The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides
The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides
eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781139816908 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Cambridge University Press |
| Publication date: | 09/12/2005 |
| Series: | Cambridge Companions to Philosophy |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| File size: | 1 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Cambridge University Press
0521819741 - The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides - Edited by Kenneth Seeskin
Excerpt
Introduction
It is impossible to overstate Maimonides' influence on Jewish philosophy. Although his predecessor Judah Halevi may have come closer to expressing what most Jews think about God, and his successor Levi ben Gerson (Gersonides) may have been a more rigorous practitioner of scholastic philosophy, neither shaped Jewish self-understanding the way Maimonides did. One reason is the breadth of his contribution: In addition to his standing as a philosopher, Maimonides established a commanding reputation as a rabbi, Talmudic expositor, physician, and social commentator. But the most important reason has to do with intellectual power. By trying to bring Judaism and philosophy closer together, he did not leave either as he found it. If Judaism became more rigorous in defending its central beliefs, philosophy became more willing to face its limitations.
In Maimonides' judgment, Judaism stands or falls on its commitment to an incorporeal God who cannot be represented in bodily form. It is clear, however, that this commitment runs counter to the tendency of most people to think in material terms and deny the existence of anything incorporeal. The problem is acute because for Maimonides to conceive of God in the wrong way is not to conceive of God at all. Thus a person who prays to an image of a king on a throne has not fulfilled the commandments of the religion no matter what else he or she may do. Nor, as far as Maimonides is concerned, has he or she fulfilled the rational potential of a human being.
From a religious perspective, the way to overcome this tendency is to see that behind each and every commandment is the realization that an incorporeal God is the only legitimate object of worship. From a philosophic perspective, it is to prepare oneself for contemplation of a God whose perfection cannot be measured in human terms. Seen in this light, philosophy is not just an academic subject but a sacred obligation. By diverting attention from temporal matters to eternal, it relieves us of the conceit of thinking that everything in the universe reflects our interests or was created for our benefit. According to Maimonides (MT 1, Principles of the Torah, 4.12), when a person studies philosophy and realizes the vastness of the universe "his soul will thirst, his very flesh will yearn to love God. He will be filled with fear and trembling, as he becomes conscious of his lowly condition, poverty, and insignificance."
For all its profundity, Maimonides' thought is difficult to classify. There is Maimonides the defender of tradition and Maimonides the thinker who sought to reshape it, Maimonides the student of Aristotle and Maimonides the critic, Maimonides the believer and Maimonides the skeptic. Which is the real Maimonides? In one sense all; in another sense none. All - because each of these descriptions identifies an important theme in his writing; none - because his mind was too active for simple descriptions to do him justice.
We can begin by recognizing that Maimonides was a literary genius who was uncomfortable with the written word and strove to overcome its limitations. The Mishneh Torah, his fourteen-volume code of Jewish law, is written in simple, elegant Hebrew in order to make an enormous body of legal literature intelligible to people without technical training. Open to any page and you will hear the patient, methodical voice of someone who wants his readers to understand everything Jewish law asks them to do and why they are asked to do it. By contrast the Guide of the Perplexed, written in Judeo-Arabic, is a substitute for the one-on-one discussion that takes place between a teacher and an advanced student. There (GP 1, Introduction, p. 8) Maimonides admits that the problems he wants to discuss are so difficult that no one knows the full truth and that even if someone were to be blessed with special insight, he would find it hard "to explain with complete clarity and coherence even the portion that he has apprehended." Accordingly he informs the reader (GP 1, Introduction, pp. 6-7) that he intends to contradict himself and write in an esoteric fashion so that truth may be "glimpsed and then again concealed."
There is also the problem of discussing in a public forum ideas much of the public may not accept or understand. In the Guide Maimonides says several times that people incline to the things to which they are accustomed. In most cases this means that they trust only what they can apprehend with the senses. How then can they serve a God who has no visual likeness? Tell them directly that God is immaterial and they will conclude that God is imaginary. Tell them that God does not get angry when people sin and they will conclude that sin is permitted. On the other hand, let them wallow in ignorance and you make spiritual progress all but impossible.
Maimonides' answer to this dilemma was to write in different genres for different audiences revealing truth in piecemeal fashion. Even in the space of the Guide, he employs biblical exegesis, philosophic exposition, scientific demonstration, parable, dialogue, and dialectic to get his message across. He admits that he will not limit his remarks on any one subject to a single passage and reserves the right to contradict himself if circumstances warrant. As Aviezer Ravitzky points out, this has led to centuries of debate on what Maimonides meant and allowed any number of interpreters to find their own opinions articulated in his text. Aristotelians saw him as an Aristotelian, believers in miracles and creation saw him as a defender of traditional doctrine, Hermann Cohen saw him as a proto-Kantian, Leo Strauss as a thinker forced to choose between Jerusalem and Athens. Whatever one's predilections, one should be cautious with generalizations. Underneath the labels that occupy historians of philosophy, there is the thinker who struggled with age-old questions and constantly challenged the reader to think for herself.
