Following the Leader

By: Jonathan Seidel

Schwarzschild and modern rationalism

Kellner notes that his teacher Steven Schwarzschild was the last of the medieval philosophers. What Saadia took from the Kalam, Ibn Gabirol from neoplatonism, Maimonides from Aristotelianism, Schwarzschild took from neo-kantianism. This also loops back to Harvey’s conclusion the the return of maimonideanism was incomplete. Each of the thinkers posed a wretched version of Maimonides. It was Schwarzschild alone who saved the sage.

Schwarzschild following the Kantian ideal pursuing reason as the end all be all. Like Maimonides, science and Torah were linked in a symbiotic relationship. Yet in this relationship unlike Nahmanides school, the Torah does not teach science but values. Science is read back into the Torah. In a myriad of existential religiosity, he returned to the medieval rationality. For him, the copernican revolution did not change the ethos of Maimonidean philosophy. Faith is rational conviction. A logically deduced identity, one Abraham met in his search for the grand deity. The intellectual link is the baseline of religious connection. 

For Schwarzschild, Judaism is a set of rational truths—philosophical truths. There is a systematic identity. God is rationally squared in the equation. A rational agent is a dire necessity in the realm of naturalist fallacies. The world itself is not the truth but a fragmented fixture of what it ought to be. Ethical commitment is via the halakha as a barometer of said expression. There is a valuational tug to legal affiliation. It is not merely for divine appeasement but for an ethical concretisation. Even his messianic vision is a moral scion to instruct people, not some miraculous divine salvation. 

He goes even deeper in systemising Judaism as a religion against Christianity. Asserting that it was Christianity that first introduced a creedal structure but Judaism’s talmudic paradigm. It is by its own regard a self-sufficient system. It is the rational ethic that leads to the overturning of social inequality. The goal of halakha as is of ethics is to an ultimate ideal of perfection. The messianic eschatology is though a natural transformation, is also a revolutionary ethic. The messianic future is not a supernatural eden but a serene society of halakhic expression to further growth. 

Schwarzschild mirrors the exoteric indoctrination of Maimonides. The esoteric frame is appropriated by Leibowitz but isn’t dead on. It is hard to discern at times which is the real Maimonides accepting this esoteric frame. Though even with the esoteric model, the Straussian Maimonides is not the genuine model. Maimonides was not a politician and was concerned more with Jewish law and philosophy. I do not find it conjecture to refer to his students as radical exponents of his view when Maimonides clearly acknowledges his veil and their congruency. Maimonides was a part of a long history. Authentic Maimonideanism is Andalusian religiosity. 

What does this look like? There are a few ways of looking at this. I do not think we should prioritise the Mishneh Torah over the Guide but it is apparent that especially if the Mishneh Torah was intentionally for the masses and the Guide not only for the elite but also dialectical should it be the true character. If this is the case than the tribute to the Guide will be the best source of confirmation. Though it does seem that the most hidden ideas are the theological manifestations. Most of his intellectual extravagance was not original nor unique. Much of contemporaries felt similarly. Though they may not have been as vocal as Maimonides was, there are traces of his primal intellectualism throughout. 

Such a model of Judaism is not incoherent with Judaism. There are aspects of his thought namely the Aristotelian factors that are more or less obsolete given the scientific revolution but his attitude towards science and reason need not be. The rational model is primary in its outlook on reality. Judaism is a model of growth and expression. Halakha is that manifestation. Even the agnostic can find similarities with Maimonides. Maimonides God is foreign, he demystified Judaism and canonised tradition. There is no one more formidable nor more perfect adversary than him. 

A Jew who professes reason in the highest regard, an intellectual hellbent on articulating religiosity in philosophical truths and an ardent law abiding citizen seems to be a maimonidean in its own right. There are obvious other parts of Maimonides’ thought that are to be argued with. Aristotle is one and his codex another. Yet, context is important. Though he may have put too much faith in Aristotle’s physics, it may be better to characterise his inadequacy as a model of scientific progress. Furthermore, its less his principles themselves and more the scientific explanation that is to be rejected. His canonisation followed an obstruction in halakhic conviction especially after the demise of Andalusian Jewry. His code though was impassioned as a pocket legal handbook and did not seek to replace the Talmudic dialectical manifest. 

What is a modern Maimonidean? Harvey’s lack of maimonieanism does not mean that such a persona is impossible. Kellner articulates a “qualified maimonideanism”. Hartman marks a typified rationalism away from the growing thread of existentialism yet his rationalism is less, not syllogistic and more intuitive as Kant reprimanded. Again though not impossible, a modern rationalist surviving the Jamesian critique and the existentialist power. Maimonides’ rationalism is either a product of his time including all Andalusia or rationalism is the essence of Jewish philosophy.  

Seeskin’s maimonidean philosophy attempts to apply, the great philosopher to the modern world. He offers a substantial synthesis of negative theology and divine transcendence in the modern age. Despite the falter of Aristotelian physics and Kantian metaphysics, there is still a maimonidean core of human limitations and ethical perseverance. Though this is tenable, similar to Hartman, Seeskin does not  articulate a syllogistic theology. Even Cohen’s maimonideanism is limited in its critical formulation. What makes Aristotle’s formulation so rational is his form of reasoning. Still the logos is possible in cultivating a modern maimonideanism. 

Such an individual breaths reason and scientific study. It is the engagement in pure philosophy as a method connecting with a valuational end. Knowledge is a link to God and to the universe at large. Religion is the agent of development through legal expression. Rationality is an unsettled mind grinding for a deeper understanding and impassioned future. The goal is its utility to better society at large. Maimonideans do have some radical theological positions given the theological nature but it matures into a human agency of providence and sustenance for humanity.