Better?
Smarter is not better than foolish?
If anything, the guy taking $100 is more “selfish” than the guy taking $1.
Why? An act is typically referred to as selfish when it benefits the actor at the expense of others.
April 2, 2015 6:26 pm at 6:26 pm #1090331Patur Aval AssurParticipantyekke2:
I disagree. Because my entire back and forth with Avram was to establish that the value of leaving the steak is more than the value of taking the steak. Thus the guy who would take the steak is just as selfish as the guy who would leave the steak – they are both out for their own benefit.
April 2, 2015 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1090332Patur Aval AssurParticipantAvram:
So you reject the concept of altruism entirely?
Not necessarily. I am rejecting the way you are explaining altruism, because according to you, altruism is just the best benefit. Hence altruism is really benefitism.
How would you know whether it was personal or not if you didn’t know what the value was?
I don’t think that is relevant. If you are doing it for personal benefit, or because you MIGHT get personal benefit, then I don’t see how it is altruistic. If you are not doing it for any personal benefit then what reason is there to do it? (To quote yekke2: “PAA questions what motive somebody would have if not ulterior motives.”)
Smarter is not better than foolish?
Not in terms of good and bad.
Why? An act is typically referred to as selfish when it benefits the actor at the expense of others.
When I say “selfish” I mean being concerned solely with your own gain.
April 7, 2015 10:58 am at 10:58 am #1090333ChortkovParticipantSomebody famously said that a true Yorei Shomayim is one who if HKB”H would say that you would get ??? for doing Aveiros, and ???? for doing Mitzvos, would still be doing Mitzvos and not doing Aveiros.
According to PAA, of course, this dictum carries no water.
April 8, 2015 5:27 am at 5:27 am #1090335Patur Aval AssurParticipantWas my post blocked because of the quote?
If so, here it is without the quote:
yekke2:
First of all, I wouldn’t say that it carries no water; I would say that it should carry no water. I agree that real life does not seem to play according to my intellectual rules. And even according to my intellectual rules, it is possible that it should carry water, if the benefit of mitzvos exceeds the onesh.
Second of all, you (or the person you are quoting) were mechavein to Glaucon.
April 8, 2015 9:02 am at 9:02 am #1090336ChortkovParticipantPAA – It cannot hold water within your view; such a person would only be doing it because the benefit of doing mitzvos outweighed the oinesh, not because he understood the inherent value. And therefore is no better a person than the one who keeps mitzvos and gets schar, and by extension, not better than someone who does aveiros, like you tained before.
April 8, 2015 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm #1090337Patur Aval AssurParticipantI agree that he wouldn’t be any better. I’m just pointing out that even according to me it is possible that someone would do mitzvos even though he gets punished for them.
April 8, 2015 2:29 pm at 2:29 pm #1090338Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
Not necessarily. I am rejecting the way you are explaining altruism, because according to you, altruism is just the best benefit. Hence altruism is really benefitism.
It seems to me that you are rejecting your own definition of the way I explain things, not mine. I hold that benefit has value even if it is not personal. You reject this.
Not in terms of good and bad.
What are your arbitrary definitions of good and bad for the purposes of this debate? Because it would seem that according to your rules, good and bad shouldn’t exist at all.
You have a closed set of assumptions in this discussion that preclude any explanations for established human behaviors, and by your own admission they do not reflect the reality of the world. So what is the purpose of this debate?
April 8, 2015 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm #1090339Patur Aval AssurParticipantIt seems to me that you are rejecting your own definition of the way I explain things, not mine. I hold that benefit has value even if it is not personal. You reject this.
The reason I reject that is that we haven’t come up with an explanation for why a person should care about something that doesn’t benefit him personally.
What are your arbitrary definitions of good and bad for the purposes of this debate? Because it would seem that according to your rules, good and bad shouldn’t exist at all.
Correct, the concepts of good and bad should not exist according to me. Which leads to:
You have a closed set of assumptions in this discussion that preclude any explanations for established human behaviors, and by your own admission they do not reflect the reality of the world. So what is the purpose of this debate?