Consider the facts of his life. Maimonides was born in Cordova, Spain, in 1138. As Joel L. Kraemer indicates, Maimonides came from a distinguished family and grew up in a center of scientific and philosophic learning. Although he was forced to leave his native home, wander through the Middle East for a dozen years fearing for his life, and was devastated by the accidental death of his brother, he established himself as an authority on a wide range of issues and did not shirk from controversy. Kraemer stresses that Maimonides held a Platonic view of teaching. Rather than a way of transmitting authoritative doctrine from teacher to pupil, it is a process of thinking best communicated through dialogue. The result is a philosophy that is not merely intellectual but transformative. Such a philosophy maintains the rigor of its own methods but recognizes the limits of human knowledge and the ability of prophets to shed light on issues that philosophy alone cannot resolve. It culminates in the intellectual love of God, a point at which, in Kraemer's words "rationalism and mysticism intersect."
In his essay on philosophical sources, Alfred L. Ivry challenges the view that the contradictions in the Guide are entirely of Maimonides' making. Instead the conflicting desires in Maimonides' heart, and the interests he shared with theological and theosophical traditions, combined to produce a book that is pulled in several directions. That is why it is difficult to say whether Maimonides belongs to the Averroian or the Avicennian school of thought. As Ivry goes on to argue, the Guide oscillates between theoretical and practical concerns and shows the influence of rationalists and mystics alike. To take a noteworthy example, Maimonides is sharply critical of the mutakallimūn but not above using some of their arguments when it suits his purpose.
My own essay on metaphysics begins by denying that one can treat Maimonides in the way one treats Aristotle and Aquinas. By that I mean one cannot simply say this: Here is the metaphysical system he adopted and list a set of principles. Rather, one has to see that some of his views can be demonstrated whereas others can only be pointed to or hinted at. Although metaphysics frees us from the need to think in material terms, and in that respect is a prerequisite for understanding God, it also shows us that categories such as substance, attribute, and relation or distinctions such as act-potency and cause-effect do not apply to God. In the end Maimonides' view of metaphysics is both respectful and critical; it is both a necessary part of the pathway to God and something that must eventually be overcome.
Maimonides' view of metaphysics is also the focus of Josef Stern's essay. As Stern sees it, there is nothing Maimonides values more than knowledge, especially knowledge of metaphysics or divine science. But when one considers the limitations that Maimonides puts on knowledge, it appears this kind of knowledge is all but unrealizable. What are we to make of this? Stern follows a path similar to Kraemer by suggesting that Maimonides puts more emphasis on the process of acquiring knowledge than on a body of established results. Rather than the exposition of a doctrine, philosophy is a set of intellectual practices that discipline the soul and help one cultivate happiness or perfection. These practices vary and include everything from intellectual apprehension to emotional stability to self-examination to religious observance. Again we are warned not to look for a one-dimensional interpretation.
Maimonides' insistence on the limits of human knowledge is also the focus of Gad Freudenthal's essay on the philosophy of science. Although it is natural to think of epistemological limits as an obstacle in the search for truth, this need not be so. As Freudenthal points out, lack of certainty in science can also give rise to philosophic reflection. This is especially true when we consider Maimonides' critique of Aristotle's astronomy and his rejection of the claim that the world we inhabit is fully knowable. From this Maimonides concludes that the world is not eternal and that there are grounds for believing that God exercises free choice in particularizing certain features of the natural order.
Freudenthal goes on to show that like other aspects of his philosophy, Maimonides' view of knowledge reveals a number of conflicts. He accepts Aristotle's view of the sublunar world but not of the heavens. He upholds the power of the human mind to rise above the data of experience but casts doubt on its ability to extrapolate from that data to the origin of the world. He believed that the properties of various substances can be established by appeal to "experience," but refused to accept the claims of astrologers when they made a similar appeal. In all, science, though indispensable for understanding the world and interpreting Scripture, is not infallible. It too demands the application of specific arguments to specific areas of inquiry.
That brings us to Maimonides' practical philosophy. We have already seen that the distinction between theoretical and practical may not be hard and fast. David Shatz starts from the fact that Maimonides regards the highest form of perfection as intellectual and sees morality as subordinate. According to a common way of reading Maimonides, the purpose of morality is to prepare the way for contemplation. But as Shatz recognizes, this reading is too simple because Maimonides has two conceptions of morality: that which leads to contemplation and that which results from it. If the former is related to phronēsis or practical wisdom, the latter is not: It is a consequence or overflow from theoretical wisdom. This distinction enables us to see why Maimonides' conception of imitatio Dei is different from Aristotle's and why, at the end of the Guide, Maimonides argues that far from taking the place of worship or ethical behavior, contemplation enhances them.
