Resurrecting the Long Dead

 

The revival of metaphysics: jewish epistemology from within. 

History is known to repeat itself. It isn’t always identical but there are similar trends that recur in circular fashion. In a previous essay I argued against metaphysical doctrines in favour of metaphysical values. I continued this trend in denying/ignoring the dogmatic aspects of Judaism. For me, the biblical model though does not deny, it is absent from literature. As Berman noted, there was no such thing as belief before Christianity. Christianity was the fist to invent a creed and this subsequently spurred Judaism with the influence of Islam to construct its own, famously Maimonides’ thirteen principles. In the modern century, Hume, Kant among others rejected metaphysics as a meaningless discipline. Yet, most Jews held on to the Maimonidean legacy. With the exception of Leibowitz there has not been a renowned thinker who has outright rejected metaphysics. Some compromised but only to an extent. 

The dogma has remained looming large over Jewish thought, yet many believers have lost touch with it. For this reason, I’ve written extensively on my halakhico-centric model. Halakha is the hallmark of Jewish expression and identity for the past two thousand years historically. Jewish life is encompassed by adherence to the halakha. Whether or not Jews have kept halakha since Sinai is irrelevant. They obeyed some sort of halakha especially into the rabbinic period. On the other hand there has been a revival in metaphysics in contemporary philosophy. This has aided Jews in maintaining their dogmatic history. Holding on long enough to not be at the forefront of discussion. Despite continued difficulty with historicism, there is a remedy that equates itself with a renewed mindset to the old. To be frank, similar to Hume’s rejection of metaphysics is not identical to the biblical model. Silent on the issue is not the same as dejecting it. The same logic applies to Maimonides as well. 

The revival of metaphysics does not entail reverting to rationalism, it does however salvage some of the metaphysical origin in Maimonidean philosophy. In fairness, it is not as if metaphysics died in Jewish tradition. In general philosophy it did but Jews kept to it. Soloveitchik writing fifty years ago kept to Maimonides theory. Jews never gave up metaphysics but today there is a new analytical type of metaphysics. There is revival of traditional thinking. Positivism has run its course and there is a resurrection of the metaphysical ghost. The believer who refused to doubt champions this salvation return. In this vein, what is the method of accommodation here. Against the medieval model, the analytical method has more promise. Yet, theology need not be metaphysical. Soloveitchik though not as ardent as Leibowitz rejected metaphysical assertions. Jews can’t reject metaphysics insofar as he believes in actual supernaturalism and literal divine revelation. Yet Soloveitchik’s model is more inclined toward halakhic response. Religious epistemology is not divine secrets or ontology but reflecting the divine. Even the biblical character is always a means to an end. Divine attributes are not to educate God’s being but instead to educate proper behaviour. There is no need to demythologise but there is correct definition that is necessary.  

Western philosophy thrived on metaphysics but was rejected by Kant and by his successors in Hume and finally Heidegger. The Vienna Circle positivism derided metaphysical questions as meaningless. It was less that metaphysics existed and more than it was irrelevant. Though early analytic philosophy opposed metaphysical language, contemporary thinkers are overriding their predecessors.  Yet, advocates like Quine targeted human concepts instead of claims of the nominal  world. Quine’s ontological commitment applies to existing phenomena. For Quine in following Russel and Moore, regarded factual knowledge as scientifically or mathematically lauded all else is opinionated. Kripke then proved that much of knowledge is accumulated from experience. This seems akin to a tree in the forrest making a sound because one has experienced it not because it actually makes a sound. There is a subjective layer. This turn back to metaphysics was highjacked by Christian thinkers to reassess the ontological queries of the divine. The analytic movement integrated other schools of thought namely idealism and rationalism. Continental philosophy wished to rid the entirety of metaphysical paradigms. Hume may have sceptically rejected metaphysics but Heidegger cynically refuted it in favour of phenomenology. Heidegger’s mentor Husserl, wished to provide existential solutions non-metaphysically. 

Religious metaphysics assumes an other intelligible worldly system. Whitehead later in life synthesised the world of facts and world of values. Science is a part of human consciousness including the subjective arts. Leading him to account God into his metaphysical philosophy as a perennial figure of novelty and causation. Whitehead’s perception of religion was neutral he saw good and bad. Yet Whitehead's account was minimal in the grand scheme of religious identity. Some Jewish scholars did heed his call namely Kaplan and Kadushin but the Kantian tug overpower Whitehead's synthesis. His neutrality does little for the religious. 