I don’t think it’s a closed set of assumptions. All I’m saying is that no one has demonstrated that good and bad do exist. If someone does demonstrate it, I will be more than happy to accept it. And that is the purpose of this debate. But if you don’t want to debate it that’s fine.
April 8, 2015 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #1090340ChortkovParticipantA couple of months ago, I was discussing this with somebody, who told me that in the book “Permission to Believe”, the author discusses exactly this issue. I haven’t read the book, I don’t know the author, I don’t know any details about the religious standing of the book, but a Mareh Mokom it is!
April 8, 2015 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #1090341Patur Aval AssurParticipantyekke2:
How coincidental. (I have not read Permission to Believe but) I was once discussing this with someone and (if I remember correctly) this person told me that in Permission to Believe the author uses morality as a proof to God’s existence – if there is no God why is it wrong to kill someone. I could disagree with this argument both ?????? and ???????. According to me, it doesn’t prove anything because I would say that even with a God, killing is not wrong (though it is assur). Even those arguing against me here, should agree that this doesn’t prove God’s existence, because Man could still have the inherent feelings that something is wrong, even without God. (Now if someone wanted to argue that feelings in general prove Gods’s existence, that would be a different argument which would not be taluy on morality.)
But I wouldn’t want to reject a book based on someone telling me what it says, so I may have to read it myself. Shkoyach for reminding me.
April 8, 2015 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #1090342Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
All I’m saying is that no one has demonstrated that good and bad do exist.
So what are your criteria for a demonstration?
April 8, 2015 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #1090343☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant????? ?’ ?”?
April 8, 2015 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1090344Zev7MemberPatur Aval Assur: I did not read the entire thread, but I would like to answer your original question. I believe this may be correct answer, so please read carefully.
Your question is based on the assumption that all humans only do things that are motivated by a pleasure that they will derive from that action. Your question follows that “why” should we serve Hashem for any reason other than reward (which the Mishna expects us to do). You cleverly pointed out that reasons like feeling good are really only other forms of reward which should not be considered different than doing it for the Olam Haba type of reward.
When you ask “why” should we do it, you want an answer that will contain some sort of pleasure based motivation that will explain the action, and then you refute it by saying that it’s reward.
But your assumption is wrong. The question why should or why would a person do something does not necessarily make sense. Think about it. How do you know that people only do things for a reason? Does a plant decide that it’s a wise idea to start growing in the spring? How do you know that people are different? Observation? I am not arguing with you that it certainly seems that people behave that way, but how do you know it’s an inherent rule of nature? There is no known scientific law that explains why people (or animals) must do things only for a personal gain.
Now, I am not suggesting that there are people out there who bang pots on their knees every morning for no reason at all. But as a Terutz to explain the Mishna, I would like to suggest the following. There is a Madrega that can be reached at which point a person is serving the Ribono Shel Olam not for the purpose of getting a reward. Which includes all reward. “Why” is he doing it? Because he reached that level of Avodas Hashem where his body follows the Torah even if his bodily desires contradict it. His body no longer follows the rules of regular bodies that only do things for the purpose of pleasure.
I don’t think there is a logical argument that can be made against the possibility of such a thing existing. It might still bother you that “how” can he be doing something with no reward type of motivation. I will answer that perhaps if we continue to serve Hashem non stop in the most extreme way possible for us, maybe one day we will experience the true Avodah of Shelo Al M’nas Lekabel Pras and we will see for ourselves exactly how it is possible.
April 8, 2015 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #1090345ChortkovParticipantSholom Aleichem, Zev7. Welcome to the CR.
Interesting point. I think you are saying that a person does something not because of any personal motivation, and certainly not for his own gratification, but simply for the sake of it. You described it almost as ‘instinctively’.
Whether such a Madreiga exists I can’t tell you. But that shouldn’t be pshat in the Rambam “????? ???? ???”; according to the way you understand it isn’t a conscious logical decision to do something; it is an instinctive action. Is that called ????? ?????? Is that what HKB”H wants from us? I could understand that HKBH would want us to acheive such a Madreiga that this is possible, but I don’t think the ideal performance of a Mitzvah should be something other than a positive decision to do this albeit all other considerations.
