My Notes for Yeshiva University's MA Comprehensive Exams in Jewish Philosophy (2009)

8/9/2019 My Notes for Yeshiva University's MA Comprehensive Exams in Jewish Philosophy (2009)

1/64

New Notes for BRGS Revel Comprehensive Exams in JPH2009-08-24Compiled by Amitai Blickstein

Frank, Daniel H. (1997). What is Jewish philosophy? inHistory of Jewish Philosophy,

Frank and Leaman, eds. Routledge. 1-11.

What is Jewish Philosophy? is not an old (perennial) question. Rather, it stemsfrom the creation of an academic discipline (the history of JPH), and is likewisedefined from the top on down.

IOW, it is a question-begging construct, so as to associate certain thinkers andexclude others from academic courses and books.

Certainly the Medieval, and probably also the Modern (but not Contemporary)JPHs did not think of themselves as JPHs.

JPH, as a discipline, apes the regnant models. The historical prompting for the creation of JPH is a response, like Orthodoxy to

Reform, to traditional biblical exegesis. IOW, not only Contemporary JPH, but allJPH is a response to contemporary

issues and concerns: Reason v. Tradition, Autonomy v. Community, thehistoricization of tradition.

o History, note, only bothers moderns. History and sciencesupportedtheclaims of Tradition up until the modern period, where we feel its power toundermine those claims.

Carmy, Shalom and David Shatz (1997). The Bible as a source for philosophicalreflection. inHistory of Jewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman.London: Routledge.

Though the Bible addresses many a concern of JPH (the nature of God,interactions with Man, good and evil, etc.), it cannot be said to be a philosophicalwork:

No propositions, declarative statements, etc. It contains law, poetry, andnarratives.

Contradicts later philosophical sophistication with primitive principles(personification, miracles).

Nevertheless, differences in terminology should not blind us moderns to thesophistication and insight contained or suggested in earlier material.

This holds true even for non-philosophical books like the Bible.o Michael Wyschogrods conception of the Fall of Man, plus extras.o Because the Bibles problem of evil is situated within a set of

theological presuppositions and a fund of experience, it diverges fromarticulations of the problem that are promulgated by philosophers.

o Not all books and narratives of the Bible may have the same outlook onGods providence, control of history, etc. The people involved may havedifferent understandings of Gods place in their lives as well.

1


2/64

Abrams, Daniel (2009). Phenomenology of Jewish MysticismMoshe IdelsMethodology in Perspective.Kabbalah 20. 7-146.

There is a discrepancy between Idels descriptions and typologies of the

phenomena of Jewish mysticism, and an actual philosophical phenomenology (aproject which Idel does not undertake). But dont hold this against him completely, since his actual project shifting our

emphasis from Scholems doctrines to Idels experience (as a corrective) affordthose reluctant to practice mysticism themselves, but all the same doubtful ofscholarships attention to these matters with a safe substitute of understandingin lieu of actual experience.

Abrams detects an ahistorical penchant of Idels, and says that Idel uses the wordhistory in a way that differs from most social historians and historians of ideas.

When we use language (the fine arts?) to communicate, we reaffirm [the illusion of]stability. Words are meaningless signs that point to a referent that is the vessel of aconcepts significance. If referents kept shifting and changing, then words would bemeaningless, and thus, valueless. Language-use thus reinforces order, and glorifieseternity.

Stability is nevertheless illusory, as languages change over time much as the continentsdrift across the Earths surface adding, borrowing, and redefining words as they go.

When we use direct experiences (the performing arts?) to communicate, we reaffirm [theillusion of] independence and freedom. Acts have direct, unmediated meaning to those in

a relationship with the actors. If every act had a single meaning, then communicationwould be pointless, or rather, life would be limited to primitive interactions and societies,lacking the richness and sophistication that serve as the foundation for humankindsgreatest achievements the abstract qualities such as ethics, morality, goodness,kindness, justice, loyalty, etc.

Independence and freedom are nevertheless illusory, as all acts, in order to havemeaning, must have a previously prepared audience Cain-like innocence does not seethe guilt in murder, or the meaning of his act until he is taught. True chaos would alsohave no meaning. Thus, the actor is limited if not outright bound by the society he findshimself within and its conventions (if he is aware of them at all). Of course, many actors

quickly become aware of this tension (or conversely, are led to pursue art as acomplement to this tension they perceive), and thus are motivated to push the boundariesof societys conventions.

Novak, David (1997). The Talmud as a source for philosophical reflection. in Historyof Jewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge,1997. 62-80.

2


3/64

Philosophers reflect upon Nature, and prioritize that which is eternal andunchangeable, and thus, ideas, or the metaphysics behind Nature. Logic andNature complement each other by dint of their eternally unchanging nature.

o We humans respect that. Or more precisely, we mortals respect that.

Lacking the discipline to refrain from abuse of the Tree of Knowledge, our

only recourse is banishment from the Tree of Life, for otherwise we wouldnever know God.

What about Jews who attempt to reflect upon The Word of God, rather thanNature? This works only by dint of the (unchangeable, logical, rational)which the Revelation (pure Will, i.e., unpredictable, capricious, chaotic)nevertheless posits of by God and man. [i.e., there are ].

Further, the Torah claims its wisdom founds the world thus philosophy can bethe love of wisdom, be it Sophia or .

However, Bible is one thing. The Talmud, relatively untouched by the Greekphilosophers, is not a single body of immutable truth, but an anthology of acacophony of arguing, contrary voices. Can we philosophize (reflect) upon such

an object? The beginnings of a purely Rabbinic philosophy are rather in the realm of

practicalreason (the good, knowledge for the sake of action), as opposed totheoretical reason (the truth, knowledge for its own sake).

Rabbi Akivas School is associated with using the wider range of the humanintellect, e.g., Rabbi Simons reading that (18 && pure) wives. Acc. to RabbiIshmael, the Torah speaks in the language of man, i.e., its speak is conventional, itis a subjective, changing object, and thus inappropriate for philosophical study.Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, thinks the Torah speaks in sublime,omnisignificant language, and thus, it is a proper object for study.

Since the reasons for the commandments are not given, the Torah = data

rather than = dicta. Earlier Rabbinic sources treat the hermeneutical principles as logically

compelling, while later sources find them logically weak and unsatisfactory,leaving them room, however, for more teleologically motivated operations.

, etc. reveal a philosophical valuing of the , and telos of theTorah. (e.g., , or ).

All this teleological thinking (made possible by designating a large corpus of lawsrabbinic; this also helped Maimonides) provided Jewish thinkers whoencountered Greek philosophy to assimilate and judge it, rather than beoverwhelmed by it they were already acquainted with abstract, principle-driven logic.

Broadie, Alexander (1997). The nature of medieval Jewish philosophy.History ofJewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 83-92.

3


4/64

First of all, Medieval = Dark Ages but only for Christian Europe. Rather, call itGolden Age of Jewish Philosophy or something. Dont bound, judge, orpreconceive the philosophy done by irrelevant Christians.

Posits a categorization of Jewish philosophy in positivist(?) terms: what wouldmake us categorize a MS as JPH? Why, if it quoted " and " as authorities,

thus making it accessible to Jewish communities.o But what of by Ibn Gabirol, known asFons Vitae?

It wouldprobably also have to address itself to issues concerning the Jewishcommunity (though granted, those may overlap with other faith communities).

sustained, rational reflections = philosophy (if in dialogue with acknowledgedPHI works, it seems).

Wasserstrom, Steven M. (1997). The Islamic social and cultural context. in History ofJewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 93-114.

With few exceptions (like Ibn Gabirol and Isaac Israeli), most Jewish

philosophy in the Medieval period was in truth apologetics and defenses ofthe Jewish faith in popular idiom.

o This peculiar cultivation of philosophy elbowed out pure philosophy.

That doesnt mean JPH is purely reactive, rather, it is appropriative.o religious leaders sometimes condoned if not encouraged the cultivation

of philosophy, and were often sensitive to its usefulnessfor theirpurposes.

Jewish-Muslim symbiosis S.D. Goitein.o Spirit of tolerance and mutual esteem.o Monotheists unite against the pagans.

o

Mercantilism produced rich Jewish finaceers

shtadlanim whointeracted positively with Muslim elites.o Both supported an MD/PHI class that interacted professionally (friends).

To the extent that many Islamic philosophers are only known through theirHebrew transmissions/translations.

In short, Jews and Muslims were speaking a common language, at oncelinguistic, exegetical, theological, and comparativist.

The Islamicate society which gave rise to JPH under Islam was urban andmulticultural, and more than occasionally allowed a certain freedom of interfaithcontact and cooperation.

Both formal and informal friendships between Muslim and Jew are well known

from a variety of sources. These contacts fraught with danger; high incidence of conversion; Jewish thinkers

converted in pursuit of PHI (though the data are insufficient).1

Suhraward (d.1192), ibn Tufayl (d.1185), and ibn Sabn (d.1270) explicitly werebeholden to the still mysterious hikma al-mashriqya of Avicenna. J-I because:

1. Their curriculum was cultivated over centuries in J-I circles.

1 Stroumsa, S. (1991) On Apostate Jewish Intellectuals in the Early Middle Ages under the Rule of Islam[Hebrew],Peamim 42. 61-76.

4


5/64

2. The IPHs met with JPHs and even taught Jewish students.3. These IPHs sometimes learned and even taught JPH works.4. A number of the IPH works were popular among JPHs for centuries.

