The Classical Conflict with Apostasism
At the center of the classical struggle with the apostate was the question of man's place in relation to G-d and to the community. Antiquity's "disbelief" - or apostasism - was necessarily rooted in the rejection of traditional authority. This was achieved through the questioning of the laws given by the deity, or the laws arrived at through rational thought, either of which allowed for the legalistic authority of supernatural powers, and as a result, formulated the obligations of mankind to the deity as well as to his fellow man. The search for answers to the questions raised by the apostate was the impetus for the development of the Epicurean philosophical school of thought. As Professor Leo Strauss accurately demonstrated, the classical debate over apostasy was, by and large, the argument with Epicureanism. The disbelief of the ancient world in general, and the Jewish world in particular, revolved around the questioning of the Law or tradition. The goal of the Epicurean was to disquiet the fear man had of the deity and to overturn the Law. The Epicurean sought to dislodge tradition by demonstrating that the grounding of the Law was purely in the imagination, i.e., not real. Accordingly, man was to disregard the supernatural or rather the fear of the supernatural, and find laws that demonstrated man's understanding of nature absent the fear of G-d. This was to be accomplished within the understood bounds of the natural order. It was necessary that Epicureanism master nature in order to rid the need of supernatural forces from within man's existence and dispel fear. Man, according to this position, must understand and control the natural forces. No longer should man fear the natural happenings around him and attribute them to supernatural powers. Through the investigation of the sublunar world, man was to disentangle himself from what was above through the knowledge of what was below, i.e., this world and its workings.
Put simply, the disagreement between the believer and the apostate in the ancient world was over how man was to fulfill his purpose and how the nature of that purpose could be known. The goal for the Epicurean was to live without fear and accomplish this end while keeping to the cognized reality of man's physical existence. The disagreement between the two forces, however, did not question the mutability of nature.
In the classical context, natural order presupposed that nature and natural forces transcended time. A cardinal tenant of natural order was the unchanging nature of man. Without question, man's nature remained static. Man was no more able to fly by his own power as he was able to escape his nature. The species man was bound by his wants, desires, needs and passions. Regardless of man's position in time, i.e., his generation, man remained with the same innate responses, he was still bound by his existence within the physical world. Among the more fundamental aspects of the accepted nature of man was his innate quality of being social. Man's rational faculty was seen as the distinction between man and beast and gave proof of the eminent uniqueness of man. Man understood himself and his relation to G-d in terms of rational cognition. That is, man was different from all other created beings in that he possessed the cognitive power to examine not only his existence, but all that exists. Classical rationalism was a cornerstone of traditional thought, be it Jewish or otherwise, and established the basis of philosophy and law as it was to be expressed in cognitive content and statute.
Relying on the work of Prof. Strauss, we are directed to the radicalization of the Epicurean ideal through the need of the modern project (i.e., the "liberation" of man) to redefine human nature. The essence of the modern project is indeed based upon this premise. Epicureanism, as we have stated, required the removal of superstition and the fear of the supernatural as a basis of law in order to calm the fears of man and promote tranquillity. The modern thinker agreed with this notion and attempted to define it in terms of man mastering his environment. Through modern science the new thought process promoted the idea that this ideal was possible. However, the mastering of man's environment was limited in a very serious way by what was traditionally perceived as human nature. While the Epicurean saw human nature in the static condition, a prerequisite foundation to philosophical thought in the ancient world, the modern thinker realized the inhibiting aspect of this notion when promoting the ideal of total mastery over nature. It became necessary to master human nature in order to truly master nature in general. A number of thinkers were responsible for the evolution of this radicalization. The modern project is the result of many complex philosophical developments, each best analyzed with a full exposition. This said, what will follow is a synopsis of the relevant philosophical discussions rather than an in depth dissertation.
