Most mystic writings from the Middle Ages [and Musar also] depend a lot on Aristotle's four elements, his division between substance and form, and the 10 spheres of Ptolemy. The unstated problem with this is that a great deal of Aristotle' Physics and Ptolemy's spheres do not seem accurate.
So what people do is try to preserve the insights while ignoring the basic world view upon which they depend. In any case, this makes writings from the Middle Ages problematic in that one is trying to gain the accurate insights, while at the same time ignoring the world view.
Sometimes from the idea that these medieval writers could not have been wrong, one tries to find hints of modern physics in them.
What adds to the difficulty in all this is no one knows the actual Aristotelian system upon which all medieval writings are based. Or even acknowledges the fact. And thus the terms are constantly used in inaccurate ways.
For what happened in history is Descartes came along and the force of his clarity was so great, confidence in Aristotle sank. So we do not think in terms of שכל בכוח potential intellect as being imprinted by active צורות forms. After Descartes we do not think everything has to have substance and form. For example -the mind.
The problem is all the greater because Post-Descartes thought has not led to anything that could conceivably replace Aristotle in terms of most of the issues that are raised in these medieval books.
[Litvak Yeshivas as a rule do not think about theology at all. The only time the problem comes up is in Musar seder. Some books of Musar depend a lot on the mystic writings of the Middle Ages and that seems to invalidate them.]
\\\\
What was done during the Middle Ages was to create a synthesis of Aristotle with Torah. Maimonides was leaning in the direction of Aristotle. Others like Rav Saadia Gaon were leaning towards Plotinus. Today after Descartes, Kant and Leonard Nelson a similar kind of effort is needed.
It is not that the efforts of the Rambam were wasted. Even the Kant-Friesian School is very close to the Neo-Platonic approach of the Rambam. But still the Rambam tends to be kind of mediaeval. Some new effort is needed.
Sometimes from the idea that these medieval writers could not have been wrong, one tries to find hints of modern physics in them.
What adds to the difficulty in all this is no one knows the actual Aristotelian system upon which all medieval writings are based. Or even acknowledges the fact. And thus the terms are constantly used in inaccurate ways.
For what happened in history is Descartes came along and the force of his clarity was so great, confidence in Aristotle sank. So we do not think in terms of שכל בכוח potential intellect as being imprinted by active צורות forms. After Descartes we do not think everything has to have substance and form. For example -the mind.
The problem is all the greater because Post-Descartes thought has not led to anything that could conceivably replace Aristotle in terms of most of the issues that are raised in these medieval books.
[Litvak Yeshivas as a rule do not think about theology at all. The only time the problem comes up is in Musar seder. Some books of Musar depend a lot on the mystic writings of the Middle Ages and that seems to invalidate them.]
\\\\
What was done during the Middle Ages was to create a synthesis of Aristotle with Torah. Maimonides was leaning in the direction of Aristotle. Others like Rav Saadia Gaon were leaning towards Plotinus. Today after Descartes, Kant and Leonard Nelson a similar kind of effort is needed.
It is not that the efforts of the Rambam were wasted. Even the Kant-Friesian School is very close to the Neo-Platonic approach of the Rambam. But still the Rambam tends to be kind of mediaeval. Some new effort is needed.
