The Ralbag's philosophy can often lead people to suspect his commitment to Judaism. This is wrong and shows an immense lack of understanding of his beliefs. It is true that the Ralbag studied Averroes' philosophy and through that he came to appreciate the views of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. However, the Ralbag was often critical of these philosopher's ideas and disagreed with them. On the other hand, the Ralbag was also very critical of the philosophies of earlier Jewish thinkers. He was a free thinker who took all the knowledge that was available to him and used it in order to understand the world. It is unfortunate that his philisophical works have been ignored for so long because there is much to learn from them.
The most controversial aspect of the Ralbag's philosophy was probably his view of G-D. In classical Orthodox Judaism it is believed that G-D is personal and is involved in every single Jewish life. G-D has direct control over your life and gives a Jew reward and punishment based on their good and evil deeds. This is not the view of the Ralbag. However, the Ralbag did not make his view up. In the beginning of the Ralbag's book The Wars of The Lord he points out that there are three possible views of divine providence: 1)The theory of Aristotle asserts that divine providence does not reach individual members of the human race, but only in a general way affects people to make the human race perpetuate. This is similar to how G-D relates to other species; 2) The second theory is that which was mentioned above, the theory of most followers of the Torah that divine providence reaches each and every single individual. They believe that G-D bestows upon them reward and punishment according to what they deserve; 3) The theory of the outstanding Torah scholars (Rambam in the Guide section III:17 and 51, Abraham ibn Daud in Ha-'Emunah ha-Ramah pages 97-98, Abraham Ibn Ezra commentary on Exodus 23:25 and 33:21) who assert that divine providence reaches only some individuals, but not all men. Later, the Ralbag goes on to show why the first two theories are wrong and that the final idea is how G-D governs the world.
The Ralbag brings up several disproofs of the first and second views. I will not go in to them right now, but the overall concept should be presented. The disproof of Aristotle's view is simple, since there is such a thing as prophecy there has to be some level of individual providence. The disproof of the second view deals with the source of evil in the world. The Ralbag proves that it is impossible that evil emanates directly from G-D. Therefore, it is not G-D that causes evil to happen to everyone directly and thereby He does not show divine providence over every single person according to the second theory. However, since G-D does show some level of providence over some people, it must be that the third theory is the correct view.
After asserting that the third theory is the correct way to view G-D, the Ralbag reveals how G-D interacts with the world. G-D exercises divine providence over those unique individuals that have reached intellectual perfection (this is also the view of the Rambam). This providence manifests itself as a communication between G-D and this man by G-D informing the man of the good or evil that is to come upon him. For those that have reached the highest level of intellectual perfection this message is seen as prophecy. However, on lower levels, the Ralbag says, man is endowed with instincts that guide him to pursuits of things that are beneficial to him and avoid situations that are detrimental to him. An example of divine providence that the Ralbag gives is where a man is supposed to go on a caravan, but he gets a thorn in his foot and is forced to stay at home. Later, the man experiences great success because of his remaining at home. Another example is where a man is supposed to take a ship, but gets sick and is unable to travel. Later, he learns that the ship sunk and everyone was killed. These are what the Ralbag defines as Yisurim shel Ahava (Visitations of divine love).
Showing posts with label Aristotle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aristotle. Show all posts
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Does the Rambam Think Believing in Creation Ex Aliquo (Creation of the World From a Primordial Matter) Makes You a Heretic?
I was learning through some of the Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and something caught my attention. In perek 3 halacha 7 of Hilchos Teshuva the Rambam lists five types of people that are considered heretics. He says,
"There are five types of people that are called heretics: One who says that there is no G-D and there is no guide (for the world); One who says there is a guide (for the world), but there are two or more; One who says that there is one G-D, but He has a physical body and an image; Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything; Also, one who worships another 'G-D' in order that it act as an intermediary between this man and the Lord of the world. All five of these people are heretics."
It would seem from this statement in the Rambam, that anyone who says that G-D is not the only first one and former of everything, that he believes that anyone who believes in creation Ex Aliquo is a heretic. Creation Ex Aliquo is the belief that there was a primordial matter that had no shape or form that G-D used to create everything. This idea was first brought forth by the Greek philosopher Plato.
The Raavad here says that the Rambam is talking about the philosopher in the following Medrash Rabbah (1:9). The Medrash says,
"A certain philosopher asked Raban Gamliel, 'Your G-D is indeed a great former, but he found good materials which assisted Him, tohu, vohu, darkness, wind, water and the deep. Rabban Gamliel replied, May your spirit blow away! With regards to all of them it is written that they were created." The rest of the Medrash goes into the different verses throughout Tanach that prove all of these six things were created.
The commentator on the Rambam that most clearly points out that he thinks the Rambam is saying that believing in creation Ex Aliquo makes one a heretic is the Lechem Mishna on this Rambam. He explicitly says that if someone believes in creation Ex Aquila then they are in the Rambam's category of a heretic.
However, I saw in the sefer likutim in the back of the Rambam Frankel, in the name of the Rada, that the Rambam clearly states (The Guide for the Perplexed 2:25) that if one found a proof for creation Ex Aliquo that it could be read into the pasukim. The Rada seems to think that the Rambam and Raavad are arguing here and not agreeing like the Lechem Mishna says. The Raavad would call a person that believes in creation Ex Aliquo a heretic, but the Rambam would not. He is referring to something else when he says, "Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything."
Indeed, the Rambam does say that creation Ex Aliquo, Plato's view, is a possibility if one wants to believe in Judaism. He even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory."
By the Rambam's own admission, if a person believes in Plato's idea of creation, Ex Aliquo, then they are not rejecting the fundamental principles of the religion. So why would the Rambam call this man a heretic? If the Lechem Mishna is right, what is the Rambam saying?