The Grounding of the Transformation
Thomas Hobbes was the first to posit the notion that man was not as he was traditionally understood. In the Leviathan, Hobbes postulates that the rationally and biblically ordained tenet that man is by nature a social being needed review. Borrowing a page from Epicurean dogma, he argues that man's ultimate horror is his "fear of a violent death." In order to avoid this angst, man establishes social order. The debate concerning whether any particular social order is better than man's isolation rests upon the redefining of what is natural to man. Hobbes, in arguing for an improved social order, indicates that all social order is an artifice manufactured as a balm to offset man's fear of a violent death. In so doing, Hobbes suggests that all convention (i.e., created laws and traditions) is the result of man's fear of violent death. Hobbes extends the Epicurean doctrine in this first step of radicalization by stripping man of a nature and replacing the impetus of man's behavior with fear. In a Hobbesian world, man's actions are taken to avoid a violent death, or rather the fear of a violent death. Fear is the central concept because it is the feeling of fear that pushes man toward the creation of convention. Gone is the notion that man's actions are based upon rationally derived or divinely inspired fundamentals leading toward the fulfillment of his purpose. Thus the ground was broken. Thinkers ranging from Rousseau and Locke to Hegel and Marx took hoe to ground in order to plant the seeds for the full emergence of the modern project.
Rousseau questioned man's innate sociability by formulating a "state of nature," a theoretical state of man's existence before the imposition of convention. He stated that the presupposed classical view was false, and inhibited the true expression of humanity, while the true "state of nature" is free and unencumbered. The Hegelian concept of "overcoming" was used to explain the transition from the "old" understanding to that of the new. That is, the necessity of man overcoming his pre-delineated position as a created being. Man was to become the maker by transforming himself into the creator. In order to redefine the accepted parameters of the natural order, man must philosophically explain the futility of the Aristotelian model. All things could no longer be defined upon their derived essence according to their ends. Man must overcome the meaning of things based upon their utility, and substitute the imaginings or idealizations created within the mind, as the purpose of any given object. This practice was continuous; never ending as man conceived and reconceived all that entered his mind. By removing the universal, so to speak, the particular was to become the accepted norm. Each particular had its own merit and truth for the individual. The step that was to allow the final radicalization of Epicureanism was the application of this principle to man himself. As truth became a relative concept based upon the understanding of the individual at a given point in time, the notion that man evolves within his lifetime from many men allowed for the ever changing, i.e., creative power, of man himself. Man was to overcome himself by redefining and recreating who and what he is.
Yet the manner in which man was to realign his thinking was not satisfied with simple postulations on the theory of human nature. That is, it took far more than philosophical arguments on theory to completely overturn age-old positions. Although Aristotelian physics had been discarded by Copernicus and then Galileo, his ethics had survived. The use of science as the tool to "adjust" ethics as it had "adjusted" physics had not yet been applied. As modern science emerged, however, the thought arose that social science might be the catalyst needed to reform philosophical doctrine and replace ethics as conceived by Aristotle. The Weberian addition of social science made concrete that which had been theoretical. The study of man's nature was transformed by social science into the study of man as the creator and the replacement of the rational with the idealized. This is not to be confused with the "Is" and the "Ought" for the Ought remains the foundation of the rational, while the Is is the social science particular-idealization.
In regard to the radicalization of the Epicurean ideal as it relates to the historical development of Weberian social science, Professor Strauss writes:
The change in the character of social science is not unconnected with the change in the status of the modern project. The modern project was originated as required by nature (natural right), i.e. it was originated by philosophers; the project was meant to satisfy in the most perfect manner the most powerful natural needs of men: nature was to be conquered for the sake of man who himself was supposed to possess a nature, an unchangeable nature; the originators of the project took it for granted that philosophy and science are identical. After some time it appeared that the conquest of nature requires the conquest of human nature and hence in the first place the questioning of the unchangeability of human nature: an unchangeable human nature might set absolute limits to progress. Accordingly, the natural needs of men could no longer direct the conquest of nature; the direction had to come from reason as distinguished from nature, from the rational Ought as distinguished from the neutral Is. Thus philosophy (logic, ethics, esthetics) as the study of the Ought or the norms became separated from science as the study of the Is. The ensuing depreciation of reason brought it about that while the study of the Is or science succeeded ever more in increasing men's power, one could no longer distinguish between the wise or right and the foolish or wrong use of power. Science cannot teach wisdom. 1
The Classical Jewish View
While there are clear and important distinctions between Athens and Jerusalem, both traditions accept the role of the supernatural and establish firmly the truth of time transcending laws. Whereas Epicureanism, through its rejection of the role of the supernatural, leaves open the possibility for its own radicalization and the loss of time transcendency through its own mastery and remastery of nature, the classical views of the ancient world do not. For our purposes it is sufficient to examine the rationalist understandings taught through the Judaism of the Sages as elucidated by the standard-bearer of rational thought, Moses Maimonides. 2
Judaism maintains that in the physical world there is, first, the material make-up or "matter" of all things and that, second, there is the purpose or "form" of all things. In other words, there exists an external or physical aspect to everything that exists and an internal or spiritual aspect to everything that exists. Understand that the internal aspect is equivalent to the object's purpose and/or its potential. The form resides, so to speak, within the matter and defines it through animating the matter. A dog is more than a dog by appearance; a dog behaves instinctually as a dog. It is a "package," unique to its species, as unique as the package found in every material object or being. Our understanding that the physicality of an object or being is closely associated to its behavior is a product of classical philosophical thought. Judaism understands this fact as a given, while Aristotelian philosophy utilizes demonstration to argue its truth. Matter and form are the result of all things ultimately having been created by a deified creator; that a harmony of interlocking relationships exists and the purpose of all things have a discernable nature, for the most part, and role in the natural world.
