Sunday, April 23, 2006

Leibowitz, Kaplan, God and Halacha

Over Pesach I had the opportunity to read a few modern Jewish philosophy books and I'm still in the process of digesting them. A couple of them really stuck out though. One was by Isaiah Leibowitz and the other by Mordechai Kaplan. Suffice it to say they each had rather different takes on Judaism.

Leibowitz takes the stand as a metaphysical reductionist and what I'd consider to be a Jewish Kierkegaard. In his view God simply exists and the best way of doing Judaism is through following Halacha for the sake of serving God. Doing Halacha for any other purpose, be it for moral reasons, sociological reasons or political reasons is to turn God's Law into service for man and not for God. Thus doing Mitzvot for the sake of reward or fear of punishment is the basest type of religion since it is purely selfish as opposed to the purely selfless ideal of Leibowitz. Thus he criticizes people like Maimonides who seach for rational justifications for the Law. If Halacha is to serve God then its utility to man is irrelevant.

Leibowitz reminds me of Kierkegaard because he has the same idea that faith and service in God is the ultimate objective in life beyond that of any moral concern or ethical imperative. Thus he uses the Akeidah as an example of God's commands overruling any moral conscience. One's ultimate fidelity lies with God and not with anything else.

There are some issues though with Leibowitz. He in other places claims that Judaism is only meaningful in the sense as the "following of Halacha." He says that since Judaism has had many different theologies and religious philosophies over time the only consistent measure to identify Judaism is through those who live a Halachic life. He thuswise tries to make irrelevant all the metaphysical theories behind Judaism and even the imperative behind composing a metaphysical theory to justify it. The problem is that one must make certain assumptions about the relationship between God and Halacha to say that one is serving God by following Halacha. If Halacha is a creation by man and not truly a command from God then one is serving men, not God.

Leibowitz doesn't outrightly say this anywhere in his book, but I suspect that he basically makes the assumption that the Torah is min hashamayim and Halacha is divinely inspired. Though, I think, you don't need to make that assumption. Even if Halacha was and is devised solely by man, one can still serve God in a way that makes sense to man. God is unfathomable and the ultimate reality. For "Him" to command anything is likewise unfathomable and nonsensical. We must rely on human invention to try and relate to "Him." And the best way to serve Him is through doing that which has no utility to man. For if an act has utility to man then its value as a service to God is much reduced if not entirely so.

In this way we can justify all those apparently silly and meaningless rituals in Judaism. Every one of those Chukim are explained thus. One would be absolutely correct in saying that they serve no purpose to man. For if they served man then that would undermine the whole point. The intention is a service to God.

The problem I run in with Leibowitz is that he says that following Halacha supercedes ethical and moral imperatives. Indeed, how can he not? How can the utility to man's needs come before the will of God? But if Halacha is not the will of God, but rather the innovation of man then this solves the problem. For those laws which are ethically or morally neutral then why not do them? They are a service to God and nothing else. But when a law crosses ones conscience then we must hold one's conscience supreme.

Then this is where Kaplan comes into play. Since the God of Leibowitz is transcendent and unknowable, how are we to relate to Him? We cannot. What Kaplan does is to turn what is meaningful for man into that which is God. God is the power that makes for freedom. God is the power that makes for cooperation. God is the power that makes for social regeneration, for salvation and for Righteousness.

God is that which is virtuous and strived for in human nature. God is morality. For God to come before moral imperatives is impossible. God is the moral imperative. To honestly follow one's conscience is to walk in the ways of the Lord.

11 comments:

Jewish Atheist said...

God is that which is virtuous and strived for in human nature. God is morality. For God to come before moral imperatives is impossible. God is the moral imperative. To honestly follow one's conscience is to walk in the ways of the Lord.

I've honestly tried to follow this reasoning, but I just don't get it. Is "God" a mere metaphor? What do we gain from redefining "God" as morality, as conscience, or as "that which is virtuous and strived for in human nature?" What relationship does such a "God" have to do with a Creator or with existence itself or with anything bigger than the Earth and its inhabitants?

If "God" is a just metaphor or a useful (albeit fictional) story that we tell ourselves (a la The Life of Pi) than I can sort of see the point. But I'm constitutionally incapable of purposely deceiving myself, which seems to be what such a philosophy calls for. I could act "as if," of course, but that doesn't seem to get me anything that simply following my conscience (or morality or innate desires, etc.) would get me.

David Guttmann said...