The so-called Golden Age of Jewish Spain did notproduce much new JPH!o Mightsay that the Andalusian contribution was distinctively theological

and mystical, and not distinctively philosophical.o BUT, it didsustain a rich PHI/JPH sub-culture (i.e., audience, not artists).

Ben-Shammai, Haggai (1997). Kalm in medieval Jewish philosophy. inHistory ofJewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 115-148.

Kalm is the common name of medieval Islamic, mostly rationalist, sometimesapologetic (or polemic), religious philosophy.2

o Mid-8th ct., it came to mean deciding religious matters by Reason, ratherthan Tradition (supported by political or military force).

Formutakallimn, knowledge was a means of religious service ( ??).

They must be distinguished from thefalsifa: thinkers (Muslim as well asChristian) who considered themselves committed to the legacy of Greekphilosophy, mainly a Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotelianism.

o The falsifa of all faiths held knowledge- = .

Kalm developed characteristic sets of logic, philosophical concepts, andterminology distinct from falsifa.

o Greek thinkers are very rarely mentioned in kalm works.

Mutazila is the most relevant kalm system to the history of JPH:1. Unity of God.2. Divine Justice.3. Reward and Punishment.4. Classification of all human actions, according to ethico-religious criteria,

as belief and disbelief, good and evil, praise and blame.5. Enjoining good, and preventing evil.

Unity Human language incorrectly implies multiplicity because of its shortcomings. Scripture is interpreted on the assumption that it and Reason cannot contradict. God is invisible, but OTOH, the best true knowledge is thru the 5 senses!

o ., developed the theory of how the visible proves the invisible

: Mod-Atomism: no causality, Nature = constant miracles, 100%

.Justice Absolute self-sufficiency, benevolence, and freedom of God. Free will and Reason mean humans are responsible for their actions.

o Is human free will durable, or constantly created?o Deontological or Consequentialist ethics?

2 The polemical/apologetic aspect has always been emphasized by both supporters and opponents (mainlythe falsifa) of the system.Is this what makes Saadiah a mutakallimn, not a falsifa?

5


6/64

Revelation exists:o Despite Reasons theoretical sufficiency.

o to inform humans of positive legislation.o as a shortcut for weaker, non-philosophical minds.o to increase , b/c .

Miracles are a breach of Gods customary running of Nature. Important distinction: self-evident truths, needing no demonstrations, versus

revealed knowledge and laws. Self-evident includes:o Truth and falsehood.o Good and evil.

These are objective concepts binding to both Man and God(!).

While there is a difference between the chosen learned elites and the masses,most early mutakallimn, unlike thefalsifa,seem to have believed that initiallyall human individuals of sound mind and body were equally capable ofcomprehending all true knowledge.

o A priori truth of physical objects, math axioms, and obvious ethics.

The dominant style of most kalm works during the first centuries is theconventional dialogue between the author (we) and his adversaries.

Although in theory acceptable to general principles of rational religion withprophets and miracles, it is Quran-centric, dogmatically, asserting that themiracles in the Quran attest to its immediate sensory truth.

Asharites

Generally, more orthodox rationalists than Mutazilla, and over time becamerather dominant in many isolated Islamic states. Differences from Mutazilla:

Reason is important, but Tradition (revelation, general consensus) are important.o Thus, there is no a priori to know/verify God through Reason.

God is not bound by objective (accessible to Reason) ethical values, since they donot exist! Good and evil correspond to Gods commands and prohibitions.

God controls everything, narrowly squeeze in free will/responsibility, butcertainly not Consequentialist, since God controls all effects of actions.

Jewish Kalm

Grew from the acculturated, urban Jewish pop began with involvement inBiblical exegesis (e.g., Saadiahs commentary and tafsir).

Jewish Mutazilites, but not Asharites.

Dwd b. Marwn al-Muqammis (early 9th ct.) is the 1st. Jew Christian

Jew. Not stuck to 1 school of kalm, and freely relies on Aristotelianism.o yes Substance vs. Accident, not Matter v. Form.o Standard proof of kalm: The world is not eternal, and thus created, and

thus all traces back to creation, and a single Creator.o Openly polemicizes against Christianity (no Unity of God).

6


7/64

o Jewish Mutazilite in believing: good and evil are absolutes that bind Godalso, Gods benevolence3, freedom, reward and punishment, the centralrole of prophecy; the revelation in Jewish Scripture.

All Jewish mutakallimn distinguish between essential attributes and attributes ofaction.

Saadiah

He established the rationalist trend in the interpretation of Scripture. In light of his public standing, the scope of his philosophical oeuvre, and the

influence it had on subsequent generations, he can be considered Father of MJPH. Structure ofEmunot vDeotis typical kalm:

o Vindication of rationalist theology and theory of epistemology.o Creation and Creator.o Gods unity and attributes.o Divine Justice, free will; good and evil actions, reward and punishment.o Other discussions of law, prophecy, Israel, redemption, resurrection.

o Practical ethics (may be Saadiahs view of the 5th Mutaz. principle,enjoining good, and avoiding evil [ ?])

Has a list of 10 Articles of Faith:1. God is eternal.2. He comprehends all things; they exist by/in Him.3. He creates everything and brings it forth.4. He is the believers God, who has imposed religion on him.5. Reliance on God and contentment with His decrees.6. Duty to listen to the prophets of God.7. God will redeem his nation in the messianic age.8. He will defend them from the nations of the world.9. Eternal reward for the righteous in the world to come.10. Harsh punishment for those who dont believe in him & who disobey him.

Logical methodology, philosophical terminology, and conceptual vocabulary arealso, for the most part, typical kalm.Epistemology:

o (1) Sense perception = most immediate, and best true knowledge.o (2) Immediate rational knowledge also true knowledge.

o Those two together support (3) inferential knowledge, (like theexistence of the soul as inferred from the animation of living beings).

The indicator is a basic concept of Saadiahs kalm system.o Introduced into JPH the Mutazilite distinction between epistemologically

rational laws [accessible to reason], and revealed legislation [no rationalbasis], with all its epistemological and ethical implications.

God follows reason. Prophets cannot contradict reason, miracles or not. Rational laws: gratitude to God, refrain from insulting Him, and

prevention of inter-creature harming.

3 Proof is that He gave us . Hmmm, Eliezer Berkovits encounter?

7


8/64

Non-rationally accessible commandments also make sense: Godwishes to employ a poor man with make-work to give himreward.

Passive reception of prophetic knowledge will suffice if you arent able tophilosophize on your own. [this may parallel the Mutazilite distinction, too]

o Emunotare the lower level, of beliefs, while post-philosophizing, theybecome establish opinions,Deot.

Like Muqammis, distinguishes between Substance and Accident, rejectingAristotles distinction between Matter and Form. Go Kalm!

o But he rejects kalms atomism (as did all rabbinite JPHs).o E/t has an essential nature not made up of identical atoms.

Creation ex nihilo. The world is created proof:1. finitude Since this world is finite, their power and duration must be

finite, and they must have a beginning and an end.2. composition all things are composite, and thus generated by an artisan.3. accidentsbodies cannot be void of accidents (properties,

characteristics, events, etc.), which change in time, and thus, must begenerated in time. The cause & effect goes back until a First Cause.4

4. time an eternal world would take an infinite amount of time to reach thepresent. Thus, time is finite, the world is created. [Zenos Paradox?]

Saadiah's halakhic books are thus distinguished by their systematic structureand logical order and by a lengthy detailed introduction which he prefaced toeach book of halakhic decisions. (EJ =Encyclopedia Judaica)

God has life, power, wisdom (but not a plurality, its just human language!).

Man is body + soul (of fine, celestial material), and has appetitive, spirit(emotions), and rational faculties, which can only act within the body.

Commandments happiness [Golden Mean!], need free will to truly earn it. Theodicy is corrected in .

Samuel b. Hofni:Does implicitly accept the Mutazilite atomistic conception.

his son-in-law Hai Gaon: also thoroughly kalm in style, terminology, argumentation.

If, in the West, kalm was largely known through karaite sources, that mayexplain some of its negative reception by Judah Halevi5 and Maimonides.

[Jewish] NeoplatonismKraemer, Joel. Neoplatonism.Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and

Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd

ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. p84-86.

Its a system elaborated by Plotinus and his pupil Porphyry on the basis ofantecedent Middle Platonic and neo-Pythagorean developments (9th century).

o The system was modified by their many successors (incl. al-Farabi, Avicenna).

4 This is the standard proof of kalm.5 Halevi has immediate experience as #1, though kalm does occupy the bottom rung of knowledge.

8


9/64

Says theres a process of emanation of a hierarchically ordered series of spheresof being, leading from an ineffable and unqualified first principle (the One) to thematerial world (thus, its a monism).

o The One transcends all being, becoming, knowledge, and description.

As philosophers, JNPs never overcome the complete inability to

say anything about God they break this rule all the time.o The One first projects into The One as Subject & as Object Pure INT.o The "descent" is associated with increasing determination and multiplicity

(imperfection).o Although matter (hypostases) at the lowest rank in the scale of being is

the principle of evil, the material world, as a reflection of the intelligible,possesses goodness and beauty (cf. *Gnosticism ),

o and by contemplation of it the human soul ascends to the spiritual

world, through stages, the highest stage, a kind ofunio mystica andapotheosis, being the sole means by which the One is apprehended.

o Individuation and investiture of the soul with a body is devalorized;

release from the fetters of the body in ecstasy or in death is equivalent tosalvation, this philosophical soteriology tending toward combination witha doctrine of metempsychosis.

