DOCSLIB.ORG

Maimonides, Crescas, and the Parable of the Castle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Warren Zev Harvey Maimonides, Crescas, and the Parable of the Castle Rabbi Hasdai Crescas, the foremost medieval critic of Maimonides’ philosophy, was born in Barcelona around 1340, which is about two centuries after the birth of Maimo- nides in Cordoba in 1138. Crescas died in Saragossa in the winter of 1410/11. He was the judge of the Jews of the Crown of Aragon and advisor to King Joan I and Queen Violant de Bar, the famed benefactress of the arts and sciences. In this chapter, I will discuss Crescas’ sceptical critique of Maimonides. His critique of the Aristotelian con- cepts of place, time, the impossibility of an actual infinity, and the horror vacui, are documented in Harry Austryn Wolfson’s monumental study, Crescas’ Critique of Aris- totle.1 It is also discussed in my much more modest volume, Physics and Metaphysics in Hasdai Crescas.2 When we speak of Crescas’ sceptical critique of Maimonides, a question imme- diately forces itself upon us: What is the difference between Crescas’ scepticism and Maimonides’ scepticism?3 This question is at the heart of the phenomenon of Jewish scepticism. What is the difference between the scepticism of Crescas and the scep- ticism of Maimonides? For example, both philosophers are critical of the medieval proofs of God confidently affirmed by most other medieval philosophers. Both believe that what Maimonides called premise 26, namely the eternality of motion, has not been proved, and thus the proofs of God based on it are invalid. What, then, is the difference between Crescas’ scepticism and Maimonides’? The polysemic parable of the castle In order to illustrate the difference between the scepticisms of Maimonides and Crescas, I turn now to a midrash found in Genesis Rabbah, 39:1 (and parallels). The different ways that Maimonides and Crescas interpret this midrash will illustrate the differences in their kinds of scepticism. This midrash may be called “The Parable of the Castle.” It runs as follows: 1 Harry Austryn Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929). 2 Warren Zev Harvey, Physics and Metaphysics in Hasdai Crescas (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1998). 3 Much has been written recently about Maimonides’ scepticism. See Josef Stern, The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). Cf. Warren Zev Harvey, “Maimonides’ Critical Epistemology and Guide, II, 24,” Aleph 8 (2008): 213–235. Open Access. © 2018 Warren Zev Harvey, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110553321-010 168 Warren Zev Harvey The Lord said to Abram: “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee” [Genesis 12:1] This may be compared by way of parable to someone who was walking on the way from place to place, and saw a birah doleqet [a castle “illumined” or “aflame”]. He said, “Could you say this castle has no governor [manhig]?!” The master of the castle looked down upon him, and said to him, “I am the master of the castle!” So Abraham our father would say, “Could you say this world has no Governor?!” The Holy One, blessed be He, looked down upon him, and said to him, “I am the Master of the world!”4 The Parable of the Castle is intended to help us understand God’s command to Abram or Abraham, “Get thee out of thy country […] unto the land that I will show thee.” Abraham is likened to a traveller who arrives at a birah doleqet. The traveller wonders: Could it be that this castle has no governor (manhig)?! The governor appears and says, “I am the master of the castle!” So Abraham wondered, Could it be that this world has no Governor (manhig)?! God appeared to him and said, “I am the Master of the world!” However, what is a birah doleqet? The Hebrew word doleqet is ambiguous here because it bears two possible meanings. It might mean an illumined or well-lit castle, but it also might mean a castle aflame or afire. According to the first meaning (“an illumined castle”), the midrash would be explained as follows: A traveller enters a castle late at night and finds the lights shining, and people strolling in the streets or relaxing in coffee houses. There is, he observes, order and safety here. The castle, he infers, must have a governor! The gov- ernor then appears and confirms the inference. Therefore, the Parable of the Castle concerns what philosophers call “the argument from design” or “the teleological argument”: Abraham saw that there is purposeful order in the universe, and, on the basis of this order, he inferred the existence of the Governor of the universe, God. According to the second meaning (“a castle aflame”), the midrash would be explained as