The 'Rambam (Maimonides) has a very favorable attitude towards Aristotle. The Ramban' (Nachmanides) just the opposite.
The Reason with Revelation approach of the Rambam ((Maimonides)) stems mainly I think from Saadia Gaon. The approach of the Ramban (Nachmanides) however is at least based on Rav Hai Gaon-as far as I recall.
The fact that both approaches are considered legitimate is mainly due to the efforts of the Ramban (Nachmanides) himself who defended the Rambam (Maimonides) rigorously and intensely, even though he did not agree with him on major points. This was pointed out to me by David Bronson who was deeply involved in learning all the writings of the Ramban (Nachmanides).
David also pointed out the mystical approach is a direct descendant of the Rambam.
I guess I have to say I go more with the Reason with Revelation approach which to me seems more sturdy. But that is not to say I ignore the importance of the Ramban and the Ari. The Gra also (I should mention) combined both approaches. He saw no contradiction between them. The reason is that there is a limit to reason as the Critique of Pure Reason makes a point of. This point ought to be expanded I think along the lines of Leonard Nelson. But at any rate the point is clear. There are areas where pure reason can not penetrate: the "ding an sich"/thing in itself. And that is where faith takes over--immediate non intuitive knowledge. Things that you know, but not by reason nor by sense perception. (Or to put it better things that you recognize as true, but not by means of manipulating definitions nor by the senses.) [That is knowledge that is not implanted, but recognized.]
The Reason with Revelation approach of the Rambam ((Maimonides)) stems mainly I think from Saadia Gaon. The approach of the Ramban (Nachmanides) however is at least based on Rav Hai Gaon-as far as I recall.
The fact that both approaches are considered legitimate is mainly due to the efforts of the Ramban (Nachmanides) himself who defended the Rambam (Maimonides) rigorously and intensely, even though he did not agree with him on major points. This was pointed out to me by David Bronson who was deeply involved in learning all the writings of the Ramban (Nachmanides).
David also pointed out the mystical approach is a direct descendant of the Rambam.
I guess I have to say I go more with the Reason with Revelation approach which to me seems more sturdy. But that is not to say I ignore the importance of the Ramban and the Ari. The Gra also (I should mention) combined both approaches. He saw no contradiction between them. The reason is that there is a limit to reason as the Critique of Pure Reason makes a point of. This point ought to be expanded I think along the lines of Leonard Nelson. But at any rate the point is clear. There are areas where pure reason can not penetrate: the "ding an sich"/thing in itself. And that is where faith takes over--immediate non intuitive knowledge. Things that you know, but not by reason nor by sense perception. (Or to put it better things that you recognize as true, but not by means of manipulating definitions nor by the senses.) [That is knowledge that is not implanted, but recognized.]