Neoplatonism is thus seen to be a religious movement and a doctrine ofsalvation as well as a philosophical system.

o Thus, its potentially an antagonistor an ally of the monotheistic faiths.

The fundamental postulates of Neoplatonism conflict with those of themonotheistic faiths:

o an impersonal first principle (God),o rejection of creation and revelation,o

the conception of man as essentially soul,o and the attendant soteriology-eschatology (including metempsychosis)

involving submergence of the individual soul in the universal soul. Nevertheless, for monotheistic philosophers the contradictions were not

insurmountable.o The ladder of Jacob's dream was thus interpreted as a symbol of the

soul's ascent (e.g., by Ibn Gabirol)o Creation became a metaphor for eternal procession.o Revelation and prophecy were discussed in terms reminiscent of the unio

mystica.o Assimilation to the divine, the goal of philosophy according to the

neoplatonic introductions to Aristotle of the Alexandria school, resonatedwith similar ideals of the monotheistic traditions.

The deep spirituality of Neoplatonism promoted the kind ofsynthesis with religious feeling that finds moving expression inIbn Gabirol's poem, Keter Malkhut.

The soul! God Material world.

9


10/64

Historically, Neoplatonism, as it was transmitted to the medieval world ofJudaism and Islam, was closely bound with alchemy, magic, and theurgy.

Important works: Theology of Aristotle, ProclusElements of Theology Neoplatonism was not simply an amplification of Plato. Plotinus added aspects of

Aristotelianism (also Pythagoreanism and Stoicism ), et al.

NP generally harmonized the views of Plato and Aristotle (properlyunderstood). (cf. al-*Frb 's On the Harmony of the Opinions of the TwoSages, the Divine Plato and Aristotle).

I-NP and J-NP went from PHIs mystics too! (e.g. al-Ghazli, Jewishkabbalistic circles in Spain and Provence, ).

It provided philosophical context for JPHs of the 11th and 12th centuries. Serious Jewish thinkers had to deal with JNP if only b/c they saw nicely

compatible epistemological and metaphysical notions in it, regarding Godsnature and His relations with humans. (deals with the whole One God thing).

Isaac Israeli (c. 855-c.955) is the fountainhead of Jewish Neoplatonism.o Famous physician, his works circulated widely in Latin, Arabic, &Heb.o He defines philosophy, following the neoplatonic introductions to

Aristotle, as assimilation to God according to human capacity.

The ultimate stage depicted as becoming angelic or divine, anexperience to which he applies the term devekut.

o The NP doctrine concerning the unknowability of the first principle isexpressed in Israeli's thesis that only God's existencequoddity is knowable,and not his essence quiddity a distinction perpetuated by Bahya ibn Paquda,Joseph ben Zaddik, Judah Halevi , and Abraham Ibn Daud.

Cosmology:o power and will are aspects of God, not emanations (contra ibn

Gabirol or Halevi).o Ex nihilo for the 1st three hypostases (1st Matter + 1st Form = Intellect),

holding of Plotinian emanation for the rest (i.e., logical and necessary).[Plotinus had Intellect directly emanating, with no room for free will.]

o There is no ambiguity over the status of matter: dark demonic shells!

Souls Ascent:1. Purification : remove dark shells via abandoning passions (Bhuddism?).2. Illumination : the soul acquires true knowledge of external things.

3. Union : soul becomes spiritual & intellectual, is raised to lvl ofIntellect. This union is with wisdom not God! Union = heaven = ecstatic experience.

o Prophets ~= philosophers: guiding humanity with allegory and theimaginative faculty towards the ascent of the soul. (contra Maim.)

Ibn Gabirol

10


11/64

brought NP to Spain/Andalusia via hisMekorayyim (remember, itsfonsvitae, cant even tell it was written by a Jew!).

Characteristically, the goal of existence is to conjunct the soul with the supernalworld through knowledge and action, i.e., intellectual and ethical purification.

Philosophy gets you there (liberation from death and the conjunction bit also).

Typically, knowledge of the First Essence is precluded because it transcendseverything and is incommensurable with the intellect.

Unclear if matter and form are opposites with distinct characteristics, or bothaspects of simple substance that we cannot perceive.

Its clear that divine willis interposed to explain multiplicity from The One.o Like al-Ghazl, against al-Frb and ibn-Sn.

Mekorayyim impacted Christian scholastic philosophy more than the Jewishphilosophical tradition, though it did exertsome influence in Jewish circles.

o Obsessed with the search for wisdom.

o Mystical undertones akin to Sufi poetry and early Kabbalah.o Keter Malkhutis used for YK.o Connects the microcosm and macrocosm, the moral and psychological:

thus, humans must also use body and senses in order to reach perfection. Basic themes of MH:

o Science or knowledge is the ultimate aim of human life.

o Knowledge of oneself (microcosm) contains the knowledge of everythingelse (the macrocosm).

o The world is created and dependent upon the divine will.o Seek knowledge of being: comprised of matter and form, God, and will.

Ibn Gabirol's successors do not evince his depth or originality, though Guttman says thatIsraeli is himself but an eclectic compiler.

Bahya ibn Paquda combines commonplace NP themes (e.g., God's absolute unityas distinct from the relative unity of this world) with his mystical pietism.

o Duties of the heart are all rational, invisible and are judged by God alone.

o Must know God must prove His existence (uses kalm proof from thecomposite nature of things, requiring a first cause [Saadiah influence?]).

o Only Unity, Being, and Eternity are essential to God (cant knowanything else).

o Modified asceticism (but isnt that typical NP?)o The soul is sustained by religious law and reason ( ).

o First definitively Jewish Sufi book. Replaces Quran quotes with Bible,quotes the Sage [Muhammud], etc.

o A guide meant to bring the reader from fear, to love, to eventual unionwith Gods supernal light. Internal/External contemplation, etc.

The anonymous Pseudo-BahyaKitb Ma n al-Nafs treats its main theme ofpsychology in a neoplatonic manner.

11


12/64

o The soul is a spiritual substance whose home is the supernal world.o In descent it assimilates impressions from the celestial spheres and the

zones of the elements (a gnostic-Hermetic notion), and it re-ascends bymeans of ethical and intellectual purification, whereas evil souls maybe confined to the region beneath the heavens.

There are also NP elements in Abraham b.iyya's writings (his theory ofemanation and doctrine of metempsychosis), and Joseph ibn addik.

ber-committed NP: Abraham ibn Ezra, even as regards such sensitive subjectsas creation and prophecy.

Also to be considered is Judah Halevi, whose notion of "the divine influence"may be of neoplatonic origin and whose idea of the God of Abraham is said tohave been "conceived metaphysically in terms of the neoplatonic idea of God".

Mid-12th century: Aristotelianism begins to displace NP as the regnant system.o But, Neoplatonism did not entirely lose its appeal for Jewish thinkers.o Aristotelianism itself was thoroughly suffused with NP themes.

Maimonides was touched by NP influence:1. Words for emanation occur approx. 90 times in the first 2parts ofGuide.2. His description of knowledge in terms of light and lightning metaphors.3. His insistence upon denying positive attributes of God.4. His placing limitations upon human knowledge.5. Perhaps his idea of assimilation to the divine (Guide [3:54]).

Judah Halevi: TheKuzari

Judah Halevi was one of medieval Jewry's most influential thinkers, and hisarguments for the truth of Judaism and the essential superiority of the JewishPeople are invoked to this day in traditionalist circles.

Although Halevi rejected Islamic Aristotelianism, which was beginning to beadopted by his fellow Jews and would soon be considered by most Jewishphilosophers (such as Maimonides) as scientifically authoritative, he maintainedthat Judaism could be defended rationally by emphasizing its empiricalbasis. Hence, his rejection ofthe leading philosophy of the day(inspired in partby al-Ghazl) did not mean that he was an anti-rationalist.

The Khazars were between the Byzantine Christians to the West, and the Muslimsto the South and the East. They would unite to crush Khazar pagans, so somethinghad to be done but the Khazars did not want to unbalance their equipoiseposition in either direction; Judaism was a monotheistic faith that would betraythem to neither side (geopolitical reasons for picking Judaism).

Halevi used the Bible as the basic text for his reconstruction of Jewish history,paying only scant attention to rabbinic interpretations of the biblical narrative.

The Jewish mystical tradition, esp. speculation, impacted Halevi's ideas The Kuzari benefited greatly from an assortment of non-Jewish sources. He drew from the kalmic sources used by Saadiah Gaon and Baya ibn Paquda,

considered Kalm useful only to the extent that one is searching for a rationalisticdefense of Jewish theology.

12


13/64

METHOD Halevi rejected the two regnant models of his day: Kalam and

Aristotelianism.

He felt that both relied on theoretical constructs rather than hard, empirical truth.

o Kalam arrived at the correct conclusions, but it was useful mainly forapologetics. Got no soul, boy!

o Aristotelianism, in contrast, taught many incorrect doctrines, sinceAristotle lacked reliable tradition when he set out to understand theworld by use of his syllogistic reasoning (qiys) alone.

o And it is deficient compared with immediate, unmediated experience(dhawq, literally "taste") of God through prophecy (Kuzari 4:1517).