In his analysis of Maimonides' political thought, Haim Kreisel also emphasizes the close connection between theory and praxis. Beyond the goal of establishing order and protecting life and property, society exists in order to facilitate the highest level of human perfection: pursuit of the sciences and worship of God. In this way intellectual perfection is not just something it is good to have but a goal that exists in us by nature and defines us as human beings. This sets Maimonides apart from liberal theorists, who believe that once society recognizes certain basic rights, it is up to each individual to decide what to do with his or her life. For Maimonides a state that takes a hands-off attitude to the spiritual and intellectual development of its citizens neglects the primary reason for its existence. As Kreisel indicates, Maimonides' view of society raises the question of whether liberal theories are as self-evident as their proponents sometimes claim.
Society's duty to promote the development of theoretical reason is also a central theme of David Novak's essay on jurisprudence. This applies not only to Jews and their law but to gentiles and their law as well. Novak therefore argues that Maimonides recognizes three types of practical reason: that of ordinary jurists, who take the laws of their society as given and make no deductions from them, that of philosophically inclined jurists, who base legal decisions on rational principles, and that of true metaphysicians, who bring practical reason and theoretical reason together in a manner that preserves the teleology of the Torah. For all of his emphasis on the limits of reason in resolving theoretical questions like the origin of the world, it is noteworthy that Maimonides extends the range of rabbinic or humanly made law beyond anything that had been done before. As Novak maintains, this assigns vast importance to the role of practical reason in the divinely created order.
Ravitzky's essay not only reviews the history of attempts to explain Maimonides' esotericism but takes up the larger question of his philosophy of education. From Samuel ibn Tibbon, the original translator, to Leo Strauss, generations of commentators have argued that the Guide is deeply esoteric, by which they mean that Maimonides goes to great lengths to conceal his views from the average reader and offer enough hints for sophisticated readers to figure out where he really stands. Although he might say that he accepts miracles and creation ex nihilo, according to the esotericist tradition, he is really committed to an eternal world governed by natural necessity. In Straussian terms, Athens wins out over Jerusalem.
Although Maimonides was aware that the social fabric relies on myths, conventions, and preconceived notions that may not stand up to philosophic scrutiny, Ravitzky argues that this does not establish the esotericist's case because Maimonides also believed that the human condition is dynamic. The person who relies on myth today may turn to philosophy tomorrow if we take the time to explain why the latter is superior - both spiritually and intellectually. In short Maimonides believed in the possibility of intellectual progress and devoted much of his life to promoting it. If so, the idea that Maimonides divided humanity into two groups and hid his views from one of them is insupportable. Ravitzky sums up his essay by suggesting that Maimonides is willing to employ several argument forms, switch identities, and mediate between cultures if that is what is needed to help the reader understand the problem under discussion. While this approach is incompatible with spoon feeding, it does not necessitate full-blown esotericism.
Sara Klein-Braslavy is more sympathetic with esotericism, especially in regard to Maimonides' Bible commentary. The Bible is an esoteric work that presents the truths of philosophy in a way that reveals them to those able to appreciate their full significance but conceals them from the masses. To accomplish this end, it employs parables, metaphors, equivocal terms, and other literary devices that "speak in the language of human beings" but can be interpreted at a variety of levels. Moreover, Maimonides writes in an esoteric fashion scattering his remarks across a number of passages and conveying meaning through hints or clues that a discerning reader can pick up. Klein-Braslavy indicates how subtle Maimonides' Bible commentary can be and how alert the reader must be to follow it in detail. Although he often remains within the scope of Jewish literary tradition, Maimonides typically finds the truths of Aristotelian philosophy underneath biblical narrative.
Even so, Maimonides' commentary is not systematic in the sense that he discusses the Bible verse by verse. His treatment of parables, metaphors, and equivocal terms is part of a longer philosophic work. In the end, Klein-Braslavy concludes that Maimonides leaves it to each individual reader to digest the commentary, learn the philosophy, and rely on their own efforts to understand the text.