In light of this I think we can correctly understand the Rambam in the following way. The Rambam is saying that someone who believes in Aristotle's philosophy, that the world has always existed in its current state, would be considered a heretic. In fact, the Rambam even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."
This seems like a reasonable understanding of the Rambam since Aristotle believed in a single G-D that is not physical. However, Aristotle believes that the universe is eternal and that there was no creation. The Rambam believes that if someone denies creation then they are a heretic. However, a person can believe in creation Ex Nihilo or creation Ex Aliquo. This seems to be the correct understanding of the Rambam.
"There are five types of people that are called heretics: One who says that there is no G-D and there is no guide (for the world); One who says there is a guide (for the world), but there are two or more; One who says that there is one G-D, but He has a physical body and an image; Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything; Also, one who worships another 'G-D' in order that it act as an intermediary between this man and the Lord of the world. All five of these people are heretics."
It would seem from this statement in the Rambam, that anyone who says that G-D is not the only first one and former of everything, that he believes that anyone who believes in creation Ex Aliquo is a heretic. Creation Ex Aliquo is the belief that there was a primordial matter that had no shape or form that G-D used to create everything. This idea was first brought forth by the Greek philosopher Plato.
The Raavad here says that the Rambam is talking about the philosopher in the following Medrash Rabbah (1:9). The Medrash says,
"A certain philosopher asked Raban Gamliel, 'Your G-D is indeed a great former, but he found good materials which assisted Him, tohu, vohu, darkness, wind, water and the deep. Rabban Gamliel replied, May your spirit blow away! With regards to all of them it is written that they were created." The rest of the Medrash goes into the different verses throughout Tanach that prove all of these six things were created.
The commentator on the Rambam that most clearly points out that he thinks the Rambam is saying that believing in creation Ex Aliquo makes one a heretic is the Lechem Mishna on this Rambam. He explicitly says that if someone believes in creation Ex Aquila then they are in the Rambam's category of a heretic.
However, I saw in the sefer likutim in the back of the Rambam Frankel, in the name of the Rada, that the Rambam clearly states (The Guide for the Perplexed 2:25) that if one found a proof for creation Ex Aliquo that it could be read into the pasukim. The Rada seems to think that the Rambam and Raavad are arguing here and not agreeing like the Lechem Mishna says. The Raavad would call a person that believes in creation Ex Aliquo a heretic, but the Rambam would not. He is referring to something else when he says, "Also, one who says that He (G-D) is not the only first one and former of everything."
Indeed, the Rambam does say that creation Ex Aliquo, Plato's view, is a possibility if one wants to believe in Judaism. He even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory."
By the Rambam's own admission, if a person believes in Plato's idea of creation, Ex Aliquo, then they are not rejecting the fundamental principles of the religion. So why would the Rambam call this man a heretic? If the Lechem Mishna is right, what is the Rambam saying?
In light of this I think we can correctly understand the Rambam in the following way. The Rambam is saying that someone who believes in Aristotle's philosophy, that the world has always existed in its current state, would be considered a heretic. In fact, the Rambam even says in The Guide for the Perplexed(2:25),
"If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."
This seems like a reasonable understanding of the Rambam since Aristotle believed in a single G-D that is not physical. However, Aristotle believes that the universe is eternal and that there was no creation. The Rambam believes that if someone denies creation then they are a heretic. However, a person can believe in creation Ex Nihilo or creation Ex Aliquo. This seems to be the correct understanding of the Rambam.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Ramban Explains Creation
The Ramban explains the creation of the world in a very unique way. It seems to be very innovative and intriguing. In his sefer Toras Hashem Temima in perek 7 siman 37 He says,
"When the Torah says (Genesis 1:1) 'In the beginning, G-D created the heavens and the earth.' The word 'in the beginning' means 'at first' like onkelos explains 'at the beginning' and not a word that means close to the beginning, but rather actually the first thing done. The verse is telling us that in the beginning, G-D, who is the creator of all forces, created the heavens and earth. This means that He created these things from absolute nothingness. The thing that was created was a small object that was as small as a seed of mustard, this was the heavens and everything in it. There was also another small dot that was created and this contained the earth and all that is contained in it. This is the primordial matter for the heavens and the primordial matter for the earth."
The Ramban's first point here is very deep. He is telling us that there is no physicality before this act of G-D. G-D existed before space, time and any type of matter. However, the first thing that happened was the creation of the heavens and earth. G-D created the Earth as well as the heavens (outer space). This seems to be going according to Aristotelian physics that says the Earth is made up of different matter than space. It also tells us that just like G-D is not bound within our Earthly world, he is not contained within outer space either. This is probably why we are able to comprehend what is in space, because we share basic rules with it, but we are still unable to understand G-D's existence.
The Ramban also tells us that G-D is the creator of all forces. I think that this reveals that, according to the Ramban, G-D created all the forces that govern the universe, spiritual and physical, at this time. The physics of the material world, be it space or Earth, have existed ever since the beginning of any existence outside of G-D.
The fact that the Ramban says that G-D created a primordial matter for the heavens and another primordial matter for the earth is remarkable. Also, the fact that he says that these primordial matters were the size of mustard seeds and that they contained everything that was to be in the heavens and the earth shows how scientific the Ramban was. His position is that G-D used these tiny spheres of material, heavenly material and earthly material, to then create everything that was to exist in the heavenly world (outer space) and the earthly world. What does that remind you of? Sounds like a similar scientific approach similar to the big bang and evolution to me. If not directly, it at least leaves the possibility of an evolution of material that uses science and physics to explain the creation of the two worlds.