The Jewish tradition provided true knowledge based on the experience of theJewish people. The reliability of the tradition is guaranteed by Aish HaTorah.

With the veracity of Judaism established, he employed reason to explain its truths.o Nothing in Scripture or tradition, he claimed, contradicted reason.o Thus, one may look for (though acceptance offiatis ):

Israel is perfect for prophecy because of its climate, the center ofthe world.

Adam genetically bequeathed prophetic capacity. Halevi accepted Saadiah's distinction between rational and revelational

commandments (RC), but contra Saadiah, he stressed the value of the RCs asdistinguishing Judaism from other religions. Historical Empiricism again!

Philosopher: Neoplatonic Aristotelian. (and Bahya ibn Paquda!)o

The philosopher presented a theory of a wholly impersonal God who doesnot care which actions humans choose.o Impressive arguments, refuted experientially by the Khazar.

o The philosopher accepts all monotheists as truth-seekers philosophy isjust the truth, which true seeker of able minds will eventually reach.

o Halevi thus indictspassion, and devotion to Godas the sole determinantof right and wrong. All these God-seekers are murderers!

o Moreover, this philosopher provides ammunition for Fundamentalists!o IOW, the philosophers account does not suffice to explain experience it

is condemned on grounds of unacceptable (a) elitism, and (b) apathy.o Knowledge/spirituality alone (Plato/Socrates!) does not lead to action!

It cannot make decisions within the realm of history. Which religion, eh?o If philosophy is the cure for bloodshed, but only 1% of the world can be

philosophers, then what good is it? The practical shortcoming betraysits untruth. [Obedience, not zeal, is Gods desire]

o What manner of throne is it, if God reigns but does not rule?

Christian. (and Saadiah!) [rejected as illogical]o You, OTOH, are illogical, and a little philosophy wouldnt hurt you.o Only cognitive dissonance or sensory experience could override illogic.

13


14/64

o Firsthand experience can win existential commitment, and then faith.

o But logic alone cannot guide your choice it is synthetic, that is, it worksin the presence of a commitment! (bias ofposeqim, anybody?)

Muslim: [rejected as unsubstantiated]o Appeals to no miraclesave that of the Quran, which is obvious, right?

Since both the Muslim and Christian appeal to their Jewish roots, the Khazar mustsummon a Jew after all:

o Halevi will make an argument unabashedly historical and

particularistic, not cosmological or universal.

Rabbi.o God ofAbraham (history), not Creation (cosmology).o Only Israel has a true and continuous tradition.

o Judaism was Judaism from t0 unlike Christianity or Islam, which claimhundreds of years of ecclesiastical(?) evolution were necessary.

o Prophecy is Gods special gift to Israel i.e., it is not the specious rewardof a sensuous afterlife, or even aspiritualafterlife, which no one reallywants, but the abiding presence of the divine with them in this life.

o Righteous, OTOH, is the duty of all peoples, rewarded by God fairly.

TheKhazaro After deciding that Judaism was correct experientially, learning much

Torah, winning over countrymen, did he then [convert and] ask the Rabbiabout speculative theology: .

o Theology needs the guidance of culture, tradition, and commitmenttheexistential commitment is prior to the speculative. (like GRA, not.("

.: the moral perfections are prerequisite to the intellectual"

Godtalk:6

o Negative attributes (e.g., the living God = the not dead/false god.)o Relative attributes (e.g., blessed in human terms, relative to other things)o Creative attributes (e.g., natural agency makes poor or rich). -.

Gods will is the motive force behind all natural and superNatural events.o is taken literally, by some supernatural force.

Exile is not about , but loss of intimacy with God.o are the pomp and ceremony, the dignity, by which the nation orbits

a center or locusits functional, serving to prepare them for Gods word. Platonists like al-Frb make the PHI the natural recipient of prophecysince

philosophers have the mind and the access to the active intellect that will conveythe conceptual content of revelation. They need only the gift of imagination toclothe the relevant concepts in the concretely apprehensible garb of poetry, ritual,and institutions.Ditto Halevi the pious of Israel.

o Same apology that Plato has for the PHIs: Israel is the heart of the nations;at once the most vital, and the most vulnerable to corruption.

The divine law cannot be fulfilled unless the civil & rational laws are perfected.

6 Seems to agree withNegative, Relative, and Attributes of Action.

14


15/64

o PROTO-ZIONISM. Its not a call for a metaphoric Redemption, nor aspiritual Eden in Israel. Its a call for a reconstituted self-governmentby Jews, in Israel, under its laws political, moral, ethical, economic,military, intellectual, etc. A reaction to political suffering by a statesman.

o Need sciences (which are authentically Jewish genius) and language.

o Human goodness is political! , ; , . o The Good Man refreshes his soul with Bible[s] stories!

Civilly, socially, and politically, human rationality regulates the good mans life.But God adds further requirements, rendering specific [en-specifying] thegeneric obligations of reason.

Karaitic rejection of Tradition leads to factionalism (look at all those Protestants).It is proven false by political induction (Ex. 12:49 !).

- is also defined experientially that is, historically.

Halevis metaphysics

God acts directly no emanation! (anti-NP).o Anti-EM b/c Emanation denies Gods freedom, personal involvement.

Reductio ad absurdum: EM does not solve the problem, but begs the question!o Emanation is diversity, violating the oneness of The One!o Why did EM cease at 10 or whatever spheres?o Why is this or that EM the intellect or whatnot? Arbitrary conjecture!o Note: He is rejecting EM, not PHIs or PHI. But true PHI proof should not

seem ridiculous to outsiders (as does the Rabbi with the Khazar). Thus,Halevi is nota support for modern anti-PHI crusades.

Halevi does have a sort of EM, like ibn Gabirol volitional emanation. (VEM)o Direct governance and VEM have precedent in Saadiahs created glory.

o Immanence!: Halevis Divine Will, vs. the NPs Archetypal Logos: Maimonides theory of angels as forms and forces. Kabbalah a la Nachmanides. Spinozas idea of the conatus. Bergsons lan vital. Whiteheads conception of creativity. Et al.

God acts in the world as the soul acts in the body: unseen, but experienced. Halevi says the proof of soul is the animation of living things. Now that

Biology is a modern science, does that push back the boundaries of the soul? Isthe soul defined by its mystery? Or is biology now divine?? IOW, does biologyargue against the substantial soul theory?

Problems:o Why does Halevi switch from passionate ex nihilo toformatio mundi?o Why accept the independent, substantial soul, when " locate the moral

personality only in the conjoint soul + body?o Why accept the immutability of species when that implies Eternity?o Why accept Platos anti-matter theme, when Halevi is all about

localizing and in , and through material Israel??

15


16/64

Immediate experience shows that we have free will. So does God.

HALEVIS JEWISH EMPIRICISM:1. National testimony to the truth of the Bible.2. Jewish survival against the odds as testimony.

3. Kalm is good for apologetics, but not as a basis offaith, which needs tradition.4. Aristotelianism gets stuff wrong because they do not have tradition, just reason.5. Bloody warfare disproves Christianity and Islam.6. Prophecy leads to traditions is the basis for religions.7. Karaite legal/halakhic anarchy disproves their anti-Traditional approach.

Samuelson, Norbert Max (1997). Medieval Jewish Aristotelianism: an introduction. inHistory of Jewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London:Routledge. 228-244.

Medieval Aristotelianism (Arst)

Three major branches of GreekMedieval thought:o Atomismkalm [8th-12th century Islam]. The old science. [East]

o Platonism (PLT) Neoplatonism.

Platonists is not just the works of Plato, as if he wrote with Grace. Rather, theyre independent truth-seekers that are .

o Aristotelianism: The new science. [West], ty to 9th ct. trans. to Arabic.

Hes also not infallible gospel to his -ians. + Arst. is empirical, does not posit an invisible world of forms or atoms. - Arst. cannot be as technically precise as PLT or ATMs math. -Arst. clashes with revealed religions! Oiy. (Creation, Miracles)

Medieval Jewish Aristotelianism (MJA or J-Arst): 2 periods

Early Muslim period from Rabad (d. 1180) to Maimonides (d. 1204). S. Spain, Provence, Italy incl. Gersonides (d.1344) and Crescas (d.1411).

For MJAs, there is no religious truth and scientific truth. There is just truth.o Unlike Kalm, who use Reason to support religious Tradition.

No account of Torah that does not include science is not Torah true.

J-Arst is the most important development in MJPH, absorbing all older systems ofthought, midrash, commentary, and develops what are until this day the most

comprehensive, sophisticated, and authoritative statements of traditional J belief.Wow. J-Arst is the Talmud of Jewish belief.

Abraham ibn Daud (Rabad I):Exalted Faith

No J-Arst is as comprehensive as Rabad, though he is a rough pioneer. First published reconciliation of J with Arst. B4, they all compartmentalized. 6 Principles (condensed):

16


17/64

o God exists, and is necessarily One. Apophatic theology (all literal, positivestatements are relational, i.e., God through the mediation of angels).

o The Torah is the word of God to Moses, epistemologicallyunimpeachable, and rabbinic tradition reliably bears its interpretationauthentically ( stems from erosion).

o Everything is determined by God through his ordering of the universe, butthis ordering allows for free will and morally responsibility, . Rabad on Determinism and Choice

Both extreme determinism and extreme choice are rejected.o Determinism makes moral accountability problematic, and yet, the Torah

holds us accountable for our actions. Note the textual/religious argument, not a PHI or logical one.

o But if humans have free will, then Arst. says that foreknowledge isimpossible; but how could God be imperfect in his foreknowledge? And ifso, why follow His commands?

