Philosophy is Pagan

I recently encountered an interesting discussion in Dr. Sholom Rosenberg's In the Foosteps of Kuzari". On pp.137-139 of the second volume, he develops the concept that classic Aristotelean philosophy was built on pagan assumptions. Thus, Aristotle believed  that supernal spheres each had an Intelligence that moved it, which Rambam identified with angels but Aristotle himself saw as gods. Dr. Rosenberg points out that Aristotle himself, on one of his lost manuscripts that only became available after the MIddle Ages, thought that Paganism evovled out of ancient philosophy and that the concept of multiple gods arose on the basis of having to explain how these spheres moved. By providing each one with an internal "engine", it was able to explain the working of the spheres, and from there humanity moved onto the concept of a Pantheon of gods.

I found this interesting because in a recent shiur  we discussed  the disagreement  of the Kuzari with this Aristotelean idea tha the "lifeforce" of each object is located within it. Instead, R. Yehuda Halevi posited a Divine Force (Inyan Eloki), that rests on each object in the Universe from the outside and serves as its Lifeforce and agent of movement. The different perception of what animates things also leads  to the distinctly different views of "nature". The former sees it as something internal to the World, while the latter sees is as being external to it. This obviously has major effects on the religious viewpoint. Pagan gods existed within the world, subject to tis laws and animated by the same forces that move humans, desire for power, victory and lust. Spinoza's God was also within the world, as its Life-force. Biblical God, on the other hand, may be described in some human terms but is certainly outside of the World, having created it. Unlike human-like pagan gods, God has no sexual nature and all His descriptions are easily explained in non-literal terms.

Dr. Rosenberg goes on to point out that Newton produced a conceptual revolution by positing an outside element, the force of gravity, as the agent that causes objects to move. Aristotle did not know why objects move and thought that their natural state is to be at rest. Consequently, he had to posit an internal force, something similar to a soul, that set spheres in motion, and which in turn caused sublunar objects to be set in motion. Newton innovated the concept of inertia and proposed that objects naturally remain in motion unless they are stopped by an external force, usually friction. An object would remain in motion unless stopped by something else. This opened the door to the Deist view of God as the originator of the universe, a glorified clockmaker who wound up the Universe and stepped back to watch it continue in its preset course. This view was in turn undermined by the recent discoveries in theoretical physics that produced fantastic and counterintuitive pictures of the universe as a jumble of shifting fields, fluxes, structures and relationships, a picture to which popular religion has not yet fully responded. It is, of course, the view of reality found in Kabbola, which, I think, makes Kabbola indispensable to any contemporary religious Weltschaung.

In general, I find the concept that our assumptions about the World affect the models that we use to understand Biblical narratives and to formulate our religious language, to be a poweful tool and a warning for any religious philosopher. We must remain focused on the forms and formulations of the traditional religious discourse and thake extreme care that we do not infuse them with time-bound, perceptually distorted contemporary content, at least, not without the caveat that the forms and traditions are unchanging while our fromulations are merely a time-bound attempt to understand them as best as we can, until better explanations come along.

Comments

[Micha]

About Aristotle's gods...

I wrote a piece on the keruvim, the face on the chayos that was either that of a keruv or a bull, the golden calf, Yerav'am's two bulls in comparison to Egypt's cult of Apis, and the Sumerian god Kirub who served the same role as Apis. It proves that the calf was a replacement for Moses as middleman, as Apis and Kirub were assigned the job of carrying prayers to heaven and blessings down to man. (And lehavdil the pillar of smoke emerged from between the keruvim on the ark...) It also shows the truth of Maimonides' description of the beginning of idolatry.

My post is at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/06/angels-and-idols.shtml

-micha

[Jonathan]

I agree there's a need for caution in interpreting Torah according to contemporary paradigms in science or philosophy. Inevitably science and philosophy march on and the interpretation becomes dated. The danger is that this may lead some to believe that Torah is also dated.

On the other hand, I also think that being the time-bound creatures we are, raised in our particular milieus, we have no choice but to view Torah through our time-bound lenses; our contemporary paradigms. We can attempt to separate off Torah from the way we view everything else, as many of us do, viewing Torah as ahistorical, transcending Time. But when you are trying to view events that are said to have occurred within Time (eg the lives of the Patriarchs, etc), you are being intellectually dishonest if you do not apply the same standards of analysis as you do to other events within Time. That would be a double standard. There is no honest way to not impose our time-bound view on Torah.

Maybe the only way to resolve this is to adopt the view of reality found in Kabbalah as you mention. The dynamics of Atzilut and above at least in theory are not limited to specific historical events. We can, in the more rarified levels of consciousness, the transpersonal levels, at least attempt to transcend Time and our specific time-bound lens. Probably, we cannot do this as individuals, but only as a collective. Perhaps all of the Torah studied by all of us over all of history, viewed as a whole, rises up to this level.

[pierre]

This 'outsideness' source for the spiritual ikkur of a discreted thing in the cosmos; it would be nice to see it eeked out in Tanakh in it's portrayal of objects, spiritually. Also how it portrays other belief systems about objects and their 'cosmic' relationships.

[pierre]

a post of mine that includes R. Kook describing the fall of a seemingly-religious perspective (geocentrism), as being an illucidation of a deeper perspective;

http://harherem.blogspot.com/2006/07/id-anthropocentrism-rambam-and-rav.html

speaking of watchmaking; a great quote from environmental ethicist Holmes Rolston from his Gifford lectures, published as "Genes, Genesis and God ; values and their origins in natural and human history", final page;

"The word 'design' nowhere occurs in Genesis, though the concept of creativity pervades the opening chapters. there is no divine fiat, divine doing, but the mode is an empowering permission that places productive autonomy in the creation. [this is where he gets good] IT'S NOT THAT THERE IS NO 'WATCHMAKER'; THERE IS NO 'WATCH'. Looking for one frames the problem the wrong way. There are species well-adapted for problem-solving, ever more informed in their self-actualising. The watchmaker metaphor seems blind [(;-)] to the problem that here needs to be solved; that informationless matter-energy is a splendid information maker. Biologists cannot deny this creativity; indeed, better than anyone else biologists know that Earth has brought forth the natural kinds, prolifically, exuberantly over the millennia, and that enormous amounts of information are required to do this.... [T]he grace of life [is] renewed in the midst of its perpetual perishing, generating diversity and complexity, repeatedly struggling through to something higher, a response to the brooding winds of the Spirit moving over the face of these Earthen waters."

As if to say the realm of phenomena 'make' their own functioning "jumble of shifting fields, fluxes, structures and relationships", 'shamelessly' reproducing them with a Divinely granted autonomy in the most unexpected ways.