Wrong cannot be ascribed to God in any way whatever; all evils and afflictions as well as all kinds of happiness in man, whether they concern one individual person or a community are distributed according to Justice, they are the result of strict judgement that admits no wrong whatever. It is only in this species that the incidents in the existence of the individual human beings, their food and evil fortunes, are the result of justice … But I agree with Aristotle as regards all other living beings, and a fortiori as regards plants and all the rest of earthly creatures.
Those creatures, therefore, which receive part of that intellectual influence, will become subject to the action of Providence in the same proportion as they are acted upon by the intellect. So in his official treatment of the subject, Maimonides argues that animals and plants are not subject to divine providence but that all of humanity is. But later, at the end of the Guide , stuck in the middle of a chapter about the worship of God, Maimonides argues that only a handful of philosophers are affected by Divine Providence — and they only when they think of God.
By thinking of what God is not! The same analysis of his introduction and the contradictions in the Guide , combined with the interest in mysticism shown by some of his family his son wrote the mystical Kisayat al Obidim or guide to the service of God in Judeao-Arabic, and his grandson Obadya was also a mystical author , joined with disbelief that Maimonides who was so knowledgeable about all the other areas of Judaism could have been ignorant of and reject the Kabbalah, has led a number of Kabbalists over the centuries to see the Guide as a work of mysticism.
This view was openly argued by one of the greatest medieval kabbalists Abraham Abulafia who talks of the 36 Kabbalistic concepts enunciated in the Guide the Intellect of God, the Divine Flow, the Nature of Prophecy, the Marble Stone etc , as well as later mystics such as Mordecai Jaffe and Abraham Horowitz.
Many of the more learned Kabbalists such as the Lubavitcher Hasidim still argue this point today. Maimonides is seen as arguing for the kabbalistic understanding of the relationship between God as God really is and God as we perceive Him, his explanation of the Work of the Chariot one of the primary Kabbalistic texts is seen as Kabbalistic rather than philosophical and there are also Kabbalistic interpretations of his views on prophecy etc.
It is remarkable that a book can be prone to so many utterly conflicting interpretations.
Our Ultra-Orthodox brethren look at his work as one of Kabbalah and value it from that perspective. Those of us who live within the modern orthodox world value his project of reconciling some of the views currently in vogue in the surrounding culture with traditional Judaism. Maimonides was the major Jewish philosopher and has accordingly amassed a vast array of published analyses of his life and thought. Dover also produce a small anthology of aimonides ethical writings, whilst the Maimonides Research Institute have translated his medical works.
Translations of writings by Rabbi Maimonides. Sep 11, Rick Massey rated it really liked it. If you are interested in ancient Jewish philosophy or commentaries on the Biblical text by one of the greatest Jewish thinkers ever - this book is a must read.
I mention this fact only because it will be pertinent at the end of this review. The Guide is published with an introductory essay by Leo Strauss, a world-class expert on Maimonides, and another introductory essay by the translator, Shlomo Pines. The quality of the translation seems quite good, and frequently the translator adds a footnote to discuss alternative translations or ambiguities in the original Arabic. As Strauss points out, Maimonides should be seen as a Jew writing for Jews, rather than a philosopher writing for philosophers.
The perplexity he wishes to erase is corporeality. Maimonides sees that erroneous belief as a portal to idolatry, and idolatry is the primordial sin which threatens mankind. For the modern reader, this is an enjoyable lexicographical excursus, not a challenge to preconceptions. More challenging is the next section of the book, which discusses Aristotelian and medieval Arabic philosophy and their shortcomings. Here the language and arguments can become technical and daunting.
Aristotle saw the world as having existed eternally; this is the major disagreement Maimonides has with the philosopher he so admires. One of the major challenges for me comes from the fact that Maimonides accepts and seems to base some of his reasoning on the geocentric model of the universe. He even denies epicycles. This leaves him, I think, in a weak position to understand some motion of heavenly bodies known even in his time.
Do I recommend the book? Obviously, it is not for everybody. It is over pages of often very challenging reading. As mentioned above, it took me a year to read it.
But the measure of my assessment of the book is this: I plan to read it again. Mar 30, Brenda Stahl rated it liked it. I am still perplexed. There is some beautiful annotations within this text that refer to hebrew and linguistical arrangements - how soliloquies change based on position of the aleph or the tropal inflection.
Is it our minds? Is it all encompassing?? I wish he had spent more time on breaking down omniscience and omn oh Moses, Moses I wish he had spent more time on breaking down omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
A great read as we begin Pesach. Me sorprende cuanto tiempo hemos perdido con determinados asuntos. The introduction by Guttman is highly valuable to this reader who came upon Maimonides with little readiness. Frank, Guttman holds an opposing view of that of Leo Strauss in viewing Maimonides bridging of Greek philosophy and Bible. With the only guide here by Guttman, this reader finds this slim collection complete and satisfying as a whole.
From there, the bridge of God-fearing life and highest human reach through intellect is made. This reader is not certain. Maimonides had a profound understanding of the limits of human reasoning. Faith is in no contradiction with reason, because of that inherent limitation of being human. The growth of human reason toward metaphysical truth then requires faith in Bible and Sacred Teaching in order to reach the metaphysical truth.
