A Study On Maimonides’ Thought Of Cosmogony

Cosmogony is the study of the origin of the universe. In Late Antiquity and medieval times, it could refer to mythological explanations or to a topic of philosophical debates entangling both pagan (or secular) philosophers and theologians from the three Revealed religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Such debates formed a significant trail in the intellectual history of that period and embodied the fundamental differences, among all the involved parties, in their understanding of the ontological order of the universe and the defining of the nature of God. They had also constituted a major platform for the dialogue between Hellenistic philosophy and monotheist theology, through which philosophy diffused into scriptural exegesis and dogma formation while monotheist theology changed the framework and presuppositions of philosophy subliminally.Maimonides, the greatest authority of the medieval Jewish philosophy and theology, played a great role in such debates, offering a unique and far-reaching solution to the cosmogony debates. This dissertation shall focus on what his particular stance was, how he had reached it and why he had expressed it in such an esoteric way.Following Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias, Maimonides treated the issue of cosmogony as a dialectical topic. This position differentiated him from the mainstream of Arabic Aristotelianism. In his view, due to the epistemological feature of the issue, neither the eternalists nor the creationalists could provide any demonstration; and there was no apodictic premise which might equip such a demonstration within the scope of human knowledge. Thus, the cosmology issue could only be studied on the basis of a survey of the existing opinions and solved by selecting or proposing a most plausible opinion with least difficulties.Two major sources of Maimonides’cosmogony view were the biblical narrative of Genesis and Hellenistic philosophers’explorations of the origin of the universe. In Ancient Near East and Greece, these two streams developed independently. But in Late Antiquity, they merged while the monotheist theology was in constitution and resulted in the dogma of Creation ex nihilo. Eventually, the two distinct ideas—the necessity-eternity of the universe and Creation ex nihilo—marked the two parties (pagan or secular philosophers and monotheist theologians) respectively. Jewish thinkers began to accept the doctrine of Creation ex nihilo in Late Antiquity. In the early medieval time, some religious scholars, such as Saadia Gaon, supported it and tried to constitute Judaic theology, model after Islamic Kalam. But the pre-Maimonidean Jewish philosophers, especially those who were deeply influenced by Arabic Aristotelians, favored the doctrine of Eternity. This diversity of positions was the context of Maimonides’ investigation of cosmogony issue.There existed five approahes on cosmogony in Maimonides’ time:Epicurean Spontaneous Generation, Sabian Eternity, Aristotelian Eternity, Platonic Creation out of Primal Matters and Kalamic Creation ex nihilo/de novo based on Atomism-Occasionalism. Of the above five ideas, Maimonides’ dialectical arguments focused mainly on Aristotelian Eternity and Kalamic Creation de novo, the most rigorous and influential two of that time.As to Arabic Aristotelian theory of Eternity, Maimonides summarized eight proofs, which can be divided into three types:the first four were Aristotle’s arguments based on the nature of the world, the next three were Aristotelian philosophers’ arguments based on the nature of God, and the last was an invoke of the mythology generally accepted by ancient nations. Maimonides questioned the first two types epistemologically and overturned philosophers’ arguments of the world’s eternity; but he appeared tricky when handling the third type which was basically a kind of Sabian doctrine of Eternity. To serve his plan of borrowing Aristotelian philosophy to reform Judaism, Maimonides consciously defiladed the existence of Sabian elites and the genetic relationship between Sabian doctrines and Hellenistic philosophy.In his criticism against Kalamic proofs of Creation de novo, Maimonides first summarized the twelve premises of Kalamic Atomism-Occasionalism and seven arguments of Creation de novo based on the former, explained and criticized them respectively, then announced that such Kalamic proofs were lack of scientific validity. But he did not thoroughly deny the Kalamic argument of particularization. Moreover, if we compare Maimonides’ account to the original Kalamic presentation, it would be obvious to see that he purposefully highlighted the fallacious aspects of Kalam, trying to estrange the Torah disciples from this popular learning. Maimonides’ criticism against Atomism-Occasionalism has a rather significant place in the world intellectual history. This Kalamic theory, preserved in his dialectical discussion and later transmitted into the Latin world, was not only a result of the confluence of the Hellenistic philosophy and the Judeo-Arabic culture, but also had its origin in Central Asia and India which were beyond the Mediterranean world. It embodies "a dialogue concerning the two chief world systems" in its true sense.Based on his account and criticism against Aristotelian arguments of Eternity and Kalamic arguments of Creation de novo, Maimonides presented his own arguments of Creation de novo. He drew Kalamic argument of particularization from the background of Atomism-Occasionalism and engrafted it into the framework of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. This is essentially a teleological argument, by which the conclusion that the universe had a beginning (i.e., Creation de novo) could be deduced from the teleological contingency of the world, an idea philosophically superior to the notion of necessity-eternity in his eyes. It should be noted that given his acceptance of Aristotle’s concept of possibility, Maimonides excluded the possibility of God’s choice of an eternal world, meaning he equates Creation ex nihilo with Creation de novo, which differentiates his understanding of these doctrines from Avicenna’s and later Aquina’s.Maimonides’ cosmogony has its significance in the history of philosophy. It established the paradigm of the later discussion about such issues, drove on the further integration of Avicenna’s metaphysics of modality with Aristotle’s physic framework and his metaphysic premises, presaged the direction of Latin Scholasticism and introduced Kalamic Atomism-Occasionalism systematically into Christian Europe. Its significance to Judaism lies in a chain plan, i.e., to establish the true science of Torah by probing into cosmogony, to elevate the development of Judaism along the intellectualized elitist line by establishing the true science of Torah, to solve the crisis endangering Judaic survival around the Mediterranean then by implementing such a rationalization scheme. Failed though in the competition with Jewish mysticism, it still represented the general direction of monotheistic religions and provided a viable and sustainable solution to the problem of Judaic survival.