Maimonides’ Philosophic Thought – Comments on the English version of Micah Goodman’s book on Maimonides

Introduction (Maimonides’ Philosophic Thought) –

Maimonides, who lived in the 12th century CE in the Islamic world (living in Spain, North Africa, Israel and Egypt), is without question the giant figure in Jewish intellectual history, and there is a well-known saying among traditional Jews – “From Moses until Moses, no one has arisen like Moses”.  That is, from Moses, the greatest prophet of the Hebrew Bible, until Moses, the son of Maimon (Maimonides), there has been no one among the Jewish people to compare to Maimonides.  He stands out in a number of different realms.  He was a rabbi and rabbinical judge, an important physician in the history of western medicine, an important commentator (interpreting traditional Jewish texts), an educator, and a political and religious leader of Jewish communities.  But, above all, he stands out in two realms as, it may be fairly argued, the greatest Halachic (legal) scholar and the greatest philosopher that the Jewish tradition has produced.

Maimonides’ great work of philosophy, the Guide of the Perplexed, is an esoteric work in which Maimonides by his own admission wants to disguise his true philosophic conceptions from the unlearned Jewish masses – including rabbis who have not studied philosophy and science.  I want to emphasize that Maimonides, in my view, is attempting to disguise his radical philosophic conceptions in all of his writings, and he has a clear vested interest in doing so – in order to avoid being defined as a heretic and outside the fold.  However, in the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides declares (in the introduction to the Guide) that he is attempting to disguise his true philosophic conceptions from the unlearned masses – and, he reveals his methods of disguising his conceptions (inserting internal contradictions and scattering material so that the material is disorganized).

In general, there are 2 schools of thought among traditional Jewish commentators and contemporary academic scholars – moderate and radical. Moderate Jewish commentators and academic scholars present Maimonides as a traditional Jew who studies Greek and Islamic philosophy and science only in order to understand Scripture and tradition in a deeper way. Radical Jewish commentators and academic scholars present Maimonides as a radical heterodox thinker who is Aristotelian and agnostic in his philosophic orientation. I identify with the radical Jewish commentators and academic scholars in my understanding of Maimonides.

 

Regarding Micah Goodman’s book and his understanding of Maimonides –

Micah Goodman attempts to explain the conceptions of Maimonides as a thinker in his well-known book Maimonides and the Book That Changed Judaism: Secrets of The Guide for the Perplexed”. In spite of my criticism of the book, which I intend as issue oriented criticism, and in spite of my disagreement with Micah Goodman’s understanding of Maimonides’ philosophic thought, Micah Goodman’s book, in my view, is outstanding – and, the book is, in my eyes, very worth reading whether one agrees with Micah Goodman’s understanding of Maimonides’ philosophic thought or not.

Micah Goodman, in my view, presents Maimonides according to a moderate interpretation as a traditional Jew – however, his approach is somewhat unusual. On the one hand, Micah Goodman presents Maimonides as holding radical philosophic and Aristotelian conceptions, including an Aristotelian conception of God as well as an agnostic conception (even in relation to his own Aristotelian conception of God), seemingly according to the radical reading of Maimonides’ thought – yet, on the other hand, Micah Goodman presents Maimonides as a traditional Jew deeply committed to a traditional Jewish way of life of observance of Jewish law. In the radical interpretation, observance of law is usually viewed as an integral part of a religious life only for the unlearned masses but not for the intellectual elite (including Maimonides himself).

 

I want to point out 3 things in relation to Micah Goodman’s understanding of Maimonides’ thought –

1) Micah Goodman makes clear that Maimonides presents an Aristotelian conception of God that is static and unchanging (an “it”, and not as in the Biblical conception a “He”) – that is, devoid of conscious will. In an Aristotelian conception, God is conceived as a God of causation – a First Cause of a chain of causation (cause and effect) that constitutes nature. God, in an Aristotelian conception, does not create nature, but is the First Cause of nature (as a God of causation, and not creation) – and, the chain of causation constituting nature in an Aristotelian conception is eternal. There are two problems, though, in relation to Micah Goodman’s presentation of Maimonides’ Aristotelian conception of God.

