Jewish philosophy
The term Jewish philosophy refers to various kinds of reflection engaged in by persons identified as Jews. At times, as in the Middle Ages, this meant any methodical and disciplinedthought pursued by Jews, whether on general philosophical subjects or on specifically Judaic themes. In other eras, as in modern times, concentration on the latter has been considered a decisive criterion, so that philosophers who are Jewish but unconcerned with Judaism or the Jewish heritage and destiny in their thought are not ordinarily classified as Jewish philosophers.
Pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic thought
Bible and Apocrypha
Philosophy arose in Judaism under Greek influence; however, a kind of philosophical approach may be discerned in early Jewish religious works apparently subject to little or no Greek influence. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Hebrew: Qohelet) were favourite works of medieval philosophers, who took them as philosophical discussions not dependent on historical revelation. The book of Proverbs introduces, in an apparently theological context, the concept of Wisdom (Ḥokhma), which was to have a primordial significance for Jewish thought, and presents it as the first and favourite of God’s creations. It is also praised, in the book of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), as instilled by God into all his works and granted in abundance to those he loves. It is sometimes equated with fearing God and keeping the Law. In other passages, however, piety seems to be regarded as superior to Wisdom. The Wisdom of Solomon, probably originally written in Greek, praises Wisdom, which is held to be an image of God’s goodness and a reflection of the eternal light. God is said to have given the author knowledge of the composition of the world, the powers, the elements, the nature of animals, the divisions of time, and the positions of the stars. In its vocabulary and perhaps in some of its doctrines, the work shows the influence of Greek philosophy. It also has had considerable influence on Christian theology.
Philo Judaeus
The first systematic attempt to apply Greek philosophical concepts to Jewish doctrines was made by Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria) in the 1st century CE. Philo was influenced by Platonic and Stoic writings and probably also by certain postbiblical Jewish beliefs and speculations. He apparently had some knowledge of the Oral Law, which was developing in his time, and he also knew of the Essenes, whom he praised highly.
Philo provided Jewish religious doctrines with intellectual and cultural respectability by stating them in Greek philosophical terms. He also showed that much of Greek philosophy was consonant with Judaism as he conceived it and with the allegorical sense of biblical texts as he read them. The fact that he stressed the primacy of Jewish religious tradition over Greek philosophy may have been more than mere lip service. It may be argued that—in central points of his thought, such as his conception of Logos (the Divine Reason or Word)—Philo used philosophical notions as expressions of religious beliefs. For him, Logos is primarily an intermediary between a transcendent, unknowable God and the world. On basic philosophical and theological problems, such as the creation of the world or the existence of free will (see also determinism), Philo’s writings provide vague or contradictory answers. He placed mystic ecstasy, of which he may have had personal experience, above philosophical and theological speculations.
Philo’s approach, his method of interpretation, his way of thinking, as well as some of his ideas—especially that of Logos—exerted considerable influence on early Christian thought but not, to any comparable extent, on Jewish thought in the same period. In the Middle Ages, knowledge of Philo among Jews was either very slight or nonexistent. Not until modern times was his importance in the history of Jewish religious thought recognized.
Other ancient sources
Some traces of ancient philosophy, mainly Stoic, may be found in the Mishna and in the subsequent Talmudic literature compiled in Palestine and Babylonia. Jewish theological and cosmological speculations occur in the Midrashim (plural of Midrash), which propound allegories, legends, and myths under the guise of interpreting biblical verses, and in the Sefer yetzira (“Book of Creation”), a combination of cosmogony and grammar that was once attributed to Abraham. There is no clear evidence of the period in which the Sefer yetzira was written; both the 3rd century and the 6th or 7th century have been suggested. The book became a key work in later Jewish mysticism.
Medieval philosophy
In the 9th and 10th centuries, after a long hiatus, systematic philosophy and ideologyreappeared among the Jews, a phenomenon indicative of their contacts with Islamiccivilization. The evolution of Islam in the 9th and 10th centuries showed that Greek scientific and philosophical lore could be separated, at least to some extent, from its pagan associations and could be adapted to another language and another culture. It also showed that a monotheistic, prophetic religion that in all relevant essentials, including adherence to a basic religious law, was closely akin to Judaism could be the basis of a culture in which science, philosophy, and theology were an indispensable part. The question of whether philosophy is compatible with religious law (the answer sometimes being negative) constituted the main theme of the foremost medieval Jewish thinkers. From approximately the 9th to the 13th century, Jewish thought participated in the evolution of Islamic philosophy and theology and manifested only in a limited sense a specifically Jewish character. Jewish philosophers showed no particular preference for philosophical texts written by Jewish authors over those composed by Muslims, and in many cases the significant works of Jewish thinkers constituted a reply or a reaction to the ideas of Islamic philosophical and scientific writings.
Jewish kalām
Although several Jewish intellectuals in 9th- and 10th-century Babylonia were steeped in Greek philosophy, the most productive and influential Jewish thinkers of this period represented a very different tendency, that of the Muʿtazilite kalām. Kalām (literally “speech”) is an Arabic term used in both Islamic and Jewish vocabulary to designate several theological schools that were ostensibly opposed to Greek, and particularly Aristotelian, philosophy. Islamic and Jewish Aristotelians regarded kalām theologians (called the mutakallimūn) with a certain contempt, holding them to be mere apologists and indifferent to the philosophical question of truth. Herein they did not do justice to their adversaries, for many representatives of kalām displayed a genuine speculative impulse. The school’s theology, forged in disputes with Zoroastrians, Manichaeans, and Christians, claimed to be based on reason.
Saʿadia ben Joseph
The belief in reason, as well as some of the tenets of Muʿtazilite theology, were taken over by Saʿadia ben Joseph (882–942), who was also influenced (either directly or through the intermediary of an Arabic philosopher) by John Philoponus (6th century), a Christian philosopher who argued against certain Aristotelian and Neoplatonic positions. Saʿadia’s main theological work, Kitāb al-amānāt wa al-iʿtiqādāt (Beliefs and Opinions), is modeled on similar Muʿtazilite treatises and on the Muʿtazilite classification of theological subject matter known as the Five Principles.
Like many Muʿtazilite authors, Saʿadia set forth in his introduction a list and theory of the various sources of knowledge. He distinguished four sources: (1) the five senses, (2) the intellect, or reason, (3) necessary inferences, and (4) reliable information given by trustworthy persons. In Saʿadia’s sense of the word, intellect, or reason (al-ʿaql), is an immediate, a priori cognition, independent of sense experience. In Beliefs and Opinions the intellect is characterized as having immediate ethical cognitions—that is, as discerning what is good and what is evil—in opposition to the medieval Aristotelians, who did not regard even the most general ethical rules as knowable a priori. The third source of knowledge comprises inferences of the type “if there is smoke, there is fire,” which are based on data furnished by the first two sources of knowledge. The fourth source of knowledge is meant to validate the teachings of Scripture and of the religious tradition, which must be regarded as true because of the trustworthiness of the men who propounded them. One of the work’s main purposes was to show that the knowledge deriving from the fourth source concords with that discovered by means of the other three—i.e., that religion and human reason agree.