follows: The castle is ablaze, burning wildly. The world is up in flames. The wicked are running rampant. There is no order or safety. It seems that the castle has no governor. However, the governor then appears. Thus, notwithstanding the flames, there is a governor. The Parable of the Castle accordingly concerns what phi- losophers call “the problem of evil.” Abraham, in spite of the evil in the world around him, affirms the existence of the Governor of the universe or God. In medieval literature, we find both readings. Modern scholars tend to prefer the second, “a castle aflame.”5 Maimonides and Crescas preferred the first reading, “an illumined castle.”6 4 The midrash, with commentaries, is found in standard Rabbinic editions of Genesis Rabbah, ad loc. 5 Paul Mandel, “The Call of Abraham: A Midrash Revisited,” Prooftexts 14 (1994): 287–294. According to Mandel, the term birah refers here to what is known in Roman architecture as an insula, a large tenement containing dwellings and shops (275). In biblical Hebrew, the term is usually translated as “castle” (e.g., Esther 1:2; Nehemiah 2:8). 6 See Harvey, Physics and Metaphysics, 47–48, 60–65. The interpretation of birah doleqet as “an illumined castle” is found also in Pseudo-Rashi, Commentary on Genesis Rabbah, standard Rabbinic Maimonides, Crescas, and the Parable of the Castle 169 Scholars have debated the nature and role of polysemy in Rabbinic literature.7 What is noteworthy in the present case is that the polysemy is clearly unintentional. The ambiguity, uncertainty, or polysemy of the phrase birah doleqet was surely not intended by the author of the midrash. The polysemy is caused here by our ignorance of the idiomatic usage of the term doleq/et in Rabbinic Hebrew. Presumably, the early audiences of this midrash understood the unequivocal meaning of the term – and of the midrash. They knew whether the midrash was talking about the argument from design or the problem of evil. Due to our ignorance, the phrase and the midrash are polysemic to us. One might say that the long history of commentary on this midrash has turned it into a polysemic parable. Put another way, we owe the rich and pro- vocative polysemy of this midrash not to its author but to our ignorance. This is not a cause for regret. Unintentional polysemy is no less fecund than artful polysemy, just as Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin was no less wondrous because it happened serendipitously and just as the Earthlings’ victory over the Jovians in Isaac Asimov’s “Victory Unintentional” was no less salvific because it was due to a misun- derstanding. The importance of ignorance as a stimulus for creative interpretation can hardly be underestimated. Maimonides, for example, was well aware that our ignorance of an ancient language could be very convenient for the creative commentator. In Guide, I, 67, when defending his highly conjectural interpretation of the Hebrew va-yanaḥ (Exodus 20:11), which he suggests does not mean “and God rested” but “and God established existence perpetually,” he remarks: “today we have no complete understanding of the science of our language.”8 Maimonides’ interpretation of the parable Now, let’s see what Maimonides does with the Parable of the Castle. In his Mišneh Torah, Hilkhot ‘Avodah Zarah 1:3, he writes: editions, ad loc. According to Pseudo-Rashi: “[Abraham] saw heaven and earth; he saw the sun by day and the moon by night, and the stars giving forth light. He said: ‘Is it possible that something so grand is without a Governor?’ The Holy One, blessed be He, looked down upon him and said, ‘I am the Master of the world.’” This commentary is a composite work, written in Ashkenaz, and roughly contemporaneous with Maimonides. 7 E.g., Steven Fraade, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited,” AJS Review 31 (2007): 1–40; Azzan Yadin-Israel, “Rabbinic Polysemy: A Response to Steven Fraade,” AJS Review 38 (2014): 129–141; “Response to Azzan Yadin-Israel on Rabbinic Polysemy: Do They ‘Preach’ What They Practice?” AJS Review 38 (2014): 339–361. 8 Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 162. Cf. his unusual interpretation there of Exodus 31:17. 170 Warren Zev Harvey As soon as this mighty one [Abraham] was weaned, he began to wander about in his mind, and he was little, and he began to think day and night, and wondered: How is it possible that this [celestial] sphere revolves [noheg] perpetually, if it does not have a Governor [manhig]? Who causes it to revolve, for it is impossible that it causes itself to revolve?9 No sooner was he weaned than little Abraham began to study the universe.
Recommended publications
  • Philosophic Homilies of Nissim of Girona - 14704