However, it is also interesting to note that even though the Ramban used science and held it in a high regard, he also believed in mystical ideas. In this regard he disagreed with the Rambam vehemently. He felt that soothsayers and magicians had real powers. Why was this so? Well, since there was no scientific proof of magic being impossible I think we can explain this in the following manner. The Rambam chose not to believe in magic. He did not see it so he felt it was not probable. However, the Ramban was open to the possibility of magic, why wouldn't he, the Torah seems to say that magic did exist. If G-D has special powers that He shares with prophets then it is possible that He allowed wicked people to tap into those same powers. I think this is most likely why the Ramban believed in magic.
"When the Torah says (Genesis 1:1) 'In the beginning, G-D created the heavens and the earth.' The word 'in the beginning' means 'at first' like onkelos explains 'at the beginning' and not a word that means close to the beginning, but rather actually the first thing done. The verse is telling us that in the beginning, G-D, who is the creator of all forces, created the heavens and earth. This means that He created these things from absolute nothingness. The thing that was created was a small object that was as small as a seed of mustard, this was the heavens and everything in it. There was also another small dot that was created and this contained the earth and all that is contained in it. This is the primordial matter for the heavens and the primordial matter for the earth."
The Ramban's first point here is very deep. He is telling us that there is no physicality before this act of G-D. G-D existed before space, time and any type of matter. However, the first thing that happened was the creation of the heavens and earth. G-D created the Earth as well as the heavens (outer space). This seems to be going according to Aristotelian physics that says the Earth is made up of different matter than space. It also tells us that just like G-D is not bound within our Earthly world, he is not contained within outer space either. This is probably why we are able to comprehend what is in space, because we share basic rules with it, but we are still unable to understand G-D's existence.
The Ramban also tells us that G-D is the creator of all forces. I think that this reveals that, according to the Ramban, G-D created all the forces that govern the universe, spiritual and physical, at this time. The physics of the material world, be it space or Earth, have existed ever since the beginning of any existence outside of G-D.
The fact that the Ramban says that G-D created a primordial matter for the heavens and another primordial matter for the earth is remarkable. Also, the fact that he says that these primordial matters were the size of mustard seeds and that they contained everything that was to be in the heavens and the earth shows how scientific the Ramban was. His position is that G-D used these tiny spheres of material, heavenly material and earthly material, to then create everything that was to exist in the heavenly world (outer space) and the earthly world. What does that remind you of? Sounds like a similar scientific approach similar to the big bang and evolution to me. If not directly, it at least leaves the possibility of an evolution of material that uses science and physics to explain the creation of the two worlds.
However, it is also interesting to note that even though the Ramban used science and held it in a high regard, he also believed in mystical ideas. In this regard he disagreed with the Rambam vehemently. He felt that soothsayers and magicians had real powers. Why was this so? Well, since there was no scientific proof of magic being impossible I think we can explain this in the following manner. The Rambam chose not to believe in magic. He did not see it so he felt it was not probable. However, the Ramban was open to the possibility of magic, why wouldn't he, the Torah seems to say that magic did exist. If G-D has special powers that He shares with prophets then it is possible that He allowed wicked people to tap into those same powers. I think this is most likely why the Ramban believed in magic.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Maharal Against Philosophers Continued
In this previous post I translated and discussed the beginning of the Maharal's discussion about what he thought about philosophers. I translated the beginning of his second introduction to Gevuros Hashem. Now I will continue to translate it and discuss his ideas.
"There are those from the believers of Israel that try to explain the wonders and miracles that happen in this world with their minds and their knowledge. The reason they use their own knowledge to explain the miracles is because the miracles do not make sense to them according to their understanding of the natural world. This inability to comprehend miracles through their own knowledge causes them to explain the miracles in a way that I (the Maharal) will mention. Still, these people do deserve credit in some respect, because they do not say that there is a lack in the doer (G-D) of the miracles, because this is not the case at all. Only, according to their minds and knowledge they think that it is not proper that the true actor (G-D), that created an order among the creations in that they are created correctly and truthfully, should change the basis for existence. That these Jewish philosophers say that if He would change the nature of the world then nothing that He created would be stable. This is all to their merit (the Jewish philosophers)."
The Maharal begins his disproof of the Jewish philosophers with respect. This shows just how great the Maharal was and how righteous he was. A man that can start a disproof with such nice words and pleasing language has amazing characteristics. He gives credit to the philosophers for using their knowledge, not to disprove G-D's existence, but rather to incorporate G-D's existence and actions into their lives. This is the proper way to act, if your knowledge and G-D's existence conflict with one another, you change your knowledge in order that you can also believe in G-D's existence.
The Maharal continues:
"However, in another aspect there is no merit to them, excluding the reason that their explanations are not correct according to intelligence and knowledge since their proofs and evidence are not correct and their congregation strays from the truth and correct path. They confuse the text (of the Bible) and give explanations for the occurrence of the miracles, that they come to teach us about the actions of G-D. This is why we call them signs and proofs, because they are signs and proofs for the actions of G-D, the awesome one. This reason is without merit and weakens the signs and proofs (of G-D) because the core reason why G-D brought the miracles to Earth was to reinforce our belief in Him."
The Maharal here is telling us where the philosophers got it wrong. It seems like he is explaining the philosophers as believing in an allegorical explanation of the text of the Bible. This diminishes the greatness of G-D because it takes away from His power. Also, this idea completely removes the idea of why G-D brought the miracles to Earth, to reveal His power on Earth. It is interesting to note that the Maharal seems to only go against philosophers that believe in an allegorical explantion of the miracles.
