Noah Brooker
Unit 8: Learning How to Read
Maimonides’ introduction to The Guide of the Perplexed,begins with the establishment of its purpose. However, with close examination, the reader can see that the entire introduction is rife with contradictions. Maimonides states that the guide seeks to explain equivocal terms or obscure parables, but he also makes clear that people are “unable to explain with complete clarity and coherence even the portion that (one) has apprehended.” (Twersky, 239). Additionally, Maimonides references that, ‘proper explanation,’ would lead to both “a state of perplexity,” and deliverance from perplexity. Then, in discussing the structure of the guide, Mamonides mentions chapters “in which there will be no mention of an equivocal term” (Twersky ,241), but then explains how a reader of these chapters might find that “the contrary of the truth is sometimes believed” (Twersky, 241) because of presence of the equivocality of terms.
I personally found that the more closely I read the introduction, the more I could identify contradictions, which, left me feeling… perplexed.
Maimonides also lists seven causes for contradiction or contrary statements, in general, and then identifies two (the fifth and seventh) that appear in his treatise:
- “The fifth cause arises from the necessity of teaching and making someone understand.” (245).
- “The seventh cause: in speaking about very obscure matters it is necessary to conceal some parts and to disclose other.” (Twersky, 245).
The necessity of teaching requires that obscure matters, be addressed by the teacher, but only to provide a basic understanding of that matter so that it can be used as a premise for others. To facilitate discussion, contradictions are necessary for the procession of certain discussions, however, those contradictions must never be revealed to ‘the vulgar.’
So, the introduction of the guide consists of several contradictions, explanation for those contradictions, and then the acknowledgment that those contradictions are concealed from the many. The brilliance of this introduction, then, is that it shows the nature of the guide rather than explicitly saying what it is. Maimonides says that the reader is supposed to gain an explanation/understanding of the terms and parables in Jewish works, while acknowledging that explaining these things is essentially impossible. Maimonides also states that contradictions exist and are necessary in his work, while simultaneously insisting that those contradictions must not be revealed to most people. It appears Maimonides intends to explain the purpose and ‘nature’ of his treatise by establishing these contradictions, which I believe indicates that the existence and purpose of the guide is to make known these contradictions to the people who can identify them. In this sense, then, Maimonides seems to ‘encourage’ perplexity, so long as it is ‘guided’ towards the true reality of God.
In chapter seven of “Maimonides, Life and Thought,” Moshe Halbertal addresses the issues of the stated purposes and contradictions in the guide. He explains that “the genuine addressee of the treatise will understand on his own what he needs to understand and what he properly may understand.” (277). This indicates that a level of self-understanding is necessary, which only partially elucidates the guide because it does not directly reveal the nature of that self-understanding. However, the fact that the understanding can come “on his own,” is telling. First, it implies that proper ‘understanding’ is not communicable because of the limitations of language: “that language is defective in the most fundamental structure of its sentences, made up of subject and predicate.” (298). Therefore, to convey an understanding of God through language would be nearly impossible, as the necessity for object and action defies the Unity of God. Furthermore, trying to explain God as anything other than ‘one,’ is also akin to heresy because any adjectives that might be used in this endeavor “impairs not only the pure concept of unity but also the sublimity of God and his absolute otherness from the world.” (298). I believe that self-understanding, then, involves one’s certainty in the unity of God. This partially explains the contradiction of the purpose and intent of the guide itself: If one has not established for themselves the unity of God, he/she will be perplexed in attempting to understand the nature of God. If one wants to believe in God, he/she will become satisfied with a false understanding of God. If one holds a steadfast belief in the idea of the unity of God without learning matters of science and philosophy, he/she will lack the ability to appreciate the significance of what it means for God to be one. However, with the absolute belief in the unity of God and knowledge of human science, one can use the guide of the perplexed to contemplate God without getting ‘lost.’
I think this is reflected in Halbertal’s interpretation as well. In describing Jacob’s ascent and descent of a ‘ladder’ as an example of the proper pursuit of knowledge of God, Halbertal summarizes that, “at the top of the heavenward ladder, a person realizes that the only thing he is able to apprehend is God’s movement within reality, and in the wake of that realization, he returns to reality as an active participant.” (311). Here we see that the highest point of knowledge comes with a precise understanding of our inability to ‘know,’ and that we can observe the workings of God through being in the world.
In Abraham Socher’s commentary on Amos Funkenstein’s analysis of Maimonides’ historical reasoning, we can see a more comprehendible rationalization of Maimonides’ unique method. It is clear, now, that “the strangeness and opacity of such biblical religion is precisely a result of its historical success in eradicating all but the faintest traces of the cultures with which it was engaged.” (pg. 13). Maimonides understands the necessity of tradition and observance, but disagrees with the notion that any innate quality of these aspects of religion can by itself lead one to truth. Maimonides is likely aware as well, that while most people are incapable of discerning God’s truth, they will still attempt to understand God. With this knowledge, Maimonides had to address the needs of both ‘continuing’ and ‘understanding’ religion. To do this he essentially had to conceal the truth from the people that are not already aware of it.
My question for discussion revolves around Maimonides’s insistence that people do not speak about the guide. I do not doubt that Maimonides was aware that people would break this rule, but my confusion surrounds the reason for the rule itself. On one hand, because it is impossible to transmit one’s understanding through language, it makes sense that Maimonides would encourage people not to attempt to do so. On the other hand, with the notion that “silence is praise,” it seems that the prohibition of discussion is because discussion of God is inherently heretical (language issue). So, when Maimonides says not to speak of his guide, does he do so to: protect the truth? Imply truth by reiterating the impossibility of describing God? A mixture of both? Or something completely different?
