Encore Archive

Welcome to Encore, the place where you will find the latest thoughts and reflections by CLAL faculty and associates on topics of the moment. Each week you will find something new and (hopefully) engaging here!

To access the CLAL Encore Archive, click here.

To join the conversation at CLAL Encore Talk, click here.

Not Chaos But Creation... Hence Meaning

Eliezer Berkovitz (Sh'ma, 5/96, September 5, 1975)

Assuming that the world is not God's creation, what is then the universe? An inexplicable chance event that happened because it happened without being planned or purposed.

If there is no Creator the universe is meaningless. The existentialist (atheistic brand) idea of the absurdity of existence would then be fully justified. What is the place or status of man in this kind of a world? A chance event among an infinite number of chance events and because of its comparative insignificance of no consequence, a little inadvertence of Nature due to a slight mishap in "antiseptic precaution" (Eddington).

From a materialistic point of view man is really a stranger in a soulless universe. He is alienated from the meaningless vastness of space and time. He is a refugee in the cosmos.

Creation implies meaning

But man knows of meaning. He searches for it. Even when he denies it, he affirms it. If he reaches the conclusion that there is no meaning to existence, he must have some idea of what that meaning ought to be. Only in the light of some such expectation can he maintain that existence is meaningless. What is the significance of the fact that man asks about meaning and searches for it?

Camus was of the opinion that the universe was meaningless; only man knew about meaning, only he can introduce meaning into the world. This kind of reasoning is clearly fallacious. If the universe were meaningless, a chance event, how could man know about meaning? He is part of that universe, formed by the same impersonal forces. An unplanned, purposeless, indifferent universe could never have produced meaning in that tiniest little lump of matter, man, that owed its very existence to a failure of "antiseptic precaution" in Nature. Meaning cannot be a chance event. It has to be meant, intended, willed.

Only if the world is creation can there be meaning to it, only then can meaning be found in it. Only if the world is creation can man overcome his alienation from the universe, only then can he find his due place in it.

Not only is man insignificant in relationship to divine infinity and absoluteness; in a world without God, he has no status at all. Only as God's creation does he have any dignity; it is God's call to him that lifts him from his meaninglessness as part of the "thing" world and establishes him in the dignity of responsible personal existence.

Only if the world is creation can it become home for man; only then is there a place for him within a plan.

We cannot grasp God's purpose

But why was he created, what was the purpose in man's creation? The question is inseparable from the more encompassing question: why creation at all? What was God's purpose with it?

The most common answer found in philosophical as well as kabbalistic writing is: "It is the nature of the Good One to do good." Rabbi Shneur Zahnan, in his Likutei Amarim, maintains that God created with his attribute of gedulah (greatness), which is the attribute of chesed (lovingkindness). In other words, he created out of lovingkindness. But lovingkindness toward whom? There is no answer to the question. Prior to creation, there is nothing apart from God. Toward whom then, is God exercising lovingkindness when he creates? All such and similar explanations are to no avail.

The only acceptable explanation seems to be that of Mairnonides, who maintains that all we can say in reply to the question why God created is: It was his will to create. Obviously, he must have willed this world, otherwise he would not have brought it into being. The point Maimonides makes is that no matter what reason we may think we have found for God's creating, we shall always be able to ask: What for? Did he create the universe to reveal his mightiness? What for? Did he create the universe to reveal himself to man, to give him the Torah, commandments? What for? An infinite Being like God, possessing perfection, could not be in need of anything. To want anything, would be desiring something. But why should God desire anything? What could he be lacking? Therefore, all we know is that the world is the result of an act of divine volition; but there is no answer to the "why."

We might go one step farther. The purpose of the act of creation must have been a divine one. On account of that, its knowledge is inaccessible to man. Even d God desired to communicate to man his own divine reason for wanting to create, our finite minds would not be able to grasp it. He would have had to bestow upon us his divine intellect in order to inform us of the meaning of creation unto himself. It is, of course, an impossibility to be man, equipped with God's mind.

We search for meaning

One thing, however, is certain: Since the world is creation, there is purpose to it and there must be meaning in existence. Martin Buber maintains that one of the results of a revelational experience is that man comes out of it with the conviction of life's meaningfulness, with the certainty that from now on nothing can be meaningless. Victor Frankl, in his Man's Search for Meaning, believes that psychologists overemphasize the degree to which man is determined by his drives, such as for pleasure or for power. To Frankl, decisive for human existence is man's will for meaning. In the concentration camps he found that not the physically fittest people had the best chance for survival, but those who in spite of everything were still able to retain some sense of meaningfulness in existence.

However, what the meaning is according to Buber is not revealed. Revelation has no content according to him. With the certainty that life is meaningful, man has to go into the world and discover the meaning for himself. Sartre believes that man has to create his own values. Buber and Frankl, in disagreement, maintain that values cannot be created; they exist, they are given; they have to be discovered. Similarly, there is meaning; one has to discover it for one's personal life. One cannot tell anyone what the meaning of one's existence is; but meaning confronts man and he has to respond to it.

Meaning must be both objective and personal

A serious problem is inseparable from such a position. If man alone can discover the meaning of his life, if he has to find it, to choose it among many other possibilities, then clearly everyone is to choose the meaning of his own existence. But if it is up to man, to everyone individually, to choose, who is to decide on right or wrong? Every choice of each person is as valid as that of any other. There are then no objective standards by which to choose and to decide. While the practice of human kindness toward all may be meaningful for one person, genocide may be an equally meaningful meaning to another. Yet, meaning must be personal, it has to be the meaning of my own life; it cannot but be subjective. But if so, the distinction between right and wrong disappears. The floodgates of anarchy, everyone doing his own thing, have been opened on mankind.

Torah and mitzvot are our guides

Is there a solution to the problem? On the one hand, meaning has to be subjectively meaningful; it has to be the meaning of my own life. On the other hand, it cannot be altogether subjective. It has to be validated by some recognized, accepted, objective standard or law.

The solution would seem to be: the subjectively chosen meaning has to be found or discovered or created within an objectively given frame of reference. For a Jew this objective frame of reference is the Torah and the mitzvot. It determines for all Jews in common the meaning of being Jews, i.e., to live in accordance with the will of God as revealed in his Torah. Outside of this objectively given frame of reference there can be no meaning in being a Jew. In fact, even a person who does not practice Judaism can only be a Jew, if he is qualified to be one in conformity with the objective standards that determine what it means to be a Jew.

But we choose our own paths

However, while the objective frame of reference determines the meaning of being a Jew, it does not determine the specific meaning in the life of this specific Jew or of the other. In other words, that subjective meaning which is essential for every individual in his own personal, unique life situation is not determined by Torah and mitzvot. it is here and here alone that Buber and Frankl come into their own. It is up to every individual to discover the subjective meaning of his own personal life, what to do with one's life within the objective frame of reference. Others may advise him, may help him, but ultimately the choice must be his own, the decision must be his.

No one can really tell anyone what the meaning of one's life should be. This is just as well. Only a puppet could be so instructed. It is of the very essence of human existence to search for this personal meaning to one's personal existence, to formulate it, to discover it. It is of the very essence of life's adventure and man's creativity. It may even be that while the meaning of one man's life is something very tangible and definite, that of another is the search for it. It is told of the Baal Shem Tov that lying in his death bed he was heard saying: "Now I know what I have lived for."

As far as a Jew is concerned, though he might often feel frustrated, depressed, dejected during the search for not being able to discover the subjective, personal element in the meaning of his existence, as a Jew his life can never be completely meaningless, for he shares with all other Jews in the objective meaningfulness within the frame of reference of Torah and mitzvot.