I have heard an interesting Pshat in the Akeida – it says ????? ????? ?? ???. The Meforshim talk about why we need to know this. Obviously taking something involved stretching to do it. I once heard (don’t remember mekor) that Avraham Avinu was on a level that his body instinctively did the ???? ?. He had no Torah, no form of knowledge of the commandments, but his absolute purity allowed his body to be on a level of complete holiness, and his body would automatically do what was desired by HKBH. However, taking the knife wasn’t ???? ?; HKBH only told him ?????? ?? ?????. HKBH ultimately didn’t want the knife. Therefore he required the extra effort ????? ???.
April 8, 2015 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1090346Patur Aval AssurParticipantAvram:
A definition of good and bad which includes an explanation for why there should be any reason to accord with the dictates of good and bad. If you resort to saying that there is some ultimate benefit of good, then I will say that you are then not doing it for the good but for the benefit. If there is no benefit then I will ask why you should do it. In short, the criteria are that it has to be something that has a reason to follow it but doesn’t have a reason to follow it. Which may or may not be impossible. That is the conundrum, I think. If you have a way to avoid it, I’m open to it.
April 8, 2015 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1090347Patur Aval AssurParticipantDaasYochid:
I don’t think that pasuk is relevant because it is working within the Torah’s system. Though once you bring it up, it is interesting that on that pasuk the Netziv writes:
???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????
April 8, 2015 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #1090348Patur Aval AssurParticipantZev:
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the ultimate madreiga is to become so used to serving Hashem that you do so automatically, without thought of reward/punishment. There may or may not be merit to this idea, but I don’t think it resolves my issue. You didn’t explain what the purpose of this madreiga is. Even if we grant that it exists, there has to be a reason to strive to reach it. If there is no reason to strive for it then you are admitting that there is no reason to strive for it (I know that sounded repetitive). But my question is precisely, what reason there would be to serve Hashem in this fashion – and I don’t see how you have answered it.
April 8, 2015 9:37 pm at 9:37 pm #1090349ChortkovParticipantI may sound vain, by I very much like my succinct summary of the conundrum.
April 8, 2015 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #1090350☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantI don’t think that pasuk is relevant because it is working within the Torah’s system.
I don’t understand you – if it’s in the Torah(‘s system), how can it not be relevant?
April 8, 2015 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm #1090351Patur Aval AssurParticipantyekke2:
I already quoted your summary at the top of this page:
I also like the way I most recently summed it up to Avram:
And I can’t accuse you of vanity, considering:
April 8, 2015 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #1090352Zev7MemberYekke2: It is a conscious desicion, but it is not coming from a pleasure based motivation. We all have this instictive idea that every conscious decision is made for the purpose of personal pleasure, but I am challenging you to show me logically why that must be so.
PAA: Nothing to do with getting used to. You are still talking within the parameters of the yet to be proven true assumption. We don’t need a personal reason for him to do it. His reason is because God commanded him to. Just like a plant grows when God commands it to, a Tzaddik serves hashem when he commands him to. That is why it is the highest Madrega. He is doing it purely for Hashem and not for himself.
Everyone: The idea of serving Hashem for the sake of serving hashem and not for ourselves is understood by children. We delved into it deeper and questioned it, but after we cleared it up, we are back to the simple understanding. We are ultimately supposed to serve Hashem Shelo Al Menas Lekabel Pras.
April 8, 2015 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm #1090353Patur Aval AssurParticipantI don’t understand you – if it’s in the Torah(‘s system), how can it not be relevant?
Good and bad within the Torah’s system is what the Torah wants you to do or not do. It’s not relevant to whether there is, or could be, an inherent good and bad.
April 8, 2015 10:27 pm at 10:27 pm #1090354☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant??? ??? ?????? ???. If it’s in the Torah, it is true. Any ideas which can only exist outside of the Torah are false.
????? ???????? ???? ????. The Torah doesn’t exist outside of inherent truth; it is inherent truth.