Saʿadia opposed Aristotle’s view that the natural order was eternal. He held, with other partisans of the Muʿtazilite kalām, that the demonstration of the temporal creation of the world must precede and pave the way for the proof of the existence of God the Creator. Given the demonstrated truth that the world has a beginning in time, it can be proved that it could have been produced only through the action of a creator. It can further be proved that there must have been only one creator.
The theology of Saʿadia, like that of the Muʿtazilites, hinges on two principles: the unity of God and the principle of justice. The latter takes issue with the view (widespread in Islam and present also in Judaism) that the definition of what is just and what is good depends solely on God’s will, to which none of the moral criteria found among human beings are applicable. According to this view, a revelation from God can convert an action generally recognized as evil into a good action. Against this way of thinking, Saʿadia and the Muʿtazilites believed that being good and just or being evil and unjust are intrinsic characteristics of human actions and cannot be changed by divine decree. The notions of justice and of good, as conceived by humans, are binding even on God himself. Indeed, the ethical cognitions of humans are the same as those of the Deity.
Saʿadia also addressed the issue of the function of religious law. Of central importance in traditional Judaism and Islam, the law was thought to have been established to compel humans to perform good actions and avoid bad ones. Because Saʿadia believed that humans have a priori knowledge of good and evil and that this knowledge coincides with the principles underlying the most important portions of the revealed law, he was forced to ask whether this law is not superfluous. He could, however, point out that, whereas the human intellect recognizes that certain actions—for instance, murder or theft—are evil, it cannot by itself discover the best definition of what constitutes a particular transgression; nor can it, on its own, determine an appropriate punishment. On both points, Saʿadia asserted, the commandments of religious law give the best possible answers.
Saʿadia called the commandments that accord with the behests of the human intellect the intellectual, or rational, commandments. According to him, they include the duty of manifesting gratitude to the Creator for the benefits he has bestowed upon humans. Saʿadia recognized that a considerable number of commandments—for instance, those dealing with the prohibition of work on the Sabbath—do not belong to this category. He held, however, that the obligation to obey them can be derived from the rational commandment that humans must be grateful to God, for such gratitude entails obedience to his orders.
The Karaites
Saʿadia’s adoption of the rational Muʿtazilite theology was a part of his overall effort to consolidate rabbinical Judaism (based on the Mishna and Talmud), which was being attacked by the Karaites. This Jewish sect, founded by Anan ben David in the 8th century, rejected the authority of the Oral Law and the commentaries on it—that is, of the Mishna and the Talmud. In the 10th century and afterward, the Karaites accepted as their guides the Hebrew Bible and human reason, in the Muʿtazilite sense of the word. Their repudiation of postbiblical Jewish religious tradition facilitated a rational approach to theological doctrine. This approach led Karaite authors to criticize the adherents of rabbinical Judaism for holding anthropomorphicbeliefs based in part on texts of the Talmudic period. Karaite authors propounded, in conceptual terms, a theology of Jewish history in exile (galut). Life in exile is a diminished existence; nevertheless, the good or bad actions of the Jewish people (rather than their material strength or weakness) affect the course of history. Redemption may come when all Jews are converted to Karaism.
The Karaites adopted Muʿtazilite kalām wholesale, including its atomism. The Muʿtazilite atomists held that everything that exists consists of minute, discrete parts. This applies not only to bodies but also to space, time, motion, and the “accidents”—that is, qualities, such as colour—which the Islamic and Jewish atomists regarded as being joined to the corporeal atoms but not determined by them, as had been believed by the Greek atomists. An instant of time or a unit of motion does not continue the preceding instant or unit. All apparent processes are discontinuous, and there are causal connections between their successive units of change. The fact that cotton put into fire generally burns does not mean that fire is a cause of burning; rather, it may be explained as a “habit” that has no character of necessity. God’s free will is the only agent of everything that occurs, with the exception of one category—human actions. These are causes that produce effects; for instance, one who throws a stone at someone else, who is then killed, directly brings about the latter’s death. This inconsistency on the part of the theologians was required by the principle of justice, for it would be unjust to punish someone for a murder that was a result not of this person’s action but of God’s. This grudging admission that causality exists in certain strictly defined and circumscribed cases was occasioned by moral, not physical, considerations.
Jewish Neoplatonism
Isaac Israeli
Outside Babylonia, philosophical studies were pursued by Jews in the 9th and 10th centuries in Egypt and in the Maghrib (northwest Africa), most notably by Isaac ben Solomon Israeli(832/855–932/955), an Egyptian-born North African who has been called “the first Jewish Neoplatonist.” In his philosophical works, such as the Kitab al-ustuqusat (“Book of Elements”) and the Kitab al-hudud (“Book of Definitions”), Israeli drew largely upon a 9th-century Muslim popularizer of Greek philosophy, Abū ğūsuf Yaʿqūb al-Kindī, and also, in all probability, upon a lost pseudo-Aristotelian text. The peculiar form of Neoplatonic doctrine that seems to have been set forth in this text had, directly and indirectly, a considerable influence on medieval Jewish philosophy.
According to Israeli, God creates through his will and power. The two things that were created first were form, identified with wisdom, and matter, which is designated as the genus of genera (the classes of things) and which is the substratum of everything, not only of bodies but also of incorporeal substances. This conception of matter apparently was derived from the Greek Neoplatonists Plotinus (205–270) and Proclus (c. 410–485), particularly from the latter. In Proclus’s opinion, generality was one of the main criteria for determining the ontological priority of an entity (its place in the hierarchy of being). Matter, because of its indeterminacy, obviously has a high degree of generality; consequently, it figures among the entities having ontological priority. According to the Neoplatonic view, which Israeli seems to have adopted, the conjunction of matter and form gives rise to the intellect. A light sent forth from the intellect produces the rational soul, which in turn gives rise to the vegetative soul.
Israeli was perhaps the first Jewish philosopher to attribute prophecy to the influence of the intellect on the faculty of imagination. According to Israeli, this faculty receives from the intellect spiritual forms that are intermediate between corporeality and spirituality. This explanation implies that these forms, “with which the prophets armed themselves,” are inferior to purely intellectual cognitions.
Solomon ibn Gabirol
In its essentials, the schema of creation and emanation propounded by Isaac Israeli and his Neoplatonic source (or sources) was taken over by Solomon ibn Gabirol, a celebrated 11th-century Hebrew liturgical poet who was also the earliest Jewish philosopher of Spain. His chief philosophical work, written in Arabic but preserved in full only in a 12th-century Latin translation titled Fons vitae (“Fountain of Life”), makes no reference to Judaism or to specifically Jewish doctrines and is a dialogue between a disciple and a master who teaches him true philosophical knowledge. Despite its prolixity and many contradictions, it is an impressive work. Few medieval texts so effectively communicate the Neoplatonic conception of the existence of a number of planes of being that differ according to their ontological priority, the derivative and inferior ones constituting a reflection in a grosser mode of existence of those that are prior and superior.