    • First, in an Aristotelian conception of a static and unchanging God devoid of conscious will, there can be no notion of creation – and, the chain of causation constituting nature is eternal. Yet, Micah Goodman presents Maimonides, who he acknowledges holds an Aristotelian conception of God devoid of conscious will, as not necessarily holding the eternity of the universe – and, he presents Maimonides as holding an agnostic position in relation to the issue of creation and eternity in which the creation of nature is at least a reasonable possibility, as Maimonides explicitly argues in the Guide of the Perplexed. However, if God, as in an Aristotelian conception, is devoid of conscious will, then God cannot create and cannot have created nature. Micah Goodman ignores this, and presents a Maimonides who is in effect contradicting himself – he presents a Maimonides who holds that God is a God of causation (static and unchanging) devoid of conscious will, and at the same time holds that God may have created nature, which is impossible if God is static and unchanging without conscious will.

In a radical interpretation of Maimonides’ thought in which Maimonides is understood as holding radical philosophic and Aristotelian conceptions, Maimonides explicitly arguing that creation is a reasonable possibility is merely a smokescreen – and, Maimonides in holding an Aristotelian conception of God devoid of conscious will necessarily also holds that nature is eternal.

    • Second, Micah Goodman significantly ignores Maimonides’ conception of emanation in relation to God in the Guide of the Perplexed. In the Guide, Maimonides uses the analogy of the sun emanating light in relation to God exemplifying a notion of emanation in which nature emanates from God. The notion of emanation is not of Aristotle himself, but is a Hellenistic notion – and, thus, Maimonides’ conception of God is actually Neo-Aristotelian in involving a notion of emanation. The notion of emanation involves no notion of creation, and necessarily implies the eternity of the universe.

Just as the sun is an impersonal power (devoid of conscious will) from which light emanates – so too God, in Maimonides’ radical, Neo-Aristotelian conception, is an impersonal power from which nature emanates. Just as the sun does not create light as an act of conscious will and light emanates from the sun – so too God does not, in Maimonides’ conception, create nature as an act of conscious will and nature emanates from God. And, God is an eternal source of nature from which nature emanates so that nature is eternal emanating from an eternal source.

This notion of emanation is conspicuously absent from Micah Goodman’s book. The notion of emanation is a highly significant aspect of Maimonides’ conception of God revealing a mystical orientation on the part of Maimonides. A very strong argument can be made that Maimonides was actually a mystic (and, in my view, it is not by chance that his son, Abraham, was a mystic influenced by the Sufis who were Moslem mystics). But, Maimonides was not a mystic in a non-rationalistic sense – rather, he was a rationalistic mystic in which the essence of religion is the attaining of intellectual enlightenment through the study of philosophy and science. Although Micah Goodman presents Maimonides as holding a mystical conception as a possible reading of Maimonides – he significantly ignores the notion of emanation.

The implications of the notion of emanation are enormous. Emanation is a notion of causation in which the cause and effect are a unity – the light emanated from the sun is actually a part of the sun, and, the sun and the light emanating from the sun may then be viewed as a unity (or one entity). If nature is emanated from God, and nature is a part of God, then God and nature may be viewed as a unity (or One entity). It should be noted that Oneness is a mystical notion.

On the face of it, Maimonides’ conception of God as an impersonal power from which nature emanates is panentheistic in which God is the source (cause) of nature, but nature is a part of God – and, seemingly, there are two entities here of God and nature in such a panentheistic conception. However, if nature is a part of God, then there is in reality only One entity in which case this is really a pantheistic conception. This One entity of nature emanating from God may be termed in Spinoza’s famous formulation of pantheism “God or nature”.