April 8, 2015 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm #1090355Patur Aval AssurParticipantDaasYochid:
I’m not saying that what the Torah says isn’t true; I’m saying that that’s not what the Torah is saying. The Torah (Hashem) created a system in which you are supposed to do ABC and not do XYZ. ABC is ??? and XYZ is ??. That doesn’t answer the question of why you should do something which doesn’t benefit you at all.
April 8, 2015 11:14 pm at 11:14 pm #1090356Patur Aval AssurParticipantZev:
A plant doesn’t choose to grow. A person chooses what to do. If there is no reason for him to do something then why should he do it? You say because God commanded him to. I ask what the purpose of listening to God is.
April 9, 2015 12:28 am at 12:28 am #1090357Zev7MemberHe chooses what to do, and he can choose to do what God says simply to serve God. That is the reason.
April 9, 2015 1:19 am at 1:19 am #1090358☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant??? is ??? and ?? is ??. If the ???? says there is something called ??? and something called ??, that means there is ??? ???.
I don’t know why this is up for debate.
April 9, 2015 3:15 am at 3:15 am #1090359Patur Aval AssurParticipantZev:
Of course he CAN choose to do it simply to serve God. But why would someone choose to do something simply to serve God?
April 9, 2015 3:16 am at 3:16 am #1090360Patur Aval AssurParticipantDaasYochid:
Of course there is ??? and ??. But it doesn’t have to be what you think it is.
April 9, 2015 3:42 am at 3:42 am #1090361☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantIt is inherent ??? ???.
How do you want to define them – pickles and lemon juice? They’re ??? ???.
April 9, 2015 4:13 am at 4:13 am #1090362Zev7MemberYou still do not understand my first post. You keep asking why he would do it. You want an answer that will be some sort of gain for him. I am telling you that he is doing it for the gain of hashem, not for his own gain. Why isn’t that enough of a reason for him to do it? You have this idea that every thing people do is for their good. I am waiting for you to tell me how you know it must be that way.
April 9, 2015 4:26 am at 4:26 am #1090363☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantApril 9, 2015 4:30 am at 4:30 am #1090364Patur Aval AssurParticipantZev:
It doesn’t have to be that way. However you have not given any reason why it shouldn’t be that way. Which means you have not given any reason why someone should care about the gain of Hashem.
April 9, 2015 4:31 am at 4:31 am #1090365Patur Aval AssurParticipantDaasYochid:
I am not defining it as pickles and lemon juice. I already defined it as what the Torah (Hashem) wants you to do and not do.
April 9, 2015 4:56 am at 4:56 am #1090366☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantYes, but the Torah doesn’t call it that, it calls it good and bad.
April 9, 2015 5:09 am at 5:09 am #1090367Zev7MemberPAA: You still do not understand the depth of my answer to your question. You continue to ask “why someone should care”. It’s not a matter of caring. The word care is used to describe feelings and actions in a world in which everything is done for personal pleasure. At the shelo al menas lekabel pras Madrega, you are doing things for hashem, not yourself. So the word care loses it’s meaning.
April 9, 2015 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #1090368Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
In your quotation below, the text in bold are my clarifications based on how I understand you.
In short, the criteria are that it has to be something that has a non-benefit related reason to follow it but doesn’t have a benefit related reason to follow it.
So to shorten your question, you are asking us to provide a reason for doing anything that is unrelated to benefit.
The best answer I can come up with is this:
We humans are ephemeral and limited, therefore it is possible for us to receive benefit that makes us longer lasting and stronger. It makes sense, therefore, for human beings to act for their benefit, and we call this sense “reasons” for acting.
Since G-d is eternal and omnipotent, it is nonsensical to state that He can receive benefit. Yet, we know that He does things, so He must have reasons that are unrelated to benefit. We are incapable of knowing these reasons due to our own limitations.
So why would a human being do something if not for benefit? It doesn’t really make sense to us, and your conundrum would stand, except for one thing: human beings were created b’tzelem Elokim. Therefore, there is a spark from Hashem inside each one of us. So even though we cannot articulate it with the earthly definition of “reasons” that you seek, if all “benefit” reasons for an act are stripped away, we are still left with the reason that Hashem does things. What is that reason? Ask Hashem. But it’s within us, whether we can articulate it or not.