    Philosophic Homilies of Nissim of Girona - 14704

    Syllabus PHILOSOPHIC HOMILIES OF NISSIM OF GIRONA - 14704 Last update 12-09-2021 HU Credits: 2 Degree/Cycle: 2nd degree (Master) Responsible Department: Jewish Thought Academic year: 0 Semester: 1st Semester Teaching Languages: Hebrew Campus: Mt. Scopus Course/Module Coordinator: Prof. Zeev Harvey Coordinator Email: [email protected] Coordinator Office Hours: Tu 11:30-12:30 Teaching Staff: Prof Zeev Harvey page 1 / 4 Course/Module description: One of the great medieval authorities on Jewish law, Rabbi Nissim ben Reuben of Girona ( Ha-Ran, c. 1310-1376) is known for his Commentary on BT Nedarim, his Commentaries on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi's Halakhot, and his Novellae on various Talmudic tractates. However, he was also a profound and original philosophic homilist. His book of philosophic homilies, known as "Derashot Ha-Ran," had a significant influence on medieval Jewish philosophy both directly and also indirectly, through his student Rabbi Hasdai Crescas and his student's student Rabbi Joseph Albo. Course/Module aims: We shall read together one homily from Derashot Ha-Ran. In the last month of the semester, we shall discuss the papers of participants. Learning outcomes - On successful completion of this module, students should be able to: ability to analyze a medieval philosophic sermon Attendance requirements(%): 100% Teaching arrangement and method of instruction: Reading and discussion Course/Module Content: A seminar paper (about 20-25 pp.) or a short paper (about 7-10 pp.). The paper is to be submitted by the final class (11.1.22). It may be on any subject connected with Derashot Ha-Ran, and may be written in accordance with various approaches, e.g., historical, analytic, or philological.
  • Moses Hayim Luzzatto's Quest for Providence

    Moses Hayim Luzzatto's Quest for Providence

    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 10-2014 'Like Iron to a Magnet': Moses Hayim Luzzatto's Quest for Providence David Sclar Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/380 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] “Like Iron to a Magnet”: Moses Hayim Luzzatto’s Quest for Providence By David Sclar A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in History in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 David Sclar All Rights Reserved This Manuscript has been read and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in History in satisfaction of the Dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Prof. Jane S. Gerber _______________ ____________________________________ Date Chair of the Examining Committee Prof. Helena Rosenblatt _______________ ____________________________________ Date Executive Officer Prof. Francesca Bregoli _______________________________________ Prof. Elisheva Carlebach ________________________________________ Prof. Robert Seltzer ________________________________________ Prof. David Sorkin ________________________________________ Supervisory Committee iii Abstract “Like Iron to a Magnet”: Moses Hayim Luzzatto’s Quest for Providence by David Sclar Advisor: Prof. Jane S. Gerber This dissertation is a biographical study of Moses Hayim Luzzatto (1707–1746 or 1747). It presents the social and religious context in which Luzzatto was variously celebrated as the leader of a kabbalistic-messianic confraternity in Padua, condemned as a deviant threat by rabbis in Venice and central and eastern Europe, and accepted by the Portuguese Jewish community after relocating to Amsterdam.
  • Issue N°2: Modeling Nothingness

    Issue N°2: Modeling Nothingness

    t a m i n g _ t h e h o r r o r vacui issue #2 modeling nothingness March 2020. Reeds from the River Rupel in a potential state before being set in motion at Rib. IN ABSENCE OF SPIRIT by Christiane Blattmann Do houses have a soul that dwells within? A place has a spirit – Why should a habitation, then, not have a soul? Can buildings contain evil? When I studied architecture for a brief period of time, I had a professor who was obsessed with Heidegger. Her lectures were poetic and heavy, and we had to spend hours looking at slides of her watercolors in which she tried to capture the spirit of places she would travel to on weekends. The genius loci of a site – she explained. Der Ort. She always said DER ORT in a religious way that I found puzzling – the me of first semester, who had never read a line of Heidegger (and still don’t get much of it). Whenever she said DER ORT, I felt strangely ashamed, for I couldn’t decipher the charge of her expression. I had a feeling that I didn’t share in her religion. What I could explain better to myself was the much older understanding my professor was referring to. The genii in ancient belief were protective spirits that guarded a place or a house. They would make the difference between a place and DER ORT: between an anonymous area on the map, a mere fenced-off field and a textured site, with history, character, a view, underground, traps, and inexplicable vibes to it.
  • Rabbi Nissim of Girona on the Constitutional Power of the Sovereign

