What do you think?
Rate this book
Maimonide
Paperback. Slightly worn at edges. Otherwise VG
- GenresPhilosophyJudaism
384 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2012
1 person is currently reading
93 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 14, 2014
This book is a comprehensive collection of Leo Strauss' writings about Maimonides. Also included in the collection is a useful essay on how to read medieval philosophy. Strauss emphasizes that the reader must understand the medieval philosopher as he understood himself, and avoid the anachronism (and shallow analysis) that comes from trying to understand the writer BETTER than he understood himself. If we do not approach the writer as possibly having something to teach us, we shall not understand or learn from him.
Here I'll touch on only two of the essays in this collection. Other, shorter essays discuss the approach to the Guide for the Perplexed, and the Mishnei Torah (Hilkhot Da'at).
Strauss' essay on Spinoza's critique of Maimonides is an in-depth analysis of the fundamental dividing point between these philosophers which led them to different conclusions. Maimonides' argues that the Oneness of God speaks for the POSSIBILITY of the earth's having been created a finite time ago on the past. Spinoza, in contrast, sees the world as being eternal in age. That precludes the possibility of miracles, according to Spinoza. (Spinoza's thinking is that God's will is coterminous with his power, so he made the world ideally, and therefore in no need of subsequent divine tinkering.)
Since the Earth may be of finite age, and since the testimony of the Torah asserts that it is, Maimonides sees miracles as being possible. But both philosophers agree that nature is rule-regulated. Miracles, therefore, must be part of the very nature of things, cooked in to the fundamental structure, but actual used only when ended to serve God's plan of human need. An explanatory example: a person raised in the tropics who had never seen ice, would deem it miraculous if water froze allowing him to flee from a battle in a cold place. We see it as being in the nature of water to freeze at 0 degrees Centigrade. Similarly, Maimonides would argue that, just as a body of water will freeze due to temperature, so the Reed Sea would split when the Children of Israel needed to traverse it.
Spinoza further concludes from the identity of intellect and will in God that revelation
of divine Law is impossible. Maimonides argues that God lacks attributes, and therefore to even question whether there is distinction between will and identity is meaningless.
Spinoza perforce must reject the possibility of miracles, and therefore the validity of Scripture testimony. Maimonides, in contrast, has a different challenge, viz., to harmonize the apparently logic-defying aspects of the Torah with human reason. He does much of this by interpreting those passages as metaphorical, just as we do now with expressions like "the White House replied to critics," or "I have my eye on you."
In a separate essay, Strauss analyzes Hermann Cohen's understanding of Rambam [sic, not "Maimonides"] vis-a-vis Aristotle and Plato. Strauss brings arguments against Cohen's position of seeing Rambam as an Aristotelian. Rather, argues Strauss, Rambam posits the prophet as law-giver, whose purpose is to establish the ideal state, a state first described in Plato's Republic. Political philosophy then, is a species of ethics, the subset of philosophy which was the cornerstone of Cohen's concern.
Strauss is not light reading. There were many passages I read several times to be sure I understood them. I don't recommend this book for someone who wants a reader-friendly overview of Maimonides. However, for a reader who seeks a deep scholarly exegesis on Maimonides, there is no substitute for this book.
Here I'll touch on only two of the essays in this collection. Other, shorter essays discuss the approach to the Guide for the Perplexed, and the Mishnei Torah (Hilkhot Da'at).
Strauss' essay on Spinoza's critique of Maimonides is an in-depth analysis of the fundamental dividing point between these philosophers which led them to different conclusions. Maimonides' argues that the Oneness of God speaks for the POSSIBILITY of the earth's having been created a finite time ago on the past. Spinoza, in contrast, sees the world as being eternal in age. That precludes the possibility of miracles, according to Spinoza. (Spinoza's thinking is that God's will is coterminous with his power, so he made the world ideally, and therefore in no need of subsequent divine tinkering.)
Since the Earth may be of finite age, and since the testimony of the Torah asserts that it is, Maimonides sees miracles as being possible. But both philosophers agree that nature is rule-regulated. Miracles, therefore, must be part of the very nature of things, cooked in to the fundamental structure, but actual used only when ended to serve God's plan of human need. An explanatory example: a person raised in the tropics who had never seen ice, would deem it miraculous if water froze allowing him to flee from a battle in a cold place. We see it as being in the nature of water to freeze at 0 degrees Centigrade. Similarly, Maimonides would argue that, just as a body of water will freeze due to temperature, so the Reed Sea would split when the Children of Israel needed to traverse it.
Spinoza further concludes from the identity of intellect and will in God that revelation
of divine Law is impossible. Maimonides argues that God lacks attributes, and therefore to even question whether there is distinction between will and identity is meaningless.
Spinoza perforce must reject the possibility of miracles, and therefore the validity of Scripture testimony. Maimonides, in contrast, has a different challenge, viz., to harmonize the apparently logic-defying aspects of the Torah with human reason. He does much of this by interpreting those passages as metaphorical, just as we do now with expressions like "the White House replied to critics," or "I have my eye on you."
In a separate essay, Strauss analyzes Hermann Cohen's understanding of Rambam [sic, not "Maimonides"] vis-a-vis Aristotle and Plato. Strauss brings arguments against Cohen's position of seeing Rambam as an Aristotelian. Rather, argues Strauss, Rambam posits the prophet as law-giver, whose purpose is to establish the ideal state, a state first described in Plato's Republic. Political philosophy then, is a species of ethics, the subset of philosophy which was the cornerstone of Cohen's concern.
Strauss is not light reading. There were many passages I read several times to be sure I understood them. I don't recommend this book for someone who wants a reader-friendly overview of Maimonides. However, for a reader who seeks a deep scholarly exegesis on Maimonides, there is no substitute for this book.
Displaying 1 of 1 review