Howard Kreisel’s titular characterization of contradictions in Maimonides’ approach to ethics deems them to be a problem. In his subsequent writing, he attempts to reconcile this issue with a series of different explanations. From my interpretation of Kreisel’s analysis, my understanding of the primary texts found in A Maimonides Reader, and my current understanding of Maimonides’ life and thought based on the works of Moshe Habertal and Ralph Lerner , I will attempt to discuss the legitimacy of theorizing that the contradictions present may serve a complex utilitarian purpose that refute the discovery of contradiction as a problem at all.
As Kreisel mentions, Maimonides was very intentional about the presence of contradictions in his writing, as evidenced by his explanation of this in the introduction to A Guide for the Perplexed. He also goes on to say, that while this may seem like transparency, there could very well still be aspects of his intention and process that he has chosen to leave unsaid. Understanding his statements in the context of the audience that the Guide was intended to reach may shed light on his usage of this rhetorical tool to aid in etching his contribution to religious and philosophical thought.
The Guide for the Perplexed was written by Maimonides for the education of his students. When the work was written, his brother had long since passed away and he spent his days mostly practicing medicine (Habertal, Ch. 1). From the background provided by Kreisel, it seems as if these explanatory measures were not the norm for Maimonides. Because his communications at this time clearly convey the immense level of pressure and stress he was feeling, I am inclined to believe that Maimonides explicitly calls attention to that which he would prefer not to acknowledge or for his reader to happen upon himself, to solidify the Guide as a credible work. It is possible that absent this caveat, his students would have interpreted the presence of contradictions as a result of his declined mental state and not as an element of his pedagogical craft.
That being said, Kreisel argues that Maimonides avoids a unified approach to communicating ethical viewpoints to
“…signal to the attentive reader that the perspective by which ethics s viewed must constantly be altered to understand the full picture. The nonperceptive reader, on the other hand, remains with the perspective most appropriate for that reader.”
This rationale thoroughly supports that Maimonides contradictions are not really an issue at all. To achieve his means, Maimonides plays his both his reader’s self-perception and moral capability and drive.
From reading his original writings on moral disposition, I sensed that there was something in his writing that was accessible to everyone. Understanding Maimonides as one of the few philosophers whose writing was made for people in all strata of society, he crafted his works to be a tool for everyone and to enact slow, but eventual change in the community by being sensitive to the orthodox views that existed and having them present, while also introducing his viewpoints subtly, intending them to permeate the consciousness of his readers over time, as he successfully has done.
I thought your suggestion that the contradictions in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed were influenced by Maimonides’ stress and pressure from the loss of his brother and his newfound financial independence to be very interesting. I had simply interpreted the contradictions as multiple layers of knowledge that are only perceptible to those with high enough intellect to understand them. As you noted, Kreisel wrote that the contradictions are used to shift one’s understanding of ethics, while those who are not able to comprehend such matters only perceive what is most obvious and easily understandable. As we know from previous readings, Maimonides always attempted to make his writings easily accessible to the masses, but he also was careful to not divulge too much information that may cause those who lack sufficient intellect to be lead astray. Perhaps Maimonides used contradictions in his writings also as a way to encourage those of high intellect to research the meanings of these contradictions for themselves, which would allow them to gain a deeper understanding of ethics that Maimonides would not have been able to include in his writings without confusing the average Jew.
In Maimonides Mishheh Torah’s laws relating to Moral Dispositions and Ethical Conduct, we can see a clear link between these laws and the philosophical precepts he put forth in The Eight Chapters. His characterization of what he calls a sick soul and his proposed remedy are identical in content between these two works. Maimonides, in these selections, emphasizes the importance of physical health, in addition to maintenance of a virtuous soul(Maimonides, 58). This emphasizes the multifaceted approach to serving God, that extends beyond ideas of spirit, and has implications in physicality.
Kreisel points out a series of examples where Maimonides’ works seem to contract themselves. One notable example of a contradiction in this sense is the example of the Nazirite, who “ is treated by him as a “sinner” for depriving himself of wine and as “holy” for doing so. (Kreisel,162). This is a deviation from his general idea of perfection existing in the middle, as informed by Aristotelian ethics. Kreisel explains this contradiction, among others, by stating that his view of ethics must constantly be altered to understand the full picture. I believe these contradictions can be further explained by the bifurcation of “body and soul” that Kreisel expands on p. 168. This shift can explain how something like the Nazir, who deprives himself wine, deviates to an extreme for the body, that can have positive ends for the soul.
