Philosophical Energy

By: Jonathan Seidel

Uvikashtem Misham and neo-medieval rationalism 

John Mirshmeimer famously dubbed the new world order the new medievalism. Mirsheimer may have had Christian Europe in mind but the Rav’s Uvikashtem Misham is parcel of the Islamic Europe medievalism. The Spanish thinkers introduced rationally in a profoundly systemic way.

No thinker in the past half millennium has contributed a work of Jewish philosophy like the Rav. Rav Kook and Maharal are a close second but no one analyses the philosophical jargon like the Rav. Even the latter two played more in the mystical sphere expounding upon exegetical sources rather than the philosophical inquiries of the Spanish scholars. Some liberal Jews have proposed such systemic works. Fackenheim comes to mind but his work is rather issue based. He responds to the philosophical enterprise and socio-cultural layout of the world. The Rav’s other works act similarly. Halakhic Man attempted to reinvigorate the halakhic ethos systemically while Halakhic Mind desired to mend halakha through the philosophical canon. Uvikashtem Misham doesn’t. Halakhic Man could be described in such a way given its ontological formulation but the former is much more of a treatise than a polemical work.

It is this work that separates that Rav from his contemporaries and predecessors. Unlike Fackenheim, the Rav wasn’t responding to philosophy like he did in Halakhic Mind but rather is inducing a religious response. In the same way Halakhic Man may be a response to prevailing issues in the Jewish community but its orientation is systemically a stand alone work that conjoins Uvikashtem Misham. Looking at Rav Kook much of his work was derived from journals. His style was modestly unique but is idea based. He didn’t intent to cultivate a philosophy of Judaism. Heschel finds similarities as God in Search of Man is coined a philosophy of Judaism. Yet Heschel in his mysticism differed from the Rav but also was more of a poet like R Kook. He didn’t engage the metaphysical questions instead focused on mystery and sensation. There is something truly beautiful about this style but it is less of a rational model for Jewish philosophy and more a calming spirit to be internalised. 

Rosenzweig and Cohen both seem to come the closest. Though neither was a rabbi and both were academics. While writing systemic works on Jewish thinking they failed to adequately engage the rabbinic prose. Cohen revived the maimonidean theme for the observant world from Maimon and his contemporaries. The corresponding thinker to the Rav both in rabbinic knowledge and stature was R Berkovits. While overshadowed by the former and unfairly isolated for his more liberal ideas, his systemic articulation in God Man and History is nothing to slouch about. R Berkovits wrote a lot on halakha and philosophy but it was this latter work that confronted the rational faculty. Not to the extent that the Rav intensified his approach. The classic division between Maimonides and Halevi seems to also press into the Rav and Berkovits. Neither was an exact replica but the obtuse bifurcation between the two demonstrates the separation between the two thinkers. Not necessarily in content but in style. The Rav wrote more in the rational nature while Berkovits more in the empirical field. The Rav a neo-Kantian played with rationality while R Berkovits a humean played with empiricism.  

To some extent, R Berkovits is also a new medieval as well. A reincarnation of Halevi as the Rav was to Maimonides. In the same manner, the latter duo gained more popularity than the former duo. Yet it may be just Berkovits. R Kromchal wrote an extensive work on the back of Maimonides. Applying the same construction to the modern age. R Kromchal was one of the few observant maimonideans amongst the lustful irreligious enlightenment thinkers. R Hirsch’s Nineteen Letters acted as the Halevi of the modern day far less philosophical and more empirical. Even if he and Berkovits are both empiricists. There is a categorical difference between one who seeks to inspire Judaism and one who seeks to explain Judaism. Though maybe Halevi ought to be placed in the former camp yet his dialogue or more illustration than inspiration. Kaplan may also fit into this category. A figure who sought to revitalise a new model of Jewish expression. Yet his work is more about the pragmatic effort in life not the theological enterprise. This is the difference that places both R Berkovits and the Rav among the moderns. 