Nice post. Leibowitz was one of the philosophers that saved me and got back on track in Jewish Theology. For a while I was completely enthralled with him and bought every book by him. What you are leaving out is his claim that he is interpreting Rambam for our times. He has an interesting take on him but he leaves out the most important piece of Rambam. According to Rambam the most powerful piece is after having acquired a correct idea of God one then emulates Him and partakes in Creation by actively helping mankind and the universe. Leibowitz stops before that.Many people miss this in Rambam and it is the most crucial in his thinking putting halacha secondary to that but only once a certain stage in theology has been reached.

Orthoprax said...

JA,

"What relationship does such a "God" have to do with a Creator or with existence itself or with anything bigger than the Earth and its inhabitants?"

It's a reconstruction of the way we understand the word. Maybe it is a metaphor for our far from perfect understanding of the ultimate ontological truism. Or maybe it is just a way for humankind to orient itself toward this Ultimate since true transcendence is an impossible gulf to traverse.

All things come down the Creator (assuming there is one), right? Both the good and the bad. But having a religious persuasion is the determination to focus on the good and the assertion that life is inherently valuable and worth living despite the corrosive effects of existential angst.

These virtuous efforts are the way in which God works through us (rather than on us) to bring ourselves to self-realization and a meaningful existence.

Orthoprax said...

David,

"According to Rambam the most powerful piece is after having acquired a correct idea of God one then emulates Him and partakes in Creation by actively helping mankind and the universe. Leibowitz stops before that."

The philosophies of the Rambam and Leibowitz are really rather different. Leibowitz would say that no correct conception of God is possible. The Rambam was all about getting to that conception and keeping to it. Halacha was just a means to an end. Leibowitz says keeping Halacha is an end in itself.

David Guttmann said...

> The Rambam was all about getting to that conception and keeping to it.

You misread Rambam. Here he and Leibowitz are in agreement. Both believe that God is only known from His acts and no concept of God per se can be developed. The difference between the two is that according to Leibowitz there is only one kind of ethics the one commanded by God while ethics per se without God's commandment would be self serving. Rambam sees two types one self serving but once someonme has been able to understand God's actions he now emulates Him which is the real ethics. Follow my posts I am getting there once i finish with the idea of transcendence.

Orthoprax said...

David,

"Both believe that God is only known from His acts and no concept of God per se can be developed."

Ok fine. Then the Rambam was more for the goal of getting the best correct understanding of God possible. It wasn't really about ethics for the Rambam, it was about intellectual progress. Ethics were a tool and the way in which such intellectual progress would present itself and support further progress. I don't think the Rambam's two forms of ethics ever conflict in the way Leibowitz's types can.

David Guttmann said...

I am in the midst of writing a post on the subject. Hope to post overnight.

Anonymous said...

Kaplan's ideas are time dated.

Leibowitz, rationally irrational.

Orthoprax said...

David,

Ok, I'll probably check it out later.


Anon,

"Kaplan's ideas are time dated."

Some of them. Far from all of them.

"Leibowitz, rationally irrational."

In your opinion.

dbs said...

I never read Leibowitz, (and from your description, it doesn't sound like I would have found him meaningful) but I was an avid fan of Kaplan.

I view Rav Kaplan as the modern day Luzzatto. Like the Ramchal, he is a beautiful writer, a rational thinker and compelling exponent of his views. They offer a comprehensive set of ideas which are specific enough to be satisfying, yet rational enough to be acceptabe. (And peppered with mystical nuance.) I particularly love Kaplan because his style is so straightforward and his own kindess and humanity come so strongly from his words.

In the end, Kaplan is not offering a 'proof' of belief, but rather, a system of thinking about Judaism which works on a much more satisfying level. (e.g. how can we understand God, what is a workable concept of the afterlife, how does prayer work, what is the purpose of creation, etc.)

If God exists, it makes far more sense to me that it is Kaplan's God. If there is an afterlife, it makes far more sense that it be Kaplan's concept.

I don't consider any of those ideas to be irrational. That the Torah was writen by God - yes, that is irrational (and, no, I don't find the "If You Were God" argument compelling). That performance of endless minutia is the ultimate reflection of God's will - that is irrational. That we Jews are the fortunate winners of the spiritual lottery, and have an inside track to immortality - that is irrational and immoral.

I'm sure that there is the 'Kaplan equivalent' for all fundamentalist religions - those who can represent dogma in a far more palitable manner. In the end, you either believe in that religion or you don't.

consoladores said...

Thanks so much for this article, pretty useful material.