Rational Connection

By: Jonathan Seidel

Rationalism has a become a lost art in Jewish thinking. The major inquiries of scientific synthesis is only parcel the issue, the major question is how to connect to a deity on a rational basis.

The divide between rationalism and mysticism really comes down to thinkers and feelers. Rationalists logically analyse Judaism while mystics intuitively sense Judaism. The latter cares very little for dealing with fundamental questions. The feeling identity is one that eclipses questions as sensationalism is the key to overcoming logical contradictions. Have faith in God that it will work out. Everything is about experience. God can do anything no need to struggle with ethical conundrums. Feel God and rely on his truth. Turn off your brain and recognise that infinity is greater than your finitude. The rationalist attempts to comprehend the obvious delusion but the mystic looks up, waves his hands and believes. He meditates on God hoping for the sensation. The experiential output from his intense venture. 

Mystics come in all shapes and sizes. The general consensus is those who learn Kabbalah and focus on spirituality. This is far from a feeling agenda. Yet it is wholly part of the same camp. Can the simple emotionally driven believers fit into those who contemplate the metaphysical axioms in the supernal sphere? Yes. Kabbalah is but the outgrowth of spiritual audacity. Kabbalah is the systematic foundation of spirituality. Providing some objectification to the feeling. It is more than just a feeling. There is a framework, there is an ontology. There is some realism even if it is beyond the realistic possibilities. Feeling needs some more meat for it to be captured deeply. It is not a fleeting moment but a systematic mechanism. On the other end is simple faith. The spectrum of spirituality is one that is simple faith, then there’s the wondrous experience to Kabbalah. The spectrum is trusting in the feeling to searching for that feeling. The mystic isn’t necessarily out meditating but letting his intuition guide. 

The rationalist rejects such naiveté. He can’t deal with such fleeting certainty. He must question, he must use his mind. This doesn’t necessarily lead to the metaphysical rationalism of Andalusia scholars nor the anti-rationalism of the Spanish scholars. The breath of rationalism like mysticism is a spectrum. It is all about the mind-God connection than the heart-God connection (emotions aren’t necessary from the heart but for archetypical purposes). It isn’t about acceptance but seeking truth. This raises questions of synthesising the deity and science. Attempting to demonstrate how far one goes. Sometimes rationalists concede at certain entrances. This can be solved this cannot be resolved. Most rationalists either concede a small minority to the mystical or become coldblooded symbolic interpreters. Leaving some area to the mystical aspect permits logic to deal with the rest of the practical issues whether that be ethics or theology. Mystics and rationalists may converge where they both accept science but apply the mystical relation to the deity. Though does this count as rationalism?

The major questions surrounding rationalism is the modern applicability. Given the lack of philosophical output, the most rationalistic average laymen get is with the scientific realism. They accept the natural world insofar as divinity is a place beyond. While many Orthodox Jews may not preach mysticism even in the kabbalistic lens they follow a Nahmanidean-lite position. The natural world as it is realistic but all metaphysical questions are reserved for the mystical realm. There is no explanation. Most do not attempt to comprehend or interpret the texts in line with ethics or physics. It is irrelevant. If God willed it, it must be. Ask an orthodox individual how God could command the Akeida and their answer is it’s God. Either God can do whatever he wants or ethics do not apply to him. So few Jews actually try to combat the issues. Most refuse to engage in such discussion. Not because they are scared but because they find it superfluous. Philosophy is the language of secularism. This isn’t a haredi ideal but a common occurrence in most observant communities. They do not go around preaching kabbalah nor have any idea about the sefirot but the simple mystical faith is sufficient to deride all ontological inquiries. Just as modernity has erased metaphysics so has orthodoxy. Metaphysics isn’t a branch of philosophy, it is a spiritual sphere of religion. 

Reckoning with the blatant acceptance of the mystical identity is to deride rational dialogue. Do not talk about God in philosophical terms or challenge it. Biblical criticism is rationalising the text. The text is divine it cannot be hassled with. Even the idea of decline of the generations is a mystical belief in predecessor inherent superiority. Mysticism is not just belief in a supernal order but ignoring rational questions. Heschel’s divine pathos may be construed by the orthodox of demystifying the prophetic encounter. The mysticism is a type of negative theology. While this is most notably Maimonidean, such a claim is a mystical leap. Negative theology is acknowledging the limits of rationalisation. While mystics at times assert they know the truth of the divine others claim that nothing of the sort can be claimed. Yet this claim does not make them rationalists. What made Maimonides a rationalist was not negative theology. Negative theology is quite fideistic. Reason cannot comprehend thus it is not worthwhile to make metaphysical claims about something we cannot logically deduce. Mystics may take the leap and assert the truth of Godhead yet the average orthodox today may play alongside Maimonides negative theology with zero connection to his rationalising elsewhere. 

