Life Is Terrible

          This week in Megillot we studied the sources of Shlomo's depression perspective on life. His three main topics are toil, wisdom, and partying. In an attempt to find happiness and pleasure in the world, Shlomo sought after these types of things. He tried to build palaces and other magnificent things, but decides that anything made by man can't be perfect. Therefore, he tried to acquire wisdom. He found that knowledge is expansive but limited- he cannot know everything. Finally he turns to parties but realizes that that kind of pleasure doesn't last.

         From this point on, I think that Shlomo sounds like a whining little baby. Since he can't build things that are PERFECT and he can't know EVERYTHING and he can't ALWAYS feel the pleasure of parties, he believes that Hakol Hevel- everything is worthless and useless and pointless.

         Well great. That's all nice and sunshine and butterflies, but why should Shlomo be able to rant and tell us all of these things? Because he himself had wealth and wisdom and power and found that none of it meant anything. Personally, I think he went a bit extreme by saying that since nothing could be perfect it was all useless. Knowledge can be very valuable, even if you can't know everything about everything.

         Then, because he hasn't been a downer enough, he goes on to add that everyone dies so what's the point? Nothing makes a lasting impression anyway. Obviously, we know he is wrong, because if he doesn't make a lasting impression, then why are studying his book today? He also continues on and complains that all of his hard work could be left to some fool who didn't earn it and all hard work just causes pain.

         Okay, now while I respect Shlomo's views, I think he went wayyy overboard on the whole "no lasting impressions" thing. Did he not know about the history of the people before him? Doesn't the Torah itself and the stories of Avraham and Moshe leave a lasting impression? Actually, now that I come to think of it (this is kind of random), did the Jews during that time period learn about the histories of other nations the way we do today? Wouldn't that imply a lasting impression? I just don't understand how Shlomo can take one example and just say that because of that, nothing leaves a lasting impression. That sounds a little like a hasty generalization fallacy to me...