 

2) Micah Goodman presents Maimonides as committed and devoted to observance of law as an integral element of a religious life. Micah Goodman ignores the fundamental distinction that Maimonides himself draws between the intellectual elite and the unlearned Jewish masses (including rabbis who have not studied philosophy and science). Maimonides declares in the introduction to the Guide of the Perplexed that he is writing an esoteric book in which he does not want to reveal his true conceptions to the unlearned masses – and, he wants then to reveal his true conceptions only to a small intellectual elite of Jews who have studied philosophy and science.

Micah Goodman significantly ignores that in the introduction to the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides himself tells us that in the beginning of the Book of Knowledge of his law code he has presented in a summary form his true conceptions – and, Maimonides is referring to the opening 4 chapters of the Book of Knowledge, of the opening section “foundations of Torah”, in which he presents material that he considers to be the essence of Judaism and religion. Astoundingly, in these 4 chapters, the material that he presents is Aristotelian philosophy and science – and, this material is universal and based upon reason as the essence of Judaism. Astoundingly, in these 4 chapters, there is no mention of a traditional Jewish life of Torah and commandments and no mention of the Jewish people – and, observance of law is not mentioned as an integral part of a religious life.

In Maimonides’ rationalistic mystical conception, the essence of religion for the intellectual elite is the attainment of intellectual knowledge (the rationalistic aspect of Maimonides’ conception) and intellectual enlightenment (the mystical aspect of Maimonides’ conception) through the study of philosophy and science (in his day the study of Aristotelian philosophy and Aristotelian science). In my view, observance of law is, in Maimonides’ conception, only for the unlearned masses and not a necessary element of a religious life for the intellectual elite.

One compelling piece of evidence (besides the opening 4 chapters of the Book of Knowledge) that observance of law is not an integral part of a religious life for the intellectual elite in Maimonides’ conception is the prior conditions for attaining prophecy in Maimonides’ conception – and, prophecy in Maimonides’ conception is the attaining of intellectual knowledge and enlightenment, which is the essence of religion for the intellectual elite. In both his law code (Foundations of Torah 1, 7) and in his “13 Principles” (the 6th Principle) Maimonides presents as conditions for attaining intellectual enlightenment the purification of moral character and the development of reason – and, glaringly absent is any mention of observance of law.

So, Micah Goodman ignores that Maimonides presents to the intellectual elite a universal conception of religion based upon reason in which the essence of religion is the attainment of intellectual knowledge and enlightenment through the study of philosophy and religion – and, observance of law, in my view, is simply not an integral part of such a conception. Observance of law is an integral part of a traditional Jewish way of life that is appropriate for the unlearned masses who have not studied philosophy and science.

 

3) Micah Goodman presents Maimonides as offering several alternative conceptions of a religious life – a mystical conception, a pragmatic conception of a life of observance of law, and a pragmatic conception of a life of morality and social justice. This is a kind of post-modernist reading of Maimonides in which Maimonides is very pluralistic in offering alternative conceptions (or narratives in post-modernist jargon) in relation to the living of a religious life. This, in my mind, is a complete distortion of the thought of Maimonides – and, indeed, Micah Goodman acknowledges that he is presenting in this regard a kind of midrash (an interpretation that is not the plain, simple meaning of a text and is a reading into a text a meaning that is of the reader).

In my view, Maimonides is at one and the same time a radical Aristotelian (rationalist) thinker, an agnostic (in the spirit, and as an expression, of his Aristotelianism, as Aristotle was aware of the limitations of human reason and knowledge) and a mystic (although his mysticism is a rationalistic mysticism in which the essence of religion is the attaining of intellectual enlightenment through the study of philosophy and science). Maimonides, in my view, is not presenting alternative conceptions – rather, he is at one and the same time an Aristotelian (a rationalist and agnostic) and a mystic in which the essence of religion for the intellectual elite is not observance of law, not morality or social justice, not faith in God, but the attaining of intellectual enlightenment on the basis of the study of philosophy and science. As an expression of his agnosticism, Maimonides does not in his conception of religion as the attaining of intellectual knowledge and enlightenment presuppose the existence of God or belief in the existence of God.

Jeffrey Radon

Author of orthopraxjudaism.com