|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
JEWISH PHILOSOPHY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
by Gersonides
It behooves us first of all to point out the great difficulty of this investigation, as this will lead us to some extent to make the investigation into this problem more complete. For by being aware of the difficulty of a problem, we are guided to the way which leads us to the attainment of the truth thereof. The fact that the philosophers who have hitherto investigated it greatly differ from one another in their opinions concerning it points to its difficulty; for this proves that arguments may be derived from the nature of existing things, wherewith each of the conflicting views can be either established or refuted. And it is very difficult to investigate a problem with such a peculiarity. What undoubtedly points to the great difficulty inherent in this enquiry is the fact that we have to investigate whether all existing things were created by God, who is blessed, after a period of non-existence, or were never created t all. Now it is manifest that if we desire to fathom one of the attributes of an object, by the way of speculative investigation, whether that object possesses that attribute or not, it is first of all necessary that we should know the essence of the object and its attributes. For it is only through them that we may attain to that which we seek to know. It is thus evident that one who desires to investigate this problem thoroughly must first of all know the essence and attributes of the thing under examination as far as it is possible for man to perceive. This would necessitate that a man desirous of thoroughly investigating this subject should know the nature and the attributes of all existing things, so that he may be able to explain whether there is among them a thing or an attribute which would lead us to the conclusion that the universe was not created; or whether there is among them a thing or an attribute which would lead us to the conclusion that the universe was created; or whether there is not among them a thing or an attribute from which it could be concluded either that the universe was created, or that it was not created. The matter being so, a man, to whom the knowledge of one of the existing things or of the attributes thereof, so far as a human being can possibly know, is inaccessible, is unable to make as thorough an investigation of this problem as is humanly possible. Now it is evident that to obtain as thorough a knowledge of all existing things and of their attributes as is humanly possible is extremely difficult. What makes this investigation more difficult is the fact that the investigator must necessarily have some knowledge of the First Cause as far as it is possible. For this enquiry leads him to investigate whether God, who is blessed, could possibly have existed at first without this world, which He afterwards brought into existence and created, or it is necessary that the world should have always existed with Him. It is, however, evident from the preceding argument itself that it is necessary for a man, desirous of making this investigation as perfect as possible, to know of the essence of God, who is blessed, all that can be attained, so that he may be able to decide accurately whether God, who is blessed, can possibly be active at one time, and cease to be active at another time, or whether this is impossible. This greatly adds to the difficulty of this investigation, since our knowledge of the essence of the First Cause is necessarily slight, as has become manifest from the preceding. Another point which makes this investigation still more difficult is the circumstance that it is hard to know from which essences or attributes of existing things it is possible for us to attain to the truth of this problem. For it is necessary that a man, desirous of making this investigation perfect, should know this at the very outset, otherwise he can only attain to the truth thereof by accident. The statement of the philosopher, as recorded by the author of the Guide, points to the difficulty of this investigation. It is as follows: 'As for the things concerning which we have no argument, and which are too high for us, our statement about them is, according to this, as difficult as our statement whether the world is eternal or not.' This shows that this question was considered extremely difficult by the philosopher, so that he was perplexed and doubtful about it, despite the numerous arguments he mentioned to prove that the universe is eternal. The reason for that is undoubtedly because the philosopher assumed that there were numerous arguments likewise to prove that the universe was created, and that his own arguments did not in any way establish the truth in this matter; and this is the very truth, as will be explained further on. Now if this question was considered difficult by the philosopher, despite his high rank of wisdom, how much more difficult would it be to other men who are lower than he on the ladder of knowledge. And indeed we find that the opinions of the ancients concerning this investigation are diametrically opposed to one another. Some maintain that the universe was created and destroyed an endless number of times. Others hold that it was created only once; these are divided into two opinions: some of them think that the universe was created out of something, as, for instance, Plato and the later philosophers who follow his doctrine; while others think that the universe was created out of absolute non-existence, as for instance the early Mutakallimites, like Yahya the grammarian, according to what Ibn Roshd recorded of him in his commentary on the Metaphysics. In this theory they were followed by the Mutakallimites. The view was also adopted by the great philosopher, the author of the Guide, and by many of the sages of our religion. But there are still others who maintain that the universe is eternal. This is the theory of the philosopher and his followers. It is evident that the cause of their disagreement concerning these doctrines is the variety of objects from which they derived their proofs with regards to the nature of existing things, or because they were compelled by the Torah, or because of these two causes combined.
Excerpted from Milhamot ha-Shem, by Gersonides |
The
Jewish Philosophy
Reader,
|
||||
|
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.