    Rabbi Nissim of Girona on the Constitutional Power of the Sovereign

    Rabbi Nissim of Girona on the Constitutional Power of the Sovereign Warren Zev Harvey* Of all medieval Jewish philosophers after Maimonides, the one whose legal thinking is most constitutional was Rabbi Nissim ben Reuben of Girona, known by the acronym Ran (Rabbenu Nissim). He was born in about 1310 and died in 1376. He lived, taught, and judged in Barcelona, then part of the Crown of Aragon. A prolific writer, he authored a celebrated commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s Sefer ha-Halakhot and a commentary on the tractate of Nedarim, printed in standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud and customarily studied in the place of Rashi’s commentary (which does not exist on that tractate). In addition, he wrote novellae on selected tractates of the Babylonian Talmud and scores of legal responsa. In the realm of philosophical thought, he composed an influential collection of philosophic homilies, known asDerashot ha-Ran (“The Homilies of Rabbi Nissim”); and he also wrote an unfinished commentary on the Pentateuch, ending with Gen 23:20. All of his works were written in Hebrew.1 Ran was the leading authority of his day in rabbinic law and the most original Jewish political philosopher between Maimonides and Abrabanel. He was also, as already said, the most constitutionally minded of all medieval Jewish philosophers after Maimonides. It is because of the constitutional nature of his legal philosophy that I have entitled this paper, “Rabbi Nissim of * This paper was originally delivered as the seventh annual Ivan Meyer Lecture in Jewish Law at the Center for Jewish Law and Contemporary Civilization, Benjamin N.
  • The Place of Otherness and Indeterminacy in Aristotelian Science

    The Place of Otherness and Indeterminacy in Aristotelian Science

    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1997 The Place of Otherness and Indeterminacy in Aristotelian Science Joshua William Rayman Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Rayman, Joshua William, "The Place of Otherness and Indeterminacy in Aristotelian Science" (1997). Master's Theses. 4266. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/4266 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1997 Joshua William Rayman LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO THE PLACE OF OTHERNESS AND INDETERMINACY IN ARISTOTELIAN SCIENCE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BY JOSHUA WILLIAM RAYMAN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MAY 1997 Copyright by Joshua William Rayman, 1997 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION For Allison, Graham, young William Henry, and Mom and Dad TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................ v INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER ONE--OTHERNESS AND INDETERMINACY . 4 CHAPTER TWO--POTENTIAL AND MATTER........................... 53 CHAPTER THREE--THE ACCIDENTAL..................................
  • Plato, Aristotle, and the Order of Things the Pre-Socratics Athenian

    Plato, Aristotle, and the Order of Things the Pre-Socratics Athenian

    1 Plato, Aristotle, and the Order of Things 2 The Pre-Socratics ß Ionians ß Pythagoreans ß Atomists o Provided first basic outlines of the core concerns of science o Demonstrated the range of possible approaches 3 Athenian Science ß The first time we have substantial written records ß The creation of the first sustained “schools” of philosophy ß Shaped the subsequent path of science (“natural philosophy”) for about 2000 years 4 Plato ß Philosopher ß Interesting in "knowing" ß Concerned with the soul and goodness ß Rejects concern with origins or nature of the world o This is from Socrates 5 Plato ß Design the central concept ß Perfection characterizes the design of the world uPerfect motions, perfect forms in the heavens uThe earth is corrupted 6 Aristotle ß Most influential of all Greek philosophers ß Pupil of Plato ß Observer of Nature 7 Master of Logic and Argument:The Syllogism ß Premise: Humans are mortal ÿ A general rule about the world that most people will have no trouble agreeing with. ß Observation: Socrates is human ÿ A specific instance that is readily confirmed by the senses. ß Conclusion: Socrates is mortal 8 BUT--the bad syllogism: ß Premise: Your dog had puppies ß Observation: Your dog is a mother 1 ß Conclusion: Your dog is your mother 9 Observer of Nature ß Classification of species ß Important correlations ß Embryology ß Hierarchy of Nature uPlants [vegetative soul] uAnimals [animal soul] uHumans [rational soul] 10 The causes of things ß Material uWhat something is made of ß Formal uThe design or form of something ß
  • Introduction to the Principles of Vacuum Physics