Within the modern project man becomes the maker and in so doing removes any need for a deity other than himself. Maimonides, in explaining the proper method of understanding Biblical and Aggadic texts, insists that it is the irrational and foolish of the theologians who postulate that all that is within the imagination of man is possible. Maimonides writes in Perek Helek that that which is impossible is impossible and because man is able to formulate within his imagination the recollection of wholly independent ideas, objects or beings as one and the same does not make it so, nor could it ever be made so. The distinction between ideas, day and night, the holy and the mundane, to cite only a few examples, are fundamental tenets of Jewish pedagogy.
The resultant fact is that there are truths and there are conventions. It is a proper teaching to view the Jewish commandments ( mitzvot) as truths and Jewish Law (halakha) as convention. Although it can be argued that mitzvot are also convention because they relate to the physical world, this is not an appropriate teaching. This position deserves a great deal of analysis and should be reserved for an entire treatise. We will touch slightly on this topic, understanding that a full examination will be left for a future work. The role of the prophet, according to Maimonides, is to transform truth into convention, that is to say, make truth and falsity into good and evil. Man, as a being, is confined within his lifetime to the physical world. Within the physical world there is only good and bad behavior. Accordingly, man's actions must be defined by right and wrong. Outside of the physical world there exists no conception of right and wrong, good and bad, except as it applies to the physical word. In other words, outside the physical world there "is" or there "is not." This is the meaning of G-d's presence or privation, i.e., the absence of G-d. In the language of man, G-d's presence represents truth or the "is" and the privation of G-d is falsity or the "is not." Judaism maintains that the "is" or the "is not" cannot be actualized (although it can be theoretically cognized) within the physical world and therefore requires an interpreter, a guide, a prophet.
Transforming the theoretical into the practical formulates the basis of good and bad; this creates convention which, in turn, becomes tradition. The role of the prophet is fundamental to all Jewish thought. [With the intention of drawing a distinction, this is also the role of the philosopher in classical thought with reason as his guide.] The area that is most complex is the distinction between Moses as a prophet and all other prophets. Moses, within the Jewish context, represents the highest level of prophetic wisdom and for the purposes of teaching, his prophecy is to be considered as both theoretical and practical. Therefore, it is acceptable to say that the mitzvot as written by Moses are within the realm of the theoretical. To perform the theoretical mitzvot, man requires the practical interpretation of halakha. There is then a bridge, so to speak, between the theoretical and the practical that is neither fish nor fowl.
Let us work to understand the traditional Jewish view of the sub-lunar world, the physical in this world. This requires that we endeavor to comprehend the concept of form and matter. The Rambam writes in Moreh Nevukhim, Book III, Chapter 8:
How extraordinary is what Solomon said in his wisdom when likening matter to a married harlot, for matter is in no way found without form and is consequently always like a married woman who is never separated from a man and is never free. However, notwithstanding her being a married woman, she never ceases to seek for another man to substitute for her husband, and she deceives and draws him on in every way until he obtains from her what her husband used to obtain. This is the state of matter. For whatever form is found in it, does but prepare it to receive another form. And it does not cease to move with a view to putting off that form that actually is in it and to obtaining another form; and the selfsame state obtains after that other form has been obtained in actu. It has then become clear that all passing-away and corruption or deficiency are due solely to matter.