This is why establishing the identity of God of Bible with God of the philosophers so important. Our human ethics is simply aggregation of opinions and habits, Maimonides seemed to indicate, and not the real stuff. Need to think more and read again at some time in the future. Feb 12, Orde rated it really liked it Shelves: I've read Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed with the utmost expectations. But as so often with expectations you get to find something quite different from what you thought to find.
With Maimonides it is like with certainly all of philosophy at his time, you've got to be prepared to deal with Aristotle's ideas about the cosmos, that is you've got to deal with the heliocentric system. And as Maimonides argues to reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle or what he identifies to be Aristotelean phil I've read Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed with the utmost expectations.
And as Maimonides argues to reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle or what he identifies to be Aristotelean philosophy with the teachings of Torah he goes about to demonstrate the concordance of what is at his time considered to be the order of the universe as far as it is humanly possible to demonstrate its existence and the way the Torah and the Prophets describe it. Thus you'll somewhat find the familiar pattern of Scholastic thinking that philosophy was the handmaiden of theology ancilla theologiae also in Jewish philosophy from around the same period.
Altogether a book I enjoyed reading. A classic so much's for sure. The fact that a lot depends on the heliocentric system may at times lead to the feeling that the discussion is a little outdated though. Sep 14, Ann Michael rated it really liked it. Clearly written and occasionally quite wry, if you "get" 12th-century philosophical humor Granted, the physics and biology Maimonides uses as premises or evidence are often dated. But I was surprised to learn that, in his era, it was a "given" that "the earth is a globe," and several other principles we think of as being "discovered" in the Renaissance.
Here, a Jewish philosopher a Clearly written and occasionally quite wry, if you "get" 12th-century philosophical humor Not a book for everyone; you have to be interested in either the philosophy or the theology to get through it it is a LONG book.
But rightly considered a classic of philosophical thinking. Apr 21, Skylar Burris marked it as unfinished Shelves: I read on 15 or so pages after my last update, and then abandoned. This is one of those classics of religion I have always meant to read. Maybe back in the days when I was into in-depth Bible study and parsing every line of Scripture, this would have been fascinating to me, but after reading the Bible a few times and a handful of com I read on 15 or so pages after my last update, and then abandoned.
Maybe back in the days when I was into in-depth Bible study and parsing every line of Scripture, this would have been fascinating to me, but after reading the Bible a few times and a handful of commentaries, I find this stuff now begins to make my eyes glaze over. I think I'm out of the intellectual phase of my religious development and into the traditional practice phase or something. Give me a few years, and maybe I'll try again. Aug 30, Dylan Suher rated it liked it. One of the few books in recent memory where I really felt like I was often in over my head.
I buy the Kabbalistic argument; the Moreh is answering questions that are coming from behind the shadows. I find some of Maimonides' arguments very intriguing particularly his explanation for the taboo on idolatry, and the story of Genesis as allegory , but that doesn't mean I agree with the majority of them. It was comforting to return to Aristotelean thought, and I have a distinct affection for Maimoni One of the few books in recent memory where I really felt like I was often in over my head. It was comforting to return to Aristotelean thought, and I have a distinct affection for Maimonides the writer, arrogant to a fault, and a committed, no-nonsense rationalist.
And though I tend to agree, on a logical level, with his conclusions on the nature of God, it is quite a cold vision, and it made me want to seek out another.
The book discusses some interesting topics and forces the reader into reflection, which is good. However, what impressed me about the reading was not the author's ability to address very complex topics - which he clearly does - but rather to do it in a clear way. Readers are always trying to understand the premises and authors work hard to get the points across, but that relationship is not always easy because there are many potential avenues for communications to fail.
Maimonides habit of discl The book discusses some interesting topics and forces the reader into reflection, which is good. Maimonides habit of disclosing both propositions and arguments in a very clear and concise way are a joy. In reality it is difficult to distill the essence of many arguments, even more so in medieval writings, but Maimonides seems to break away from that pattern and offer an easier to understand view of his perspectives. I read the book because of its fame. I now see why is so famous.
Its writer was clearly a man of nuanced thoughts and of brilliant exposition. Yet it does deal with for-me-tired-old-theology and it made me decide that this would be the LAST theology book on which I would ever spend reading time. In short, I began with the best of intentions but a bad reading attitude crept in during my reading, even though all along appreciating Maimonides' monumental achievement. I read the M. Whew, that was quite a read. I really wanted to give it five stars, but many aspects of Maimonides's view of the universe are incredibly dated to the point of being laughable.
Also, he lists many opinions of philosophers and Islamic theologians simply to then say that they're incorrect, and give his own view. It just throws off the structure of the treatise in my opinion, but everything that has to do with Biblical Law i. It really makes one view Whew, that was quite a read. Schumacher argues that this is analogous to studying physics in the hope of understanding life. Schumacher goes on to say that much can be learned about humanity by studying minerals, plants and animals because humans have inherited those levels of being: Schumacher goes on to say that nothing is 'more conducive to the brutalisation of the modern world' than calling humans the ' naked ape '.
