Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
q_q_:
i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM, the rambam believes that angels do not exist
put it this way..
if you say "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means.
If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.
Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..
The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.
If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X. Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist. To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c. We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.
This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.
It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.
It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world. It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 10:35:37 PM ---i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM, the rambam believes that angels do not exist
put it this way..
if you say "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means.
If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.
Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..
The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.
If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X. Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist. To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c. We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.
This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.
It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.
It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world. It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.
--- End quote ---
Why do you say I brought you no proof? I quoted you from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah where is talking about three categories of creation and angels are one of them and he says they are forms without shapes. In hebrew this is "tzurah". So clearly the analouge does exist. He's saying it's part of creation.
Now you used another term that we need to define. You implied I think angels are "living beings". Well, that's another sticky one. Is something that has a form but no (physical) shape a "living being" in your book? Is gravity a "living being". It has a set form. But it's not physical. You can't see or touch it.
So I think we both agree that angels (as most people understand them) do NOT exist. That fantastical creature is a METAPHOR for something. You could use a real thing as a metaphor (like the flower as you did) or you could use a fictional thing as a metaphor.
That quote that muman brought from the wikipedia article does exist, but it's not in that location in his commentary on avos. They are citing that section to support that notion that miracles are not neccesarily out of the realm of nature.
muman613:
Let me remind everyone what the hebrew word for angels is...
Is not the word Moloch, which means Messenger. In a manner of speaking anything which is a messenger of Hashem is indeed a Moloch and by definition an angel. This does include the forces of nature including gravity and time and space. I have always considered Moloch to mean any force which is an emanation of Hashems will. These include earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, and all forms of disaster. Molochs also provide us kindnesses and goodness. There is a angel of healing and an angel of death, an angel of fire and an angel of air. Every aspect of creation does indeed have its guardian angel. Yosef saw the angels coming down and going up. They come to this world to bring their message to humanity. The are not physical beings like popular literature portrays. Our Rabbis discuss the way Molochs stand and sing praise to Hashem, this is in the heavenly incorporeal world.
I do not think we disagree by very much in this area. We have not even touched on the Kabbalistic understanding of Molochs.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 16, 2009, 12:36:15 AM ---Let me remind everyone what the hebrew word for angels is...
Is not the word Moloch, which means Messenger. In a manner of speaking anything which is a messenger of Hashem is indeed a Moloch and by definition an angel. This does include the forces of nature including gravity and time and space. I have always considered Moloch to mean any force which is an emanation of Hashems will. These include earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, and all forms of disaster. Molochs also provide us kindnesses and goodness. There is a angel of healing and an angel of death, an angel of fire and an angel of air. Every aspect of creation does indeed have its guardian angel. Yosef saw the angels coming down and going up. They come to this world to bring their message to humanity. The are not physical beings like popular literature portrays. Our Rabbis discuss the way Molochs stand and sing praise to Hashem, this is in the heavenly incorporeal world.
I do not think we disagree by very much in this area. We have not even touched on the Kabbalistic understanding of Molochs.
--- End quote ---
These forces of nature DO "sing" G-d's praises IN THIS WORLD TOO because we see His power through them. And we see the way these forces perfectly follow G-d's instructions without fail. And when we see how many different forces, each with no mind of it's own, work together harmoniously this DEMANDS the conclusion that there is higher intellegent force that is directing them according to His will.
This is why the angels of the chariot conncted their "wings" and only then could transport the "Man on The Chair".
The wings are the aspect of the forces that demand the realization of a higher power. We don't see that from just one force, paraigm or construct. We see that when the wings "connect" i.e. when we realize how they work together which is impossible without a "driver" of all these forces.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 11:50:17 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 10:35:37 PM ---i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM, the rambam believes that angels do not exist
put it this way..
if you say "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means.
If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.
Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..
The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.
If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X. Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist. To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c. We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.
This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.
It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.
It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world. It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.
--- End quote ---
Why do you say I brought you no proof? I quoted you from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah where is talking about three categories of creation and angels are one of them and he says they are forms without shapes. In hebrew this is "tzurah". So clearly the analouge does exist. He's saying it's part of creation.
Now you used another term that we need to define. You implied I think angels are "living beings". Well, that's another sticky one. Is something that has a form but no (physical) shape a "living being" in your book? Is gravity a "living being". It has a set form. But it's not physical. You can't see or touch it.
So I think we both agree that angels (as most people understand them) do NOT exist. That fantastical creature is a METAPHOR for something. You could use a real thing as a metaphor (like the flower as you did) or you could use a fictional thing as a metaphor.
That quote that muman brought from the wikipedia article does exist, but it's not in that location in his commentary on avos. They are citing that section to support that notion that miracles are not neccesarily out of the realm of nature.
--- End quote ---
oh, I see you made a post quoting from hilchot yesodei hatorah.. I didn't know what it was 'cos it didn't say at the top where it was from, I didn't read far enough to see it was the RAMBAM.. Now I see it is..
When I talk of something being alive, a living being, I mean, "thinking".
Having knowledge. (though maybe if angels don't have free will, then they think no more than a computer does. They don't think)
I think angels in tenach appeared in human form and did things.
G-d is living and formless. That doesn't mean he is a concept.
I would say the same about angels. So I wouldn't compare them to mathematics.
For some reason my hilchot yesodei hatorah has vanished some time ago. I see the RAMBAM has some unusual definition of Alive. He even refers to planets as alive. (maybe he was wrong and thought they were organic)
I looked up organism.. and here are some definitions of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
not that it helps much when talking about angels.
I suppose in chassidut, you think that everything has a soul.. even a knife and a fork.
What about a dead body?
I know in kabbalah one has 3 souls. The one in the blood(nefesh), the pure soul(neshama), and the one that binds them(ruach). Suppose the person is dead - neshama gone. And suppose blood is gone, so nefesh gone. would you say he is still alive? is the ruach still there and is that why?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version