One of Ibn Gabirol’s central concerns was the divine will, which appears to be both part of and separate from the divine essence. Infinite according to its essence, the will is finite in its action. It is described as pervading everything that exists and as being the intermediary between the divine essence and matter and form. Will was one of the traditional terms used by medieval theologians to identify the entity intermediate between the transcendent Deity and the world or the aspect of the Deity involved in creation. According to a statement in Fons vitae, matter derives from the divine essence, whereas form derives from the divine will. This suggests that the difference between matter and form has some counterpart in the Godhead and also that universal matter is superior to universal form. Some of Ibn Gabirol’s statements seem to support the superiority of universal matter; other passages, however, appear to imply the superiority of universal form.
Form and matter, whether universal or particular, exist only in conjunction. All things, with the sole exception of God, are constituted through the union of the two, the intellect no less than corporeal substance. In fact, the intellect is the first being in which universal matter and form are conjoined. The intellect contains and encompasses all things. It is through the grasp of the various planes of being, through ascending in knowledge to the world of the intellect and apprehending what is above it—the divine will and the world of the Deity—that humans may “escape death” and reach “the source of life.”
Judah ha-Levi
Judah ben Samuel ha-Levi (c. 1075–1141), another celebrated Hebrew poet from Spain, was the first medieval Jewish thinker to base his thought consciously and consistently on arguments drawn from Jewish history. His views are set forth in an Arabic dialogue, al-Hazari (Hebrew Sefer ha-Kuzari), the full title of which is translated as “The Book of Proof and Argument in Defense of the Despised Faith.” This work is usually called Kuzari—i.e., “the Khazar.”
Basing his narrative on the historical conversion to Judaism of the Khazars (c. 740), a Turkic-speaking people in central Eurasia, ha-Levi relates that their king, a pious man who did not belong to any of the great monotheistic religions, dreamed of an angel who said to him, “Your intentions are pleasing to the Creator, but your works are not.” To find the correct way to please God, the king sought guidance from a philosopher, from a Christian, from a Muslim, and finally—after hesitating to invite a representative of a people degraded by historical misfortune—from a Jewish scholar, who then converted him to Judaism. The angel’s words in the king’s dream may be regarded as a kind of revelation. Ha-Levi used this element of the story to suggest that it is not the spontaneous activity of reason that impels human beings to undertake the quest for the true religion but the gift of prophecy—or at least a touch of the prophetic faculty (or a knowledge of the revelations of the past).
The argument of the philosopher whose advice is sought by the king confirms this point. This disquisition is a brilliant piece of writing that lays bare the essential differences between the Aristotelian God, who is wholly indifferent to human individuals, and the God of the Jewish religion. The God of the philosophers, who is pure intellect, is not concerned with the works of human beings; moreover, the cultural activities to which the angel clearly refers—activities that involve both mind and body—cannot, from a philosophical point of view, either help or hinder humans in the pursuit of the philosophers’ supreme goal, the attainment of union with the active intellect, a “light” of the divine nature. This union was supposed to confer knowledge of all intelligible things on the individual; the supreme goal, therefore, was purely intellectual in nature.
In opposition to the philosopher’s faith, the religion of the Jewish scholar in the Kuzari is based on the fact that God may have a close, direct relationship with humans, who are not conceived primarily as beings endowed with intellect. The postulate that God can have intercourse with a creature made of the disgusting materials that compose the human body is scandalous to the king and prevents his acceptance of the doctrine concerning prophecy, expounded by the Muslim sage (just as the extraordinary nature of the Christological dogmas deters him from adopting Christianity).
The Jewish scholar argues that it is contemplation not of the cosmos but of Jewish history that procures knowledge of God. Ha-Levi was aware of the odium attached to the doctrine of the superiority of one particular nation; he held, however, that this teaching alone explains God’s dealings with humanity, which, like many other things, reason is unable to grasp. The controversies of the philosophers serve as proof of the failure of human intelligence to find valid solutions to the most important problems.
Ha-Levi’s dialogue was also directed against the Karaites. He shows the necessity and celebrates the efficacy of a blind, unquestioning adhesion to tradition, which the Karaites rejected. Yet he expounds a theology of Jewish exile that seems to have been influenced by Karaite doctrine. According to ha-Levi, even in exile the course of Jewish history is not determined like that of other nations by natural causes, such as material strength or weakness; the decisive factor is whether the Jews are religiously observant or disobedient. The advent of Christianity and Islam, in his view, prepares other nations for conversion to Judaism, an event that will occur in the eschatological period at the end of history.
Other Jewish thinkers, c. 1050–c. 1150
Many other Jewish thinkers appeared in Spain during the period from the second half of the 11th century to the first half of the 12th. Bahya ben Joseph ibn Pakuda wrote one of the most popular books of Jewish spiritual literature, Kitāb al-hidāyah ilā farā’iḍ alqulūb (“Guidance to the Duties of the Heart”), which combines a theology influenced by Saʿadia with a moderate mysticism inspired by the teachings of the Muslim Sufis (see Sufism). The commandments of the heart—that is, those relating to thoughts and sentiments—are contrasted with the commandments of the limbs—that is, the Mosaic commandments enjoining or prohibiting certain actions. Bahya maintained that both sets of commandments should be observed (thus rejecting the antinomian position) but made clear that he was chiefly interested in the commandments of the heart.
Abraham bar Hiyya Savasorda, a mathematician, astrologer, and philosopher, outlined in Megillat ha-megalle (“Scroll of the Revealer”) a view of Jewish history that is reminiscent of ha-Levi but does not emphasize its uniqueness to the same degree; it is also set forth in much less impressive fashion. Living in Barcelona under Christian rule, Bar Hiyya wrote scientific and philosophical treatises not in Arabic but in Hebrew. Hebrew was also used by Abraham ibn Ezra (died 1167), a native of Spain who travelled extensively in Christian Europe. His commentaries on the Bible contributed to the diffusion among the Jews of Greek philosophical thought, to which Ibn Ezra made many disjointed references. His astrological doctrine had a great influence on some philosophers.
The last outstanding Jewish philosopher of the Islamic East, Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (who died as a very old man sometime after 1164), also belongs to this period. An inhabitant of Iraq, he was converted to Islam in his old age (for reasons of expediency, according to his biographers). His philosophy appears to have had a strong impact on Islamic thought, though its influence on Jewish philosophy and theology is very hard to pin down and may be practically nonexistent. His chief philosophical work, Kitāb al-muʿtabar (“The Book of That Which Has Been Established by Personal Reflection”), contains very few references to Jewish texts or topics. Abū al-Barakāt rejected Aristotelian physics completely. According to him, time is the measure of being and not, as Aristotle taught, the measure of motion; he also replaced Aristotle’s two-dimensional concept of place with the three-dimensional notion of space, the existence of which is independent of the existence of bodies.
Jewish Aristotelianism
Jewish thinkers in Muslim Spain and the Maghrib adopted Aristotelianism (as well as systems that stemmed from but also profoundly modified pure Aristotelian doctrine) considerably later than did their counterparts in the Islamic East.
Abraham ibn Daud
Abraham ibn Daud (12th century), who is regarded as the first Jewish Aristotelian of Spain, was primarily a disciple of Avicenna, the great 11th-century Islamic philosopher. He may have translated or helped to translate some of Avicenna’s works into Latin, according to one plausible hypothesis, for he lived under Christian rule in Toledo, a town that in the 12th century was a centre for translators. His historical treatises, written in Hebrew, manifest his desire to familiarize his fellow Jews with the historical tradition of the Latin world, which at that time was alien to most of them. But his philosophical work, Sefer ha-emuna ha-rama (“Book of Sublime Faith”), written in 1161 in Arabic, shows few if any signs of Christian influence.