Schumacher argues that once people begin viewing humans as 'animal machines' they soon begin treating them accordingly. Schumacher argues that what defines humanity are our greatest achievements, not the common run of the mill things. He argues that human beings are open-ended because of self-awareness, which as distinct from life and consciousness has nothing mechanical or automatic about it.
For Schumacher "the powers of self awareness are, essentially, a limitless potentiality rather than an actuality. They have to be developed and 'realized' by each human individual if one is to become truly human, that is to say, a person. Schumacher points out that there are a number of progressions that take place between the levels. The most striking he believes is the movement from passivity to activity, there is a change in the origination of movement between each level:.
One consequence of this progression is that each level of being becomes increasingly unpredictable, and it is in this sense that humans can be said to have free will. He notes increasing integration is a consequence of levels of being.
A mineral can be subdivided and it remains of the same composition. Plants are more integrated; but sometimes parts of a plant can survive independently of the original plant. Animals are physically integrated; and so an appendage of an animal does not make another animal.
However, while animals are highly integrated physically, they are not integrated in their consciousness. Humans, meanwhile, are not only physically integrated but have an integrated consciousness; however they are poorly integrated in terms of self-consciousness. Another interesting progression, for him, is the change in the richness of the world at each level of being. A mineral has no world as such.
A plant has some limited awareness of its immediate conditions. An animal, however, has a far more rich and complex world. Finally, humans have the most rich and complicated world of all. For Schumacher, recognizing these different levels of being is vital, because the governing rules of each level are different, which has clear implications for the practice of science and the acquisition of knowledge.
Schumacher denies the democratic principles of science. He argues that all humans can practice the study of the inanimate matter, because they are a higher level of being; but only the spiritually aware can know about self-consciousness and possibly higher levels.
Schumacher states that "while the higher comprises and therefore in a sense understands the lower, no being can understand anything higher than themselves. Schumacher argues that by removing the vertical dimension from the universe and the qualitative distinctions of 'higher' and 'lower' qualities which go with it, materialistic scientism can in the societal sphere only lead to moral relativism and utilitarianism. While in the personal sphere, answering the question 'What do I do with my life? In contrast, he argues that appreciating the different levels of being provides a simple but clear morality.
The traditional view, as Schumacher says, has always been that the proper goal of humanity is " If one moves lower , develops only one's lower faculties, which we share with the animals, then one makes oneself deeply unhappy, even to the point of despair. Many things, Schumacher says, while true at a lower level, become absurd at a higher level, and vice versa.
Schumacher does not claim there is any scientific evidence for a level of being above self-consciousness, contenting himself with the observation that this has been the universal conviction of all major religions. Schumacher explains that the bodily senses are adequate for perceiving inanimate matter; but we need 'intellectual' senses for other levels. Schumacher observes that science has shown that we perceive not only with the senses, but also with the mind. He illustrates this with the example of a complex scientific book; it means quite different things to an animal, illiterate man, educated man and scientist.
Each person possesses different internal 'senses' which means they 'understand' the book in quite different manners. He argues that the common view that '.. Gregory in Eye and Brain , "Perception is not determined simply by the stimulus pattern, rather it is a dynamic searching for the best interpretation of data. For him, higher and more significant perceptive abilities are based on the ability to be critically aware of one's presuppositions. Schumacher writes "There is nothing more difficult than to be aware of one's thought. Everything can be seen directly except the eye through which we see.
Every thought can be scrutinised directly except the thought by which we scrutinise. In fact, this is the power that makes man human and also capable of transcending his humanity. He notes that for anyone who views the world through materialistic scientism this talk of higher perception is meaningless. For a scientist who believes in materialistic scientism, higher levels of being "simply do not exist, because his faith excludes the possibility of their existence.
He points out that materialistic science is principally based on the sense of sight and looks only at the external manifestation of things. Necessarily according to the principle of adequateness, materialistic science cannot know more than a limited part of nature. Schumacher argues that by restricting the modes of observation, a limited ' objectivity ' can be attained; but this is attained at the expense of knowledge of the object as a whole. Only the 'lowest' and most superficial aspects are accessible to objective scientific instruments.
He notes that science became 'science for manipulation' following Descartes. Descartes promised humanity would become 'masters and possessors of nature', a point of view first popularised by Francis Bacon. For Schumacher this was something of a wrong turn, because it meant the devaluation of 'science for understanding' or wisdom. One of Schumacher's criticisms is that 'science for manipulation' almost inevitably leads from the manipulation of nature to the manipulation of people. Schumacher argues that 'science for manipulation' is a valuable tool when subordinated for 'science for understanding' or wisdom; but until then 'science for manipulation' has become a danger to humanity.
Schumacher argues that if materialistic scientism grows to dominate science even further, then there will be three negative consequences:. Schumacher argues that the ideal science would have a proper hierarchy of knowledge from pure knowledge for understanding at the top of the hierarchy to knowledge for manipulation at the bottom.
At the level of knowledge for manipulation, the aims of prediction and control are appropriate. But as we deal with higher levels they become increasingly absurd.