A little confused about why this explanation doesn't fail like the ones its trying to answer. If G-d has a desire to align his representation with man's understanding, why does the articulation of that understanding have an impact?
Articulation engenders commitment. Through articulating what we think is right, we solidify our commitment to seeing that potential outcome – and that potential outcome alone – as right.
Imagine if we would always be open-minded about Hashem’s actions – if we wouldn’t commit to what is right or wrong from the human perspective. We would be too flexible for anything to be truly meaningful. We would bend reason and make sense of anything. Therefore, in order for us to properly emulate Hashem, we have to commit in advance to what we consider right for Him to do, just like Abrahan did when he said that if Hashem were to wipe out the righteous along with the wicked it would be wrong, unjust. If we wouldn’t assert that clearly, we’d be likely to engage in apologetics after the fact and explain away Hashem’s actions, convincing ourselves that we comprehend their goodness even when we don’t. After Abraham took the staunch stance that he did, there was no turning back: If Hashem wouldn’t have listened to his prayer, Abraham would have been alone, his path divergent from Hashem’s. Thus, it is the articulated commitment that is causal in Hashem’s plan to “align His representation with man’s understanding,” as you put it.
Since we all take our cues from the world around us (imitatio Dei), we must commit to seeing it a certain way and winnow, in advance, what we would take as good and what not, or else, lacking a mechanism to modulate and interpret the acts of God, we would have no basis for emulating Hashem.
Hashem’s actions span comprehensible and incomprehensible realms. Emulating what is beyond human understanding risks misinterpretation and harm. For instance, natural disasters — acts of God — embody power and chaos. If emulated, this can lead man to destructive behavior, as humans don’t always grasp the broader purpose or control like Hashem does. Conversely, emulating compassion, a comprehensible trait, promotes constructive actions aligned with our understanding. The key is discerning which aspects are within our cognitive scope. Prayer is how we do so: It is akin to winnowing.
By Abraham taking a stance, he achieved two things, depending on the future outcome: If Hashem were to spare Sodom due to its containing 10 righteous persons, Abraham’s sense of justice and righteousness would be affirmed; and if Hashem would destroy Sodom despite it containing 10 righteous persons, Abraham would not be influenced by his experience to emulate Hashem in this way. He wouldn’t become cruel. All this because he prayed in advance. In this sense, “unanswered” prayers are equally important to “answered” prayers!
In a nutshell, I think its fair to say that the articulation that prayer/articulation of the good serves as a way to discover and/or solidify our understanding of what is good and bad. This change in ourselves is then part of the system of the universe to which G-d relates. Did I understand you well?
And articulating specifically in advance of an occurrence causes us to comprehend the goodness of the occurrence in line with our advance, detached consideration, which comprehension would be different had we not considered the occurrence in advance, before we are actually experiencing it.
A little confused about why this explanation doesn't fail like the ones its trying to answer. If G-d has a desire to align his representation with man's understanding, why does the articulation of that understanding have an impact?
Articulation engenders commitment. Through articulating what we think is right, we solidify our commitment to seeing that potential outcome – and that potential outcome alone – as right.
Imagine if we would always be open-minded about Hashem’s actions – if we wouldn’t commit to what is right or wrong from the human perspective. We would be too flexible for anything to be truly meaningful. We would bend reason and make sense of anything. Therefore, in order for us to properly emulate Hashem, we have to commit in advance to what we consider right for Him to do, just like Abrahan did when he said that if Hashem were to wipe out the righteous along with the wicked it would be wrong, unjust. If we wouldn’t assert that clearly, we’d be likely to engage in apologetics after the fact and explain away Hashem’s actions, convincing ourselves that we comprehend their goodness even when we don’t. After Abraham took the staunch stance that he did, there was no turning back: If Hashem wouldn’t have listened to his prayer, Abraham would have been alone, his path divergent from Hashem’s. Thus, it is the articulated commitment that is causal in Hashem’s plan to “align His representation with man’s understanding,” as you put it.
Since we all take our cues from the world around us (imitatio Dei), we must commit to seeing it a certain way and winnow, in advance, what we would take as good and what not, or else, lacking a mechanism to modulate and interpret the acts of God, we would have no basis for emulating Hashem.
Hashem’s actions span comprehensible and incomprehensible realms. Emulating what is beyond human understanding risks misinterpretation and harm. For instance, natural disasters — acts of God — embody power and chaos. If emulated, this can lead man to destructive behavior, as humans don’t always grasp the broader purpose or control like Hashem does. Conversely, emulating compassion, a comprehensible trait, promotes constructive actions aligned with our understanding. The key is discerning which aspects are within our cognitive scope. Prayer is how we do so: It is akin to winnowing.
By Abraham taking a stance, he achieved two things, depending on the future outcome: If Hashem were to spare Sodom due to its containing 10 righteous persons, Abraham’s sense of justice and righteousness would be affirmed; and if Hashem would destroy Sodom despite it containing 10 righteous persons, Abraham would not be influenced by his experience to emulate Hashem in this way. He wouldn’t become cruel. All this because he prayed in advance. In this sense, “unanswered” prayers are equally important to “answered” prayers!
Thanks for seeking clarification!
In a nutshell, I think its fair to say that the articulation that prayer/articulation of the good serves as a way to discover and/or solidify our understanding of what is good and bad. This change in ourselves is then part of the system of the universe to which G-d relates. Did I understand you well?
Yessir!
And articulating specifically in advance of an occurrence causes us to comprehend the goodness of the occurrence in line with our advance, detached consideration, which comprehension would be different had we not considered the occurrence in advance, before we are actually experiencing it.
I will discuss this further in the upcoming segments.