The doctrine of emanation set forth in this work describes in the manner of Avicenna the procession of the 10 incorporeal intellects, the first of which derives from God. This intellect produces the second intellect, and so on. Ibn Daud questioned in a fairly explicit manner Avicenna’s views on the way the second intellect is produced; his discipleship did not mean total adherence. Ibn Daud’s psychology was also, and more distinctively, derived from Avicenna. The argumentation leading to a proof that the rational faculty is not corporeal attempts to derive the nature of the soul from the fact of immediate self-awareness. Like Avicenna, Ibn Daud founded psychology on a theory of consciousness.
Ibn Daud often referred to the accord that, in his view, existed between philosophy and religious tradition. As he remarked, the Sefer ha-emuna ha-rama was not for readers who, in their simplicity, are satisfied with what they know of religious tradition or for those who have a thorough knowledge of philosophy. It was intended for readers of one type only: those who, being acquainted with the religious tradition on the one hand and having some rudiments of philosophy on the other, are “perplexed.” It was for the same audience that Maimonides wrote his The Guide for the Perplexed.
Maimonides
Moses Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon; 1135–1204), a native of Spain, is incontestably the greatest name in Jewish medieval philosophy, but his reputation is not derived from any outstanding originality in philosophical thought. Rather, the distinction of Maimonides, who is also the most eminent codifier of Jewish religious law, is to be found in the vast scope of his attempt, in the Dalālat al-hā’irin (The Guide for the Perplexed), to safeguard both religious law and philosophy (the public communication of which would be destructive of the law) without suppressing the issues between them and without trying to impose, on a theoretical plane, a final, universally binding solution to the conflict.
As Maimonides states in his introduction to the Guide, he regarded his self-imposed task as perilous, and he therefore had recourse to a whole system of precautions designed to conceal his true meaning from people who, lacking the necessary qualifications, might misread the book and abandon observance of the law. Maimonides himself notes that these precautions include deliberately contradictory statements meant to mislead the undiscerning reader. The apparent or real contradictions encountered in the Guide are perhaps most flagrant in Maimonides’ doctrine concerning God. There seems to be no plausible hypothesis capable of explaining away the inconsistencies between the following three views:
1. God has an eternal will that is not bound by natural laws. Through an act of his will, he created the world in time and imposed on it the order of nature. This creation is the greatest of miracles; only if it is admitted can other miracles, which interfere with the causally determined concatenations of events, be regarded as possible. The philosophers’ God, who is not free to cut the wings of a fly, is to be rejected. This conception is in keeping with the traditional religious view of God and is avowedly adopted by Maimonides because failure to do so would undermine religion.
2. Humans are incapable of having any positive knowledge concerning God. No positive attributes—e.g., wisdom or life—can be ascribed to God. Contrary to the attributes predicatedof created beings, the divine attributes are strictly negative; they state what God is not. For instance, he is not not-wise, and such a statement is not a positive assertion. Hence, only a negative theology is possible—saying what God is not. The way God acts can, however, be known. This knowledge is to be found in natural science.
3. God is an intellect. The formula used by medieval philosophers—which maintains that in God the knowing subject, the object known, and the act of intellectual knowledge are identical—derives from Aristotle’s thesis that God knows only himself. In adopting the formula, however, Maimonides interpreted it in the light of human psychology and epistemology, pointing out that, according to Aristotle, the act of human (as well as divine) cognition brings about an identity of the cognizing subject and the cognized object. The parallel drawn by Maimonides between the human and the divine intellect quite evidently implies a certain similarity between the two; in other words, it is incompatible with the negative theology of other passages of the Guide. Nor can it be reconciled with his theological doctrine that the structure of the world—created in time—came into being through the action of God’s will.
There would be no enigma in the Guide if Maimonides had believed that truth can be discovered in a suprarational way, through revelations vouchsafed to the Prophets. This, however, is not the case. Maimonides held that the Prophets (with the exception of Moses) combine great intellectual ability, which qualifies them to be philosophers, with a powerful imagination. The intellectual faculty of the philosophers and the prophets receives an overflow from the active intellect. In the case of the Prophets, this overflow not only brings about intellectual activity but also passes over into the imaginative faculty, giving rise to visions and dreams. The fact that prophets have a strong imagination gives them no superiority in knowledge over philosophers, who do not have it. Moses, who belonged to a higher category than did the other Prophets, did not have recourse to imagination.
The laws and religion as instituted by Moses are intended not only to ensure the bodily welfare and safety of the members of the community but also to facilitate the attainment of intellectual truths by individuals gifted enough to uncover the various hints embodied in religious laws and practices. This does not mean that all the beliefs inculcated by Judaism are true. Some indeed express philosophical truths—though in an inaccurate way, in a language suited to the intellectual capacity of the common people, who in general cannot grasp the import of the dogmas they are required to profess. Other beliefs, however, are false but necessary for the preservation of public order and justice—e.g., the belief that God is angry with wrongdoers.
There are two noteworthy aspects of Maimonides’ position on the Law—i.e., the religious commandments. First, he maintained that it is unique in its excellence and valid for all time. This profession of faith, at least with regard to its assumptions about the future, lacked philosophical justification; however, it could be regarded as necessary for the survival of Judaism. Second, he asserted that certain precepts of the Mosaic Law were related to specific historical situations and to the need to avoid too sharp a break with popular customs and practices—for instance, the commandments concerning sacrifice.
For at least four or five centuries, The Guide for the Perplexed exercised a very strong influence in the European centres of Jewish thought; in the 13th century, when the Guide was twice translated into Hebrew, these centres were Spain, the south of France, and Italy. Rather paradoxically, in view of the unsystematic character of Maimonides’ exposition, it was used as a standard textbook of philosophy and condemned as such when the teaching of philosophy came under attack. The Guide could be used in this way because from the 13th century onward the history of Jewish philosophy in European countries acquired a continuity it had never had before. This development seems to have resulted from the substitution of Hebrew for Arabic as the language of philosophical exposition. Because of the existence of a common and relatively homogeneous philosophical background—Hebrew texts were much less numerous and less diverse than Arabic philosophical works—and the fact that Jewish philosophers reading and writing in Hebrew read the works of their contemporaries and immediate predecessors, something like a dialogue can be discerned. In striking contrast to the immediately preceding period, European Jewish philosophers in the 13th century and later frequently devoted a very considerable part of their treatises to discussions of the opinions of other Jewish philosophers. That many of the Jewish philosophers in question wrote commentaries on the Guide undoubtedly furthered this tendency.
Averroists
The influence of Maimonides’ great Islamic contemporary Averroës, many of whose commentaries and treatises were translated into Hebrew, was second only to that of Maimonides on Jewish intellectual development. Indeed, it may be argued that for philosophers (as distinct from the general reading public) it often came first. In certain cases, commentators on the Guide quote Averroës’ opinions in order to clarify those of Maimonides, despite the frequent divergences between the two.