From a religious perspective, the most controversial essay in this collection is Menachem Kellner's discussion of the spiritual life. According to the traditional view, holiness is an internal property of certain people, places, or times. On this view, there is an essential difference between Israel and the other nations, Jerusalem and other cities, the holidays and normal days of the week. The former are holy from the first moment of creation, and their holiness was revealed to Moses and the rest of Israel at Sinai. In Kellner's opinion, this is the view Maimonides seeks to overturn. For Maimonides there is no essential difference between a holy people, place, or time and an unholy one. Apart from God's commandment, the former are no different from other people, places, or times. The difference, as Kellner expresses it, is in status not quality of existence. Thus holiness is a challenge rather than an ontological given. If Jerusalem is a holy city, it is because it plays a prominent place in Jewish law, not because it rests on a special kind of soil. Holiness, as one might say, is conferred rather than discovered.
It follows that the commandments that identify people, places, or times as deserving of special attention are contingent. If the exodus had occurred on another continent, God could have picked other times or places for special attention. If the Jewish people had behaved differently on the exodus, God could have picked different rituals by which to remember it. Put otherwise, the historical circumstances in which the Law was given played an important role in determining its content. It is also important to note that for Maimonides, holiness is not restricted to Jews. Any person who renounces the possibility of a corporeal God, behaves in an appropriate fashion, and devotes himself to the perfection of the intellect is worthy of salvation. Although Maimonides is often accused of being an intellectualist - even an elitist - in religious matters, one consequence of his intellectualism is a rejection of parochialism in all its forms.
The final essay by Seymour Feldman traces Maimonides' influence on subsequent thinkers. It is safe to say that much of Jewish medieval philosophy after Maimonides was a continuing discussion with the master. That is not to say that his conclusions were generally accepted. As is true in the current environment, there were vigorous debates over what Maimonides meant, how deep his esotericism went, and how persuasive his arguments were. As Feldman points out, esotericism is only part of the problem; there is also the question of what to do with doctrines that represent a radical departure from Jewish tradition: the denial of multiple attributes in God, the nature of prophecy, or the scope of divine providence. The fact is, however, that, as late as the seventeenth century, when Spinoza rethought many of these issues, Maimonides was still a central figure. His centrality continues to this day.
Like philosophy itself, great philosophers are not judged on the basis of the problems they solved since many of these problems are such that a decisive resolution is impossible. Rather they are judged by the quality of thought they stimulated. By that standard, Maimonides' place among the greats is assured.
JOEL L. KRAEMER
1 Moses Maimonides
An Intellectual Portrait
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Moses Maimonides was born in Cordova, Spain, in 1138 and died in Cairo in 1204. Cordova was then the capital of Andalusia (Muslim Spain) and the largest and most affluent city in Europe. Under the Spanish Umayyads (756-1031), Cordova thrived as a cultural center and political capital. Andalusia reached a high level of civilization, with art, literature, history, science, music, and jurisprudence flourishing as nowhere else in Europe. The reign of enlightened Caliph ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān Ⅲ (912-61) marked the beginning of a period of cultural flourishing for Andalusia, including its Jewish communities. The caliph embraced a tolerant policy, integrating the diverse religious communities and ethnic groups in his state. In such an environment, the Jews found a niche and prospered. ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, a devotee of both religious and secular learning, attracted literati and scientists by giving them generous endowments. A multitude of libraries, mosques, madrasas [colleges], and hospitals enticed scholars from the eastern part of the Islamic world to emigrate to the west, bringing with them intellectual treasures that made Andalusia culturally preeminent for many centuries.
The Jewish Quarter, where Moses and his family lived, was located close to the Great Mosque and the royal palace, in the southwestern section of the city, near the Guadalquivir River and its ancient Roman bridge. Jews passed by the Great Mosque, overwhelmed by its vastness, peering curiously through the gates at the arcades and multiple rows of high double, horseshoe arches, sensing its allure, mystery, and otherness. The Qur ʾānic inscriptions over the mosque's gates proclaimed Islam's dominance and superiority over Judaism and Christianity, promising paradise to Muslims who had surrendered themselves to Allah and divine punishment to those who did not take heed.
© Cambridge University Press
Table of Contents
1. Moses Maimonides: an intellectual portrait Joel Kraemer; 2. The Guide and Maimonides' philosophical sources Alfred L. Ivry; 3. Metaphysics and its transcendence Kenneth Seeskin; 4. Maimonides' epistemology Josef Stern; 5. Maimonides' philosophy of sciences Gad Freudenthal; 6. Maimonides' moral theory David Shatz; 7. Maimonides' political philosophy Haim Kreisel; 8. Jurisprudence David Novak; 9. Bible commentary Sara Klein-Braslavy; 10. Spiritual life Menachem Kellner; 11. Maimonides' esotericism and educational philosophy Aviezer Ravitsky; 12. Maimonides: a guide for posterity Seymour Feldman.What People are Saying About This
'Kenneth Seeskin has assembled a distinguished team … [a] stimulating assembly.' Times Literary Supplement