Maybe .: Pharaoh was just so manipulated and punished

OTOH, what about !, etc.? We make choices To solve the problems, Rabad parallels the theologian to the scientist:

o knowledgphysicalnobservatioempiricalnerpretatiodataraw

int_ _

o knowledgereligiousTorah nerpretatiodataraw

int_

Of course, the theologian must cohere with science too.o Where literal readings make Scripture false, interpret non-literally.

Not for sciences sake, but b/c we know Torah is true! Why doesnt God just say what he means, instead of using all this non-literal

language?o Because , the Torah is a multi-layered document "

available to all regardless of their INT. INT people will see thru it.

Kreisel, Howard Theodore (1997). Moses Maimonides. inHistory of JewishPhilosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 245-280.

1135 is the consensus, but Goitein makes a strong case for 1138. Politics, in its ideal manifestation, is the rule by one who has attained INT

perfection, and whose aim is to mold a well-ordered society devoted to thepursuit of perfection. It represents the highest human vocation.

Well-being of the body (a Torah-goal) is attained through social harmony (laws).

Society is also necessary for well-being of the soul. Thus, Man cannot live alone. Moses is Ms Platonic philosopher-king, whom al-Frb transformed into thesupreme prophet-legislator. Acc. to M, however, Moses is the only one like this,ever.

o Thus, tradition is preserved, while adaptation exists to respond to changes.

" and the prophets are philosopher-rulers, al-Frbs princes of the law.They do not make new laws, but are masters of the existing law, enough to adaptthe law to their own times.

17


18/64

In MT, ,' M treats theoretical knowledge of God as the ultimatehalakhic obligation!

M depictsGod as Aristotles first cause and self-intellecting intellect, devoid ofall corporeal traits, or any positive attribute in addition to Gods essence.

M wants to contribute towards creating that perfect society. The MT attemptsto guide the masses towards that end through legal obligations (Moses). The GPattempts the same, but through rational discourse (Abraham).

The Guide of the Perplexed:o Part I: the majority discusses Biblical terms implying corporeality.o Also Gods attributes, names, essence, epistemology, and kalm.o Part II: Aristotles proofs for Gods existence, unity, and incorporeality.o Gods governance of the world, angels, creation, prophecy, theodicy,

, the ., and human perfection If the PHIs got stuff wrong, its because they jumped to conclusions without

demonstrative proofs (i.e., bad PHI). Contra Judah Halevi, where the PHIs

got stuff wrong because they were not privy to authentic [Jewish] tradition. Two general approaches mark both medieval and modern GP interpreters:

1. M is an Aristotelian in Jewish garb (Moses Narboni, Leo Strauss): God is impersonal, necessary, etc., did not dictate the Torah. No miracles. World is eternal. have nothing to do with felicity. At most, the afterlife = conjunction with the Agent Intellect.

2. M is not an Arst., but a modified, J-Arst. ( ): God is severely limited outside the natural order, but does Will. World was created ex nihilo, and thus knowledge of particulars,

interaction with humans, and miracles are possible.

Maimonides on God: [spot the contradictions]1. Apophatic theology (its a Neoplatonic idea!).2. Nevertheless, God is thefinal, formal, and efficient cause of the world.3. God is related to the world as the intellect to the human organism.

Er, except that God is completely separate from the world!4. Only Gods existence is an essential attribute; all other existents

existence is an attribute superadded to their composition (its anAvicennan idea!).

This seems to contradict all terms regarding God are equivocal, yet here M is,

describing God! Either (a) there is some esoteric idea here, or(b) hes doing hisbest to reconcile the independently valid conceptions he has collected.

Exoteric:How to prove Gods existence?

Islamic theologians prove God from creation. But they havent proved creation! PHIs prove God from the eternity of the world. But they havent proved eternity! Mputs them together: its either created oreternal, either way God is proved.

o Holds of the conclusions common to both PHIs and THLs.

18


19/64

Divine Governance: [spot the contradictions] How God runs the world is on Ms list of esoteric topics; yet he explicitly agrees

with Aristotle! Hmmm Aristotelian explanation for the nature of the spheres, and the reason for their

fixed, uninterrupted circular motion.

Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation as developed by al-Frb.o God emanates intellects in linear order, and each INT has a sphere.o Each sphere moves out of love of its antecedent, which it imitates.o Each separate INT serves as the immediate efficient cause of its sphere,

and immediate final cause of its motion.o The last INT is called the Active Intellect, and it is the cause of all the

forms, including human intellect.o Activity in the supralunar world has no change. Activity and change in the

sub-lunar world is enabled by the motion of the supralunar spheres.ow can God be both the Aristotelian Prime Mover, and an al-Frb-an unitydistinct from the emanated spheres? If God causes the motion (motion is not

emanated), then He has a relation with his Creation!

H How can Maimonides both hold of EM, then criticize EM with his next breath? Gods power and wisdom are expressedprecisely by the natural order He created. Incorrect views follow the imagination, which is also in true reality the evil

impulse( ?). For every deficiency of reason or character is due to the action ofthe imagination or consequent upon its action (2.12: 280). Wow.

Creation or Eternity?

No mention of creation in MT ) or), nor in CM: . Onlylater does he revise the list of .

In GP, when M says that belief in creation is necessary, does he mean Necessary-and-true, or [Politically]-Necessary-yet-false?1. World was created, including the accident of motion, and thus, time.2. World was createdformatio mundi, and will pass into matter.3. Eternity of the world. The PHIs have disproved the Epicureanposition: (the world exists by chance). #1 and #2 are alike in positing something eternally co-existing with God.

o Dismisses Arst-proofs from Nature by arguing that Nature, too, is acreation, and so inferences as to its eternity are illogical.

Hmm; that means God created the world with dinosaur boneshere, meant to fool us? Is this a ?position

o Dismisses Arst-proofs from Gods quiddity since only corporeal beingsmove from potentiality to actuality when they act. God can act withoutchanging, since He is incorporeal.

o Also, Gods eternal wisdom is beyond human limits, so we cannot use itas a basis for the eternity of the world either.

o He concludes that Aristotles proofs are not demonstrative, but he doesnot claim to prove Creation either.

19


20/64

o He offers a dialectical proof for creation, a philosophically rigorousversion of the kalm argument from particularization: The universe isordered, not random, thus only creation and a creator explain its currentstate. (Sounds like argument by design to me).

This is also a big question in modern cosmology: assuming a Big

Bang, why would there be concentrations of matter sufficient tocoalesce into stars, etc.? Briefly: M holds of Aristotle 100%-sublunar, but disagrees supra-lunar. Eternal Creation ( ) is semantic gymnastics thatstillis

Aristotles point of view.o Did he really hold of Plato (since he explicitly mitigates this view later

on, attributing it to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus)?o Did he really hold of Arst.? His disproof of Arist. is weak: since M holds

that God and his essence and existence are one, and both areunchangeable, then how could God will after not willing, if not throughsome change in essence? [I think that can be easily answered, btw.]

Prophecy1. Aristotle: a physical fact, attained through human perfection of the mind, etc.2. Traditionalists and idiots: bestowed by Gods graceful choice.3. Like #1, but God has the ability to withhold prophecy, should He so choose. Moses and Sinai are different, however he is not a prophet, but a prophet. Two possible naturalistic types of prophecy, from al-Frb:

o Human INT conjuncts with the Active INT, which permanently changesthe humans INT, providing metaphysical knowledge beyonddiscursive reasoning. (M: Moses only)

o An emanation directly onto the imaginative faculty, resulting in afigurative presentation of theoretical knowledge, or knowledge of thefuture. (M: All other prophets) [Dreams or waking Visions]

Before prophecy, there is (inspiration to noble deeds or speech). Prophecies are all IMG in your head the senses are not involved at all. Three (3) types of knowledge that flow from Active Intellect Prophet:

o Metaphysicso Governanceo Divination

Moses status and esoteric hintso M says that Moses prophesied w/o angelic mediation. Since angel =

EM, this either means that Moses was a charlatan (unlikely) or that Moses

received EM direct from God (which means Moses = angel!). Kalman Bland says Ms Moses is indeed -angel.

o Does EM here mean that God dictated content, or that God remotelycaused Mosesperfectionand that the Torah is divine by dint of itslaws perfection?

Perfect Law = social andintellectual well-being.

Also, ? " If so, the Law is not miraculous, and he was an ber-esotericist.

20


21/64

Distinguishes between public and private prophecy.o Publicity (i.e., leadership) is integral to perfection.

o Thus, Moses perfection includes transmitting Gods Law = PerfectGovernance to human beings.

CLUE: Though M says God can withhold prophecy, he doesnt provide any

watertight examples of worthies who nevertheless didnt prophesy.o M concludes the section: God is the remote efficient cause, not proximate

PROBLEMOF EVILAND DIVINE PROVIDENCE1. God is not the agent of evil2. Readers! Lets define good and evil!

Matter gets corrupted, and evil is its consequence. Form is perfect, and good is itsconsequence.

o The INT is granted the power to subjugate matter.

