Talk:Jewish philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Constantin Brunner was previously deleted from this article, but he himself definitely believed that his work derived fundamentally from his own understanding of Judaism. >Barrett Pashak
Contents |
[edit] List of publications
User:APH added a link to his "important publications" project. However, the section on Jewish philosophy is... empty. I have therefore removed the link until something has been added there. Unfortunately, most "Jewish philosophy" is firmly enmeshed in various works of rabbinic literature, such as Nachmanides' Torah commentary, and identifying these works would be tedious. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Being a philosopher is not the same as being a rabbi
At one or time another, every rabbi writes on a topic that can be considered philosophy. Nonetheless, that in of itself does not make that rabbi an actual philosopher. Unless you fall for the modern day view of "continental philosophy", in which damn near everything ever written counts as philosophy, then we cannot count rabbis such as Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and Menachem Mendel Schneerson as philosophers. These rabbis did not formally study philosophy, nor did they attempt to systematically study philosophical issues. Rabbis such as Joseph Soloveitch, Abraham Joshua Heschel and Neil Gillman, however, are. These rabbis engaged in years of formal study of philosophy, and they systematically wrote about philosophical issues as philosophy. RK 04:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Izak writes "RK please refrain from attcking me personally. Thank you". Chill out, man. I am asking you to stop using polemical titles in the article. People can be described non-polemicaly. How is this a personal attack on you? (It isn't.) Relax, Izak.
Also, Izak, please read the above paragraph. Just because someone is a rabbi and/or a Kabbalist, that does not make them a philosopher! In fact, they are usually totally separate professions. So why do you keep inserting Moshe Chaim Luzzato as a philosopher? What evidence do you have to present that he is a philosopher? I am open to your views; but I need to know what they are! Philosophers do not view R. Luzzato as a philosopher, and even the Encyclopedia Judaica does not describe him as such. As far as I have been able to ascertain, he never studied or wrote philosophy. He was a mystic. You should put him in a list of Kabbalists. RK 13:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
RK writes "Unless you fall for the modern day view of "continental philosophy", in which damn near everything ever written counts as philosophy,..." RK is certainly correct that this is a "modern day VIEW of "continental philosophy"", propounded by the likes of Sokal, Scruton and RK himself, but it shows a basic misunderstanding of the thinkers who are usually designated under that term. Rather, for these thinkers, everything counts as worthy of philosophical enquiry. And this is no different from the view of most great philosophers (Wittgenstein being an obvious exception in some ways). But what is particular about, say, Heidegger and Post-Heideggereans (such as Derrida, Nancy, Levinas) is an emphasis upon the influence of metaphysics, particularly of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, upon other areas of life, including language itself, particularly through religious and educational structures. Thus the question is not so much to question the validity of Platonism, but to assess it (paradoxically, for Platonism, in terms of what it designates,) as a "fact on the ground" (I do not wish to be contentious in this choice of phrase - it is simply the most convenient). Hence, unlikely texts are read in relation to canonical ones, and subjected to rigorous philosophical analysis in order to unearth the metaphysical inheritances that predetermine their views. Such a project lacks nothing in the way of philosophicality and, indeed, the very discipline and extended research it requires is itself largely responsibile for the off-the-cuff dismissals it receives from the likes of Sokal, Scruton and RK who are either too lazy, too philosophically undeveloped or too biased toward a received opinion (such as the fetish of positivism which haunts Anglo-American philosophy after Quine,) to give it due consideration, and who hence simply misunderstand it. RK should actively engage with "Continental Philosophy" in order to make an accurate statement upon it, or he should avoid mention of it at all. Received opinion garnered from populist diatribes should have no place in Wiki-philosophy, if we are to build it into an arena for informed philosophical enquiry and discussion. Simon
- Derrida, Nancy, Levinas are not even recognized as philosophers by many philosophers themselves. In fact, Derrida, Nancy, Levinas attack most works of philosophy as meaningless. How can you leave this important fact out? In any case, stop making this article about a single Wikipedia contributor ("RK") and deal with the actual content. Your criticisms of me personally have no bearing on this article. Finally, your personal attacks on actual philosophers like Sokal as "lazy" demonstrate that you have no interest in working on an encyclopedia article, but merely wish to push a POV. Remember, No Personal Attacks. RK 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should erase Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bergson, Husserl, Jaspers, Hannah Arendt, Derrida, Nancy, Levinas, Paul Ricoeur, Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre, Althusser from the list of philosophers. Sorry for those I forgot... As a sidenote (but just as a sidenote, don't take it seriously please, I think Wiki-philosophy learnt me one thing: how much despise and ignorance a certain type of people (I won't say Analytic philosophy, I certainly hope this attitude doesn't represent all the Analytic tradition, does it?) show toward what is considered, in a small and old, surely too old place bound to get lost in space, once called "Europe". Santa Sangre 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC) And, to anybody interested (Is there anybody out there?), Derrida, Nancy and Levinas, apart of being very different authors, didn't of course consider others works of philosophy as meaningless. Simply, some people read deconstruction of metaphysics as synonym of attributing meaningless. Which demonstrates a sure lack of understanding meanings of words and concepts. Santa Sangre 04:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fackenheim