The apparently significant influence of Christian Scholastic thought on Jewish philosophy was often not openly acknowledged by Jewish thinkers in the period beginning with the 13th century. Samuel ibn Tibbon (c. 1150–c. 1230), one of the translators of the Guide into Hebrew and a philosopher in his own right, remarked that the philosophical sciences were more widely known among Christians than among Muslims. Somewhat later, at the end of the 13th century and after, Jewish scholars in Italy translated into Hebrew various texts of St. Thomas Aquinasand other Christian representatives of Scholasticism; not infrequently, some of them acknowledged the debt they owed their Christian masters. In Spain and in the south of France, a different convention seems to have prevailed up to the second half of the 15th century. Whereas Jewish philosophers of these countries felt no reluctance about referring to Greek, Arabic, and other Jewish philosophers, they refrained from citing Christian thinkers whose views had, in all probability, influenced them. In the case of certain Jewish thinkers, this absence of reference to the Christian Scholastics served to disguise the fact that in many essentials they were representative of the philosophical trends, such as Latin Averroism, that were current among the Christian Scholastics of their time.
There is a striking resemblance between certain views of the Latin Averroists and the parallel opinions of Isaac Albalag, a Jewish philosopher who lived in the second half of the 13th century, probably in Catalonia, Spain, and who wrote a commentary in Hebrew on the Tahāfut al-falāsifah (“The Inconsistencies of the Philosophers”), an exposition of Avicenna’s doctrine written by the Muslim philosopher al-Ghazālī (1058–1111). Albalag’s assertion that both the teachings of the Bible and the truths demonstrated by reason must be believed even if they are contradictory raises the possibility that some historical connections exist between this view and the Latin Averroist doctrine that there are two sets of truths—the religious and the philosophical—which are not necessarily in accord. On most other points Albalag was a follower of the system of Averroës himself. This position is exemplified by Albalag’s rejection of the view that the world was created in time. Although he professed to believe in what he called “absolute creation in time,” this expression merely signifies that at any given moment the continued existence of the world depends on God’s existence, an opinion that is essentially in harmony with Averroës.
Joseph Caspi (1297–1340), a prolific philosopher and exegetical commentator, maintained a somewhat unsystematic philosophical position that seems to have been influenced by Averroës. He expressed the opinion that knowledge of the future, including that possessed by God himself, is probabilistic in nature. The prescience of the Prophets is the same. Caspi’s interest in this problem may well have had some connection with the debate about future contingencies in which Christian Scholastics were engaged at that time.
Moses of Narbonne, or Moses Narboni, like many other Jewish scholars of the 14th century, wrote mainly commentaries, including those on biblical books, on treatises of Averroës, and on Maimonides’ Guide. In his commentary on the Guide, Narboni often interprets the earlier philosopher’s opinions by recourse to Averroës’ views. Narboni also expounded and gave radical interpretations to certain conceptions that he understood as implied in the Guide. According to Narboni, God participates in all things, because he is the measure of all substances. God’s existence appears to be bound up with that of the world, to which he has a relation analogous to that between a soul and its body (a comparison already made in the Guide).
Gersonides
Gersonides, also known as Levi ben Gershom (1288–1344), wrote the systematic philosophical work Sefer milḥamot Adonai (“The Book of the Wars of the Lord”), as well as many philosophical commentaries. Gersonides cited Greek, Arabic, and Jewish thinkers, and in many ways his system appears to have stemmed from the doctrines of Maimonides or Averroës, regardless of whether he agreed with them. For example, he explicitly rejected Maimonides’ doctrine of negative theology. Although he never explicitly mentioned Christian Scholastic philosophers, a comparison of his opinions and of the particular problems that engaged his attention with the Scholastic writings of his period suggests that he was influenced by the Latins on certain points.
Gersonides disagreed both with the Aristotelian philosophers who maintained the eternity of the world and with the religious partisans who believed in the creation of the world in time out of nothing. He argued instead that God created the world in time out of a preexistent body that lacked all form. As Gersonides conceived it, this body seems to be similar to primal matter.
The problem of human freedom of action and a particular version of the problem of God’s knowledge of future contingencies form an important part of Gersonides’ doctrine. Unlike the great Jewish and Muslim Aristotelians, Gersonides believed in astrology and held that all happenings in the world except human actions are governed by a strict determinism. God’s knowledge does not extend to individual human acts but embraces the general order of things; it grasps the laws of universal determinism but is incapable of apprehending events resulting from human freedom. Thus, the object of God’s knowledge is a totally determined world order, which differs from the real world insofar as the latter is in some measure formed according to human freedom.
Gersonides does not appear to have assigned to the prophets any political function; according to him, their role consists of predicting future events. The providence exercised by the heavenly bodies ensures the existence in a given political society of people with an aptitude for the handicrafts and professions necessary for the survival of the community. He remarked that in this way the various human activities are distributed in a manner superior to that outlined in the Republic of Plato. Thus, he explicitly rejected Plato’s political philosophy, which, because it was suitable to a society ruled through laws promulgated by a prophet (Muhammad), had been an important element of Jewish philosophy in the Arabic period.
Ḥasdai Crescas
The Spanish Jewish thinker Ḥasdai ben Abraham Crescas (1340–1410), like Gersonides, had thorough knowledge of Jewish philosophy and partial knowledge of Islamic philosophy; in both areas he seems to have been influenced by Christian Scholastic thought. Moreover, in certain important respects Crescas was influenced by Gersonides himself. One of Crescas’s main works, Or Adonai (“The Light of the Lord”), was quite contrary to Gersonides in its attempt to expose the weaknesses of Aristotelian philosophy. This attitude may be placed in the wider context of the return to religion itself, as opposed to the Aristotelian rationalization of religion, and the vogue of Kabbala (esoteric Jewish mysticism), both of which were characteristic features of Spanish Jewry in Crescas’s time. This change in attitude may have been a reaction to the increasing precariousness of the position of the Jewish community in Spain.
The criticism of the extreme rationalism of some medieval Aristotelians coincided historically with a certain disintegration of and disaffection toward classical Aristotelian Scholasticism. This trend was associated with the so-called voluntarism of John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308), the nominalism of William of Ockham (c. 1285–1347/49) and other 13th–14th-century Christian Scholastics, and the development of anti-Aristotelian physics at the University of Paris and elsewhere beginning in the 14th century. Significantly, there is a pronounced resemblance between Crescas’s views and two of these trends, Scotism (the teachings of Duns Scotus and his followers) and the “new” physics.
Crescas accepted Gersonides’ view that divine attributes cannot be negative, but unlike his predecessor his explanation of the difference between the attributes of God and those of created beings centred on the contrast between an infinite being and finite beings. It is through infinitude that God’s essential attributes—wisdom, for instance—differ from the corresponding and otherwise similar attributes found in created beings. In Crescas’s doctrine, as in that of Spinoza, God’s attributes are infinite in number. The central place assigned to the doctrine of God’s infinity in Crescas’s system suggests the influence of Duns Scotus’s theology, which is similarly founded upon the concept of divine infinity.