Natural evils are rare, compared to the evils men do to each other (for!). Various evils are reallyprivations (e.g., blindness, ignorance, death [= ~form]).

o God produces being, but evil has no being. Nu?! Isnt that just semantics and formalism?

o Sublunar matter is essentially good, even if its nature allows for privationsand/or evil. Plenitude: the more Creation, the more Perfect and Good it is.

Humans are not better than angels, since were -mattero that being said, M still treats humans as exceptional.

PHIs deny Providence b/c of apparent injustice (and ignorance of particulars).o Thus, lists 5 views on Providence:

Epicurus: No Providence whatsoever. Aristotle: Celestials have , sublunars have

. , but all individuals experience the same M: he was driven to this by empirical considerations.

Ashariyya: Yes, all individuals have the same but itsber-determinism-!

Mutazilites: Like #3, but people still have some Free Will; if sh*thappens, you deserved it! Infants and the rare innocent will getcompensated in .

o #5-The Torah: God does not increase suffering so as to reward people(contra some", and #4), nor does he reward animals.

Like #2, except for humans: b/c they have Intellect, they canreceive overflow and Providence like Celestials, to the extent that

they have perfected the INT. Gods Knowledge/Providence:

o If God isnt like the PHI God, and He knows particulars (which change!)or even cease to exist (impossible as an object of knowledge!), then howcan God know of these without changing Himself??

o A: Gods knowledge and wisdom are wholly different from ours.Only the word is the same.

21


22/64

o God can know particulars withoutchanging. Poof! [contra Ralbag]o His knowledge of everything does not derive from objects, but from Gods

essence. This does not change. ExegesisofM on Job touches these matters:

o Is God the personal one of history, or the impersonal one + a little ?

o Apparently the former, but, once again, many esoteric hints.o The 5 positions in Job do not match up to the 5 outlined above:

Epicurus is gone, and Elihu outlines the Latter position (Ms own). Job is moral, but not wise only wisdom gets Providence!

Only his corporeal being suffered, not his form/Job himself!o I.e., the smarter you are, the better you are at flowing through this

world anticipating the corporeal evils and avoiding them.

allhave a rationale, even if we cannot fathom them. do nothing for God, they are all for our benefit.

o M adopts Arsts view, the Man is a social animal, and needs society inorder to survive/thrive.

Idolatry is the main obstacle to obtaining true knowledge of God.o If a seems obscure, its because the Torah succeeded in erasing it!

Human Perfection

The Parable of the King.o Even Rabbis dont enter the palace.o Know physics (the antechamber), and metaphysics (the inner chamber).

o Super application to perfection privy to the kings councils.

Recommends isolation, disparages touch, and the closer to perfection you are,the more you must/may deviate from the Golden Mean.

Cultivate a separate intellect that constantly contemplates God, even as yougo about your daily activities. The train you to do this.

Can induce, through perfection, intellectual-ecstatic death, which preserves thesoul (), this is Gods kiss.

o Ethical perfection is thus a means to INT ., not an endo Once perfection is attained, be perfectly ethical and loving-kindness, etc.o Er, did M just flip-flop? Is ethics the means or the ends or what??o A1:post-perfection ethics is the end!o A2: public is part of perfection; helping others is perfection.

Broadie, Alexander (1997). Maimonides and Aquinas. inHistory of JewishPhilosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 281-93.EXCURSUS: Maimonides and Aquinas

They are the equivalents within their respective faith communities.o Both faced bitter opposition within those communities.

There are many similarities between the two. Lets focus on that now:

22


23/64

o Both agree that terms predicated of God are sometimes metaphorical.o Aquinas rejects Ms via negativa, in favor of via analogical. Er, right.

We understand God imperfectly, but truly to at least that extent. In Ms agenda, there is not only philosophy, but pastoral care involved (I.26).

o Only for that reason to we call God alive instead of dead, because in

truth, all attributes are negative. Both describe the Oneness of God in very similar terms.

o I.e., all perfections are him, rather than predicated ofhim (i.e., he isgoodness, wisdom, etc., not that he has these qualities).

For both, ex nihilo = its existence depends upon Gods will (i.e., nothing).o Thus, it can be both (a) Eternal, and (b) ex nihilo.

M: God cannot be the creator and not know his world, though his knowledge issurely different from ours.

DREAM of The Endlesss library of books-never-written ispas nischtaccording to M, but fair game according to Aquinas.

Contingent nature of events = knowledge is not the cause of the event (Godmerely observes it, so the change brought about by time is unrelated to Him).

Saperstein, Marc (1997). The social and cultural context: thirteenth to fifteenthcenturies. inHistory of Jewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman.London: Routledge. 294-330.

The Great Man history, perhaps defensible by the elitists of the 9th-12th centuries,does not fit at all with the popularizing of PHI and JPH in the 13th-15th ct.

Economic bases

Christian PHIs were supported monks, but JPHs had families, and needed towork, or support themselves with their JPH.

Christians had the works available. Jews had no access, and needed privatelibraries.o Translation, acquisition, etc. were needed early on.o Desire for new learning by reputation alone led to furious copying.

We dont know who subsidized this enormous effort many inspired individuals? 10 PHI works in a month! (Immanuels Machberot) [Did he dodge a fee?] Ralbag and Kimchi, as well as otherpashutJewish intellectuals were :

o These libraries belie any facile generalization that a commitment to PHIstudy in the 14th and 15th cts. Indicated a weakening attachment to J-Trad.

Teachers were also needed with the books: Christians were cheaper. Pulpit PHI was the cheapest: by the 15th ct., there is abundant evidence of PHI

material as an integral part of the sermons delivered in Spain.o This changed both contentandform of Jewish homiletics [logic, etc.]

Institutional Structures

Christians had universities and standards, with social rewards. Not Jews! In the J-community, there is little evidence of institutions. PHI knowledge seems

to have been transmitted via private instruction. The Rashbas ban (and others) make(s) no mention of formal schools.

23


24/64

There is one tantalizing attestation to ayeshiva that taught PHI in Spain, buto Also, HA Wolfson thought that classroom lectures had a big role, but

Social Status

Do the available data substantiate the thesis that PHI was mainly upper class?o In order to understand the social dimensions of JPH, it is necessary to

include the less original figures, the translators, popularizers, andpurveyors of PHI, alongside the intellectual giants.

Counter-examples:o Ralbag had court-access, but was a middle-class money lender, and whose

Jewish commitments are beyond reproach.o Ibn Tibbon family was similarly middle-class merchants.o Jacob Anatoli, a preacher with a base of supporters, but was stifled

certainly not powerful.

o Abravanel was a courtier, and rich, who was anti-PHI.o Chasdai Crescas was also one of the most influential Jews with court

access to Aragon, the great anti-Aristotelian critic. Dont trust the polemicists:

o They take things out of context. Rhetoric could easily support traditiono Extreme PHIs are always an anonymous, shadowy Other. Straw Men!o PHI gets blamed for laxness/apostasy what about gentile oppression?!o PHI can rationalizefaithfulness just as well as abandonment.PHIs neutral.

Bottom Line: little evidence that extreme PHI (rationalism) hurt Jewish loyalties,of the upper or other classes. More evidence points to moderate PHI buttressingJewish life. Arguably, by giving it respectability in the eyes of both Jews andgentiles, it pushed off the eventual Fall.

Dobbs-Weinstein, Idit (1997). The Maimonidean controversy. inHistory of JewishPhilosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 331-349.

Ironically, many precise details of the MC are unknown, and many of the earlyanti-Ms lacked direct knowledge of Ms actual works (and pro-Ms too!).

o What were the two sides arguing about then, if not the actual content ofMs works?Hmmm

History

30 years post-M, sometime bet. 1232-35, Ms works were banned and burned.o Radak says it was in Montpellier, Hillel of Verona says Paris (unreliable).

Meir Abulafia of Toledo and Rabad of Posquires accused M of denying

1190. s, tried to ban MT:1, did not succeed (the GP hadnt gotten there yet). Rashba (of Montpellier) and his two students, David b. Saul and Yonah

Gerondi, sought to ban MT:1 and GPforMs honor they deferred to his auth.!o This -banning only raised its status. RY actually got a pro-M counter-

ban from Provence. Of the burning itself, little is known except that it occurred. Rashba gets the indirectblame for the burning, which also pioneered Talmud

burning also.

24


25/64

Nachmanides tried to arrange a compromise in the study and teaching of the GPand MT:1, but even so, the controversy continued for centuries.

3 different issues/conflicts: internal Jewish authority, relationship to the Christianpowers, and the relationship of Torah and logos.

Stage 1:

M accuses his interlocutors of:o Inability to distinguish between Appearance and Realityo Imagination and understanding

o Compelled Action vs. Free Action

o ofReducing the true human good to a corporeal one.o [Idolatry?!]

M is accused of:o Usurping all halakhic auth. for himself.

o Elitism . A few cases are of power-grabbing, or turf-warring, but for the most part, its

apparent that the anti-Ms are sincere, if sometimes ill-informed/incompetent.o I.e., true understanding ofMs views wouldve satisfied the accusers.

Resurrection:o M distinguishes between the messianic age, The End of Days, and

The world to come.o and between natural and rational possibility.o It cannot be rationally inferred, nor has it happened in the past (we have

no traditions or testimonies to this effect), so we cannot infer it fromnature/experience.