April 9, 2015 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #1090369Zev7MemberAvram, that was beautiful.
April 9, 2015 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm #1090370Zev7MemberI would add that this non benifit/pleasure reason to do something has to do with dveikus with hakadosh baruch hu. He is connected to hashem so much that he does things for the good of hashem not only for the good of himself.
April 19, 2015 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm #1090371catch yourselfParticipantI noticed this week (probably thanks to the existence of this thread) that ????? ???? explains that ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? means that your service to Him should rather be an expression of gratitude for all that He has already done for you.
???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?”? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??”?
May 4, 2015 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #1090372Patur Aval AssurParticipantDaasYochid:
The Torah doesn’t call it “good” and “bad”; the Torah calls it “???” and “??”.
Zev:
Don’t use the word “care” if you don’t like it. Imagine that you are trying to convince someone to serve Hashem in this most lofty fashion. What would be your convincing argument?
Avram:
If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that Hashem obviously does things without the goal being benefit and since we are ???? Hashem, we can also do things for the same non-benefit reason Hashem does things for, even if we don’t know what it is. My response to that is that it might be true that there are reasons that transcend benefit, but you haven’t given a reason why someone should do something for such a reason.
Zev:
But why should someone pursue dveykus if not because it is a commandment?
May 4, 2015 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm #1090373☕ DaasYochid ☕ParticipantWell, obviously, the Torah is in Lashon Hakodesh.
May 4, 2015 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #1090374Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
we can also do things for the same non-benefit reason Hashem does things for, even if we don’t know what it is.
I would go a bit further than that and say that we are driven to do things for the same non-benefit reason Hashem does things for, even if we don’t know what it is. Not just that we can do things for those reasons.
My response to that is that it might be true that there are reasons that transcend benefit, but you haven’t given a reason why someone should do something for such a reason.
Your question is a non sequitur. You are asking me to describe a non-benefit reason in terms of a benefit reason. If, however, we are motivated to act because we are created b’tzelem Elokim, then “why” is irrelevant anyway. The relevant question becomes, “why would you not”?
May 4, 2015 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #1090375Patur Aval AssurParticipantAvram:
It seems we have now circled back to the beginning. We are reverting back to the fact that there is some natural desire to do things. I agreed that that may be; my contention, though, is that it doesn’t make it more lofty.
May 4, 2015 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #1090376Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
It seems we have now circled back to the beginning.
Wheeeeeee!
my contention, though, is that it doesn’t make it more lofty.
Nope. You just wrote,
it might be true that there are reasons that transcend benefit
And if a person acts because of a natural drive that transcends benefit, that is more “lofty” than if a person acts because of a natural drive for benefit.
May 5, 2015 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #1090377Patur Aval AssurParticipantAvram:
I’m not sure how I can respond to you. You are, after all, asserting the existence of something beyond human comprehension which pretty much makes it undiscussable. What you are essentially saying is that it is because it is and you just have to accept it even though it can’t be explained.
Which is fine.
So would you agree with this summary:
Patur Aval Assur: There is a conundrum etc. etc.
Avram in MD: There is an answer.
(This is not at all meant facetiously so please don’t take it that way. In fact I commend you for actually putting thought into, and composing lengthy responses.)
May 5, 2015 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1090378Avram in MDParticipantPatur Aval Assur,
You are, after all, asserting the existence of something beyond human comprehension which pretty much makes it undiscussable. What you are essentially saying is that it is because it is and you just have to accept it even though it can’t be explained.
Yes, I think this is a good summary of my position, although I do think that there are “projections” of the incomprehensible into the comprehensible (i.e., the Torah, Beis Hamikdash, prophets), which makes it possible to believe yet still be rational. Our ability to see these “projections” has been greatly reduced due to golus, however.
So would you agree with this summary:
Patur Aval Assur: There is a conundrum etc. etc.
Avram in MD: There is an answer.
I think that is a good summary.
In fact I commend you for actually putting thought into, and composing lengthy responses
Thank you, that is very kind. And thank you for engaging patiently in this debate; I find/found it quite interesting.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.