Hi,
My apologies for my absence these past few days; it was due to illness.
"Any interpretation, from whatever foreign source it may
originate, that acknowledges Gd, Israel and the Torah as historic realities,
and attempts to provide the metaphysical or theological corollary to the facts
and events for which they stand, may well be incorporated in a Jewish
philosophy. On the other hand, any interpretation that attempts to substitute
the idea, the metaphysics, and the philosophy for the historic reality, cannot
be called Jewish."
(Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, What is Jewish Philosophy?, pp. 121-122)
Have a great day,
Mordechai
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not clear on what REB is trying to include as valid hashkafah. Is he saying that the Rambam's hashkafah is valid despite being Aristotilian?
ReplyDeleteOr is he giving anyone license to make anything up as long as they include believe in Torah miSinai and the ontological reality of the two parties that enter that beris? In other words, does his argument mean that Conservative (circa 1980, I don't know what their thinkers believe now) or thetorah.org type beliefs are within the pale, despite denying the historicity of yetzi'as Mitzrayim and the idea that the min haShamayim means miSinai?
What is "interpretation that attempts to substitute the idea, the metaphysics, and the philosophy for the historic reality, cannot be called Jewish."
Or, is he in a different direction entirely, and siding with the Kuzari's mesorah-based approach over the Rambam's philosophical proof-based one -- calling the Rambam's approach unJewish altogether?
You can find the original article in Tradition 3:2 (1961); he raises the Rambam/Aristotle question there...
ReplyDelete