Ariel Milewicz
Unit 3
On the Attainment of Human Excellence
In “The Eight Chapters”, Maimonides emphasizes the importance of the soul, and the concept that the soul is equally as susceptible to illness as the physical body. He suggests “A soul that produces bad and dishonorable actions or thoughts is sick and needs healing” (Maimonides, 361). His suggested of therapy for the soul is Pirke Avot. Maimonides later suggests the theory of the “golden mean” (Maimonides, 361) – a concept that looks to identify the balance between two extremes – exaggeration and deficiency (Maimonides, 368) – in the attempt to create a healthy soul. Later, he suggests the idea that a soul cannot be broken down into parts in the standard sense. He puts forth the idea that “parts” that comprise the soul are factions which refer to the activities of the soul. He emphasizes five faculties to the soul: nutritive, sensitive, imaginative, appetitive, and rational. However, Maimonides leaves one distinct question: does each activity of the soul account for equal factions of the soul or is there an unequal distribution of weight amongst them?
Similarly, in chapters two and three of Maimonides: Life and Thought, the description of the soul is heavily emphasized. The soul is characterized by moral traits; “dispositions that imbedded in the soul that manipulate the limbs to perform certain activities without prior” (Halbertal, Chapter Two). The soul is essentially what control the physical body, and those activities which comprise the soul are the most influential. The natural tendency of an action becomes natural through habituation and repetition of the action – it is not something which is innate. Does this learned behavior suggest that the soul itself is something that can be taught to behave in a particular manner, and that is what in turn controls the actions of the physical body?
Sokolow argues a similar point in “Habit and Reason in Jewish and Muslim Educational Theory”: “Actions should be habitual, and defective actions can be remedied through the performance of antagonistic actions (just as physical maladies can be cured through antagonistic remedies) thereby restoring a proper balance to the soul” (Sokolow, 24). The ease to which physical ailments are remedied is mirrored in the ease to which ailments of the soul can be remedied. This is an important concept that that further asks the question: is there a general remedy to ailments of the soul? Or is the soul more complex than the physical body, as one might assume, suggesting even more specific remedies than expected for the physical body?
In “The Adaptation of Philosophic Ethics to a Religious Community: Maimonides’ Eight Chapters”, the healing of the soul, as well as finding the middle ground for balance of the soul revolves around the concept of wisdom as a means of attaining balance: “The “wisdom” referred to in this instance is not theoretical in nature. But conduct that brings about an equilibrium within the soul manifests a form of wisdom that “restores” the soul.” It is suggested that knowledge gained has a restorative impact on the soul, allowing an individual to inch closer to the equilibrium that every person is supposed to strive to achieve.
“The Eight Chapters”, chapters two and three of Maimonides: Life and Thought, “The Adaptation of Philosophic Ethics to a Religious Community: Maimonides’ Eight Chapters”, and “Habit and Reason in Jewish and Muslim Educational Theory” all share the same emphasis on the importance of a healthy soul, in addition to or even above that of a healthy body. They do, however, vary somewhat in the distinction of what truly comprises a soul, as well as what makes a soul healthy or unhealthy.
Ariel, I enjoyed reading your post. It was well-written and insightful; good work. To address your question “does each activity of the soul account for equal factions of the soul or is there an unequal distribution of weight amongst them?”: Maimonides wrote that “transgressions and observances of the Law have their origin only in two of the faculties of the soul…the sensitive and appetitive…these two faculties alone are to be ascribed all transgressions and observances” (Maimonides, p. 365). While it is still unclear to me whether or not all of the factions of the soul are inherently equal, it is clear from this passage that the sensitive and appetitive factions inform one’s observance of the Law.
