phylosophy.

Student name
Professor Name
Course
Date
Question one
a) Explain what these authors are saying. How would you describe the relationship between philosophy and religion in Maimonides’s thought?
Some philosophical theories can be captured and explained using the biblical context. Extraction from the bible can be used to explain philosophy in the contemporary nature. Philosophy and religion are a closely related thing. In the bible, some behaviors of God and human beings can be explained by philosophy even though deep research on philosophy came into being in the recent centuries.
Stated otherwise, what does it look like to “harmonize” the two in Maimonides’s mind?
Harmonizing religion and philosophy will be finding a new way to interpret the bible.
Is all of the secondary literature we have read thus far in agreement in their assessment of Maimonides’s approach to harmonizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, or do you notice any disagreement? Cite other texts where relevant.
Not all text agrees with Maimonides’s approach to harmonizing Judaism with Greek philosophy. The text in the handout of Isaac Husic “Introduction to History…” we get the notion that “the commonly accepted view was that philosophy and religion were at bottom identical in content, though their methods were different.” (Isaac 1) From this, we can conclusively deduct that harmonizing the Greek philosophy and the religion will bore conflicting results.
b. When one attempts to harmonize philosophy and religion, do they get equal weight, or must one have priority over the other?
One will have priority over the other.

In Maimonides’s case, is it more accurate to say that Maimonides sets forth a rationalist form of Judaism (e.g., where philosophy ultimately wins out over religion) or instead, an appropriated Aristotelianism for Judaism (e.g., where Greek thought is altered to fit Jewish precepts)? Or do we find instances of both cases (cite examples, if so)?
There is a rationalistic form of Judaism in Maimonides’s case, where philosophy is ultimately is seen in a better view compared to the religion.
Question two
(a) Do you think Maimonides’s philosophical reading of the biblical text remains honest to the original intention of the biblical authors?
Maimonides’s intention may be genuine but conflict with the biblical authors
Why or why not?
The author of the bible may have meant the text to be taken to have a straightforward meaning upon those who were reading.
Stated otherwise, do you think the ancient authors of the Bible had philosophical reasoning in mind when they wrote or is Maimonides’s approach a dramatic rereading of the text?
The authors of the bible did not have philosophical reasoning when they wrote the bible. Consequently, Maimonides’s manifest this approach as a result of rereading of the text
And if Maimonides’s approach is a rereading, is that an act of violence to the text, or rather, does it open it up to new possibilities?
Maimonides’s approach may sway from the original intention of the biblical author although it does not violate the text. The text is open to multiple interpretations and open to a new world of possibilities.
b. …Looking back at Maimonides’s work, couldn’t it be argued that by reducing Judaism to a list of doctrines and streamlining the Mishnah, that he rigidifies the tradition—setting down a definitive reading to be set in stone?
No, it cannot be argued in that direction. During those time, it takes time to build something and completely overthrowing the former doctrines would have been perceived with a great deal of reluctance from followers.
What are some of the ramifications of his systematizing and establishing an authoritative reading of the tradition?
Being a pioneer in this field, he changed the course of history and the bible can now be used as a philosophical text
How do we preserve Maimonides’s “subtle balance” between tradition and progress as we read sacred texts through Maimonides, or as we read Maimonides himself?
We preserve the subtle balance by using the bible to reason in a philosophical manner. Stories and text from the bible can be used in the philosophy field.
Question three
A. Explain what Guttmann means by a “natural explanation of prophecy.” Considering what else we have read about Maimonides’s view of prophecy and how prophecy was understood within his cultural climate [Hint: You should find material on Maimonides and prophecy in Pessin’s essay, throughout Kraemer, and in the discussion about the Agent and Active Intellect discussed by Ivry],
The “natural explanation of prophecy” implies that a prophet is like a heaven-sent person who does not need people’s approval but is divinely send by God.
is this account comparable or inconsistent with what the other secondary sources have said about Maimonides and prophecy?
Yes, it is consistent with other text, they all explain a prophet to be at higher ranks that normal individual. They are people chosen by God.
Discuss at least one other secondary source to better clarify Maimonides’s view of prophecy, especially what Guttman means by it being “natural.”
The bible itself advocate that prophet were in a position to communicate with gd. God would give them signs and manifest himself to them in different ways.
b. With the material from questions 1 & 2 in mind, can Maimonides’s view of Moses be reconciled with his rationalist reading of Judaism? That is, in viewing the Bible as a philosophical text or in evaluating revelation in light of philosophy, is it consistent for him to make an exception for Moses? Is it consistent to claim the Torah of Moses has a divine status that rises above all other prophetic utterances?
Moses is an exception in that he was chosen by God to be a law giver and not just a prophet. Moses created a foundation upon which another guide his people through the forthcoming prophets. Having law was the first act before God could be able to send people to prophesy his message. Therefore Torah of Moses has divine status and rises above all other prophetic utterances.
Question 4
is there a contradiction between these two passages from Guttman?
There is no contradiction between the two passages.
In other words, can Guttman/Maimonides ascribe to both contemplation and moral action as the ultimate aim?
Yes, the ultimate aim is to perfect both contemplation and the moral action of humanity.
Is there a way to reconcile the claims that Maimonides promotes both theoretical knowledge of God (the Greek value) and the imitation of God through acts of love toward others (the Hebrew value) as the height of human perfection?
The Bible tells that the greatest commandment is to love. Therefore, imitation of God means imitating the unconditional virtual of love to humanity.
(b) Given the texts we have considered on this subject, in your view up to this point, is Maimonides essentially a dualist, following the Neoplatonic tradition in prioritizing the ascent of the soul to God while devaluing our embodied, corporeal life [Hint: You might draw from the discussions on Plotinus and Neoplatonism in Pessin and Ivry for support here]? Or does Maimonides provide us with a robust and appreciative account of human embodiment and material existence (either from the Aristotelian tradition or his Jewish heritage)?
Maimonides provide us with a new perspective of looking at the bible. We should delve deeper and acquire more insight that will not only lead us to know God well but also will help us realize our purposes and God’s purpose for us through the multiple interpretations we can draw from the biblical texts.
Considering the discussion of the relationship between Judaism and Greek thought in question 1, does one side win out over the other or are they held in tension on this point?
No side win over the other, though there is a great deal of question that arises that need intensive research on the matter.

Work cited
Isaac Husik, Introduction to History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy Handout by Dr. Bahler