I am sharing here a discussion of my last post that occurred on Facebook:
Susan Elkodsi at 20:18 on 24 May
I like your approach. But WWMS? What would Maimonides say?
Lenny Levin at 10:06 on 25 May
Maimonides never resolved the tension between a perfect God (I:50-60, III:16) and an imperfect world (III, 8-12). Modern process theology, affirming the fact-map of modern physics and the spirit of the Bible, avoids the perfection of "Being" in favor of the messiness of "becoming." But the attempt to integrate the fact-assertions of science with the value-assertions of the Bible is very Maimonidean.
Mel Scult at 10:11 on 25 May
Len is a scholar, translator, writer thinker and a very good person. Because his deeds match his wisdom , his wisdom will endure. [ Mel Scult, speaking for the universe]
Lenny Levin at 10:26 on 25 May
Aw, shucks! Enough flattery. But does the argument hold water?
Lee Price at 14:57 on 25 May
From your blog:“'Autonomous' refers to the view that human beings can perceive the good through their own reason, precisely because the good is an independent quality."
I would want to pause right there to question whether reason is the best instrument for perceiving the good.
Lenny Levin at 15:57 on 25 May
Right-brain, left-brain, empathy -- as long as it is determined from the human side, these all count as "autonomous." Philosophers stress reason, but we can include these other factors as well. As opposed to: "Abraham conquered his fatherly love in order to serve You (at the Akeda)" which would be the extreme of heteronomy.
Susan Elkodsi at 08:29 on 25 May
So can I quote that in my (late) paper? It seems to me that Halevi did a better job of synthesizing faith and reason. Good may be perceived through reason, but it is also often a leap of faith that we behave the way we do. (IMHO)
Lee Price at 20:27 on 25 May
How does one conquer a fatherly love, especially "in order to serve" God? Seems to me before the hand reaches the knife in any way Jewish tradition would accept, the heteronomous must become equivalent to the autonomous. The very same movement of the soul, if you will, would apply to Cain were he actually to overcome sin. He too would have to conquer a strong emotion. Wherever the energy to make the change is perceived to emanate from (God outside, the better person within) I'm not sure there's an essntial difference.
Lenny Levin at 09:45 on 26 May
"The heteronomous must become equivalent to the autonomous." Hmm. You realize this is all based on the notion expressed in Pirkei Avot 2:4 "Make His will your will...Annul your will in favor of His will..."—ultimately, adopt God's will as your will. So God's will does become your will. But it becomes your will because you have accepted God's will, not because your innate criterion of the good led you to adopt that specific course of action or principle on its own merits. The example of the Akeda—as Kierkegaard correctly picked up—is supposed to shock us into the realization of how contradictory the heteronomous and autonomous viewpoints can actually be in practice. The analogue today is the WTC attack on 9/11. The case of Cain is fundamentally different, because even as his selfish will moves him to kill Abel, his own conscience (expressing true autonomous peception of the good) knows that to kill Abel would be wrong.
A thought from Heschel's book, God in Search of Man, seems pertinent to this discussion: "The widely preached equation of Judaism and rationalism is an intellectual evasion of the profound difficulties and paradoxes of Jewish faith, belief, and observance. Man's understanding of what is reasonable is subject to change....For all the appreciation of reason and our thankfulness for it, man's intelligence was never regarded in Jewish tradition as being self-sufficent. 'Trust in the Lord with all thy heart, and do not rely on thine own understanding.' (Proverbs 3:5)."
ReplyDelete