What made Maimonides rational was his rejection of anthropomorphisms as literal. Whether Maimonides was writing esoterically, he does hint to troublesome positions concerning eternity of matter which Ibn Ezra and Gersonides held by. His allegorisation was a pure sign of rationalising to the symbolic. Whether it was angels or Job. Ironically, many today will say that magic or demons are fictitious but angels are real. Maimonides was the forebear of contemporary mythological symbolisation. Myths are narrational patterns of cultural philosophy. It is unclear why so many try to fit Maimonides into the mystical box. Even if he had some mystical tendencies as religion is axiomatically mystical does not mean he was a mystic. He was a thinker not a feeler. Even Maimonides had his limits. Had Maimonides taken rationalism to the extreme extending his anthropomorphism to the entire corpus of Judaism would lead to Eliade’s symbolic presentation of mythology. Such a rational compulsion of religion transforms into a cultural identity with myths for lessons instead of truth. Such would be too far from the religious ideal. It isn’t the same as “sciencizing” Torah like Spinoza but it would formulate religion as a myriad of symbols. Instead Maimonides posited for rational intent to a limit before reaching the Kantian idea of God. 

Gersonides is the most rational of the famed philosophers but Maimonides is the most famous. Mysticism for the former was science. Gersonides like Maimonides sought to align science and Torah. The Talmudic mystical aspects of ma’aseh merkava becomes scientific. The claim against mysticism was not spirituality but neoplatonic encouraged frameworks. There is a big difference between supernal secrets and scientific events. While many moderns may squeal at the attempt to rationalise mysticism, it wasn’t that crazy. It wasn’t some twisted attempt by the maimonidean club but an attempt to remove the esoteric nature of rabbinic literature. Interpreting the grand secrets as information about the world. Today Judaism is so persuaded by the mystical elements that it seems hard pressed to think otherwise but there was generations of such beliefs. It wasn’t just Maimonides but a tradition from Andalusia. The gaonim committed to the rationalist agenda including Isaac Israeli and Saadia. Maimonides may have been the most radical but he wasn’t alone in his commitment. It was a generational education. The rational approach saw science as the truth of God instead of the mystical art. Rationalism promoted naturalism insofar as God wasn’t directly imminent. In no way to discount the divine capacity but to recognise God playing by nature’s rules through his awesome power and grace. 

This perspective is not readily received by contemporary orthodoxy. God can do anything he desires. Creation is something from nothing and he can engage in our lives whenever. While most orthodox do not ponder these questions, on a simple level this is the intuitive response received. So what is the rationalist ought to believe? How is he to relate to God? In a world so ingrained with secularism and naturalism, positing such an Andalusian defence is a spell of secularist thinking. The rationalist is lost in his mystical art. Yet there are lessons to learn. Maimonides centres the intellect. The intellect cannot reach God but it can help the rationalist ponder more about God. The more the rationalist studies the more he learns about God. The more engulfed he is in the divine experience. For him it is not a feeling but a thinking. Serotonin shipping the more he ponders the divine. What aids the rationalist is the acceptance of his limits. He questions all that is in his universe recognising the boundaries between nature and revelation. The symbolism is profound even if literally true. He follows Maimonides’ lead reading the value of the stories over simple history. The bible is not a book of history but of education. Yet he can only know so much since the book does not lead to God.

His mind cannot comprehend the Lord but it can help him think about him all the time. The rationalist is not to trust in a fleeting moment but keep his mind preoccupied with the divine. It is a moment of serenity in the intellectual experience of jargonist divinity. He cannot connect by simple hope but aspires to understand by learning more. He can know God through endless study. His intellect will reach an edge but unlike the hopeful feeling coming to him, he heads to God. He studies up to figure out the divine word. His mind is captivated by the divine word. Whether he goes as far to contemplate the Godhead is of little relevance. The mystic may learn kabbalah but that doesn’t help the connection. For the mystic feeling is the integral factor while the rationalist it is thinking. It is the mind consistently preoccupied with the divine word. Addicted to discussing Torah. The rationalist does not seek his heart to be flattered by a divine visit but enthrals his mind to deduce the divine word further. To an extent he accepts the transcendence of God. He cannot feel him. Such a feeling is at best fleeting and at worst a neurosis. He feels divinely in his mind’s eternal acceptance. Yet even more so he preoccupies with efforts. The divide between the natural and the supernal is to each do their job. The rationalist expresses his gratitude to his creator but understands the limits placed. Yet it is his continuous affection that keeps his mind obsessed. 

The rationalist does not ask for assistance nor does he expect a miracle to take place. It is possible naturalised wonders will occur. He takes initiative to ensure his life is secure. He relies on medicine and technology. His own mind is his greatest weapon to appreciate his Judaism as well as spreading the divine name. He need not rationalise every command nor realistically deduce the nature. Rather he follows the word as a rationally comprehensible machine. A system that supplies his homeostatic necessities. He is provided for and gives back in kind. The rationalist need not be a philosopher nor a deep thinker. He just prioritises his intellect over his emotions. The average mystic may have its set of problems but the mystic is a feeler and the rationalist a thinker. Is a tale of two different archetypes. It isn’t if one is correct and the other incorrect but rather the extremes it is taken. The rationalist be careful not turn religion into a mythology and the mystic not turn religion into a meditation. Questions are to be assessed and answered. Dismissing is an extreme measure. Even a feeler must feel the prowess of the divine and his good will. His logic cannot be erased and the rationalist cannot suppress his emotions. Each to their own for the rationalist his intellect is his greatest weapon. His way of achieving the balance between naturalism and mysticism. Mysticism is acceptable but it must be balanced as well. 

The rationalist ought not to hide his truth whether he seeks answers or connection. There is a way. That way is his mind as a connective force. His realistic tendency will acknowledge the futility to linking to the divine but his sensitive consistently will eternally ponder the Lord.