    Introduction to the Principles of Vacuum Physics

    1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF VACUUM PHYSICS Niels Marquardt Institute for Accelerator Physics and Synchrotron Radiation, University of Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany Abstract Vacuum physics is the necessary condition for scientific research and modern high technology. In this introduction to the physics and technology of vacuum the basic concepts of a gas composed of atoms and molecules are presented. These gas particles are contained in a partially empty volume forming the vacuum. The fundamentals of vacuum, molecular density, pressure, velocity distribution, mean free path, particle velocity, conductivity, temperature and gas flow are discussed. 1. INTRODUCTION — DEFINITION, HISTORY AND APPLICATIONS OF VACUUM The word "vacuum" comes from the Latin "vacua", which means "empty". However, there does not exist a totally empty space in nature, there is no "ideal vacuum". Vacuum is only a partially empty space, where some of the air and other gases have been removed from a gas containing volume ("gas" comes from the Greek word "chaos" = infinite, empty space). In other words, vacuum means any volume containing less gas particles, atoms and molecules (a lower particle density and gas pressure), than there are in the surrounding outside atmosphere. Accordingly, vacuum is the gaseous environment at pressures below atmosphere. Since the times of the famous Greek philosophers, Demokritos (460-370 B.C.) and his teacher Leukippos (5th century B.C.), one is discussing the concept of vacuum and is speculating whether there might exist an absolutely empty space, in contrast to the matter of countless numbers of indivisible atoms forming the universe. It was Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who claimed that nature is afraid of total emptiness and that there is an insurmountable "horror vacui".
  • D.O.A. (Danto, Warhol, Derrida) Adam Rosen-Carole 1 the Case Is Open and Shut. Clearly, It Was a Frame Up. Yet This Tells Us

    D.O.A. (Danto, Warhol, Derrida) Adam Rosen-Carole 1 the Case Is Open and Shut. Clearly, It Was a Frame Up. Yet This Tells Us

    D.O.A. (Danto, Warhol, Derrida) Adam Rosen-Carole 1 The case is open and shut. Clearly, it was a frame up. Yet this tells us noth- ing, or next to nothing. As much as this will be a tale of the lucidity of mod- ern art and of philosophy’s insightful illumination of the logic of artistic inno- vation, indeed of convergent if competing aspirations to ideality, it will be, in a certain fashion, a murder mystery: tracking the mutual implication of death-dealing clarifications and turning on the death of the subject, the end of art, and la nature morte. None of which remain reposed in their authorita- tively pronounced passing. Thus this will be a ghost story of sorts: a tale of haunting, of survival and mutilation, of ruins and remnant forces, hence of undischargeable debts. Our main subject, if indeed there is one, and our frame, if we can speak of only one, will be complicity. “The guilt context of the living.”1 In this open and shut case, which is as much fiction as argu- ment and example, complicity is all-embracing. Dislocated already, awash in excess? Or just a middlebrow, commodi- fied rendition of the fate of high culture? Shadow-woven textures: condition and consequence of whatever light may be put into play. Dark indeed, for in this tale all are culprits. No accu- sation without self-implication: no privileged position from which to level charges and prosecute claims; no clean hands pointing to the guilty party without simultaneously implicating the accuser in a more or less symmet- COLLOQUY text theory critique 27 (2014).
  • EDITORIAL Horror Vacui

    EDITORIAL Horror Vacui

    EDITORIAL Horror Vacui Each completed issue of the Laboratories shall be encouraged to follow suit in the PJP is no small feat. The editorial upcoming issues, as NRL outputs are critical to fill in the process is not as simple as gaps in national laboratory policies. receiving articles, laying them out and sending them to press. This second issue now also features representative Additional processes, based articles for the “Review” and “Autopsy Vault” sections. on international standards, The article by Bajpai and Pardhe proposes a working are now in place in between classification for oral neoplasms with basaloid point of submission and final morphology. The submission by Lo and Lique discusses publication, to assure quality: a a clinical enigma whose rare cause was solved checklist of requirements and postmortem. Both provide important learning points forms need to be submitted at the outset; a review of for pathologists and diagnosticians. statistical methods, if applicable, need to be hurdled; a blind peer review system must be completed to help Moreover, we are happy to introduce “Diagnostic the editor arrive at a decision to either accept or reject Perspectives,” a new type of article for the PJP with a submitted manuscript; and then, there is the back characteristics in between a feature article, a case and forth communication between author and editor, report, and images in pathology. Through this, we to ensure that suggested changes are discussed and aim to feature new technologies and innovations considered. It does not end there. Between author that improve diagnostics and ultimately, clinical resubmission to final publication lie copyediting and management.
  • Daniel Rynhold MY PERSONAL JEWISH

