Moses Maimonides

Leo Strauss’ second entry in History of Political Philosophy, centers on the great Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides. Continuing the trend of philosophers who have made a significant impact on the development of political philosophy by synthesizing philosophy with an existing political/ religious system, be it the Roman legal tradition (as Cicero did), Christianity (as St. Augustine did), or Islam (as Alfarabi) did, Maimonides continues on this development by synthesizing Greek philosophy with Judaism. Strauss begins his essay by distinguishing Jewish philosophy from Christian philosophy on an important point. Unlike Scholasticism, medieval Jewish philosophy developed in the context of a divine revelation that assumed the form of law rather than dogma or faith. As a result of this, the Jewish philosophy of this time tends to be heavily legal centric.

Despite the legal nature of their writings, Jewish philosophers tended to address politics indirectly, allowing the subject to be brought up in relation to other subjects. Despite the fact that Jewish philosophy was being produced, much like in Islam, there was a significant debate on what exactly the relationship between Judaism and philosophy was supposed to be. Though it was never fully accepted, according to Strauss, Maimonides was highly influential in making this Jewish-philosophy synthesis more acceptable. Maimonides shows a high degree of influence from the ancient Greeks, in particular Aristotle as people are seen as first and foremost as a political animal. Furthermore, people are also to use their rationality to solve problems.

Maimonides’ conception of man is highly interesting on several points though as man has two natures, the nature of the body and the nature of the soul. Because of these two natures, there are also two types of law, the human law and the divine law. These two types of law correspond to the two types of perfection, the perfection of the body and the perfection of the soul. While these two conceptions of the law are to be understood as distinct, they should not be understood as mutually exclusive as it is possible for a law to contribute to both the perfection of the body as well as the perfection of the mind. Though both types of law and both types of perfection are important, Maimonides sees ultimate perfection as being removed from the body, and as such, human law.

This should not diminish how important the human law still is in Maimonides thought as it is still seen as the highest revelation from God. With this in mind, it is easy to understand why Maimonides placed so much emphasis on the importance of Moses, as it was he who gave the Jews their laws. So important is Moses to Maimonides’ thought, the Mosaic Law is seen as the only divine law, or at least the only perfect divine law. In particular, Maimonides thought the Mosaic Law should be praised for being both absolute and universal, which Maimonides saw as being of absolute importance for anything that was to call itself “divine law.” Following the emphasis Maimonides places on Moses and the Mosaic Law, the prophet is seen as essentially serving a political function. Though this is obvious parallels with the pervious philosopher this series focused on, Alfarabi, Maimonides does introduce some new ideas into how the prophet is to also be seen as a political figure. First off, according to Maimonides, there are three conceptions of philosophy. They are as follows: 1) the vulgar conception, which claims that God choses whomever he wants and transforms this person into a prophet. The next conception is 2) the conception of the philosophers, which claims that becoming a prophet is the highest outcome of human perfection. The last conception of prophecy Maimonides mentions is 3) the opinion of the law, which sees becoming a prophet as arising through desire and education. Beyond that, Maimonides also sees prophecy as the overflowing of God to man’s rational faculty, and after that to his imaginative faculty. Furthermore, a prophet is also seen as attaining threefold perfection. Those perfections are as follows: reason, moral, and imagination. Maimonides then uses this idea of perfection in order to justify the prophet’s political role. The prophet has this role due to his drive towards perfection.

Because of the political nature of his role, the prophet is seen as having to possess several characteristics. First off, he must have great courage as he faces great danger from those whom he rules. Furthermore, the prophet is also seen as both a divine messenger and a lawgiver and must be able to ably perform both roles. Maimonides’ conception of the law and prophecy also ultimately forms the backbone of his critique of classical philosophy as he sees it as being in error by only focusing on the political. For Maimonides, what this did is cause the classical philosophers to fail to realize perfection requires divine law, and as such, divine law should be seen as superior to political law.

Following from this, it is perhaps easy to see why the prophet can be seen as being on a divine mission to improve the social order. Due to the nature of the prophet’s mission to improve the social order, being a prophet and being a king are connected in Maimonides’ mind. This drive also means that sometimes war will be needed in order to improve the social order. Still, despite the importance of kings and prophets to Maimonides’ thought, the king is still seen as being subject to the law, showing that no matter how important the prophet-king may be, the law is still of central and overriding importance. This discussion of the prophet king leads to a major point in Maimonides’ thought, the role of the Messiah. While Christians believed the Messiah had already come in Jesus Christ, Maimonides did not and had a radically different conception of what the Messiah would be like than the Christians had. For Maimonides, the only change to the political order the Messiah would bring would be to the status of the Jewish people, as he would bring the Jews back to Palestine where they would finally break all yoke of foreign oppression and would be fully free to study the Torah and gain wisdom. In his rule of the Jewish people, Maimonides also thinks that will bring about the synthesis of reason and politics.

One final piece of Maimonides’ thought that may be worth mentioning is that contrary to so many others of his day, he greatly downplays the importance of natural law. This is due to the fact that he thinks that only a few laws can be known by human speculation. Strauss, to his detriment does not make much of this part of Maimonides’ thought, but I think it is well worth mentioning, particularly in light of the downfall of natural law that would occur in the modern age.

Though not as good as his writings on the ancients, Strauss here still shows his greatest strength, interpreting the thought of others. Maimonides is unique in the History of Political Philosophy in that not only did he synthesize his religion with classical philosophy, hut he also did it as a religious minority, thus giving some conception of a religion-philosophy synthesis outside the power structure. Still, despite this, Maimonides’ greatest impact has not been in philosophy directly, but rather indirectly as it was his synthases of Judaism and Aristotelian philosophy that encouraged St. Thomas Aquinas to do the same with Christianity.