Thus, acceptance or denial of this phrase is really an litmus test of. Cognizing this is not possible. I believe in

"/. = I trust rabbis &/or prophetic utterances. W/o external verification (past events, or something coming to

pass), we must rely on the cognitive and moral status of thespeaker.

In a word, unknowable != unbelievable. M:Naturally possible miracles [arouse wonder]include:

o Normal things that are prophetically predicted.o Normal things that are uncharacteristically major(Locusts!!).o Normal things that are uncharacteristically persistent(blessings).

M: Naturally impossible ones [are unknowable] cant endure or be discussed.o

Thus, they can only be believed and affirmed. Ironically, mans natural perfection the intellectual was manifest in theMosaic prophecy, and on thatbasis we are bound to believe in .

Samuel ibn Tibbon (associated with the scholars of Lunel) contributed to the MCwith his translations and PHI-lexicons.

o Claims that most M-PHIs would balk upon learning Ms true thought.o [Contra Ms ] SiT denies any trickle-down effect of the elites

knowledge of the JPH-truth. The masses would despise it, he says.

25


26/64

Rashba explicitly targets SiB in the ban. Why?o SiB does not believe in the vulgar masses! He isnt a popularizer!o SiB does say that PHI is the key to felicitythis is what is banned.

The point is that SiB is an example ofaradical-PHI appropriation of M. Joseph ibn Kaspi is more radical than SiB:

o Criticizes Maimonides.o Minimalist biblical interpretation against homiletics, save for educating

the vulgar.o Despised the vulgar, is an ber-elitist.o SiB read the Bible allegorically, fineJiK says its merely history of

nation(!), completely particular (thats not a good thing). Feels no need to make ", or, into PHI giants, or to

defend or extract PHI from whatever they say. Rejects/denies Ms defense of [naturally impossible] miracles! Miracles for the ignorant is science to the enlightened. (sci-fi?!)

Manekin, Charles H. (1997). Hebrew philosophy in the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies: an overview. inHistory of Jewish Philosophy. Ed. by Daniel H. Frank andOliver Leaman. London: Routledge. 350-378.

Philosophical Judaism is explaining existing Judaism in a foreign philosophicalkey or idiom. Natural Hebrew philosophy only arose in the 13th-15th cts.Because of a sustained indigenous culture of PHI amongst Jews.

The preferred mode of PHI was the commentary. European JPHs gradually become aware of Christian PHIs thru LatinHeb. trans. Arabic-Hebrew PHI tradition (Jewish Averroist read of Aristotle) OTOH:

o Moses Narboni

o Joseph ibn Kaspio Isaac Pollegar (who is he?)

Spanish JPH tradition on the other (conservative; battling Christian crisis):o Crescaso Isaac Aramao J. Alboo I. Abravanel

Italian JPHs defy categorization, mixing all sorts of stuff. They even haveorthodox Averroists, who hold of his readings, but not his radical doctrines.

Belief or Faith? Biblical & Rabbinic: trust, reliance, acceptance. 12th ct. Hebrew trans.:philosophical Arabic cognitive conviction or belief.

o Recall above, Saadiahs were inferior, un-PHI opinions.

Late 14th ct., under Scholastic influence: faith. (fides, as opposed to (?)logos).

M: the notion conceived in the soul when it has been affirmed of ito mental conception ofx + affirmation of the correspondence to reality ofx.

26


27/64

o = truth-bearers; can be true or false, dubious or certain, rational ortraditional. [Certain belief only comes from rational demonstration.]

o Thus, non-PHIs may possess true, yet uncertain beliefs about God.

o This suffices (barely) for immortality.

In Provence, under Averroes influence, Ms idea was tossed in favor of

Aristotles distinction between knowledge and true opinion.o IOW, Ms uncertain knowledge was downgraded to opinion.o Uh-oh! Now all the masses have mere opinions; no immortality!o Uh-oh! Now allprophecies [non-rationally-demonstrated], ergo, opinions!

Three responses to this linguistic development, and the treatment of Faith:1. Non-volitional, less than rational knowledge.2. Non-volitional, greater than rational knowledge.3. Volitional, of immense religious significance.

Non-Volitional (NV)Emunah:o classic Crescas versus Maimonides [commandedto believe]

One cannot will to believe two contradictory positions. With compelling evidence, will to believe is supercilious. In an underdetermined case, will adds no truth value anyway.

o Crescas still sees some beliefs as obligatory, since hes still a cognitive-Emunah guy. The obligation is instruction in the dogmas.

True belief is notits own reward. Erg! Forced to argue that will has a place in ones affect(joy and

pleasure) that one takes in his beliefs, and diligence in t-seeking.Strange objects to volitional cognition, so accepts volitional emotions.

Non-VolitionalEmunah #2:Emunah as Faitho Emunahpreviouslymeant all beliefs, but now it means faith.

o E.g., Albo: A firm belief, even if unable to prove. [E.g., Sinai] This collapses Ms distinction between true and certain

beliefs. All emunotare ipso facto certain, and certainty can beattained without rational proof!

o Simeon Duran: emunotare accepted via miracles or tradition, whichlodges them firmly in the soul.

o Abravanel: emunot, while true + certain, are distinct from knowledge oropinion.

o Isaac Arama:Emunah is against Reason (sometimes)!7

Abraham first knew God qua PHI, then ascended to the level ofFaith with the (anticipates Kierkegaard?).

o In short: Arst/PHI is inadequate to understand Biblical . Emunah as Volitional

o Bibago:eitherPHI proof, orfaith get there, dont matter how.

Faith is superior, because Moses is undebate-able, whereas PHIsdebate their doctrines endlessly.

Saves time! (this and the next: like Saadiah and kalm)

7 Anticipating Sren Kierkegaard?

27


28/64

Accessible to the vulgar. (ironic thats exactly why!) Even better: PHI can only teach you seen things, but only faith

can teach you unseen things, i.e., metaphysics. Wow! Mnemonic: Bibago is the Bizzaro-Maimonides.

o Faith rocks because it is volitional! PHI evidence compels assent, but

faith is pure human willpower.

Divine Attributes

Ms limitations are usually linguistic (human language cannot be predicated ofGod without destroying his Unity and Uniqueness), but sometimes implyepistemological limitations (it is beyond speaking andeven knowing).

o This was first pointed out by Ralbag. (kalm also blamed language)o E.g., how can we via negative things like God is not corporeal, when we

dont know what the equivocal God-version of 'corporeal' is that we deny?o Ralbag did not seriously consider that M felt human knowledge was

limited (like Pines and Altmann and Fox!) he just felt M goofed in

trying to reconcile Aristotles PHI and the Bibles claims.o Ralbag has a solution that I didnt understand, but hopefully will be

covered in the next section. Crescas:

o Via negative gets you ever closer to NOWHERE, buddy.o Denying an imperfection implies you know the corresponding perfection.o {no longer a logical issue in the 15th ct., but epistemological}o M denies relations bet. creatures-God, but maintains God is the cause!

Crescas ignores that M is speaking logic, not epistemology.o Distinguishes between essence and essential attributes.

The attributes, as objects, are thus not Gods essence, but they areessential, and alsopositively predicated. (e.g.,existing, knowing) Got canned by and Isaac Abravanel for incoherence.

o Crescas was getting at a theory that admits of theologythe bible givesus certain knowledge of God, right? So it must be possible![epistemologically]

Albo (and others) will come to improve M, allowing via negativa to grantpositive knowledge of God, in a limited, logically permissible waysorta.

Creation versus Eternity

M recourses to empirical anomalies to prove God from creation. (retrogrades)o Ms ex nihilo influenced Albo, Arama, Abravanel, et al.o but not Albalag or Narboni (Averroists as First Cause).

Gersonides major argument for the creation of the world is teleological:o Everything in this world patently has a purpose, thus a Creator.

Gersonides dislikes Ms ex nihilo and Platos ex chaotica he has a middlecourse, of God imprinting two forms on pre-existent matter, and Nature follows.

o Knocks out Aristotle more or less like M did.

28


29/64

Crescas holds of via volitionalEM that is, intellect=will,thus God is always lovingly thinking the world into existence.

Choice, Will, and Moral Responsibility

Until the 14th ct., JPHs were uninterested/unaware of this un-Arist. question:

o It presupposes a faculty of will distinct from the intellect.o It implies that human action underfree will has no cause (weird).o (choice) and (contingency) are used, not (will) or

(free). E.g., M insists that our choices are contingent, but of course

caused. The threat, for him, is fate or predestination. IOW, the necessary condition for moral responsibility is real

choice and voluntary action, rather than freedom of will. HUGE! Abner of Burgos: Everything is predestined (our will is connected in a causal

chain back to the movement of the spheres), but our efforts are not in vain (theyare in fact part of the causal chain). [ , anyone?]

o [contra Aristotle: our actions are notpredestined].o ABB: Sounds a bit like Spinoza.

Pollegar: only Prime Matter has eternal possibility. Lumps of wax are caused!o Free choice is experienced, and there is no need to defend it.

Divine Omniscience and Contingency

How can an Aristotelian God know particulars, and remain unchanged? M, recall, attacked the question: Divine knowledge is radically different! Albalag and Narboni: God doesnt know particulars directly, but through his

Self-knowledge, the world exists, and he knows everything remotely. (Averroist).

