Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 08:07:17 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 07:54:28 PM ---No offense to anyone but it's really impossible to have a logical conversation about something if we're not speaking the same language.
So one person will say "this is an angel" and the other person will say "that can't an an angel because that would be illogical"...well how do you know it's illogical if you don't know what an "angel" is to begin with.
First you need to ask: What is an angel? What is a demon?
Once we define our terms we could discuss whether this or that fits the definition.
Otherwise it's like someone speaking Chinese to you and you say "that's not logical". It's not logical because you don't know Chinese.
--- End quote ---
you were attributing something to the RAMBAM
"the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles."
The RAMBAM would never have said that mathematics is an angel.
--- End quote ---
You say that because you a) don't know what an angel is. b) don't understand what Rambam is telling us.
Muman is correct. For the last time angels=set forms or constructs. Including all the laws of nature.
q_q_:
Muman- I don't have a copy of the rambam's commentary on the mishna.. That wikipedia article doesn't quote the RAMBAM.. and even if it did, sometimes something in one place is explained by something in another and you have to read the whole lot. Particularly with the RAMBAM, and particularly on the subject of angels, where he was a bit odd. Nevertheless.. if that thing you quoted from wikipedia were true, then it suggests that the RAMBAM doesn't think angels exist..
He calls them a metaphor.. A metaphor is like rhetoric, it's not a literal thing, it's a fictional thing to explain something. If it is indeed the case that the RAMBAM did not believe in angels.. Then that doesn't support lulab.
I must say.. the RAMBAM's views on angels were controversial.. He says in The Guide, that all prophecy is through an angel. (he may not have included moses's prophecy., but it is still controversial). Infact I heard that rabbi yaakov emden wrote that that paragraph about angels in "the guide" must be a forgery and cannot have been written by him - he who wrote the mishneh torah. I would think the RAMBAM did write the Guide. And that he did write whatever he wrote in the commentary to the mishna.. But I don't have a copy of his commentary on the mishna. And anyhow it would not be in agreement with lulab. Lulab believes alot of kabbalah, which would say that angels DO exist. Kabbalists and pretty much any religious jew would say that they are living spiritual beings. Not just metaphors.
Lulab thinks every single rabbi prior to some lubavitch rabbi, are in agreement on everything, not disagreeing. And all their disagreements can be resolved.
This may well be a proper legit chabad belief. Many misnagdim hold it too, though for silly reasons less theological, more out of respect.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 09:34:56 PM ---Muman- I don't have a copy of the rambam's commentary on the mishna.. That wikipedia article doesn't quote the RAMBAM.. and even if it did, sometimes something in one place is explained by something in another and you have to read the whole lot. Particularly with the RAMBAM, and particularly on the subject of angels, where he was a bit odd. Nevertheless.. if that thing you quoted from wikipedia were true, then it suggests that the RAMBAM doesn't think angels exist..
He calls them a metaphor.. A metaphor is like rhetoric, it's not a literal thing, it's a fictional thing to explain something. If it is indeed the case that the RAMBAM did not believe in angels.. Then that doesn't support lulab.
I must say.. the RAMBAM's views on angels were controversial.. He says in The Guide, that all prophecy is through an angel. (he may not have included moses's prophecy., but it is still controversial). Infact I heard that rabbi yaakov emden wrote that that paragraph about angels in "the guide" must be a forgery and cannot have been written by him - he who wrote the mishneh torah. I would think the RAMBAM did write the Guide. And that he did write whatever he wrote in the commentary to the mishna.. But I don't have a copy of his commentary on the mishna. And anyhow it would not be in agreement with lulab. Lulab believes alot of kabbalah, which would say that angels DO exist. Kabbalists and pretty much any religious jew would say that they are living spiritual beings. Not just metaphors.
Lulab thinks every single rabbi prior to some lubavitch rabbi, are in agreement on everything, not disagreeing. And all their disagreements can be resolved.
This may well be a proper legit chabad belief. Many misnagdim hold it too, though for silly reasons less theological, more out of respect.
--- End quote ---
Of course he did not believe there are winged invisible creature flying around. He's saying it's a metaphor and so am I for the 100th time!
But it's a metahor for something that certainly does exist.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 09:37:27 PM ---<snip>
Of course he did not believe there are winged invisible creature flying around. He's saying it's a metaphor and so am I for the 100th time!
But it's a metahor for something that certainly does exist.
--- End quote ---
The only source so far -for you- about the rambam has been a paragraph of wikipedia quoted by muman.
this paragraph is saying that they are are metaphor, not a living being.
a metaphor is a fictional construct.. used to explain something.
taking this paragraph for what it says.. It doesn't say angels exist.. And if angels are what it says.. then unless it leaves out something crucial.. it is saying that the RAMBAM holds that angels don't exist.
"
Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event actually occurs, even if it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of the world's order.
"
Funnily enough.. if he says that all prophecy is through an angel. That makes sense if he thinks that angels are according to that paragraph!!!
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 09:49:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 09:37:27 PM ---<snip>
Of course he did not believe there are winged invisible creature flying around. He's saying it's a metaphor and so am I for the 100th time!
But it's a metahor for something that certainly does exist.
--- End quote ---
The only source so far -for you- about the rambam has been a paragraph of wikipedia quoted by muman.
this paragraph is saying that they are are metaphor, not a living being.
a metaphor is a fictional construct.. used to explain something.
taking this paragraph for what it says.. It doesn't say angels exist.. And if angels are what it says.. then unless it leaves out something crucial.. it is saying that the RAMBAM holds that angels don't exist.
"
Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event actually occurs, even if it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of the world's order.
"
Funnily enough.. if he says that all prophecy is through an angel. That makes sense if he thinks that angels are according to that paragraph!!!
--- End quote ---
"taking this paragraph for what it says.. It doesn't say angels exist.. And if angels are what it says.. then unless it leaves out something crucial.. it is saying that the RAMBAM holds that angels don't exist."
When you say "it doesn't exist" are you talking about the analogy or the analogue?
The analogy does not exist in the real world. The analogue does. That's the truth. But I'm trying to figure out what you're saying because you keep referring to "angels" without telling me whether you're talking about winged creatures (the analogy) or contructs (the analogue).
Certainly you are not saying that the analogy AND the analouge for angels do not exist because you'd be denying some major parts of the Torah. I know you're not saying that.
Please clarify.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version