A Blast from the Past

By: Jonathan Seidel

Crescas and post-modern philosophy 

The Journal of Textual Reasoning headed by Ochs, Kepnes and Gibbs recently published its newest volume attributed to Hasdai Crescas. Jewish philosophy’s debt to Hasdai is monumental. He provided the first anti-rationalist non-kabbalistic philosophical systemic treatise. He inspired his pupil Albo then Abarbanel following with Shadal, Hirsch and the present pro-philosophical alternatives to Maimonidean rationalism. His work is generally noted as too late and too early for his time. He was after Andalusia and before the enlightenment. Yet, his ideas can be of use to our postmodern time. In a time of confusion, Hasdai may be the solution.

I will offer a different direction than the journal. Recalling Hasdai’s position on free will finds an ally in postmodernism. I previously discussed his ideas but only few and far between. His work is incredibly valuable and offering a sample work will be essential to contemporary philosophers. Hasdai’s work as more than a commentary on the Guide announces his own work as standing on its own. His critique of Aristotelian rationalism finds sympathy with modern thought. 

Hasdai divides faith in three levels: sources/cornerstone, true beliefs and regular beliefs. Corner-stones are presuppositions to believe in general doctrines, true beliefs are Torah educated beliefs and regular beliefs are those beliefs not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Hasdai’s “dogmatism” does not extend to heretical behaviour for “wrong beliefs” only deniers. Dogma is reserved for divine commandments. Some autonomy must remain for the individual to choose vis a vis commandments but belief is the opposite. It is involuntary due to willpower. While one ought to believe, education is the only metric that can achieve no demand is sufficient. Dogmas are parameters not creedal obligations. 

Hasdai theological considerations pose divine expression as paramount. While belief is necessary it is not a coercive element but an upholding framework. It sets the limits and provides boundaries. Still, the legal element is by far the most central cause of Judaism. Hasdai even intended to codify a legal work like Maimonides but improved. He was unable to achieve this feat, too preoccupied with rebuilding his community after the violent riots in 1391. His goal and stature does demonstrate a clear vision and religious hierarchy.  

Hasdai’s greatness was his innovative character in stylistic ingenuity. Unlike his predecessors, he refused to subjugate reason or tradition to one another. He instead ordered that they be studied in their own realms. The relation of reason to tradition is not convergent as Maimonides and his contemporaries made it out to be. Hasdai furthered ripped apart the Aristotelian god as antagonistic to the biblical God. Reason seeks to prove an incompatible divine. Though the goal is to prove his existence it strips the personality and the relationship.  

Hasdai is echoed most noticeably by Sacks. Sacks’ search for God is against the rational grain. He finds rational proofs wholly problematic and necessarily incomplete. For Sacks, this type of reasoning is Greek and not Jewish. The Jewish bible speaks of a personified God who acts and breaths. Though Sacks’ novella differs from Hasdai’s treatise, there are illuminating similarities. Sacks takes the Aristotelian refutations for granted while Hasdai needed to fight against them and knock down those pillars.

It is important that their audiences differ and thus their overall rhetoric differs as well. Yet, Sacks is entirely consistent as he writes realistically but also points to ideals that he couches either explicitly in his earlier writings or implicitly in his recent books. It is Sacks who provides light reading to perplexed individuals. Strugglers can easily be inspired by valuational credentials of the Torah instead of abstract philosophical jargon. Yet this does not mean that Sacks is aligned with Hasdai at least in his writing. 

The lack of a systemic theology on Sacks’ part thus forces us to document one beyond the poetic inspiration of Sacks. If we’re playing for the ideal or for specific audience that committed to the law this will change the philosophical direction. Hasdai’ pro-philosophy pro-science pro-halakhic perspective is entitled to not only be recalled but also to be reviewed today. Instead of Seeskin’s contemporary Maimonides it may be better to position Hasdai as that thinker. 

Hasdai rejected Maimonides’ negative theology. Divine simplicity is the root of all these interconnected attributes. God is his essence and that essence employs various attributes. Hasdai finds a nice middle grounds between providing divine emotion and excessive divine qualifications. All attributes resonate with divine as it resembles in degree. He bridges the gap between biblical theology and modern science by implying a correlative to God even if God is not in need of any of these things. It more depth than range but yet remains impersonal. 

Hasdai’s most major and relevant point is his biblical and halakhic backing. He despised the Aristotelian model and wished to revive the biblical God and divine commandments as the central piece of Jewish life. Though we see this centrality amongst Leibowitz and his followers, their theological opposition is antithetical to Hasdai’s vision. His attitude to presenting debates and rabbinic reasoning is imperative to the observant who attain more than the conclusion but also the transmission and transitive pole. The line of reasoning leads to indefinite decisions and infinite alternatives. 

God is the origin of Torah and science. There is an element of Theo-science, positing an umbrella of pro-scientific inquiry.  His loyalty to tradition and the scientific creator impassioned him to discover novelty. It is in this manner Kuhnian paradigms fits into Hasdai’s newfound scientific integration. For Hasdai, God’s knowledge and his infinity both set a precedent of finitude in the created world but infinity for him. There is a special perspective that God sees all which man cannot attain. His mathematical science is equated with the divine references of infinity. His knowledge of God from the Torah informs his knowledge of scientific aptitude. 

The final piece of Hasdai’s uniqueness is his approach to free will. Contrary to his predecessors, he invokes a deterministic outlook. It is a “soft” determinism than a “hard” determinism. There is room for human choice but it is greatly limited. Decision making is fundamentally deterministic but attitudes and feelings to the decisions are libertarian. The nature-nurture dichotomy directs us to specific situations. We can choose what we wish but those choices are determined beyond our control. He explains that we can do it not why we do it. 

Hasdai’s use of proofs and mathematical logic to articulate his points though seems abstract and difficult is well structured and systematically argued. The analytical element in Hasdai’s approach marks his work as relevant to the interested reader. His intellectual jargon and argumentation leads the struggler to comprehend on a sophisticated level. Yet his orderly manner provides coherent measures. For those who need a simplistic interpretation there are enough articles and books written to gather Hasdai’s accurate thought. Hasdai’s revolutionary mark is a systematic philosophical alternative to Maimonidean rationalism. Combining tradition with modern science analytically provides the necessary outlook for a bright Jewish future.