NOTE: Arst himself would disparage knowledge of [changing, temporal]particulars; a God that knows particulars is an inferior type of being. JPHs dont... Gersonides: God knows particulars as instantiateduniversals.

o To know = understand how something ticks.

o To know != being acquainted with something via sensory data.o Non-essential rules (e.g., losing a basketball game) seem problematic, but

since they are explicable (by any good astrologer), by God, they are"known to Him.

Summary: Albalag, Narboni, and Gersonides all denied that God knowsparticulars qua particulars. Thus got panned by Crescas, Arama, Abravanel.

Crescas defended causal determinism, (like Abner of Burgos), but humans are

necessarily ignorant of the causes that determine their actions [keep this a secret!].o Abner, however, would say that coerced action nevertheless produces

voluntary actions (M on recalcitrant husbands, anyone?).o Crescas is deontological (?) the inner state of the sinner and saint

determines the quality of the voluntary action.o So Crescas also got panned by Arama and Abravanel.

GERSONIDES (RALBAG) [1288-1344]

29


30/64

Wrote Bible commentary, PHI, JPH, etc. except. Wars of the Lord Well connected and respected Jewishly, politically, papally. Aristotle, Averroes, and M were his sole PHI primary sources!!

o Lived on Hebrew translations, and quotes a range of opinions 2nd-handthrough Averroes commentaries on Aristotle. Wow!

Context: Two Problems:o Anti-PHI/anti-M reaction setting-in at the end of 13th ct. (2nd stage)o Averroes writings forced a JPH rethinking of PHI and M.

Wars of the Lord (WL) is a defense/appreciation of M and Averroes.

To G, Avr. = Arst.s tradition, and M is the defender of the faith from PHI.o IOW, G ironically positions M as Jewish kalm, and Avr. Asfalsifa!!

Creation (merge with earlier discussion?) Almost 40% of WL deals with creation.

o Like M and others, saw Creation as the PHI-keystone to other dogmaso

Felt Avr. And Ms handling of the issue to be incorrect: Avr = Arst. = Eternity is proven. Mexoteric = Nothing is proven, but we accept ex nihilo.

G = Both wrong! Formatio mundican be proven.

Strategy:1. Prove the Universe is created, Eternity is absurd.2. Prove ex nihilo false, and that Plato (revised) is correct.3. Argue against Created Eternity (Endlessness?).

Categories of Proofs:1. Inference from teleological factsabout the universe.

Teleology: Arst. himself says the Heavens are teleological + no

chance exists in the supra-lunar realm. So they have a purpose,and the agent of that purpose = God.

2. Inference from contingent facts about the world. M already noted Arsts failed attempt to explain anomalies like

retrogrades, etc., but felt it to be inductive proof; G considersthese to be deductive proofs for Creation.

3. Counterproof - Eternity implies the infinite (absurd). Arst. holds that there are no infinites, except for time, motion, and

divisibility, which are all equal. G says that if Arst. is right aboutinfinity, then hes wrong about eternity. Obsolete via modern math.

The past deposits real artifacts into the present; an infinite past is

thus a real infinity (not like unreal time, etc.) physicallyimpossible in Arsts own physics!

Ex nihilo is false:o Relies on Aristotelian Physics: Vacuum, Infinite Bodieso How does an incorporeal being create corporeal matter?o The vacuum must have preceded the world, which somehow implies that

the world should be infinite.I dont get the logic.

30


31/64

The world was created out of Prime Matter of sorts, which sounds liquidy. TheEarth and Heavens were formed out of this, and some remains to grease the gears.

All Biblical instances of miracles areformatio mundi (lice dust, axe-wood...). Gs World Without End: Gods Creation is perfect, why destroy it?

Divine Nature and Human Freedom G doesnt feel the need to prove Gods existence a created universe is proof

enough. G rejects Ms via negativa: it is unnecessary, since anypredicate could be

asserted of God, as long as were clear were speaking equivocally (Of course Ididnt mean that God has a corporealOutstretched Arm! etc., etc.)

Further, via negativa is still a via it implies positive knowledge of the equivocalterm. Ms approach is logically defective. [like Crescas]

God is predicated prior and creations posterior, but there is some connection(e.g., both God and Moses know that 12144 = ). Also, God knows in anunchanging way, while Moses would have to calculate that equation.

Accepting Aristotles incompatibility between foreknowledge and free choice,God does not have foreknowledge. Gods omniscient in that He knowseverything possible to know (including statistics, presumably).

Divine Providence and Immortality

Mexos God knows particulars, and so Providence can govern .o But Gs God does notknow particulars, so how can God reward?

G cannot accept the straight-up Aristotelianist absence of Providence:o Agrees with M: Providence is only for humans (b/c of INT).o Agrees with M: Providence is only for JPHs (b/c of INT).o

Agrees with M: Only spiritual goods are real. Privations are not trueevils. (ah, thats why Rabbi Akivas martyrdom was not punishment)o Disagrees with M: cosmology God created from utmost imperfection,

the formless matter. Gods creation is as perfect as matter can be, butmatter entails necessary evils (earthquakes and the like; sounds NP,no?). God cannot square the circle, nor remove 100% of evil. (sorry,tortured babies).

Immortality:o Aristotles Active Intellect was the muse that stimulated human thought.o Avicenna (et al) buffed the AI: it now proffered theological and secular

prophecy, as well as the efficient cause of natural generation.

Many theories of immortality posit conjunction with the AI. G disagrees with conjunction/unification in virtually all its forms.

o Intellect has no substance its a biological capacity [like Alexander ofAphrodisias; contra Avicenna].

o A cognitively perfected human intellect becomes the acquired intellect.

This [merely?]participates in the AIs everlastingness. Cannot say union, since that entails loss of individuation.

31


32/64

o Our immortality then is identified with our intellectual capital.

o Theoretical knowledge is sufficient forfelicity!

In sum : defends the traditional individualimmortality (for the sake of Justice),but in the terms of the Aristotelian theory of the intellect.

Prophecy G is open and honest: his PHI doctrines are found in his Bible commentaries.

o No double-truth Averroisms in Gersonides, no sir!

o Intellectually elitist, but seems to have a higher opinion of his audiencethan M (or perhaps Gis just more desperate on behalf of the vulgar?).OTOH, M put this all into his MT....

G in WL is largely Universal. " is much more Jewish. G was less obsessed with Moses status than M.

Gersonides MaimonidesProphecy is casually distinguished

from divination

Prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with

divination/idolatry, !!Not primarily cognitive, esp. for

truths beyond human reasonEntirely cognitive

Primarily predictive, and(for Moses) legislative

Indirectly legislative or predictive(overflow from the INT)

Miracles

Both M & G agree God cannot do logically impossible miracles (like changethe past, or turn corporeal), nor can he be the direct agent of possible miracles.

o M does say that God can do rationally possible but naturally impossiblemiracles (e.g., locusts would never naturally eat all of Egypt, but theywere miraculously gathered for plague purposes).

In general, both M & G tend tonaturalize miracles. G goes further:

o Miracles, like prophecy, have rules: the law of miracles.o Miracles, like prophecy, are caused by the Agent Intellect (the boss of the

terrestrial realm).o Miracles, like prophecy, are allowed for by a human with a perfected,

acquired intellect.o Miracles, like prophecy, are impersonal, not requiring God to know of

particulars the law of miracles is general, and happens to all worthies. Miracles are very much like prophecy.

o Miracles are lawful, and thus natural, but they are also contingent, andthus volitional.o No miracles in the celestial sphere.

Torah and Commandments

Both M & G agree The Torah is a Platonic ideal of Law for human eudemon. G: Torah draws adherents through love, unlike mortal regimes of fear. [like

Mendelssohn]

32


33/64

Though G did not publish , his prowess is evident from his . The purpose of the Torah is to emancipate us from materiality, lead us toward

, which is perfection of the intellect. [like M, et al]

In sum, G was a sincere Defender of the Faith, who identified philosophy with the

Torah (properly understood).o It is notAristotles teachings, norunavailable through human reason (M).o To be human = our intellects. God created us, and the Torah to guide us

to reach Him, so it must be possible, though not easy.

CHASDAI CRESCAS

Not just a traditional reactionary follows and produces a philosophical systemalternative to the Aristotelian (on its own terms).

of the ." Contradictions in his oeuvre noticed by both medievals and moderns. Refutation of the Christian Principles:

o Original Sin; redemption from ito Trinity; incarnation; virgin birtho Transubstantiation; baptism; messiah; new Torah; demonso Lays out the premises underlying these beliefs, then distinguishes

which are acceptable to both Christians and Jews, then knocks holes inthe premises which are only acceptable to Christians.

Contradicts by using via negativa to refute the Trinity. Contradicts by using Gs arguments againsteternal creation to refute the

eternal creation of the Son by the Father. But he holds ofex nihilo = eternalcreation. Oops.

Was it purely intellectual disagreement with M? Or was there a social aspect to it,that Cr. felt PHI Jews were susceptible to apostasy?

Rejects the :, both in content and in structure" o M chose his Principles deductively, and flattening them all.o Cr. chose his Principles inductivelywhich will serve to preserve and

sustain Judaism?and thus had a hierarchy:1. / prerequisite to revelation-concept2. prerequisite to

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amitai-blickstein
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

My Notes for Yeshiva University's MA Comprehensive Exams in Jewish Philosophy (2009)

Documents