    Daniel Rynhold MY PERSONAL JEWISH

    Daniel Rynhold Daniel Rynhold is Professor of Jewish philosophy and Dean at the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, Yeshiva University. His most recent book, coauthored with Michael J. Harris, is Nietzsche, Soloveitchik, and Contemporary Jewish Philosophy. MY PERSONAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHICAL ODYSSEY n another life, I would likely now be working in a laboratory pur- suing a research project in some branch of chemistry, which would Ihave been a noble pursuit. Instead, I am pursuing what I hope is no less a noble alternative in the world of Jewish philosophy. I men- tion this because if you will bear with the story of how I came to do what I do, which I have often spoken about but never really commit- ted to writing, it happens to be highly relevant to many of the questions on which this symposium on Jewish thought is based, in particular that of why the participants personally chose to be involved in this fi eld. I was educated and lived all my life in London, until moving to the Bernard Revel Graduate School in 2007 to take up a Jewish philoso- phy post. The British education system differs in many ways from the American system, though some elements may have changed in the past three decades, so this should not be assumed to describe the contem- porary situation. (I do not wish to upset any old friends working in Jewish education in the UK.) Three of those differences are particu- larly pertinent here. First, one specialized very early in English high schools, such that one studied just three or four subjects during years 11 and 12.
  • The Philosophy of Don Hasdai Crescas

    The Philosophy of Don Hasdai Crescas

    Hl~ ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Brittle Books Project, 2009. 296 W56p Ri _ _ r THE PHILOSOPHY OF DON HASDAJ CRESCAS COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS NEW YORK: LEMCKE & BUECHNER 30-32 EAST 20TH STREET LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD AMEN CORNER, E.C. SHANGHAI : EDWARD EVANS & SONS, LTD. 30 NORTH SZECHUEN ROAD COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ORIENTAL STUDIES VOL. XVII THE PHILOSOPHY OF DON HASDAI CRESCAS BY MEYER WAXMAN SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Qltu Pork COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1920 All rights reserved PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS NOTE A PECULIAR interest attaches to Hasdai Crescas. He swam against the current of the philosophical exposition of his day. He was bold enough to oppose the speculative reasoning of Aristotle, the man who held nearly all the philosophers in his grip during so many centuries; and, above all, he dared to criticize the introduction of Aristotelian views into the religious philosophy of his own people, even though these views were dressed in Jewish garb by the master hand of Maimonides. The current passed him by; it could not overwhelm him. In the following pages Dr. Meyer Waxman has given us a detailed and a very interesting exposition of Crescas's philosophic system; and he has added to this a comparison of Crescas's views, not only with those of Maimonides, but also with those of Spinoza. We have thus lined up for us the three greatest minds that speculative Jewish theology produced during the Middle Ages; and the means are afforded us to estimate the value of their dip into the Unknown.
  • The American Jewish Future After Immigration and Ethnicity Fade: H

    The American Jewish Future After Immigration and Ethnicity Fade: H

    religions Article The American Jewish Future after Immigration and Ethnicity Fade: H. A. Wolfson’s Analysis in 1918 Joel Perlmann Levy Economics Institute, Bard College, 30 Campus Rd, Annandale-On-Hudson, NY 12504, USA; [email protected] Received: 11 October 2018; Accepted: 14 November 2018; Published: 19 November 2018 Abstract: H. A. Wolfson arrived in the United States at 16 from the Lithuanian region of the Russian Empire and at Harvard as a freshman five years later. He remained at Harvard until his death in 1974, as Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy. Among the most important historians of western religious philosophy, he published on contemporary issues only until 1925 and even then only rarely. Nevertheless, his 1918 article, “Pomegranates”, deserves attention. Wolfson clearly followed debates about the American ethnic future. He carved out an original and unexpected position on that issue, and on the American Jewish future within that context. He perceptively rejected Horace Kallen’s views of a “multi-national America”, and like Israel Zangwill’s Melting Pot, he stressed that full cultural and political assimilation would occur in the United States. But unlike Zangwill, he argued that Jewish religious creativity would find a long-term place in American life, once freed of its national trappings. Strongly supporting a Hebraic renaissance and a Jewish homeland in Palestine, he also emphasized with great force that the “we”—the east-European Jewish intellectuals and the Zionists—had greatly misunderstood the promise of Reform Judaism for the diaspora. Keywords: American Judaism; melting pot; pluralism; assimilation; Zionism; Yiddish nationalism Harry Austryn Wolfson died in 1974 at the age of 87, having spent his life since 1908 at Harvard University.