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.