The Maharal continues:
"Now, returning to our original intent for mentioning the philosophers that we have not properly addressed, that we need to know how to answer a heretic. This is referring to the philosophers that say that everything comes from the intelligent order that emanates from the eternality of the world. This means that nothing deviates from this natural order and everything has its nature that it is accustomed to follow. The problem is that since everything comes from this intelligent order and is obligated to follow this nature because of the eternality of the world and cannot veer from this nature, this idea disallows any change in the world that would violate the intelligent order. This means that even a fly's wing cannot be elongated! The reason for this is that since the world has a certain nature that it follows because of the obligation that is found to exist within the world, if any change would come to the world on account of miracles then there would be a change in the order and nature of the world. According to this philosopher's knowledge we never find a change in nature because of the inherent obligation that exists within the order of the world. Therefore, the signs and proofs that change nature are not possible because everything needs to follow the obligatory order without any additions, negations or changes. On the main idea of his words (the Jewish philosopher), that the world is obligatory and therefore it must be that the world has no beginning making it eternal, will be answered in its place."
Here the Maharal is disclosing the general theory of Aristotle on the creation and existence of the world. I am not sure which Jewish philosopher that the Maharal is referring to. Perhaps he understands this as the Rambam's point of view. However, perhaps it is someone else. Either way, the Maharal is revealing which view he believes is incompatible with miracles.
The Maharal continues:
"Furthermore, according to the philosopher, how can it be that anything can come from anything? Nature dictates that anything can not come from anything, but rather only one thing can come from a specific thing. If this is true, then how could blood come from water? Behold, we can bring a proof from a type of object related to another object that is not in its type that the natural actions of something act according to its nature and its customs that are in the natural world, but its spiritual actions act according to its spirituality. There is a difference between them (the natural actions vs the spiritual actions). Natural actions occur in time and therefore every natural action needs to occur in a certain amount of time. However, an action that is not from nature does not need to occur in time. This difference is because of the fact that nature uses physical power and all physical power needs to occur in a certain amount of time. However, spiritual actions occur without taking up time, because these actions do not use physical power and therefore do not take up time. Therefore, in one moment the water was changed into blood since it was an act of G-D's will and His will changed the physicality and the spirituality in one moment. This is not a natural action that it occurred in time and that it needed to be prepared physically, but rather it was the word of G-D and the heavens did this action, with the breath of His mouth all of his legions acted. This was a spiritual act that did not require any physical preparation. Therefore, there should be no question of "But not all physical material is prepared to accept the form (of any other physical material) and therefore it would need preparation, so how was the water able to turn into blood?" This is not a question to one that understands this idea because physical material only needs preparation to accept another form if we are dealing with nature."
The Maharal is explaining how he views the nature of miracles. The problem exists that nature does not allow for miracles, however, miracles actually occur. How can this be? He explains that a physical medium, like water, does not need to be able to physically turn into blood. Although, through nature this is an impossibility, through spiritual intervention this occurs. Spiritual intervention occurs outside of time and this is how water is able to turn into blood. In this manner, G-D changes the physical properties of water through spiritual means and not physical means.
The Maharal continues:
"Philosophers, who go after nature, disregard the miracles because of this (that through nature one form can not accept another form). This we (the Maharal) admit, that through nature the miracles are impossible. However, through the spiritual actions all the miracles are possible. This is because the lower world that is governed by nature also has a connection to the world that is governed by spirituality and it is from this connection that miracles occur. This causes miracles to occur through what connects this world and the spiritual world. Therefore, miracles only occur through the Jewish people like we will explain later. All of this is because of the connection that the Jewish people have with the spiritual world and therefore miracles occur for them."
Here the Maharal discusses a major idea in his works, the Jewish people are the connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. As the connection between these two worlds the Jewish people are the conduits which are able to accept the miracles that G-D performs. Miracles can only occur through spirituality and therefore only the people that are connected to the spiritual world can attain this miracles. Therefore, it makes sense, according to the Maharal, that the Jewish people are able to receive miracles.
The Maharal continues:
"Now, this that we said 'How is it possible that we can form something from anything else, because it is impossible through nature,' is possible not through nature (it is possible through spiritual acts). Also, when we said that the world's existence is obligatory, it is from G-D. If its path is not according to the order of nature then this thing is a change from the order only according to His will. We therefore say that everything goes according to G-D's will."
The philosophy of the Maharal seems to be that G-D's will is the obligatory nature of the world. Only His will can guide the nature of the world. This is in contrast to the philosophers that believe that the natural order of the world is the obligatory nature of the world.
The Maharal continues:
"Even according to the knowledge of the one who believes in the eternality of the world and that everything goes according to the obligatory order, even though this idea is definitely wrong, according to his own knowledge he is wrong. This is because anyone who says that the miracles come from G-D is unable to say that they come from the intelligent order (and this is in fact what the Jewish philosophers try to do)."
Here the Maharal points out the inconsistencies within the ideas of Jewish philosophers that believe in the eternality of the world. If you say that miracles come from G-D it is impossible to believe that the natural order is the obligatory order of the world since miracles are in stark contrast to this idea. Miracles require one to believe that G-D's will is the only obligatory order of the world otherwise, miracles would be impossible.
Read the next part here.
"There are those from the believers of Israel that try to explain the wonders and miracles that happen in this world with their minds and their knowledge. The reason they use their own knowledge to explain the miracles is because the miracles do not make sense to them according to their understanding of the natural world. This inability to comprehend miracles through their own knowledge causes them to explain the miracles in a way that I (the Maharal) will mention. Still, these people do deserve credit in some respect, because they do not say that there is a lack in the doer (G-D) of the miracles, because this is not the case at all. Only, according to their minds and knowledge they think that it is not proper that the true actor (G-D), that created an order among the creations in that they are created correctly and truthfully, should change the basis for existence. That these Jewish philosophers say that if He would change the nature of the world then nothing that He created would be stable. This is all to their merit (the Jewish philosophers)."