In an attempt to solidify in the mind the words of Solomon we will construct a model. Beginning with the idea of the creator and take, as an example, an understandable human maker of an object. Shimon is a hat maker, he makes extremely unique hats that are custom designed for each individual. Shimon, through his own free will, makes a hat for Reuven. Beginning with the material used, Shimon produces a product intended for the exclusive use of Reuven in a manner delineated by Shimon. Shimon first incorporates a composition of water resistant fibers that completely withstand rain and humid climates because Reuven lives in an area that is never exposed to the sun, but is continuously beset by water and dampness. Additionally, Shimon takes into account that Reuven has an unusually shaped head, and fashions the structure of the hat using what would otherwise be a difficulty for Reuven into an asset in both the look and integrity of the hat. Lastly, because Reuven's head is often hot, Shimon makes the top of the hat out of an extremely fine material that looks virtually identical to the rest of the rather sturdy cloth, but in fact the top of the hat is quite weak. Shimon is well aware of all the work, forethought, knowledge, and wisdom he exercised while creating the hat for Reuven. However, Reuven is not so well aware of the process of creating his new hat nor of the uniqueness of his hat; he just knows that Shimon is an excellent hat maker, and that his new hat serves his needs in an exemplary manner. Let us now apply philosophic terms to the example presented and then move forward using the new terms. The physical shape of the hat and its material composition are the "matter" and the purpose of the thing, i.e., its being a hat - a cover for the head of Reuven and all that is implied, is the "form."
The matter of the hat appears obvious. In its shape and structure it is recognized by most as a cover for the head. The form, however, is not so easily derived. Certainly it is a hat, but the fact that it is a hat intended for Reuven and his unique needs cannot be seen from a simple viewing of the object, nor can limited examination necessarily reveal the "secret" aspects of the hat. Reuven receives the hat and wears it. As long as Reuven uses the hat as it was meant to be used and in the environment it was meant to be used, the hat will give many years of service.
The hat has no "instruction book" or set of rules that are apparent without study and certain preexisting knowledge. The creator knows the hat and all its attributes. That is to say, the creator of the hat understands the true form that is associated with the matter of the hat. Should the hat not be in the presence of Shimon, its creator, the only way of determining the true form is by having knowledge of the rules. On the other hand, new forms can be assigned to the hat which would by definition be a change in the nature of the hat and lead to its destruction. The possessor of the hat may choose the hat's destruction or come to it through ignorance. However, the absence of the hat is of no benefit to its owner. Therefore, the privation of the creator and the set of standards established by the creator is the precursor to the objects destruction.
If the hat is sold by Reuven a number of things can happen depending upon who purchases the object and who becomes its owner. The first possible scenario is one in which the new owner is a person who recognizes the newly acquired object as a hat. Although it is obvious to the new owner that the object is a hat, he has no idea about the composition of the material. He might have some knowledge from Reuven, but Reuven was not thoroughly familiar with the details of the hat as it applies to the needs of the object as Reuven required. Without ever intending to do damage to the hat the new owner first wears the hat in the climate it was purchased and has no problem with the material in this respect, however, he does not have an unusual shape to his head. Because the pressure on the hat by the head when it is worn is not as it should be, the hat begins immediately to lose its shape. The new owner is very unhappy with the way the hat looks on him, and in time gives the hat to his brother. The brother is now the new owner and lives in a region that has less rain and more sun then the area inhabited by his brother and more importantly, by Reuven. The hat was never meant to be exposed to the sun. As time goes on the already shapeless hat losses all of its color and, additionally, becomes hard and brittle. The brother, no longer finding any utility in the gift, gives the hat to his son who is totally ignorant of the purpose of the object in his possession. The child decides to use the hat as a bucket, which from his perspective is the best use of the thing. The boy has no idea that this is the final destructive element of the hat because the material of the top of the hat was purposely made of a very fine and weak fabric. The hat, completely destroyed, no longer has any usefulness to anyone at all.
