(no subject)
Was the world created for man? An affirmative answer is a tradition in Judaism (going back to Saadiah Gaon). There are criticizing traditions; one is presented in Maimonides' MN3:13. However, there is no radically opposite tradition, such as would say that the good of man is not essential for the goal of creation. Yet the concept is challenged by the Sages' vote on "whether it would be better for man not to have been created," where a majority voted yes. Indeed, an unqualified statement of the creation for man's sake may be a sign either of arrogance or of some irrelevant innocence. Perhaps the question can be better formulated in terms of Maimonidean logic: (while neither of the statements "yes, for the sake of man" and "no, not for the sake of man" can be true in an unqualified sense) which of them is less untrue? Maimonides himself gives a negative answer and treats Saadiah's opinion with disdain; yet he recognizes the good of man as at least one of the Creator's first intentions, without qualifications.
A somewhat similar question is raised in the old dispute: was the creation an act of His will or of His mercy (love)? Rav Soloveitchik favors the former view. But perhaps a better answer - and perhaps one along Maimonidean lines - is the invalidation of the question, which could be suggested by the first verse of the Torah and the long-debated grammatical plural of the elokim, meaning: you'd better know that He is one in all respects; but if you cannot fully appreciate it yet, don't think that any valid "aspect" or "mode" is missing in the work of creation.
A somewhat similar question is raised in the old dispute: was the creation an act of His will or of His mercy (love)? Rav Soloveitchik favors the former view. But perhaps a better answer - and perhaps one along Maimonidean lines - is the invalidation of the question, which could be suggested by the first verse of the Torah and the long-debated grammatical plural of the elokim, meaning: you'd better know that He is one in all respects; but if you cannot fully appreciate it yet, don't think that any valid "aspect" or "mode" is missing in the work of creation.