Did Emil Fackenheim self-identify as "reform?" The few books of his I have read address major issues in "Jewish" thought, not major issues in or ideologies of the Reform movement. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removed introduction
Someone added a new introduction, but it was vague and offered no sources. It basically said that Jewish philosophy didn't even exist, and that the article only existed because it was a "scholarly" subject. That new intro made clear that real Jews don't even deal with philosophy, and that Jewish philosophy is non-Jewish and maybe even atheist. That entire intro had to go as it subtly made personal attacks on Jews who study philosophy (including much of the faculty of Yeshiva University and Bar Ilan, Orthodox institutions). It was very was misleading. Finally, it made the provably false claim that this was some sort of "latter day" attempt at apologetics, which is just bizarrely. Jews have engaged in serious philosophy since before the time of Saddya Gaon, and except in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, Jewish philosophy has always been held in high regard by a large part of the Jewish community. I can't imagine what a Yeshiva would like without the works of the Jewish philosophers, but it would small indeed. RK 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salomon Maimon
Needs to be added: Salomon Maimon
- I read his page, and from what I saw there, he was a philosopher but he neither philosophized about Judaism nor did his Judaism particularly inform his philosophy. So, for now, I'd be inclined to leave him off this page. --Ben Kovitz 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Post-Enlightnment?
How is Spinoza post-enlightened? :) Kind of strange title. Why not simply "Enlightnment"? I don't know why, I always thought Spinoza belonged to the Enlightenment tradition... Santa Sangre 04:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good point! I'll look at the text. RK 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Awkward wording in Holocaust Theology?
Is it just me or is the tone of voice in the Holocaust Theology section rather informal, unencyclopedic and conversational in nature? Admittedly, I know very little about the subject, otherwise the entry would be changed by now. Still, does anyone have something they would like to share about that area? It might need some help.--Son of More 07:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restructured the article
I restructured the article today, by grouping the sections into historical periods. This cleans up the table of contents and might even lead to a nice intro. I hope someone will review the new structure to be sure I didn't botch anything. I also marked Position in the history of thought as needing citations. --Ben Kovitz 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Samuel Alexander
Hartshorne influenced Alexander? I have never heard a more ridiculous anachronism in my life. When Alexander died, in 1938, Hartshorne,s published works were only The Philosophy and Psychology of Sensation and Beyond Humanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.115.243 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yuks !
Hey there, the supposed link to Routledge links to a flaccid/erected penis image. Could someone please restore the original link ? --'Inyan (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Present state of article
Over the last few months, one editor (Jim Harlow) has made huge expansions to this article, putting forth a highly personal interpretation of Jewish thought in general, amounting to OR at the very least. A lot of interesting points were made, but
- most of them are about Jewish thought in general and not about anything recognisable as philosophy in the normal sense
- there are lengthy and unnecessary passages about the ethnic and historical setting, which do not in any way relate to the intellectual content of what follows
- they are in a colloquial, argumentative and frequently awkward style
- their cumulative effect is to transform the entire article into a personal essay quite unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia
- a great deal of it is wildly inaccurate. For example, the particular Islamic group called "Ismailis" are named after their seventh Imam, who happens to have been called Ismail. This has nothing to do with the claim that all Arab Muslims are "Ishmaelites" and, as such, inheritors of primitive monotheism, which is shared by all Muslims [note: this paragraph was added by me though I was not logged on at the time: Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)]
- even when not obviously factually wrong, many of the points are highly controversial and subjective.
For example, the editor identifies something called "Maimonidean Rationalism" and then proceeds to evaluate all Jewish thought, whether before or after Maimonides, according to whether in his opinion it accords with this. Many of the judgments are arbitrary: how can one say, simultaneously, that the Vilna Gaon is an instance of opposition to "Maimonidean Rationalism" and that the Brisker school is an instance of "Maimonidean Rationalism", when the two approaches are almost identical? And to name "Syrian Jews" as an example is totally nonsensical: the group is a purely ethnic one and includes Maimonideans of the Faur type, Kabbalists, middle-of-the-road traditionalists, Ashkenazified Modern Orthodox, Haredi lookalikes and many more.