The Maharal begins his disproof of the Jewish philosophers with respect. This shows just how great the Maharal was and how righteous he was. A man that can start a disproof with such nice words and pleasing language has amazing characteristics. He gives credit to the philosophers for using their knowledge, not to disprove G-D's existence, but rather to incorporate G-D's existence and actions into their lives. This is the proper way to act, if your knowledge and G-D's existence conflict with one another, you change your knowledge in order that you can also believe in G-D's existence.
The Maharal continues:
"However, in another aspect there is no merit to them, excluding the reason that their explanations are not correct according to intelligence and knowledge since their proofs and evidence are not correct and their congregation strays from the truth and correct path. They confuse the text (of the Bible) and give explanations for the occurrence of the miracles, that they come to teach us about the actions of G-D. This is why we call them signs and proofs, because they are signs and proofs for the actions of G-D, the awesome one. This reason is without merit and weakens the signs and proofs (of G-D) because the core reason why G-D brought the miracles to Earth was to reinforce our belief in Him."
The Maharal here is telling us where the philosophers got it wrong. It seems like he is explaining the philosophers as believing in an allegorical explanation of the text of the Bible. This diminishes the greatness of G-D because it takes away from His power. Also, this idea completely removes the idea of why G-D brought the miracles to Earth, to reveal His power on Earth. It is interesting to note that the Maharal seems to only go against philosophers that believe in an allegorical explantion of the miracles.
The Maharal continues:
"Now, returning to our original intent for mentioning the philosophers that we have not properly addressed, that we need to know how to answer a heretic. This is referring to the philosophers that say that everything comes from the intelligent order that emanates from the eternality of the world. This means that nothing deviates from this natural order and everything has its nature that it is accustomed to follow. The problem is that since everything comes from this intelligent order and is obligated to follow this nature because of the eternality of the world and cannot veer from this nature, this idea disallows any change in the world that would violate the intelligent order. This means that even a fly's wing cannot be elongated! The reason for this is that since the world has a certain nature that it follows because of the obligation that is found to exist within the world, if any change would come to the world on account of miracles then there would be a change in the order and nature of the world. According to this philosopher's knowledge we never find a change in nature because of the inherent obligation that exists within the order of the world. Therefore, the signs and proofs that change nature are not possible because everything needs to follow the obligatory order without any additions, negations or changes. On the main idea of his words (the Jewish philosopher), that the world is obligatory and therefore it must be that the world has no beginning making it eternal, will be answered in its place."
Here the Maharal is disclosing the general theory of Aristotle on the creation and existence of the world. I am not sure which Jewish philosopher that the Maharal is referring to. Perhaps he understands this as the Rambam's point of view. However, perhaps it is someone else. Either way, the Maharal is revealing which view he believes is incompatible with miracles.
The Maharal continues:
"Furthermore, according to the philosopher, how can it be that anything can come from anything? Nature dictates that anything can not come from anything, but rather only one thing can come from a specific thing. If this is true, then how could blood come from water? Behold, we can bring a proof from a type of object related to another object that is not in its type that the natural actions of something act according to its nature and its customs that are in the natural world, but its spiritual actions act according to its spirituality. There is a difference between them (the natural actions vs the spiritual actions). Natural actions occur in time and therefore every natural action needs to occur in a certain amount of time. However, an action that is not from nature does not need to occur in time. This difference is because of the fact that nature uses physical power and all physical power needs to occur in a certain amount of time. However, spiritual actions occur without taking up time, because these actions do not use physical power and therefore do not take up time. Therefore, in one moment the water was changed into blood since it was an act of G-D's will and His will changed the physicality and the spirituality in one moment. This is not a natural action that it occurred in time and that it needed to be prepared physically, but rather it was the word of G-D and the heavens did this action, with the breath of His mouth all of his legions acted. This was a spiritual act that did not require any physical preparation. Therefore, there should be no question of "But not all physical material is prepared to accept the form (of any other physical material) and therefore it would need preparation, so how was the water able to turn into blood?" This is not a question to one that understands this idea because physical material only needs preparation to accept another form if we are dealing with nature."
The Maharal is explaining how he views the nature of miracles. The problem exists that nature does not allow for miracles, however, miracles actually occur. How can this be? He explains that a physical medium, like water, does not need to be able to physically turn into blood. Although, through nature this is an impossibility, through spiritual intervention this occurs. Spiritual intervention occurs outside of time and this is how water is able to turn into blood. In this manner, G-D changes the physical properties of water through spiritual means and not physical means.
The Maharal continues:
"Philosophers, who go after nature, disregard the miracles because of this (that through nature one form can not accept another form). This we (the Maharal) admit, that through nature the miracles are impossible. However, through the spiritual actions all the miracles are possible. This is because the lower world that is governed by nature also has a connection to the world that is governed by spirituality and it is from this connection that miracles occur. This causes miracles to occur through what connects this world and the spiritual world. Therefore, miracles only occur through the Jewish people like we will explain later. All of this is because of the connection that the Jewish people have with the spiritual world and therefore miracles occur for them."
Here the Maharal discusses a major idea in his works, the Jewish people are the connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. As the connection between these two worlds the Jewish people are the conduits which are able to accept the miracles that G-D performs. Miracles can only occur through spirituality and therefore only the people that are connected to the spiritual world can attain this miracles. Therefore, it makes sense, according to the Maharal, that the Jewish people are able to receive miracles.
