Misunderstood Beauty

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Solomon Ibn Gabriel’s early kabbalah: an early response to philosophy

Solomon Ibn Gabirol was a famed philosopher and poet. His work was more neoplatonic and posited a more mystical version of Judaism. Yet his form of neoplatonism was inherently linked to the rational mind in the Andalusian heritage. His neoplatonic nature couched rational intellect in mystical features. 

Ibn Gabirol is a fascinating character for his “secular work”. His fame was altered in a misreading of his name. He is the philosopher, Avicebron who was readily engaged throughout the Middle Ages, one of the pivotal influences on scholasticism and was hailed as a Christian saint. His philosophical work Fons Vitae was mostly ignored in the Jewish world but his poetry was heavily regarded. There are similarities between the two but his poetry quoted biblical texts while his treatise did not. The Jewish reluctance may be from its neoplatonic character: most of the Jewish scholars were Aristotelian with a strong rational mind. The mystical art emerging from his neoplatonic philosophy was at odds with the community, alternatively it may just have been its lack of biblical material that riddled its disinterest. Halevi’s Jewish mentioning maintained its relevance within the religious world mainly amongst kabbalists and anti-rationalists following the anti-maimonidean polemics. Shadal and Rosenzweig were particularly indebted. Ibn Gabirol did influence kabbalists but his lack of Jewish input isolated him to the margins. Though ironically for many, they followed Halevi’s reasoning in light of a particular situation and then bemoaned his Andalusian heritage by mocking Maimonides.

His neoplatonism does put him at odds with the rest of his community. He was known to be a loner and though initially part of an intellectual group, transitioned to an anti-social isolationism. This just may have been his personality or his thinking alienated him from society as a whole. He simply saw the world differently and it affected him greatly. Think about being a Boston Red Sox fan in New York but everything is baseball. The sensus comminus of Andalusia was nuanced aristotelianism that which he disagreed. He drew from Plato, a more mystically inclined model. A model that influenced the original merkavah mysticism and kabbalah in the ensuing generations.    

His mysticism is apparent but to associate any Kabbalistic notations is a farce. He was not a proto-zoharist thinker nor really much mystical cosmology altogether. His mysticism needs to be understood coherently instead of marking later mystical additions. His existentialism is quite apparent but beyond his own spirituality, he does construct cosmological forms of celestial reality. Yet this is far different than the kabbalistic tradition. This did not stop later kabbalists from referring to his work. The Zohar and even Remak quote his philosophical work. Though his poetic work is filled with biblical imagery there is no mystical trend. He also belonged to the school of demythologisers who though quoting biblical imagery meant it more allegorically. The mystical neoplatonism did not erase his scientific rationality nor his Andalusian heritage.  

Before venturing into his Andalusian influence, his neoplatonic mission was fruitful in its mission to understand homo-teleology. This transforms into a measure of metaphysical exploration to the best life. Thus his Fons Vitae is a philosophical treatise alone for humanity at large. Though there may be Jewish gems, it was a universal application, instead of a Jewish targeted market. Metaphysics is the pursuit of ultimate knowledge to properly develop the self. Indeed, the book is abstract touching on the complexity of form and matter but its underlying goal is to offer a solid solution. It is through his neoplatonic venture of “return to the one” digging into his theology of discerning the infinite. Human perfection leads to understanding God.  

His theological complexity may result from the tension between his fellow community and his neoplatonic interest. He defines God as absolute unity, a concept kabbalah holds tight and one that Maimonides accepted. His apophatic theology is also reminiscent of Maimonides and the Andalusian school including Bahya ibn Pakuda and Halevi. He was not the only one exposed to neoplatonism—Ibn Pakuda and Ibn Ezra formulated their cosmologies as such but their Andalusian rationalism like Ibn Gabirol affected their mystical inclination. Still, platonic themes were prevalent even in Maimonides. The Andalusian identity was not one of pure Aristotelianism and its seeming combination points to a fascinating synthesis between the two. 