The story illustrates the relationship between the creator of an object and the created object complete, we can now extrapolate from the ridiculous to the sublime. Judaism understands man in a very similar fashion, whereas man is a created being and is subject to the natural limitations of his physicality. For example, man by his own power cannot fly as a bird flies nor can a man consume the instinctual diet of an earthworm and expect to live a healthy life. Likewise, there are other parameters that man must adhere to in order to achieve his potential as defined by Judaism. The other parameters include those things that are understandably advantageous to human beings because they keep order and restrain behavior destructive to other human beings and parameters that are not easily understandable, if they are understandable at all. The parameters are the laws given through the revelatory process and are intended to stand as truths within the convention of human laws. Man is not the maker or the creator of nature, or most importantly, of himself. Therefore, man may seek to understand the "secrets" of the law, however, man's understanding has little to do with the practical applications of the law. Using the model established above. The Rambam continues in Moreh Nevukhim, Book III, Chapter 8:
Thus in the case of a man, for instance, it is clear that the deformity of his form, the fact that his limbs do not conform to their nature, and also the weakness, the cessation, or the troubling of all his functions - no matter whether all this be inherent in his natural constitution from its beginning or be only a supervening accident - that all this is consequent upon his corrupt matter and not upon his form. Similarly every living being dies and becomes ill solely because of its matter and not because of its form. All man's acts of disobedience and sins are consequent upon his matter and not upon his form, whereas all his virtues are consequent upon his form. For example, man's apprehension of his Creator, his mental representation of every intelligible, his control of his desire and his anger, his thoughts of what ought to be preferred and what avoided, are all of them consequent upon his form. On the other hand, his eating and drinking and copulating and his passionate desire for these things, as well as his anger and all bad habits found in him, are all of them consequent upon his matter. Inasmuch as it is clear that this is so, and as according to what has been laid down by divine wisdom it is impossible for matter to exist without form and for any of the forms in question to exist without matter, and as consequently it was necessary that man's very noble form, which, as we have explained, is in the image of G-d and His likeness, should be bound by earthly, turbid, and dark matter, which calls down upon man every imperfection and corruption; He granted it - I mean the human form - power, dominion, rule, and control over matter, in order to subjugate it, quell its impulses, and bring it back to the best and most harmonious state that is possible.
. . . the commandments and prohibitions of the Law are only intended to quell all the impulses of matter. It behooves him who prefers to be a human being in truth, not a beast having the shape and configuration of a human being, to endeavor to diminish all the impulses of matter -- such as eating, drinking, copulation, anger, and all the habits consequent upon desire and anger -- to be ashamed of them, and to set them limits in his soul.
Since the Law, according to classical Jewish thought, was given by the Creator as a guide to the proper use and maintenance of the world, it is to be followed as it is understood by tradition. Matters of interpretation and question always arise and this, maintains the Law, is incorporated into the basic doctrine of the Law. The full elucidation of this concept is what Prof. Strauss in Philosophy and Law has regarded as among Maimonides' greatest achievements, i.e., the philosophic grounding of the Law. In so doing, Maimonides removed the Epicurean threat to the Law and firmly secured it from future attack. Prof. Strauss has accurately demonstrated that "orthodoxy," that is to say, the traditional understanding of Judaism, was never defeated by the modern project. The inability of modernity to overcome orthodoxy forced the purveyors of the modern project into a continuous defensive position. Accordingly, ridicule and derision became the chief weapons in the arsenal of the modern apostate in waging an unceasing assault upon "orthodoxy."
The importance of the distinction between ancient and modern apostasy may not be immediately clear. It must be understood that the way people think is reflected in the way they behave. The general thought patterns of our time have developed over the years into representing the modern project. Modern educational systems accurately reflect the current thinking and the norms of society. In the "global village" of modern generations there exists not a corner that is untainted by modernity. By modernity, we are not referring to technology, for technology is only a tool not an idea, but the ideas or idealizations of modern thought, i.e., the dominant thought of the modern project. Involved in this is language, definitions and points of reference that combine to inhibit any thought that might reside outside of the acceptable borders of what today is called politically correct ideas and has for at least two centuries slowly exercised its hegemony. The leviathan that is modern thought has consumed nearly all in its path through years of derisiveness that mocks without refuting.
The rejection of tradition in the modern context is a prelude to authoritarianism through a derision that breeds intolerance. When all ideas are equal because man as the maker constantly seeks to remake himself, no ideas are "significantly" better than others. Truth is relative to the seeker and his time. Tradition maintains that there is a hierarchy of ideas and this very notion is outside the acceptable norm of the modern project. Rather than stimulating and fostering the freedom of ideas, modernity stifles and berates anything outside of its narrow spectrum of thought.
The Alternative to Modernity: The Rejection of Modern Apostasy
All things are possible through the imagination. However well-meaning the concept may be, the recognition of its origins and the realization of its meaning must not be ignored. With the aid of modern social science, the relative nature of all things is fully established as the grounding of the modern project. Truth is an obsolete concept unless applied in the most relative terms of "my truth" and "your truth."