The Maharal continues:
"Now, this that we said 'How is it possible that we can form something from anything else, because it is impossible through nature,' is possible not through nature (it is possible through spiritual acts). Also, when we said that the world's existence is obligatory, it is from G-D. If its path is not according to the order of nature then this thing is a change from the order only according to His will. We therefore say that everything goes according to G-D's will."
The philosophy of the Maharal seems to be that G-D's will is the obligatory nature of the world. Only His will can guide the nature of the world. This is in contrast to the philosophers that believe that the natural order of the world is the obligatory nature of the world.
The Maharal continues:
"Even according to the knowledge of the one who believes in the eternality of the world and that everything goes according to the obligatory order, even though this idea is definitely wrong, according to his own knowledge he is wrong. This is because anyone who says that the miracles come from G-D is unable to say that they come from the intelligent order (and this is in fact what the Jewish philosophers try to do)."
Here the Maharal points out the inconsistencies within the ideas of Jewish philosophers that believe in the eternality of the world. If you say that miracles come from G-D it is impossible to believe that the natural order is the obligatory order of the world since miracles are in stark contrast to this idea. Miracles require one to believe that G-D's will is the only obligatory order of the world otherwise, miracles would be impossible.
Read the next part here.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Does the Rambam Really Believe In Creation Ex- Nihilo
After reading the Ralbag in his Sefer Milchamos Hashem (Wars of the lord) I saw that he understood that the Rambam believed in creation ex nihilo (Wars of the Lord page 328-329 volume 3 of Seymour Feldman's translation). This was fine with me, however, the more I looked into this idea, the more controversy I discovered in this seemingly innocent explanation.
The first sign of trouble that I saw was a note that was attached to this explanation by Seymour Feldman, the translator of The Wars of the Lord. In this note he said that "Ever since the Middle Ages there has been an 'esoteric' reading of The Guide according to which Maimonides' real doctrine is not creation ex nihilo-- the 'exoteric teaching'-- but some form of the eternity theory. This was the interpretation of his medieval commentators Joseph ibn Kaspi and Moses Narboni; indeed, it was the interpretation of his translator Samuel ibn Tibbon. In recent years this reading of The Guide has been advocated by Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines, the most recent translator of The Guide into english (Note 7 on page 194 of volume 3 in Wars of the Lord)."
This note caused me to go back to The Guide (II:25) and see what the Rambam says himself. I was very shocked because, originally, I had understood the Rambam like the Ralbag, creation ex nihilo is how the world was created. However, once I reread this section of The Guide I was confused.
Here are excerpts from The guide that are relevant:
"For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument."
This section seemingly shows that the Rambam rejects the idea of the eternality of the world.
"Secondly..... If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."
This part of the Rambam explains why Aristotle's idea must be wrong. The fact that Aristotle's idea contradicts miracles shows that he can not fit into a simple reading of the text. Therefore, only theories that allow for miracles can be read into the literal text.
However, this next part of the Rambam seemingly destroys the reasons for choosing creation ex nihilo as opposed to Plato's version of the eternality of the universe.
"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (II:23), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion: this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one: we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove: and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view." (Guide for the Perplexed section 2 chapter 25)
The Rambam says that THE MIRACLES ARE EVIDENCE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF OUR VIEW! This seems a little strange since according to the Rambam's own admittance, the view of Plato allows for miracles as well. According to the Rambam, there is no reason to take creation ex nihilo (creation of something from nothing) over the idea of creation ex aliquo (creation of something from something). What I think is going on here is that the Rambam thinks a creation that allows for miracles is what happened, in whichever way that can occur. If it is the Platonic idea or creation ex nihilo, either one is possible. I base this idea on the next part of The Guide.
"Accepting the Creation, we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another ? Why has He revealed the Law to one
particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that ? why has He shown through
a prophet certain particular miracles ? what is the object of these laws ? and Why has He not made the commandments and the
prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them ? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions: and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts. Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe: and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail." (Guide for the Perplexed section 2 chapter 25)
The Rambam clearly rejects the Aristotilian view of creation, but he leaves the door wide open for the acceptance of Plato's view. This leads me to believe that, in the end, the Rambam is in doubt whether creation ex nihilo is true, or whether creation ex aliquo is true. Therefore, the Rambam says either one is acceptable.
The Ralbag is dissatisfied with how the Rambam leaves this inquiry since, as I have pointed out, he does not really come to a definitive conclusion. Therefore, the Ralbag takes it upon himself in his sefer The Wars of The Lord to show, through proof, why creation ex nihilo is not logical and why creation ex aliquo is how G-D created the world. (Seen in wars of the Lord on page 328-330)
For those who do not know what Plato holds I will explain. The Ralbag actually holds something very similar to Plato. It is the idea that there was a shapeless matter that existed eternally. However, this matter was just shapeless formless and thoughtless matter whereas G-D is all powerful. G-D took this matter and created the world and the rest of the universe. In this way the world is eternal, there was matter eternally. This still allows for miracles because it shows that G-D controls the nature of the physical world. However, Aristotle's version of the eternality of the world would be that the spheres and shapes of matter and planets always existed and G-D would not be able to alter the nature of the universe. This is why his view does not allow for miracles because it does not allow for G-D to change the nature of the world.
The first sign of trouble that I saw was a note that was attached to this explanation by Seymour Feldman, the translator of The Wars of the Lord. In this note he said that "Ever since the Middle Ages there has been an 'esoteric' reading of The Guide according to which Maimonides' real doctrine is not creation ex nihilo-- the 'exoteric teaching'-- but some form of the eternity theory. This was the interpretation of his medieval commentators Joseph ibn Kaspi and Moses Narboni; indeed, it was the interpretation of his translator Samuel ibn Tibbon. In recent years this reading of The Guide has been advocated by Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines, the most recent translator of The Guide into english (Note 7 on page 194 of volume 3 in Wars of the Lord)."