Moving to his opinions. He advocated for creation ex nihilo in line with traditional Judaism, though not in the details. His emanation theory though unclear if of just the cosmos or God himself echoes in Maimonides and Gersonides work. Yet, it is the poetic style that postulates his surprising esotericism. Each of the Andalusian thinkers wrote esoterically: Maimonides’ dialectics Ibn Ezra’s secrets and Halevi’s dialogue (these may not be so novel given Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle’s dialectics). Each hid their controversial or most probably oral views in cryptic format. The style was vibrant and continuous. Ibn Gabirol was no outlier in this department. Ibn Gabirol’s esoteric style is in his poetic flair. For creation, his allegorical Eden, her waters are pure matter at the core of the unfolding cosmos. Existence is the river linking all to an overflowing source. This poetic style may evoke a particular image which may coincide with creation or collide with it. The poetic style may be the esotericism visualising a deeper idea of God himself emanating but such an idea is so profound, it needs to be allegorised. This also may point to rabbinic allegorisation as a model of esotericism. Knowing that both the sages and Ibn Gabirol demythologised allegories is not just scientific but rational and symbolic. 

Ibn Gabirol’s neoplatonism is similar to Halevi’s. The voice of dialogue demonstrates a particular style of education. Fons Vitae though constructed differently in the manner of teacher and student is filled with a reassuring mantra. It is this literary style that may identically measure his esotericism. It is not the allegorical messaging alone but the dialogical format that couches his scientific rationalism. Instead of a curious king, it’s a talented student (though potentially arrogant which would be intentionally polemical) and his teacher. Ironically, it is presented as a dialectic. The student is Aristotelian and the master is neoplatonic. The back and forth dialogue of master-student mentality: the student namely keeping to his position convinced by the master and then returning to his original position—that akin to Saadia in one example—affirms a competing reality. 

One explanation to explain this style may be a polemic against his community especially given his isolation. He was the master trying to avert the Aristotelian prowess from the stubborn community by convincing them otherwise. Alternatively, following the Andalusian trend, this was a dialectical dialogical model (again like Halevi but more bluntly obvious). He was between two worlds trying to navigate the different cosmologies, was the student who was terribly influenced by neoplatonic theology against his Andalusian heritage which was more in line with Aristotle, or was presenting the insufficiencies of neoplatonic philosophy through the student’s criticism forcing his master to succinctly argue his ideas. Whatever the rationale the poetic style is esoterically written.

If Strauss’ theory of esoteric writing is correct and it follows that this esotericism is not theo-political but oral, hinting to the sensus comminus. His true views would be Aristotelian or at least nuanced but semantically phrased neoplatonic-ly. The question must be raised, why foremost write in a neoplatonic manner? If my theory is incorrect then he was simply drawn to that philosophy but if not and seemingly there enough dialectical evidence to prove otherwise, the query of why remains apparent. The historical point works nicely for Halevi who was responding to a certain individual while for Ibn Gabirol, it is not so clear. Just like for Halevi, the king’s attitude was important for his dialogue—that of anti-philosophy, so too for Ibn Gabirol. In a similar regard, Andalusia was the community of intellectualised Jews and it was these islamic neoplatonic thinkers like Avicenna and Al-Farabi “platonising” the area. Even Maimonides’ aristotelianism is limited. Maimonides attacks Aristotle personally. He believes certain elements to be true but isn’t afraid to criticise. Halevi’s philosophical polemic was not directed towards Maimonides but to his islamic contemporaries.

For Ibn Gabirol, rationalism and science are the apex of achievement and cannot be inconsistent with religious truth. Though he does add the caveat of will, training the senses and the like. God is incorporeal and so are the layer worlds. Unlike the later mystic writers, Will takes on a cosmic role. His nuanced neoplatonism of emanating stages structures metaphysics in a rational manner away from the mysticism of neoplatonism. It is the rejection of the standard philosophical schools that all realms are of form and matter. He may have been affected by neoplatonic discussions but his pushback on its philosophy, his personal coordination of the matter jives well with Andalusian Judaism. 

Ibn Gabirol’s philosophical treatise follows the trend set throughout Jewish Andalusia, to write esoterically. To couch orality in a unique manner. The scientific rationalism passed down from geonim maintained its strong hold on Spanish religiosity including him. Even for a seeming neoplatonic thinker, the plain reading that of the kabbalists to his religiosity were the same anti-maimonideans tormenting Maimonides. The peshat interpretation misunderstands Ibn Gabirol and his Andalusian heritage.