The truth is that, in all the arguments about whether "philosophy" has a legitimate place in Judaism, there is confusion between two quite different questions. One is whether philosophical speculation in general is admissible; which is almost impossible to answer "no" to, as to deny the validity of philosophy is itself one philosophical stance. In this sense, it is impossible to say whether Kabbalah, for example, is an instance of Jewish philosophy or of opposition to philosophy. (And one could say the same of modern deconstructionists and similar.) The other question, which most of the discussion in the Middle Ages was in fact about, was about the legitimacy of what one might call Philosophy with a capital P: namely the particular tradition stemming from Aristotle and encrusted by all the Hellenistic, Neoplatonic and Arabian commentators to form a corpus looking rather like the Talmud. Thus when someone like Halevi or Crescas downgrades "philosophy" he may not be saying that reason has no place in Judaism but simply that Aristotle got it wrong. That is also how to explain the Vilna Gaon: he was in favour of reason and scholarship, but thought that Maimonides was misled by the particular philosophy of Aristotle.
It does indeed make sense to speak of competition between "Maimonidean Rationalism" and Kabbalah, provided that one confines this to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Even then, however, one must remember, the two systems of thought were cousins. Both stemmed, in part at least, from the Neoplatonised Aristotelianism of Hellenistic times; but Maimonides represented that trend (exemplified by Averroes) which sought to downgrade the Neoplatonic additions to get nearer the genuine Aristotle, while the Kabbalah was related to the trend which downgraded Aristotle to emphasise the Pythagorean side of Neoplatonism (exemplified by the Ismailis, Batinis, Sufis and all that side of Islam). The seeds of the division were already present in Neoplatonism itself: one need only contrast Porphyry with Iamblichus.
Extending this to any time before Maimonides, as by classifying the Amoraim and Geonim on one side or the other of this putative divide, is a huge anachronism, as with a few exceptions such as Saadia they were generally not concerned with Greek philosophy at all. It is also a breach of NPOV, as the question of whether Hazal were "really" proto-Maimonideans or "really" Kabbalists is the very thing the two sides were arguing about. (As Menachem Kellner puts it, is Judaism "the sort of religion found in the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud and Maimonides" or "the sort of religion found in the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Zohar"?)
Similarly, the distinction breaks down in speaking of Renaissance or later times. To be sure, one can classify thinkers of any period as temperamentally "rationalists" or "mystics"; but quite often Renaissance and later "rationalists" were opposed to Aristotle and therefore to Maimonides and made common cause with the "mystics" on certain issues (and this was true in Christianity as well). To treat them as "Maimonideans" simply because they believed in applying rational thought is another huge anachronism.
Now all the above is my personal take, coming from my years of reading about the subject, and is in that way no different from that of the editor in question. The difference is that I do not hijack the article to put it across as undisputed fact.
For all these reasons, I took the view that the additions in question were beyond redemption and reverted the lot. Another editor (Bus Stop) disagreed and reinstated them. To go through all the edits piecemeal, as he suggests, to salvage the relevant bits of information and correct the errors and the subjective slant, would be a task of years, during which time the article would still stand in a totally unacceptable state for anyone who wanted a quick objective account of the different trends in Jewish philosophy as discoverable from mainstream scholarship, which is after all what an encyclopedia is for.
What does everyone else think? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thank you for these constructive comments Sir Myles, Jheald and 'bus stop'. My contributions are not intended be nefarious or conflating. In the "Medieval Period" section I intend only to illustrate the line of Rationalist scholastic tradition that begins with Saadia's use of Muta'zili doctrine as it threads its way along North African Coast into al-Andalus and subsequently diffused throughout the Diaspora after expulsion in 1492 with new insights. In the "Enlightenment" section, I intend to update the section to illustrate the explosion of new Philosophic pursuits and illuminate the migration of Rationalist Philosophy out of Germany into Diaspora Communitites.
I have a plan for cleaning this article up - by updating tangential pages such as Jewish tribes of Arabia (which omitted a few tribes) so that I can excise excessive detail from this entry. As for the interaction of Jewish Arab tribes with Prophet Mohammed, I intend to excise that section and submit it for inclusion in Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad.
In addition, I'm going to assemble tables in accordance with April8's recommendations - this should allow me to remove virually all of the Hachamim details (and I can submit any upgrades to their respective pages.
Is that along the lines of what you sugggest? Jimharlow99 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly going in the right direction - thank you for all the work you're putting in on this. I suspect there will be more discussion, on the most appropriate balance between different parts of the topic, and the exact best way to present some of the material; but those discussions will be much easier to have once the article is back broadly into the shape a wikipedia article should be. Jheald (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Maps
I'll be updating the maps to use {{location map}} instead of Settlement maps - this wil lreduce the number of maps and provide more flexibility in placement on the page Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