The problem of the infinite was approached from an altogether different perspective in Crescas’s critique of Maimonides’ 25 propositions, which Maimonides had set forth in the Guide as the basis of his proof of the existence of God. Crescas’s purpose in criticizing and rejecting several of these propositions was to show that the traditional Aristotelian proofs (founded in the first place on physical doctrines) were not valid. In his critique, Crescas attempted to disprove the Aristotelian thesis that the existence of an actual infinite is impossible. He held that space is not a limit but a three-dimensional extension, that it is infinite, and that, contrary to Aristotle, the existence of a vacuum and of more worlds than one is possible. He also argued that the thesis of the Aristotelian philosophers that there exists an infinite number of causes and effects, which have order and gradation, was impossible. This thesis refers not to a temporal succession of causes and effects that have a similar ontological status but to a vertical series, descending from God to the lowest rung in creation. His attacks were likewise directed against the Aristotelians’ conceptions of time and matter.
Crescas’s fundamental opposition to Aristotelianism is perhaps most evident in his rejection of the conception of intellectual activity as the supreme state of being for humans and for God. Crescas’s God is not first and foremost an intellect, and humanity’s supreme goal is not to think but to love God with a love corresponding, as far as possible, to his infinite greatness and to rejoice in the observance of his commandments. God too loves human beings, and his love, in spite of the lowliness of its object, is proportionate to his infinity.
Crescas attacked the Aristotelian teaching of the separation of the intellect from the soul and attempted, perhaps in part under the influence of Judah ha-Levi, to refute the Aristotelian doctrine that the actualized intellect, as distinct from the soul, survives the death of the body. According to Crescas, the soul is a substance in its own right; it can be separated from the body and subsists after the body’s death.
Joseph Albo
Whereas Crescas regarded the Aristotelian philosophers as adversaries, Joseph Albo (c. 1380–c.1444), who considered Crescas his teacher, expressed a much more ambivalent attitude toward them. Albo did not eschew self-contradiction, apparently considering it a legitimateprecaution on the part of a philosophical or theological author; indeed, he indulged in it in a much more obvious way than did Maimonides. But, whereas the latter’s fundamental philosophical position is fairly clear, it is much less apparent who Albo’s true masters were—Crescas and the Jewish religious tradition, or Maimonides and Averroës. Because of this perhaps deliberate failure to explain to the reader where he really stood, Albo has often been dismissed as an eclectic. Indeed, along with the authors just mentioned, Albo was strongly influenced by Saʿadia and seems to have had considerable knowledge of Christian theology, even adopting for his own purposes certain Scholastic doctrines. He differs from Crescas and to some extent resembles Maimonides in having a marked interest in political theory.
The theme of Albo’s magnum opus, Sefer ha-ʿiqqarim (“Book of Principles”), is the investigation of the theory of Jewish religious dogmas. Maimonides, in a nonphilosophical work, set the number of dogmas at 13, whereas Albo, following a doctrine that seems to go back to Averroës, limited the number to three: the existence of God, divine providence in reward and punishment, and the Torah as divine revelation. One section, usually including the philosophical and the traditional religious interpretations side by side, is devoted to each of these dogmas. Albo’s principal and relatively novel contribution to the evolution of Jewish doctrine is the classification, in his introduction, of natural, conventional, and divine law.
Natural law (the universal moral law inherent in human nature) is necessary because human beings, who are political by nature, must belong to a community, which may be restricted in size to one town or may extend over the whole earth. Natural law preserves society by promoting right and repressing injustice; thus, it restrains humans from stealing, robbing, and murdering. The positive laws instituted by the wise take into account the particular nature of the people for whose benefit they are instituted, as well as other circumstances. This means that they differ from the natural law in not being universally applicable. Neither natural law nor the more elaborate conventional laws, however, lead humans toward true spiritual happiness; this is the function of divine laws instituted by a prophet, which teach humans true theoretical opinions. Whereas Maimonides maintained that Judaism was the only divine law promulgated by a true prophet, Albo considered that the commandments given to Noah for all humankind—the Noahide Laws that Noah received after the Flood—also constitute divine law, which ensures, though to a lesser degree than does Judaism, the happiness of its adherents. This position justifies a certain universalism; in accordance with a Talmudic saying, Albo believed that the pious among the non-Jews—that is, those who observe Noah’s laws—have a share in the world to come. But he rejected the pretensions of Christianity and Islam to encompass divine laws comparable—or even superior—to Judaism.
Modern philosophy
The Iberian-Dutch philosophers
The expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497, respectively, produced a new centre of Jewish thought: Holland, where many exiled Jews found a new and safer domicile; the tolerance of the regime seemed to provide guarantees against external persecution. This did not prevent, and indeed may have furthered, the establishment of an oppressive internal orthodoxy that was prepared to chastise rebellious members of the community. This was evident in the cases of Uriel Acosta (Gabriel da Costa) and Benedict de Spinoza, two 17th-century philosophers who rebelled against Jewish orthodoxy and were excommunicated for their views (Acosta twice).
Uriel Acosta
Belonging to a family of Marranos in Portugal, Acosta arrived in Amsterdam after having been brought up in the Catholic faith. His philosophical position was to a great extent determined by his antagonism to the dogmatism of the traditional Judaism that he encountered in Amsterdam. His growing estrangement from generally accepted Jewish doctrine is attested by his Portuguese treatise Sobre a mortalidade da alma (“On the Mortality of the Soul”). He held that the belief in the immortality of the soul has many evil effects and that it impels people to choose an ascetic way of life and even to seek death. According to him, nothing has tormented human beings more than the belief in an inner, spiritual good and evil. At this stage, Acosta affirmed the authority of the Bible, from which, according to him, the mortality of the soul can be proved.
In his autobiography, Exemplar Humanae Vitae (“Example of a Human Life”), Acosta took a more radical position. He proclaimed the supreme excellence of the natural moral law; when arguing before Jews, he seemed to identify this law with the Noahide Laws (the commandments given to Noah), thus suggesting a correspondence with the view of Albo. Accordingly, Acosta denied the validity of the argument that natural law is inferior to Judaism and Christianity, because he believed that both these religions teach the love of one’s enemies, a precept that is not a part of natural law and is a manifest impossibility.
Benedict de Spinoza
Born in Amsterdam but of Portuguese Marrano descent, Spinoza is unique in the history of modern Jewish thought. Although his work does not deal with specifically Judaic themes, he is traditionally included in this history for several reasons. First, it was through the study of Jewish philosophical texts that Spinoza was first initiated into philosophy. Second, Spinoza’s system is in part a radicalization of, or perhaps a logical corollary to, medieval Jewish doctrines, and the impact of Maimonides and of Crescas is evident. Third, a considerable portion of Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus deals with problems related to Judaism. He drew from Jewish religion and history, even using the Israelite commonwealth in the Tractatus as the template for his ideal state, though he was not centrally concerned with matters of Jewish theology and ritual.
The first chapters of the Tractatus show that the doctrine of prophecy is of central importance to Spinoza’s explanation of Judaism and that, in dealing with this subject, he used Maimonides’ categories, though he applied them to different people or groups of people. Maimonides held that the prophets combined intellectual perfection, which made them philosophers, with perfection of the imaginative faculty. He also referred to a category of persons, including lawyers and statesmen, endowed with a strong imagination but possessing no extraordinary intellectual gifts. Spinoza applied this category to the prophets, whom he described as possessing vivid imaginations but as not necessarily having outstanding intellectual capacities. He denied that the biblical Prophets were philosophers and used a philosophical and historical approach to the Scriptures to show that the contrary assertion is not borne out by the texts.