Maimonides himself never faded away but the style of systemic philosophy lessoned since the Kabbalistic fusion philosophy’s academic bend. Few have centred on the Jewish text combining theology and philosophy into a single work. R Shagar, R Sacks and R Lichtenstein all wrote about Jewish issues but did not accordingly develop a systemic philosophy they all could have. There are hints to it in postmodern-nachman mysticism, universal particularity and talmudic rationalisation. Each of the latter wrote on issues. Both the Rav and Rabbi Berkovits wrote on Judaism itself separate from the issues of the world. R Kook would grace this image if he wasn’t a mystic but still there is seemingly a systemic trend in the mid twentieth century. Looking back to Kromchal, Cohen, Rosenzweig already notices a shift in thinking. With Liberalism hitting hard and divergent Jewish notions spreading, Judaism needed to reclaim itself. Kadushin’s value connects help him formulate his rabbinic theology while Heschel’s poetic chasidut helped him formulate his aggadic theology. Even Wyscholgrod’s Body of Faith may fit this title in his biblical theology. Unlike R Sacks, Wyscholgrod did intend to formulate a philosophy of Judaism. 

This is the role of the Spanish thinkers from Saadia down to Hasdai. Formulating a philosophy of Judaism is quite different than doing Jewish philosophy. Anyone using Jewish ideas to respond or inspire is doing Jewish philosophy but that is not a philosophy of Judaism. Nahmanides does Jewish philosophy but never wrote a philosophy of Judaism. The Rav and Rav Kook wrote philosophies of Judaism while R Sacks and R Shagar did Jewish philosophy. The former also did Jewish philosophy but did write their own incarnations of their identity. The uniqueness of the modern systemic push is also highlighted by liberal Jews as well. This isn’t necessarily only an orthodox response but an attempt to cultivate an honest presentation in light of the global shift. Though some extent even Tanya can be added to this systemic attempt to cultivate a way of life. The approach of a systemic philosophy differs by individual. Even amgonst the Spanish thinkers Ibn Daud, Halevi and Maimonides wrote differently. Systemic philosophies are construed via a different manner even if they are less commentarial. In the same way, the Alter Rebbe, the Rav and Heschel all wrote differently. 

Though there is a major difference between the medievals and the neo-medievals. The medievals ranged for a half a millennium. From Saadia down to Hasdai. In one generation the rabbinic world revamped the philosophical project from the academic world. With R Kook and even R Kaplan to the Rav and rabbis Heschel and Berkovits. The issue with many Jewish thinkers is that they are excluded from this group either because they draw some nice ideas from Jewish texts or they focus on different topics rather than articulating a systemic philosophy elucidating the totality of Jewish thought. Today people write essays or articles. There is little engagement in original material. Yet for a moment in the nineteenth century Jewish philosophy was on a rise in all different spectrums. Rabbis Louis Jacobs and Wyscholgrod also formulated such intensive rigour. Aademics including Tamar Ross Avi Sagi and Shalom Rosenberg have added thought to the formulation of a Jewish response. 

It is not entirely absent. The use of philosophical stimulation is still reserved for the academics and big leaders. The previous generation of engaged philosophical thought has passed on. Those interested in philosophy generally write shorter and rely on other works. Writing about past people instead of insinuating novelty. Yet within that novelty is a small frame of thought. Here is an idea to discuss extensively or a personal to elaborate upon. There is little actual engagement with the totality. The great rabbis of the twentieth century used their academic training to interpret Judaism yet these scholars have come and gone. No longer are these big rabbis using their academic training to devise philosophies of Judaism. Beck and Kaplan in the progressive camp were met by Heschel and Kadushin in the conservative camp to Kook Berkovits and Soloveitchik in the orthodox camp. Each of these individuals was academically trained and religiously devout (irrespective of their positions on halakha). As leaders of the religious tradition. Each denomination had a representative that slowly dwindled and reverted back to academia. 

