1

First, I need to set a "reference frame" for this comparison, to eliminate unneeded quarrels:

I follow the approach (presented here as "The idea commonly espoused in the Jewish world today" thanks to DoubleAA) that accepts the fact that G-d constant "controls" every single detail of His Creation** (and not a "slimmed-down" version of Him that occasionally forgets it or neglects it or disconnects from it).

In this approach, is there any difference between what we call plain "מזל" (Luck - good one or bad one) and what we call "השגחה פרטית" (G-d's personal guidance, please correct me if I'm wrong with translation)?

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 2
    Careful - are you using מזל in the sense of luck, as in random events which turn out in or against one’s favor? Or are you using מזל in the sense of astrological influence which causes these events? – DonielF Apr 23 '19 at 15:11
  • @DonielF That's why I translated it as luck. Pure luck – Al Berko Apr 23 '19 at 19:42
  • @DonielF: Mazal is more like "fate". After all, the motions of the constellations and of the planets in relation to the constellations follow strict rules. Things controlled by mazal are following those predetermined patterns, not "luck". – Micha Berger Apr 25 '19 at 01:00
  • Luck or randomness implies a lack of specific cause. Hashgachah peratis is saying the cause is directly the Divine Plan, rather than the Plan, in the form of global hashgachah kelalis requiring teva which in turn explains some event. Belief in total hashgachah peratis means the whole concept of luck or randomness needs rethinking; nothing is causeless. I think this whole question doesn't get started, as you are trying to find parallel concepts between two incompatible worldviews. – Micha Berger Apr 25 '19 at 01:03
  • @MichaBerger You're saying 1. "Luck implies a lack of specific cause." 2. H"P comes with a cause. Therefore Luck <> H"P. But the catch is that 1 is in our eyes and 2 is in G-d's eyes. Once we choose one view they both either turn to "causeless" in our eyes or "caused" in G-d's. therefore the equity. Isn't it? – Al Berko Apr 25 '19 at 08:38
  • @AlBerko: G-d’s Perepective doesn’t contain time, so I don’t know how to start discussing causality within it. But in general I will leave miTzIdo - mitzideinu to people who relate to the Tanya’s worldview. We are talking about how people interpret what is happening in our lives, The line between “subject to the rules as initially set up” and “in response to our actions” is only meaningful within time. – Micha Berger Apr 25 '19 at 17:24

0 Answers0