Spinoza also denied Maimonides’ assertion that the prophecy of Moses was essentially different from that of the other Prophets and that this was because Moses, in prophesying, had no recourse to the imaginative faculty. According to Spinoza, Moses’ prophecy was unique because he heard the voice of God in a prophetic vision—that is, in a state in which his imagination was active. In this assertion, Spinoza employed one of Maimonides’ categories of prophecy. Maimonides thought it improbable, however, that the voice of God was ever heard in prophetic vision, and he held that this category is purely hypothetical. In his classification of Moses, Spinoza was not concerned with what really happened in history; rather, he was attempting to fashion the biblical evidence according to Maimonides’ theoretical framework so that it would further his own theological and political purpose: to show that there could be a religion superior to Judaism.
This purpose made it imperative to propound in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus a theory concerning Jesus, whom Spinoza designates as Christus. The category and the status assigned to Jesus are similar to those that Maimonides attributed to Moses. Jesus is referred to in the Tractatus as a religious teacher who makes recourse not to the imaginative faculty but to the intellect. His authority may be used to institute and strengthen the religion Spinoza called religio catholica (“universal religion”), which has little or nothing in common with any of the major manifestations of historic Christianity.
The difference between Judaism and Spinoza’s religio catholica corresponds to the difference between Moses and Jesus. After leaving Egypt, the Jews found themselves, in Spinoza’s view, in the position of people who had no allegiance to any positive law. They had, as it were, reverted to a state of nature and were faced with the need to enter into a social pact. They were also an ignorant people and very prone to superstition. Moses, a man of outstanding ability, made use of the situation and the characteristics of the people in order to make them accept a social pact and a state founded upon it that, contrary to Spinoza’s scheme for his ideal communities, were not based first and foremost upon utilitarian—that is, reasonable—consideration of the advantages of life in society over the state of nature.
According to Spinoza, the social pact concluded by the children of Israel in the desert was based upon a superstitious view of God as “King” and “Judge,” to whom the children of Israel owed their political and military successes. The children of Israel transferred political sovereignty to God rather than to the representatives of the popular will. In due course, political sovereignty was vested in Moses, God’s representative, and in his successors. In spite of Spinoza’s insistence on the superstitious foundations of the ancient Israelite state, however, his account of its regime was not wholly unsympathetic, especially regarding its ability to curb human tyranny by its doctrine of divine sovereignty. Spinoza believed that the state contained the seeds of its own destruction and that, with its extinction, the social pact devised by Moseshad lapsed and all the political and religious obligations incumbent upon the Jews had become null and void.
It could be argued that, because the state conceived by Spinoza is based not on superstitious faith but on a social contract originating in rational, utilitarian considerations, it does not need to have its authority safeguarded and stabilized by means of religion. Nevertheless, Spinoza apparently believed that religion is necessary. To fulfill this need and to obviate the danger of harmful religions, he devised the religio catholica, the universal religion, which is characterized by two distinctive traits. First, its main purpose, a practical one (which is furthered by recourse to the authority of Jesus), is to impel people to act in accordance with justice and charity. Such conduct is tantamount to obedience to the laws of the state and to the orders of the magistrates, in whom sovereignty is vested. Disobedience, however, even if it springs from compassionate motives, weakens the social pact, which safeguards the welfare of all the members of the community; in consequence, its evil effects outweigh whatever good it may produce. Second, although religion, according to Spinoza, is not concerned with theoretical truth, in order to be effective the religio catholica requires dogmas, which he set forth in the Tractatus. These dogmas are formulated in terms that can be interpreted in accordance both with the philosophical conception of God that Spinoza regarded as true and with widespread superstitious ideas. It follows that if they are accepted as constituting the only creed that everybody is obliged to profess, people cannot be persecuted on account of their beliefs. Spinoza held that such persecution may lead to civil war and may thus destroy the state. Philosophers are free to engage in the pursuit of truth and to attain, if they can, the supreme goal of humanity—freedom grounded in knowledge. There can be little doubt that the furtherance of the cause of tolerance for philosophical opinions was one of Spinoza’s main objects in writing the Tractatus.
As compared with the Tractatus Theologico-Philosophicus, the Ethics, Spinoza’s major philosophical work, bears a much more ambiguous relation to Jewish medieval philosophy. In a way, Spinoza’s metaphysical system, contained in the Ethics, can be regarded as drawing aspects of medieval Aristotelianism to their logical conclusions, a step that most Jewish (and Christian and Muslim) thinkers were unwilling to take, owing to their theological conservatism.
German philosophers
Moses Mendelssohn
The era opened by Moses Mendelssohn (1729–86)—i.e., c. 1750 to c. 1830—is sometimes called the German period of Jewish philosophy because of the large number of works on Jewish philosophy that were written in German. The German period is also marked by the emancipation of the Jews—that is, by the abrogation of discriminatory laws directed against them—and by their partial or complete assimilation. In this time in particular, the term Jewish philosophy applied especially to works that were primarily concerned with defining Judaism and offering a justification of its existence. The second of these tasks was often conceived of as involving a confrontation with Christianity rather than with philosophy. This change from what would have been the practice in the Middle Ages seems to have resulted from the demarcation of the sphere of religion in such a way that, at least in the opinion of the philosophers, possible points of collision with philosophy no longer existed. This development was stimulated by the doctrine of Spinoza, from whom Mendelssohn and others took certain fundamental ideas concerning Judaism.
Like Spinoza, Mendelssohn held that it is not the task of Judaism to teach rational truths, though such truths may be referred to in the Bible. Contrary to what he called Athanasian Christianity—that is, the doctrine set forth in the Athanasian Creed—Judaism has no binding dogmas; it is centred on inculcating belief in certain historical events and on the observance of religious law, which includes the ceremonial commandments. Such observance is supposed to lead to happiness in this world and in the afterlife. Mendelssohn did not reject this view out of hand, as Spinoza would have done. Indeed, he seems to have been prepared to accept it, God’s mysteries being inscrutable, and the radicalism and what may be called the consistency of Spinoza being the complete antithesis of Mendelssohn’s apologetics. Non-Jews were supposed by Mendelssohn to owe allegiance to the natural moral law.
Solomon Formstecher
Whereas Mendelssohn continued the medieval tradition (at least to some extent) or adapted Spinoza’s doctrine for his own purposes, the Jewish philosophers of the first half of the 19th century generally followed the teachings of the non-Jewish philosophers of their own time. In Die Religion des Geistes (“The Religion of the Spirit”), Solomon Formstecher (1808–89) may have been influenced by F.W.J. von Schelling (1775–1854) in his conception of nature and spirit as manifestations of the divine. In Formstecher’s view, there are two types of religions that correspond to these manifestations: the religion of nature, in which God is conceived as the principle of nature or as the world soul, and the religion of the spirit, in which God is understood as an ethical being. According to the religion of the spirit, God has produced the world as his manifestation in full freedom and not, as the religion of nature tends to profess, because the world was necessary for his existence.