One section of “The Eight Chapters” that I found to be particularly compelling begins on page 380. In this section, Maimonides explicitly ties Greek Philosophy with the Jewish religious tradition, saying that “our Law (Jewish Law) agrees with Greek philosophy, which substantiates with convincing proofs the contention that man’s conduct is entirely in his own hands” (Maimonides, p. 380). According to Rambam, Greek philosophy and Judaism agree that free will exists. This also ties into Maimonides’ explanation of virtue. “Obedience or disobedience to the Law of God does not depend upon the power or will of God, but solely upon that man himself” (Maimonides, p. 382). God only controls things in the natural world, such as gravity, in a predetermined way: it is predetermined that when one throws a rock up, it will return back to the ground. Since man has the ability to act morally or immorally as he chooses, “it becomes necessary to teach him the ways of righteousness, to command and exhort him, to punish and reward him according to his deserts” (Maimonides, p. 384). In my eyes, this section is a very compelling justification for laws without a clear rationale, such as the ceremonious Jewish laws.
I really appreciated how you summarized each of the readings and denoted ambiguous sections of the texts. With regards to your questions, “is there a general remedy to ailments of the soul? Or is the soul more complex than the physical body, as one might assume, suggesting even more specific remedies than expected for the physical body?” I would say that, according to the texts, knowledge of G-d seems to be the ultimate cure for the soul, but similar to bodies, specific ailments of the soul are “cured” by specific remedies. For instance, someone who is inflicted by greed would need to practice actions of generosity until it becomes habitual for him/her to be generous. As Sokolow wrote, “dispositions are implanted by the repetition of certain activities” (Sokolow, p.23). However, similar to overdosing on medication, too much of a good thing can become harmful, as is noted in chapter three of Maimonides: Life and Thought. Taking good deeds to extremes, such as giving away everything you own, is also harmful both to yourself and to others who may attempt to emulate your behavior (Halbertal, p.158).
Good job on making such a good, concise summary of the readings! The soul seems to be treated much like a body by Maimonides, in that we have great influence over its state. This would suggest that the answer to your question “is the soul more complex than the physical body, as one might assume, suggesting even more specific remedies than expected for the physical body?” is no. Just as the soul is easily susceptible to illness like the body, as you point out, so to are the cures similar. Maimonides suggests that you monitor the soul much like the body, and pursue cures in the same manner. He says when one’s soul is ill “it is proper for him to resort to a cure exactly as he would were his body suffering from an illness” (Twersky 369). Rambam continues by saying that that, a soul’s illness is like a physical ailment in that one can “force it to go in exactly the opposite direction until it shall return to its proper condition” (Twersky 369). The “it” being the body or the soul, both receive the similar treatment. Forcing your soul in the opposite direction means acting in such a way that is the complete opposite of whatever incorrect actions you were taking. Then, once you have forced soul enough you can reach Maimonides’ balance in whichever characteristic you were correcting. Maimonides must have seen treating the body and soul as very similar. Perhaps Maimonides’ perceived similarity between treatment of the soul and the body is what led him to become a physician.
Ariel, this was a well-developed analysis, integrating the main points of the pieces in this unit.
While in the Eight Chapters Maimonides does go into detail on ailments of the soul, he does give a proposed solution to curing these ailments, that may be intellectually rooted in the teachings of Pirke Avot. His definition of ailments of the soul are simple, and they are a belief that the good is bad, and that the bad is good. This is an operation that lies externally of the “mean between two reprehensible extremes”(Maimonides 368). The solution Maimonides puts forth is based on the fact that the only way to acquire both these moral excellences and defects are “frequent repetition of acts resulting from these qualities, which practiced over a long period of time grow us accustomed to them. By repeated practice, Maimonides seems to imply that our internal compass will gradually shift towards the mean and attain human excellence by this. Contrastingly, he points to instances where adhering to extremes can lead to positive ends, citing “some of the pious ones deviated to one extreme by fasting, keeping nightly vigils… renouncing sexual intercourse, dwelling in the mountains and wandering about in the wilderness, as a means of restoring health to their souls” (Maimonides, 371). This points to his belief that excellence residing in the mean is not intrinsically virtuous, and instances of operating outside this scope can have positive benefits. These acts were replicated by commoners, and these instances were not virtuous and indeed negative actions, according to Rambam.
