(Once again I am using the title of his major work to introduce a philosopher, in this case, Gersonides (1288-1344), also known as Ralbag, the standard acronym for Rabbi Levi ben Gerson, which is, of course, his full name.)
Gersonides is a mildly interesting philosopher, and I recommend that my reader take a look at his works. It is not my intention, however, to engage in an exercise in the history of Jewish philosophy for philosophy’s sake. It has been noted by most historians of philosophy that Gersonides has had the dubious distinction of being probably the most vilified philosopher of all, vilified by his own, I may add, for desecrating the Torah (!!!) by his intense rationalism. In his magnum opus Milhamot Hashem (Wars of Hashem), he writes this:
"We must believe what reason has determined to be true. If the literal sense of the Torah differs from reason, it is necessary to interpret those passages in accordance with the demands of reason… If reason causes to affirm doctrines that are incompatible with the literal sense of Scripture, we are not prohibited by the Torah to pronounce the truth on these matters, for reason is not incompatible with the true understanding of the Torah."
I am not the biggest fan of rationalist extremism, as I believe that irrationalism is entitled to an equal share in the composition of our mental faculties. For this reason, I find Gersonides wrong in his basic assertions. But this criticism of him does not prevent me from admiring this great scholar (he was also a mathematician and astronomer of note), whose intellectual integrity (whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant, as all thinkers have always been wrong in something) turned him into a virtual heretic in the eyes of his fellow Jews, yet he knew better than to be a conformist. He was an uncompromising fighter for his convictions. For all I know, he did not have to go all the way, allowing his stubborn belief in reason to challenge the truthfulness of the ultimate Jewish (and Christian) authority, arousing indignation and consequent vilification of him and of his philosophical labor.
My more specific admiration goes to his rejection of fundamentalism, that is, of the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to which rejection I fully subscribe, through the argument presented by me in the entry Christian Fundamentalism And The Parables Of Jesus, among others, in the Religion section.
...And finally, as the reader may have noticed already, I just love the underdog!
Gersonides is a mildly interesting philosopher, and I recommend that my reader take a look at his works. It is not my intention, however, to engage in an exercise in the history of Jewish philosophy for philosophy’s sake. It has been noted by most historians of philosophy that Gersonides has had the dubious distinction of being probably the most vilified philosopher of all, vilified by his own, I may add, for desecrating the Torah (!!!) by his intense rationalism. In his magnum opus Milhamot Hashem (Wars of Hashem), he writes this:
"We must believe what reason has determined to be true. If the literal sense of the Torah differs from reason, it is necessary to interpret those passages in accordance with the demands of reason… If reason causes to affirm doctrines that are incompatible with the literal sense of Scripture, we are not prohibited by the Torah to pronounce the truth on these matters, for reason is not incompatible with the true understanding of the Torah."
I am not the biggest fan of rationalist extremism, as I believe that irrationalism is entitled to an equal share in the composition of our mental faculties. For this reason, I find Gersonides wrong in his basic assertions. But this criticism of him does not prevent me from admiring this great scholar (he was also a mathematician and astronomer of note), whose intellectual integrity (whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant, as all thinkers have always been wrong in something) turned him into a virtual heretic in the eyes of his fellow Jews, yet he knew better than to be a conformist. He was an uncompromising fighter for his convictions. For all I know, he did not have to go all the way, allowing his stubborn belief in reason to challenge the truthfulness of the ultimate Jewish (and Christian) authority, arousing indignation and consequent vilification of him and of his philosophical labor.
My more specific admiration goes to his rejection of fundamentalism, that is, of the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to which rejection I fully subscribe, through the argument presented by me in the entry Christian Fundamentalism And The Parables Of Jesus, among others, in the Religion section.
...And finally, as the reader may have noticed already, I just love the underdog!
No comments:
Post a Comment