Crippled
Leibniz sought to create a system of logic that could solve any problem. Whatever the question, you could plug in the variables, and logic would do the rest. Finally, those questions that have hung around for millennia would be answered. Leibniz never succeeded in his dream: in part because formal logic, as he then envisioned it, just does not take into account quantum mechanics or the problem of the naturalistic fallacy; there are certain hurdles that formal logic just cannot overcome (though possibly bio-chemistry or neuro-physiology will one day). But also in part to the fact Leibniz was crippled before his master. Leibniz was smart enough to independently construct the foundations of Calculus and to create a metaphysical world never before put forth (and never again believed!), but like so many before us, he could not see past the silhouette of his mentor. Aristotle, the father of philosophy and the sciences, cast such a shadow on Western Civilization that, over two thousand years later, it is still recovering from the shade.
Modernity, on the other hand, in part, has been broached through the rejection of the old assumptions. Only once one denounces the old can questionable philosophies like post-modernism and feminism get off the ground, but, we should not forget, science also starts only once one lets go of his juvenile concepts of God, demons and physics (or the lack thereof). In many ways, scientists are the modern day philosophers, not because they proffer correct opinions on metaphysical issues – actually their training does not grant them that right – but because they have been able to dispel countless false concepts proffered by metaphysicians since the beginning of time. Scientists employ inductive logic; they are able to propose a theory that explains, based on experimentation and the scientific method, what is the case and what is not. They hope their theory best explains the facts without any unnecessary or unjustified assertions and pray it continues to best explain the facts, even though they have no assurance that the same physical rules will continue ad infinitum. This is the nature of science - for better or worse - all the same, our present age is living evidence of the benefits that such an approach to the world reaps.
While the world experiences the advances of practical science and technology, without delay, every time they visit their local Radio Shack, the impact of science on the philosophical world lags well behind in the collective conscious of the world’s populace. No where is this made so clear as in the field of astronomy. Nicolaus Copernicus had the gall to stand up against all odds and brought about the Copernican Revolution. Looking back, it does not seem like such a crucial point: is the earth the center of the universe or not? Astronomers then thought the stars are permanently affixed in the sky, while today we believe them to be hurdling away from us faster and faster every day. Today, we poke fun as such folly, but before Copernicus came along, it was universally accepted that we all inhabit a geocentric universe. All the religious and secular thinkers were in agreement about the earth’s centricity; obviously not because they got along better in the Dark Ages than they do now, but because earth’s centricity was a scientific fact based on the diurnal revolution of the heavenly bodies that bound together the Heavens as one system, with the earth being the center. This scientific fact was as clear as day; therefore, no one could argue with it. Bertrand Russell explains[1]
Round this apparent scientific fact, many human desires rallied; the wish to believe Man important in the scheme of things, the theoretical desire for a comprehensive understanding of the Whole, the hope that the course of nature might be guided by some sympathy with our wishes. In this way, an ethically inspired system of metaphysics grew up, whose anthropocentrism was apparently warranted by the geo-centrism of astronomy.
But with the Copernican Revolution, this warrant withered away. No longer could Man justify his metaphysical beliefs based on his physical location of the earth in the universe (if they ever were justified at all). Now, the philosopher needed to search high and low for truer information - whether scientific, philosophic or other - to found his theories on. No longer could he simply look towards the Heavens for a firm foundation for his way of viewing life.
For the Jew, the search for ethic’s foundation has never been a very pressing matter; the Jew will look towards the revelation at Mount Sinai for a monolithic, rock-like foundation for his ethics and the Shulchan Aruch for the practical way to implement that ethic. But, this does not mean that Jews have not exploited the geocentric assumption of old. The Church was not the only one group who thought a heliocentric world was blasphemous: such famous Jewish personalities as the Maharal,[2] R. Yonason Eybeshitz,[3] and the past/present Lubavitcher Rebbe[4] have upheld such convictions.
Along with the Copernican Revolution came certain indisputable facts about the Heavens, stars and the spheres (as the medievals called it). Before Copernicus, most, if not all, religious folk thought that the stars were spiritual beings. The Psalmist himself asserts:
Praise Him, all his angels; praise Him all his legions; praise him, sun and moon; praise Him all bright stars; praise Him the most exalted of the heavens and the waters that are above the heavens. Let them praise the Name of God, for He commanded and they were created. (Psalm 148:3)
While one might be inclined to proffer a rational understanding of the Psalmist’s words when he says that inanimate objects praise God, the greatest of the Jewish rational philosophers, Maimonides himself exclaims:
As for the assertion that spheres are living and rational, I mean to say endowed with apprehension, it is true and certain also form the point of view of the Law; they are not dead bodies similar to fire and earth – as if thought by the ignorant – but they are – as the philosophers say – living beings who obey their Lord and praise Him and extol Him greatly. Thus Scripture says: The heavens tell of the glory of God,”… For the terms speaking and telling are applied together in Hebrew only to a being endowed with intellect (II:5).