The revision of orthodoxy and its revamping of traditionalism may be the reason. Though even in the liberal communities the leaders are not philosophers. Zemer and Washkofsky of the reform camp, Roth and Dorff of the conservative camp, and Schachter and Ariel in the orthodox camp. There has been a return back to law but even more so back to machshava from philosophy. More thinkers are writing about insights and ideas than issues. Even those who write about issues are not analysing the breath of Judaism but just acknowledging Jewish ideas. The efforts by rabbis Sacks and Shagar do demonstrate an orthodox response to prevailing issues but they do not interpret Judaism systemically. There are underlying themes and potential reconstructions but nothing formal. R Shagar’s essays may lead to a creation but he never did so. His essays on his faith, mysticism and postmodernism do assist but they tend to apply to the socio-cultural layout than analysing Judaism in its own synchronic terms. The academics of Nuesner may be the first attempt in the academic world followed by others in all streams. There is nothing to belie here. Only to recognise the foothold that has been overrun by a different approach. 

The systemic style was an existential rather than a rational model. Each of the academically trained scholars responded to this calling in a different way. The modern age with the scientific undertaking did not necessitate a  historical response but a philosophical one. Since then the historical layer. The image of the social component is prevalent in avoiding a systemic work. Rather the question ought to be is it necessary? Do we need a revised edition? For the most part not really but this generation is often clouded by its greats and therefore doesn’t attempt out of respect. Yet it should. Hasdai famously railed against Maimonides. So too our contemporaries ought to do so. R Sacks and Shagar both disagreed with the Rav. While attacking Halakhic Man and Lonely Man of Faith, Uvikashtem Misham remains unblemished. It is this work that requires a systemic response. Some have reviewed it but has long outlasted its critiques. The same goes for the works of Berkovits and Heschel. Heschel may have the most criticism but most focused on the more controversial aspects of the latter thinkers. Yet their systemic works ought to receive ample response. 

In the tradition of old systemic works were responses and cultivations of Jewish thought. There are truly countless works and many more that have been lost. In only a half century dozens of works from various angles have been proposed. Where does Judaism go from here. Recognising the true unfortunate character of Jewish philosophy is its idle basis for such comprehension. The primacy of logic in rationalising Judaism through its sequences is of last century. Such work is of unnecessary proportions. Yet maybe it is time to take a hard look at our predecessors and examine their work with scrutiny. Each of the orthodox in their own regard. How to apply a lesson jargonist academic side and more a rejuvenated “postmodern”/“metamodern” element. In the margins of R Shagar’s Faith Shattered and Restored I tried to assemble a rational response to the postmodern age. This was a few years ago but nevertheless it was a critique that managed to figure in some regard. Yet my marginal comments in UviKashtem Misham as well as God Man and History were less proposals and critiques and more elaborations. Then again, the mission was different. 

In looking at the latter two and even God in Search of Man, one can review the abidance of knowledge and the goals of each of them. What what the purpose of this systemic construction and what did it teach. It is the systemic work that offers a perspective into the author’s religious ideals. The philosophy of Judaism is ever apparent for these seminal figures. Engaging with modern sciences and collapsing religious spirit. Reinvigorating through the intellectual means. Maimonides was a rationalist and Hasdai presumably an empiricist. Both the Rav and R Berkovits weren’t entirely maimonideans but on the rationalist-mystic duality they were of the former which R Heschel on the latter. The historical angle of modernity and academic training led to a flourishing of systemic works that have been lost in today’s society. Observant academics write such philosophies but not the rabbinically ordained. This is unfortunate. Not because philosophy is dangerous, that is irrelevant. Rather it is critical to the younger base who are looking for inspiration. They don’t just need nice ideas but a model to learn from. R Klapper was partially correct with his retranslated Halakhic Man. Yet the question isn’t whether it needs to be translated but if contemporary rabbi will write such a similar model. 

Reviving the medieval philosophical trend lasted for a generation. Yet just like the post-Maimonidean era there was a split and surge of mysticism. Maybe there will be a justifiable return in the coming years. Maybe it is only a matter of time before a new Hasdai challenges the old Maimonides. A new Sage challenges the Rav’s view. R Shagar and R Sacks acted alongside the Nahmanidean theme of challenging with an alternative model but no one has furthered a systemic response like a Hasdai and then maybe we will be privy to an Abarbanel defending the Rav against Hasdai’s sacred polemic.