The religion of the spirit, which corresponds to absolute religious truth, was first manifested in the Jewish people. The religious history of the world may be understood as a process of universalization of the Jewish religion, according to Formstecher. Thus, Christianitypropagated Jewish conceptions among the nations; however, it combined them with paganideas. The pagan element is gradually being eliminated—Protestantism, in this respect, marks considerable progress. When at long last the Jewish element in Christianity is victorious, the Jews will be right to give up their isolation. The progress that will bring about this final religious union is already under way.
Samuel Hirsch
The main philosophical work of Samuel Hirsch (1815–89), titled Die Religionsphilosophie der Juden (“The Philosophy of Religion of the Jews”), was decisively influenced by G.W.F. Hegel(1770–1831). Hegel’s impact is most evident in Hirsch’s method and in the task that he assigned to the philosophy of religion—the transformation of religious consciousness into conceptual truth. Contrary to Hegel, however, he did not consider religious truth to be inadequate compared with philosophical truth.
In Hirsch’s view, God revealed himself in the first stages of Jewish history by means of miracles and prophecy. At present, he manifests himself in the miracle of the existence of the Jewish people. Hirsch further maintained that Christianity and Judaism were identical at the time of Jesus and that a decisive break between them was caused by Paul the Apostle. When the Pauline elements are eliminated from Christianity, it will be essentially in agreement with Judaism, though Judaism will preserve its separate existence.
Nachman Krochmal
Nachman Krochmal (1785–1840), a native of Galicia (at that time part of Austria), wrote the highly influential Hebrew treatise More nevukhe ha-zman (“Guide for the Perplexed for Our Time”), on the philosophy of history and on Jewish history. Krochmal’s philosophical thought was based on the notion of spirit. He was mainly concerned with the “national spirit” that is proper to each people and that accounts for the characteristics differentiating one people from another in every domain of human activity. The national spirits of all peoples except the Jewish are, according to Krochmal, essentially particular. Hence, when the nation becomes extinct, the national spirit either disappears or, if it is powerful, is assimilated by some other nation. The perpetuity of the Jewish people, according to Krochmal, is the result of their special relation to the Universal Spirit, who is the God of Israel.
Solomon Steinheim
Solomon Ludwig Steinheim (1789–1866), the author of Die Offenbarung nach dem Lehrbegriff der Synagoge (“The Revelation According to the Doctrine of the Synagogue”), was apparently influenced by the antirationalism of the German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). His criticism of science is based on Jacobi’s work, though he did not agree with Jacobi in opposing discursive reason to the intuitive knowledge of God; Steinheim contrasted human reason with divine revelation. The main point of opposition between revelation, vouchsafed to the prophets of Israel, and reason is that the God posited by reason is subject to necessity—he can act only in accordance with laws. Moreover, reason affirms that nothing can come from nothing. Accordingly, God is free to create not a good world but only the best possible world. Revealed religion, on the other hand, affirms the freedom of God and the creation of the world out of nothing.
Hermann Cohen
There seems to be little connection between the Jewish philosophers of the first half or two-thirds of the 19th century and Hermann Cohen (1842–1918), the head of the Neo-Kantian school centred at the University of Marburg. Cohen may be regarded as a rather unusual case among the Jewish philosophers of his and the preceding generations because of the dual nature of his philosophical thought—the general and the Jewish—and the uneasy equilibrium between them. Judaism was by no means the only important theme of his philosophical system; indeed, it was not even his point of departure. For most of his life, Cohen was wholly committed to his brand of Kantianism, and he displayed considerable originality in its elaboration. It has been maintained with some justification that his doctrine manifests a certain (unintentional) kinship with Hegel’s, though Cohen’s idea of God is based on an analysis and development of certain conceptions of Immanuel Kant. In Cohen’s view, reason requires that nature be conceived of as conforming to a single rational plan and that there be harmony between the domains of natural and moral teleology (ultimate purposes or ends). These two requirements in turn require the adoption of the idea of God—the word idea being used in the Kantian sense, which means that no assertion is made about the metaphysical reality of God.
Cohen’s later works increasingly emphasized generally religious and specifically Judaic elements. Some scholars, most notably his student Franz Rosenzweig, interpreted this as a major turn in Cohen’s thought. In the late 20th century, however, most scholars held that the more-pronounced Judaism in Cohen’s later works was the culmination of his overall philosophical system, not a radical departure from it.
Franz Rosenzweig
Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929) published his main philosophical work, Der Stern der Erlösung (The Star of Redemption), in 1921. It begins by rejecting the traditional philosophical denial of the fear of death, maintaining instead that this fear is the beginning of the cognition of the All. Humans should fear death, despite the indifference of philosophy and its predilection for accepting death. Traditional philosophy is interested exclusively in the universal, and it is monistic—its aim is to discover one principle from which everything can be derived. This tendency of philosophy, however, denatures human experience, which knows not one but three separate domains (which Kant had referred to in a different context), namely, God, the world, and humanity.
According to Rosenzweig, God (like the world and like humankind) is known through experience (the experience of revelation). In Greek religion, the most perfect manifestation of paganism, every one of these domains subsists by itself: the gods, the cosmos, and the human as the tragic, solitary, silent hero. Biblical religion is concerned with the relation between the three: the relation between God and the world, which is creation; the relation between God and human beings, which is revelation; and the relation between humans and the world, which leads to salvation. Under the influence of Schelling, whose term and concept he adopted, Rosenzweig pursued a “narrative philosophy” that renounces the ambition to find one principle for everything that exists and that follows biblical religion in focusing on the connections between the three domains and between the words and acts that bring about and develop these connections.
Biblical faith brought forth two valid religions—Christianity and Judaism. The first is described by Rosenzweig as the eternal way; the Christian peoples seek in the vicissitudes of time and history the way to salvation. In contrast to them, the existence of the stateless Jewish people is not concerned with time and history; it is—notwithstanding the hope for final salvation—already an eternal life, renewed again and again according to the rhythm of the Jewish liturgical year.
Martin Buber
Among the leading thinkers of the 20th century was Martin Buber (1878–1965), whose impact was felt by both Jews and non-Jews. In his early period, Buber was led, partly through empathy with Jewish and non-Jewish mysticism, to stress unitive experience and knowledge, in which the difference between one person and another and between the individual and God tend to disappear. But in his final period he taught—following, as he claimed, a suggestion of Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72)—that a human being can realize himself only in a relation with another, who may be another person or God. This conception of the “I and Thou” relationship led to the formulation of Buber’s view of the dialogical life—the mutual, responsive relation between one person and another—and accounts for the importance that he attached to the category of “encounter.”
Emmanuel Lévinas
During the late 20th century the thought of the French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas (1905–95) exercised worldwide influence. In his main work, Totality and Infinity (1961), Lévinas emphasized ethics, as opposed to epistemology, as the primary means for achieving one’s relation to the “Other.” This relationship is based on the existential and material need of the other person rather than on one’s abstract knowledge of him. In this philosophical program, Lévinas drew upon rabbinic tradition as well as the philosophical anthropology of Cohen, Rosenzweig, and Buber.
About john john