And
They [the Sages] have said explicitly that the heavens are living bodies and not dead ones like the elements. Aristotle said likewise with regard to the spheres being endowed with apprehension and mental representation corresponding to the dicta of our prophets and of the bearers of our Law, who are the Sages, may their memory be blessed (II:5).
While the Maimonides-lovers might not think that he actually meant this gut wrenching error literally, they need look no farther than Maimonides’ second book of Guide for the Perplexed where he puts forth Aristotle’s argument to buttress this unassailable fact:
Know that the opinions held by Aristotle regarding the causes of the motion of the spheres – from which opinion he deduced the existence of separate intellects – are simple assertions for which no demonstration (logical proof) has been made, yet they are, of all the opinions put forward on the subject, those that are exposed to the smallest number of doubts and those that are most suitable for being put into a coherent order (II:3).
And
That the sphere is endowed with a soul is clear upon reflection.
And after a convoluted argument completely worthy of the medieval scientist, he says:
In consequence this circular motion [of the spheres] can only come about in virtue of a certain mental representation, which determines the sphere’s moving in that particular way. Now there is no mental representation without an intellect… Furthermore, it follows necessarily from this that the sphere has a desire for that which it represents to itself and which is the beloved object: namely, the deity, may His name be exalted (II:4).
While the rationalist Gersonides has an even more intricate understanding of the effects that the spheres have on the human race than Maimonides, you could only imagine the Kabalistic literature that has arisen on the topic. But instead of turning to them and questioning assertions that laugh at the impetus for a rational foundation, we will illustrate a few more glaring Maimonidean assertions about the stars that most modern people probably would not feel so comfortable about proclaiming themselves. First, and most importantly, he believes that stars are higher on the spiritual hierarchy than their human counterparts.
All this indicates to you that they apprehend their acts and have will and free choice with regard to the governance committed to them, just as we have will with regard to that which from the foundation of our existence has been committed to us and given over to our power. Only we sometimes do things that are more defective than other things… whereas the intellects and the spheres are not like that, but always do that which is good, and only that which is good is with them (II:7).
He also thinks that:
The governance of this lower world – I mean the world of generation and corruption – is said to be brought about through the forces overflowing form the spheres” (II:10).
We are not better because we are closer to the truth; we simply have a different form of scientific inquiry. What we mustn’t forget is that this was their science and it justified their metaphysical beliefs about Man’s position in the universe, God and the spheres. It was the best explanation given the information.
Today, everyone knows, with complete certainty, that stars are luminous balls of plasma composed of hydrogen and helium formed within molecular clouds; they are gas balls. You could be sure that anyone who denies this, you would not want to have a conversation about science with, let alone about God. The metaphysics (Maimonidean science) of stars has been replaced by the science (astronomy) of stars, but like most fields of philosophy in which science has had an impact, the metaphysical implications (or lack thereof) of a star’s position and rank in the world has not yet been fully appreciated by the religious world. Of course, they may fall back on the 23rd chapter of tractate Shabbos and stand strong in the name of God, truth and Zoroastrian astrology. But, for some reason, no one seems to tell them that God (along with his good Name) left the building a good four hundred years ago. Most people cannot believe that their holy religious texts are wrong, and even if they could, it is exceedingly hard for the masses to separate themselves from their juvenile notions of religion and science; but whatever the reason for the religious community is so stiff-necked, I feel obligated to play my part in the formal decimation of propaganda and erroneous ideologies. I feel that I could best accomplish this by putting forth a short list of proclamations that every sane person ought to accept and possibly repeat every morning if necessary:
1. Stars are made out of gas
2. Gas cannot predict my future
3. My personality is not defined by what star, constellation or day I was born on
4. Constellations are an arbitrary way to group stars
5. I know all astrology is silly
6. Stars are not spiritually better than me, nor will they ever be
7. Stars do not literally praise the Lord every day
8. Stars are good to look at, but bad to ask to intercede on my behalf
9. I am not better than my predecessors, but I do know some things they did not about gas
10. Stars are not holy, though, thank God, I could be
I thank you for your time.