This note caused me to go back to The Guide (II:25) and see what the Rambam says himself. I was very shocked because, originally, I had understood the Rambam like the Ralbag, creation ex nihilo is how the world was created. However, once I reread this section of The Guide I was confused.
Here are excerpts from The guide that are relevant:
"For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument."
This section seemingly shows that the Rambam rejects the idea of the eternality of the world.
"Secondly..... If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions."
This part of the Rambam explains why Aristotle's idea must be wrong. The fact that Aristotle's idea contradicts miracles shows that he can not fit into a simple reading of the text. Therefore, only theories that allow for miracles can be read into the literal text.
However, this next part of the Rambam seemingly destroys the reasons for choosing creation ex nihilo as opposed to Plato's version of the eternality of the universe.
"If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (II:23), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion: this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one: we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove: and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view." (Guide for the Perplexed section 2 chapter 25)
The Rambam says that THE MIRACLES ARE EVIDENCE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF OUR VIEW! This seems a little strange since according to the Rambam's own admittance, the view of Plato allows for miracles as well. According to the Rambam, there is no reason to take creation ex nihilo (creation of something from nothing) over the idea of creation ex aliquo (creation of something from something). What I think is going on here is that the Rambam thinks a creation that allows for miracles is what happened, in whichever way that can occur. If it is the Platonic idea or creation ex nihilo, either one is possible. I base this idea on the next part of The Guide.
"Accepting the Creation, we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another ? Why has He revealed the Law to one
particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that ? why has He shown through
a prophet certain particular miracles ? what is the object of these laws ? and Why has He not made the commandments and the
prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them ? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions: and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts. Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe: and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail." (Guide for the Perplexed section 2 chapter 25)
The Rambam clearly rejects the Aristotilian view of creation, but he leaves the door wide open for the acceptance of Plato's view. This leads me to believe that, in the end, the Rambam is in doubt whether creation ex nihilo is true, or whether creation ex aliquo is true. Therefore, the Rambam says either one is acceptable.
The Ralbag is dissatisfied with how the Rambam leaves this inquiry since, as I have pointed out, he does not really come to a definitive conclusion. Therefore, the Ralbag takes it upon himself in his sefer The Wars of The Lord to show, through proof, why creation ex nihilo is not logical and why creation ex aliquo is how G-D created the world. (Seen in wars of the Lord on page 328-330)
For those who do not know what Plato holds I will explain. The Ralbag actually holds something very similar to Plato. It is the idea that there was a shapeless matter that existed eternally. However, this matter was just shapeless formless and thoughtless matter whereas G-D is all powerful. G-D took this matter and created the world and the rest of the universe. In this way the world is eternal, there was matter eternally. This still allows for miracles because it shows that G-D controls the nature of the physical world. However, Aristotle's version of the eternality of the world would be that the spheres and shapes of matter and planets always existed and G-D would not be able to alter the nature of the universe. This is why his view does not allow for miracles because it does not allow for G-D to change the nature of the world.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Rambam- How G-D's Knowledge and Existence Can Relate to Man- Yisodei Hatorah Perek 2 Halacha 10
How does G-D think? How does G-D exist? These are some of the questions that are dealt with in the Rambam. He says,
הקב"ה מכיר אמתו ויודע אותה כמו שהיא. ואינו יודע בדעה שהיא חוץ ממנו כמו שאנו יודעין. שאין אנו ודעתנו אחד אבל הבורא יתברך הוא ודעתו וחייו אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך ייחוד. שאלמלי היה חי בחיים ויודע בדעה חוץ ממנו היו שם אלוהות הרבה הוא וחייו ודעתו, ואין הדבר כן אלא אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך ייחוד. נמצאת אתה אומר הוא היודע והוא הידוע והוא הדעה עצמה הכל אחד. ודבר זה אין כח בפה לאומרו ולא באוזן לשמעו ולא בלב האדם להכירו על בוריו. ולפיכך אומר חֵי פרעה וחֵי נפשך ואין אומר חֵי ה' אלא חַי ה'. שאין הבורא וחייו שנים כמו חיי הגופים החיים או כחיי המלאכים. לפיכך אינו מכיר הברואים ויודעם מחמת הברואים כמו שאנו יודעין אותם אלא מחמת עצמו ידעם. לפיכך מפני שהוא יודע עצמו יודע הכל שהכל נסמך לו בהוייתו:
"G-D recognizes His truth and He knows it in the way it truly exists. He does not know His truth through an outside knowledge like we know, because we and our minds are separate, rather the Creator, He, His knowledge and His life are all one from every angle. If G-D would live a life [like us], or know things through having a knowledge [like us] then there would be many gods being Him, His life and His knowledge. This is not so, rather G-D is singular from every side, angle and in every aspect.
It is said about G-D that He knows, is known and knows Himself all at once. However, this idea can not be related through the force (words) of the mouth, it can not be heard (related) to the ears, nor is it within a man's heart to recognize [the truth] of his Creator. Therefore, we say 'by the life of Pharoh' and 'by the life of your soul,' but by G-D we do not say 'by the life of G-D,' rather we say 'As G-D lives.' [This is because] the Creator and His life are not separate things like the life of a physical body or the life of an angel. Therefore, [G-D] does not recognize and know the creations because of how they are like we understand them, rather He [recognizes and knows them] because He knows Himself. Therefore, because He knows Himself He knows everything, because everything relies on His existence."