According to Weiss, this view of morality is deeply rooted in Aristotelian ethics, informed to the Rambam by way of Alfarrabi. Maimonides cites ancient and contemporary philosophers in his discussion, likely alluding to these two sources. He transforms these classic philosophical works into a religious text by incorporating, sometimes artificially, biblical verses. The first chapter, according to Weiss, is almost wholly an adaptation of Nichomachean Ethics, capped off with one simple biblical quote.
Ariel, first and foremost you did a great job including all of the readings and sharing insight on details of each one. One aspect of your response that I enjoyed was that you left us with questions to think about regarding significance of the points that are made in the text. To start off my response, I want to acknowledge the first question you ask, “does each activity of the soul account for equal factions of the soul or is there an unequal distribution of weight amongst them? It’s hard to fully answer whether or not various aspects of the soul are equal to one another. While we do learn that the sensitive and the appetitive faculties, “are to be ascribed all transgressions and observances” (Maimonides 365) no where does it go into detail regarding the weighting of all of the faculties. In my opinion, all divisions of the soul are equal unless there is harm done to one faculty that may cause a disruption in the balance. It is through the process of rehabilitation the soul that this balance is restored and all facets of the soul are performing their individual tasks in helping the human being thrive.
I also want to dive into the first part of the second question you ask, “does this learned behavior suggest that the soul itself is something that can be taught to behave in a particular manner?”. Based on the early part of the text in Eight Chapters, Maimonides gives insight that there is in fact a particular way that the soul should behave based on his describing the curing of the soul. He states, “he who tries to cure the soul, wishing to improve the moral qualities, must have a knowledge of the soul in its totality and its parts, must know how to prevent it from becoming diseased, and how to maintain its health” (Maimonides 364). The fact that the soul needs to be corrected in certain instances sheds light on the fact that there is a correct type of behavior for the soul. To cure the soul and maintain its health moving forward, a human being must study the soul and all of its parts.
Ariel, both your summaries of the texts and the questions you posited were well-structured and were centered nicely within the topic of the ‘mean soul’/ human excellence. To address your first question, I believe the faculties of the soul are weighted in many ways – all dependent on the human that possesses the soul. If the soul is taught to behave in a particular manner (to address your second question a little early) and no individual soul receives the same amount of knowledge, yet are all susceptible to “intelligent deliberation” to “attain its realization” (Halbertal, 138) through knowledge gained by free will (thus, the ability to choose what knowledge is taken into the construction of the soul), no soul’s faculties can be weighted the same as another’s. To address this text itself, Maimonides’s discussion of the “golden mean” is particularly interesting as it acts as a motif seen in many philosophical texts (Aristotle’s Eudaimonia, Hegel’s Ultimate Knowledge, etc.), yet its religious undertones set it apart; both Aristotle’s and Hegel’s discussions of this “mean” or “human excellence” are rooted in rationality and reason. Maimonides’s argument being rooted in another ‘Ultimate,’ however, replaces rationality and reason (both produced by the transcendence of the human in and of himself) with an externality (a god).
As for your second question, I believe the answer lies in whether (a) the soul/ human disposition is innate and, if this is the case, (b) how static these dispositions are. If human dispositions are learned and nothing is innate (a pragmatic argument), the answer to your question is yes – because the physical body and its actions are a consequence of the soul, the type of soul created through this increase in knowledge would be the origin for these physical actions. If these dispositions are, in fact, innate, the answer would depend on the nature of the disposition – is it able to be easily altered (likely, as humans possess free will), or is it a will that is more “sticky.”
Wonderful summary and analysis, Ariel! While reading, I found myself wondering whether or not the mean is meant to be the aim for everyone from Maimonides’ perspective. The functionality of exaggeration or deficiency is in part to “overcorrect” souls who have gone too far in one direction or another, as his writing suggests. I also think there is some legitimacy to certain characteristics not fitting within the mean, but I think Maimonides realizes that very few people will be able to actually achieve this balance, much less make that extra step. Much of his writings acknowledge or are tailored to a society where many have a lot of work to do in terms of putting this practice into action. What do you think it would look like to live in a society where the golden mean was a widespread achievement?