The contradictions that come with Maimonides trying to explain God stems from the impossibility to do so because He is so beyond us. Like trying to understand a three-dimensional world as a two-dimensional being, it is inherently impossible. Man’s inability to fully comprehend God and explain Him is a an idea of Maimonides’ that we have talked about before. Like you say, the highest point of knowledge leads to the conclusion that it is impossible to ‘know’ God. A prohibition on discussion of The Guide may simply be to prevent people from thinking that they understand God. Maimonides is very clear that it is not possible to completely know God, but by speaking about The Guide others may begin to believe that they do know God without reading the book. The entirety of the book is necessary so that one knows that it is impossible to know God. So it is possible that Maimonides prohibits speaking about The Guide to protect what he believed to be the truth about God from being corrupted by being misrepresented and misunderstood when spoken about without context..
Great job summarizing the readings for this week. To address your question about the prohibition of the discussion of the guide, I agree with Ben that the necessity of this is based in the understanding that God is so much more than what the human brain is able to perceive. The purpose behind the guide is to give as great an explanation possible of God, while dually attempting to get the point across that man is unable to fully understand the depth of God, and should not attempt to do so. The concept that one should not speak about the guide is to further prevent confusion from occurring. If something can only be understood to a degree, it is important to understand beforehand that there is a limit to which knowledge exists. As you pointed out, the most that an intellectual can learn is that they possess an inability to fully understand God. I wonder whether this principle is something that Maimonides picked up from greek philosophers, or whether this is something that was, and remains, unique to the jewish faith,
Noah, this interpretation was quite impressive and I feel that I better understand the introduction to the guide given your explanation that the introduction does not explicitly state what the guide is; rather it shows the nature of the guide.
To answer your question with my own thinking: One must not discuss the guide because one will gain nothing from a discussion of the guide. One must remove all distractions before one is able to contemplate the guide and its contradictions. A discussion with another person yields many distractions, therefore it can be difficult to achieve contemplation in the company of another person. To me, it is a similar concept to prayer, about which Maimonides wrote that one must be completely concentrated and without any distraction in order to accomplish true prayer.
Noah, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this week’s readings, and appreciated the way that you summarized each of the readings and connected their central themes in your discussion questions. Regarding these questions, I believe that Maimonides insisted that people do not speak about the Guide of the Perplexed so that the rationalities are not misunderstood when they are discussed in front of those who would not be capable of understanding them independently. In addition, Maimonides probably did not want rationalities of divine law to be misconstrued when passed from person to person. Instead of deriving meaning from the original source, people may begin to rely on the unreliable interpretations of others. I personally disagree with the notion of not discussing the Guide with others. Yes, it may lead people to develop false beliefs, but it can also elevate those who are already capable of a high level of understanding to gain an even greater level of understanding collectively. After all, most Rabbinic laws and interpretations are developed from a group of scholars, not just a single individual. Since different people have different perspectives and ways of understanding, it would make sense that the highest human form of understanding could only be achieved by collaboratively thinking and debating.
Noah, you did a great job summarizing the readings, and I liked how you left all of us with some questions to ponder at the end. To answer your question, I think that Maimonides says to not speak of The Guide due to the sheer complexity of God. This is often something that slips my mind when reading this text, since Maimonides portrays God to be so believable and real. In reality, God is such an ambiguous figure and can never be figured out as he is totally above everything that we know. In your post, I particularly like when you mention the fact that the highest point of all knowing is when someone comprehends that it is impossible to know God. Maimonides does make it clear, however, that in order to come to this realization, one must first read The Guide. Initially, I said that Maimonides does not speak of The Guide due to the sheer complexity of God, but I believe that it is also to protect The Guide. If Maimonides told everyone about The Guide, then no one would have to read it to come to the final conclusion that it is impossible to know God.
Great analysis, Noah! Upon reading your question for discussion, I actually think our blog answers that question in the 5th section where you state, “To facilitate discussion, contradictions are necessary for the procession of certain discussions, however, those contradictions must never be revealed to ‘the vulgar.’” This is a central point of Maimonides’ pedagogical technique, as we have seen in our studies thus far. I think it is also possible to deduce from our reading that The Guide was the work in which he was much more transparent about his contradictions due to the purpose of the work itself. Because of this, I believe his protection of the work might be to achieve the end mentioned in the section I’ve quoted from your blog above. In short, I think Maimonides wanted to prevent the discussion and dissemination of The Guide so that the contradictions to protect the contradictions from being revealed to ‘the vulgar’ and false opinions being formed.
Noah, this was a very well written analysis – good job! To answer your question, I believe his reasoning in prohibiting discussion of The Guide is centered mostly in “protecting the truth” and the exclusivity of the philosophical ideas that are imbedded in this text. Essentially, most non-readers of The Guide would not have the abilities to process much of what is conveyed; we have discussed many times in this class how Maimonides’ works are largely inspired by Aristotelian thought. For Maimonides, the study of philosophical thought (including Aristotelian thought) was one of the highest ‘steps’ of intellectual achievement. Common listeners of The Guide, if it was discussed orally, are not likely to have reached the level of philosophical inquiry and thought that Maimonides intends.