It is interesting to point out that the Ralbag, in his book The Wars of the Lord, argues on the Rambam's understanding here. The Ralbag, Aristotle and the Rambam all disagree on how G-D relates to the world. This all stems from the problem they all face, how does a G-D that is perfect and singular relate to a world that is imperfect and many? Hopefully, I will be able to discuss the Ralbag and Aristotle in a later post, but right now I want to focus on the Rambam.
The Rambam's underlying theme here is that G-D can not understand man (or the rest of the physical world for that matter) in the same manner that man understands man. He points out that if G-D did understand man in the same manner that man understands man, then it would have to be that G-D is not a singular being that is unchanging, but rather pluralistic and changes like man. As stated in the third section of the Rambam's The Guide for The Perplexed (Section 3 Chapter 16), "knowledge of individual beings, that are subject to change, necessitates some change in him who possesses it, because this knowledge itself changes constantly." Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Rambam to explain how it is that G-D can have knowledge and a relation to man while still maintaining His singularity and unchanging stature.
Ingeniously, as the Rambam always is, he comes up with a solution. He explains that G-D's knowledge and existence is completely different than our knowledge and existence. G-D is a being that has a knowledge, a life and an existence that is all one and unchanging. Once this idea is apparent then we can explain how this singular being can relate to a multitude. G-D's knowledge of Himself, His own existence and His life allows Him to relate and know of all other existences. How? Because His existence causes all other existences. All other existences are contingent upon His existence and His relation to them. Therefore, G-D's knowledge and understanding of all things is not as we perceive it, rather it is channeled through G-D and therefore does not directly relate to the pluralistic existences that change. This is how the Rambam solves His problem of 'How can a singular being relate to the pluralistic world that continuously changes,' He understands Himself, the unchanging being, and through that knowledge understands the pluralistic and changing existences.
הקב"ה מכיר אמתו ויודע אותה כמו שהיא. ואינו יודע בדעה שהיא חוץ ממנו כמו שאנו יודעין. שאין אנו ודעתנו אחד אבל הבורא יתברך הוא ודעתו וחייו אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך ייחוד. שאלמלי היה חי בחיים ויודע בדעה חוץ ממנו היו שם אלוהות הרבה הוא וחייו ודעתו, ואין הדבר כן אלא אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך ייחוד. נמצאת אתה אומר הוא היודע והוא הידוע והוא הדעה עצמה הכל אחד. ודבר זה אין כח בפה לאומרו ולא באוזן לשמעו ולא בלב האדם להכירו על בוריו. ולפיכך אומר חֵי פרעה וחֵי נפשך ואין אומר חֵי ה' אלא חַי ה'. שאין הבורא וחייו שנים כמו חיי הגופים החיים או כחיי המלאכים. לפיכך אינו מכיר הברואים ויודעם מחמת הברואים כמו שאנו יודעין אותם אלא מחמת עצמו ידעם. לפיכך מפני שהוא יודע עצמו יודע הכל שהכל נסמך לו בהוייתו:
"G-D recognizes His truth and He knows it in the way it truly exists. He does not know His truth through an outside knowledge like we know, because we and our minds are separate, rather the Creator, He, His knowledge and His life are all one from every angle. If G-D would live a life [like us], or know things through having a knowledge [like us] then there would be many gods being Him, His life and His knowledge. This is not so, rather G-D is singular from every side, angle and in every aspect.
It is said about G-D that He knows, is known and knows Himself all at once. However, this idea can not be related through the force (words) of the mouth, it can not be heard (related) to the ears, nor is it within a man's heart to recognize [the truth] of his Creator. Therefore, we say 'by the life of Pharoh' and 'by the life of your soul,' but by G-D we do not say 'by the life of G-D,' rather we say 'As G-D lives.' [This is because] the Creator and His life are not separate things like the life of a physical body or the life of an angel. Therefore, [G-D] does not recognize and know the creations because of how they are like we understand them, rather He [recognizes and knows them] because He knows Himself. Therefore, because He knows Himself He knows everything, because everything relies on His existence."
It is interesting to point out that the Ralbag, in his book The Wars of the Lord, argues on the Rambam's understanding here. The Ralbag, Aristotle and the Rambam all disagree on how G-D relates to the world. This all stems from the problem they all face, how does a G-D that is perfect and singular relate to a world that is imperfect and many? Hopefully, I will be able to discuss the Ralbag and Aristotle in a later post, but right now I want to focus on the Rambam.
The Rambam's underlying theme here is that G-D can not understand man (or the rest of the physical world for that matter) in the same manner that man understands man. He points out that if G-D did understand man in the same manner that man understands man, then it would have to be that G-D is not a singular being that is unchanging, but rather pluralistic and changes like man. As stated in the third section of the Rambam's The Guide for The Perplexed (Section 3 Chapter 16), "knowledge of individual beings, that are subject to change, necessitates some change in him who possesses it, because this knowledge itself changes constantly." Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Rambam to explain how it is that G-D can have knowledge and a relation to man while still maintaining His singularity and unchanging stature.
Ingeniously, as the Rambam always is, he comes up with a solution. He explains that G-D's knowledge and existence is completely different than our knowledge and existence. G-D is a being that has a knowledge, a life and an existence that is all one and unchanging. Once this idea is apparent then we can explain how this singular being can relate to a multitude. G-D's knowledge of Himself, His own existence and His life allows Him to relate and know of all other existences. How? Because His existence causes all other existences. All other existences are contingent upon His existence and His relation to them. Therefore, G-D's knowledge and understanding of all things is not as we perceive it, rather it is channeled through G-D and therefore does not directly relate to the pluralistic existences that change. This is how the Rambam solves His problem of 'How can a singular being relate to the pluralistic world that continuously changes,' He understands Himself, the unchanging being, and through that knowledge understands the pluralistic and changing existences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)