The first casualty of this "overcoming" is rational thought followed closely by meaningful language. Cultural interpretations are explained as the diversity of understandings, whose meanings are the byproduct of environment and culture. The modern thinker is required by doctrine to reject absolutism in the sense that any single "truth" or understanding is of greater value than another.
It is clear that the meaning of the modern project is the overturning of tradition, however, the often ignored result is the total destruction of the Jewish world view. What must be understood is that the impetus for the modern project was indeed the transformation of the Jewish G-d into the self-creating deification of man. Modern apostasy is the modern project in the guise of true enlightenment. Modern Jewish thought and Jewish liberalism are self-contradicting concepts that need be exposed as antitheses of authentic Jewish understandings.
Modern apostasy has replaced moral certitude with the "if it feels good, do it" ritual. Man is made void of a nature; for it is the greatest of mistakes to confuse what "feels" natural or nice with purpose. Man's lack of purpose leaves him stilted as the beasts of the field "doing" without cognition. Imagine.
The grounding of modern apostasism is indeed found in the gratification of physical pleasure. Its "demonstration" is portrayed as leading toward the "growth" of the individual, and the contentment of the species. The area of physical satisfaction, however, is not the only, and certainly not the most important subject to be transformed by modern apostasy. The social ramifications of this quest are, of course, the heart and soul, so to speak, of the radicalization of Epicureanism. Every nation whose existence is relative to the progress of man is permitted, in hope that in time all distinctions will wither away. Any nation whose life-force is based upon an eternal notion of absolutism may not be permitted, for its very existence threatens the onward march of modernity. The nation who proclaims divine right must be eliminated. Of course this nation is the Jewish State of Israel. The Jew as a citizen of the world may live so long as his identification is ethnic and not religious. The resuscitation of a Jewish national existence is a combination of parochial and reactionary forces that preclude man's advancement. Therefore what might be acceptable for other nations, is not acceptable for the Jewish State. Leaving aside that the majority of those that set policy in the State of Israel would likewise wish that the Jewish nation were like all other nations, the theory of its existence is, within the context of modernity, intolerable. Israeli policy-makers and theoreticians on political models, find the world's rejection unfathomable, because they refuse or are unable to understand the idealizations of modern apostasy.
The reason modernity is unable to defeat "orthodoxy" rests in the classical prerequisite that the rational capacity of man is innate. Irrespective of the fact that the multitude may be persuaded by the purveyors of modernity, there will always be those who will recognize the legitimacy of rational thought. Self-deification is destroyed primarily through the cognition of wisdom. This means that contemplation of self in addition to the contemplation of existence is the true process of philosophizing. Language has meaning when the concepts of good and bad are delineated within the parameters of human purpose. To correct the gnostic synthesis value-free idealizations, we are drawn by intellect to the rational and revelatory processes. Therefore, the only alternative to modern apostasy is "orthodoxy", derived through rational thought, and then superceded by the revelatory Law.
In conclusion, Leo Strauss writes in
The City and Man:
We cannot reasonably expect that a fresh understanding of classical political philosophy will supply us with recipes for today's use. For the relative success of modern political philosophy has brought into being a kind of society wholly unknown to the classics, a kind of society to which the classical principles as stated and elaborated by the classics are not immediately applicable. Only we living today can possibly find a solution to the problems of today. But an adequate understanding of the principles as elaborated by the classics may be the indispensable starting point for an adequate analysis, to be achieved by us, of present-day society in its peculiar character, and for the wise application, to be achieved by us, of these principles to our task. 3
NOTES:
1. The City and Man (p. 7) Leo Strauss, The City and Man (The University Press of Virginia, 1964). (References to this work will be taken from The City and Man [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978].)
2. Leo Strauss, Philosophie und Gesetz (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1935). (References to this work will be taken from Philosophy and Law: Essays Toward the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors, tr. Fred Baumann [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1987].) Page 3: According to Hermann Cohen, Maimonides is the "classic of rationalism" in Judaism. This seems to us to be correct in a more exact sense than Cohen probably meant it. Maimonides' rationalism is the truly natural model, the standard that must be carefully guarded against every counterfeit, and the touchstone that puts modern rationalism to shame.
3. The City and Man, page 11. 