I found your interpretation for Maimonides inconsistencies interesting. You pointed out that this may have been due the increased financial and social stress he experienced after the untimely death of his brother, which I something I had not thought to consider previously. While I agree that his brother’s death may have had a profound impact on his life, especially as he needed to take up the more lucrative position of physician in order to financially get by, I think that his contradicting viewpoints are more likely due to growth in understanding of what he was explaining. I think that your explanation towards the end of your response, explicating that Maimonides contradictions do not deter from his insights overall.
Xavier, your analysis of Kreisel’s essay was coherent, concise, and stimulating. Thank you for that.
I found Kreisel’s conception of Maimonides’ ethical views to be somewhat troubling. By his understanding, Maimonides thought of society as serving two purposes: first, to insure the survival of the human species; second, and more importantly, to produce perfect individuals. Indeed, this would mean that most individuals exist in order to serve the physical and social needs of the individuals who might stand to achieve perfection.
What troubles me about this interpretation is the ultimate goal that Maimonides had in mind for ethical and moral activity. To what end should society produce perfect individuals? I would assume that the justification would be that perfect individuals can achieve the highest possible knowledge of God. Even if these individuals do achieve the highest possible knowledge of God, what purpose does this serve?
I like your conclusion on the reasoning behind his contradictions, although it would be surprising if Maimonides meant to be subtle since his contradictions, and him pointing them out, seem to just underscore his radical ideas and ensure the reader notices them. I thought the connection of last unit’s reading and this week’s in regards to the balancing of traits was very interesting. One contradiction Kreisel mentions is “Ethics defined in terms of the doctrine of the mean versus ethics defined in terms of extremism” (Kreisel 162). In one of the unit 3 readings Maimonides explains that exercising extremism in a trait can be used to cure a sick soul by bringing that trait back to the mean, I wonder if that plays into this contradiction. Kreisel’s conclusion that the contradictions show how to create both individual and societal perfection is intriguing, especially since many of Maimonides rules on morality have to do with how one interacts with other people, and how one contributes to society at large.
Nice summary of the readings here, and I liked how you were able to tie in certain themes and express your reactions to the text.
Within the reading, I particularly enjoyed Kreisel’s discussing Maimonides’ blurred view of ethics. He states, “There appears to be an overall consistency in Maimonides’ approach to ethics, but each discussion focuses on a different aspect of the total picture” (Kreisel 23). I interpreted this as Maimonides is picking and choosing what he says to different groups of people. In other words, what resonates well with class A won’t necessarily be the same for class B, and Maimonides is strategically using this so he can still accomplish his goal of appealing to all people of society.
I also enjoyed reading your section on Maimonides’ avoiding a unified approach to communicating ethical view points. As you state in your conclusion, Maimonides was one of the few philosophers “whose writing was made for people in all strata of society”. In order to appeal of all people of a society, he must promote his views in different ways, which in turn creates the possibility of interpretation. This poses the question, what kind of picture are we being painted? Do the thinkers of our generation provide us with a full picture of what is truly ethical, or are we given just a sliver where other group see a totally different side?
Xavier, I really appreciated both the content and format of your response (it was presented like a discussion rather than just a summary). To me, it is quite interesting that Kreisel is so accepting of Maimonides’s contradictions; in fact, he seems to use the phrase “alternating perspectives” as a category of thought for Maimonides – something to be accepted, not challenged. While I know we have only read one author on the topic of Maimonides’s contradicting arguments, this author’s discussion makes me ask does anyone really question the validity of Maimonides’s arguments? Sure, there are contradictions in hundreds of other philosophical texts (Marx’s 1844 manuscripts call out Hegel’s contradictory arguments for knowledge, Aquinas himself states that his entire ontological argument could be logically refuted, etc.), but, in these cases, they are (usually) either critiqued by another source (Marx critiquing Hegel) or the author him/herself admits to the contradictions (Aquinas). The question that remains, for me, is why would authors simply accept these contradictions as useful (different perspectives for different situations (Kreisel)) and not challenge or truly critique their perceived utility? What if Maimonides’s arguments are contradictory because he didn’t fully support what he was writing (Adam Smith, Machiavelli, etc.) or he simply didn’t formulate a sound argument?