Heidegger sought to end the debate on inquiries of a supernal system and instead concentrate on the sensation. The revival of metaphysics rivals the esoteric model of religiosity. Still, there is a kabbalistic metaphysic hell bent on celestial notions that cannot be logically proven but correspond to a stylistic framework. Yet, it is debatable whether the sefirot are metaphysical or axiological. Are they real or symbolic. A contemporary Kabbalist can argue that even if traditional thinkers held metaphysical notions of esoteric status they were influenced by western philosophy. The genuine marker is Heidegger’s breaching of western education for true esoteric ideology. The lofty mechanical framework signifies valuational lifestyle instead of a logical doctrine. 

James and Dewey may have wished to do away with metaphysics but they saw avenues to salvage the network of imagined queries. It is more than possible to regard metaphysics as emblematic instead of realistic. This model has a pragmatic proposal entertaining the continuation of metaphysical research. The goal is not to  assume factual evidence but more inclined to symbolism. Traditional metaphysics may require a shift but that does not negate the idea of metaphysical investigation. This mythical archetype expressed in modern scholarship is non-foundational in a literal sense but figuratively passible. The traditional structure can remain with a reinterpretation. A new exegetical metaphorical explanation of the historical hierarchy. Just as traditional scholars demythologised religious literalism while still maintaining a proper metaphysical approach, pragmatism can do the same. There is symbolic metaphysic embodying existential commitment while obviating traditional lore. 

Fromm noted that religion has inevitable end. God becomes outdated little by little. Just looking at Jewish history alone. The biblical tone is mythologised. The rabbinic mind though mimics much of its predecessor places the rational scholar above the spiritual prophet. Maimonides further isolated God. This was quite extreme in its demythologisation that was not accepted by all his contemporaries. Gersonides, Crescas among others took similar at times even more radical positions. esoteric visions of God manifested but were tied to private elite camps. The hasidic movement attempted to place God square in the middle as a present force. Hasidim reinforced the immanence but it also was demythologised. In esoteric circles God is a paradox but also seemingly mrore a force than a character. Turning to the modern and postmodern age God has become invisible. We are a crossroads. People say they believe in God but divinity is malleable per interpretation. What does that mean for God’s presence in our lives. The rationalist denies most divine intervention while the mystic is secure with an all encompassing divine reality.

Though Levinas, eschewed theology, it is his French contemporary, Ricoeur who is most responsible for a renewed interest in metaphysics albeit with hermeneutic and linguistic factors. He observes that there has been a fallacious argumentation taken by Kant though indebted to his rationalist predecessors that falsely displaced medieval metaphysics (a christian scholar dated it to Suarez). Yet modern secularism struggles to articulate an ethical and valuational framework. It is philosophised model without metaphysics. There is no foundation of presuppositions. Theism is a not some abstract mysticism but a scientific exposition of divinity.          

Metaphysics argues for universals or interconnected values and meaning. Accordingly, love and beauty—quantitative elements—though unproven are humanity essentials. They are natural phenomena but they lack of the suburb “spirituality” with what religion provides. Consider the difference between arguing for a conventional union vs a covenantal bond. The ritualistic aspects and legal quandaries surrounding the religious marriage elevates its essence and purpose. On a different note, murder transforms from an impracticality to existential fright. This is metaphysical association is less scientific in physics and more psychological yet it is also about divine coordination instead of an anthropocentric mentality. Contra Levinas, the divine is not a metaphor or utility but a living being with connective capability. 

Instead of historical research to ascertain medieval philosophy, it is rather necessary to utilise the method without the results. To use it in Riceour’s spirit hermeneutically. Though Kepnes skips the logic given the Kantian critique his model still provides a necessary outlet. Much of the logocentric identity of Medieval society was disproven or overturned. Whether or not syllogistic argumentation is still relevant to metaphysical speculation is genuinely irreversible. Rather it is necessary to advocate the congruent themes of medieval theology. In doing so we reach common ground on relating to God and the world. Andalusian Jewry upheld a halakhic society with a transcendent but prominent deity. Intellectual primacy along with demystified religiosity. Knowledge is the central factor of divine connection.