Maimonides: On Creation Essay

Creation is a metaphysical attribute attached by Philosophers to the notion of God. With regard to Maimonides’ interpretation, he regarded Creation as something created by God out of nothing or ‘ex nihilo’. He argues that Creation is something that can be proven through philosophy however, philosophy alone cannot explain creation out of nothing and thus, there is a need to rely on Torah (Trepp, 2000). Nonetheless, the whole discussion of Maimonides on the topic of creation in his book ‘Guide for the Perplexed’, he cautioned the readers to ‘expect some ambiguities and deceptions at worst (Rudavsky, 2000)’. Thus, several interpretation of Maimonides’ account of creation arise trying to decode whatever hidden message is preset in his writing. In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides explicates three possible theory of creation; Platonic, Aristotelian and Mosaic. As he reiterated, at his conclusion on the chapter of creation, he stated that believing in the Mosaic interpretation is preferable and somehow practical; nonetheless, Plato’s account is also an option. This denotes that he is not in favour of the Aristotelian account. To see clearly the distinction, a brief overview of each account would be essential. The Mosaic interpretation holds that God created everything out of nothing or ‘ex nihilo’ (Dobbs-Weinstein, 1995). The Platonic version of creation put forwards the existence of something along with God in which God created everything. The last account, that of Aristotle believes that ‘the world is eternal and therefore necessitated out of God’s own nature or being’ (Dobbs-Weinstein, 1995). When Maimonides explained that the Platonic version is also an option, it undermines the fact that it is also possible. Nonetheless, Maimonides does not demonstrate or even thoroughly give explanation as to why Plato’s view is preferable; instead, he argued against Aristotelian view while defending the Mosaic view –only because it is according to prophecy. Due to the warning given by Maimonides, his exact view about creation is controversial. For the purpose of discussion, it is better to stick with the actual passage written in his book. In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides point out that, the Aristotelian view would prove that miracles and the commandments are false or does not emanate from God. This is because creation as something eternal and a product of necessity removes God’s ability to choose freely (Dobbs-Weinstein, 1995). He argued against the assumption of Aristotelian philosophy that the world is something that is eternal by establishing the fact that God is something that is beyond human knowledge. Aristotelian argument of the world as eternal, rest on the assumption that creation is impossible because change is inherent in nature as well as change is impossible for something as perfect as God, thus everything is and always has been (Taffel, 2004). Maimonides asserts that the interpretation of what God has created could not lead to God’s real nature, as there is a difference between the account of origin and the account of change (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2008). For origin is creation initially, whatever is there before the initial creation is something that man could not know unless he could go back there and see it for himself (Pines and Yovel, 1985 ). The account of change which states that something precedes something else does not apply to God in the sense that what applies to the created does not necessarily applies to the creator. Creation, in Maimonides terms, seems to be ‘ex nihilo’ in nature or that of the Mosaic view. However, agreeing on Plato’s account that God created something from something is a contradictory of the first belief. Nonetheless, both beliefs represent God as something that can will as opposed to Aristotelian God who exists necessarily (Pines and Yovel, 1985). Since Maimonides warned for ambiguity, it could be ascertain that one ambiguity lies on his position about change, wherein he disagree that something comes from something as extrapolated from human experience yet he concluded that Plato’s account is also acceptable (Rudavsky, 2000). At the end, Maimonides concluded that the Mosaic view is the most preferable because he is faced with uncertainties himself. Works Cited: Dobbs-Weinstein, I. Maimonides and St. Thomas on the Limits of Reason. SUNY Press, 1995. Pines, S. and Yovel, Y. Maimonides and Philosophy. Papers Presented at the Sixth Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter, May, 1985. Rudavsky, T. Time Matters: Time, Creation, and Cosmology in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. SUNY Press, 2000. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Maimonides. 2008. Retrieved on November 7, 2008, from http://www. science. uva. nl/~seop/entries/maimonides/ Taffel, David. Introduction. The Guide for the Perplexed. By Maimonides. Barnes & Noble Publishing, 2004. Trepp, L. A History of the Jewish Experience: Eternal Faith, Eternal People. Behrman House, Inc, 2000.