Jewish philosophy -- Early works to 1800; Judaism -- Works to 1900; Philosophy, Medieval -- Early works to 1800
and by any cause, nor capable of any form of plurality either
objectively or subjectively, as will be proved in this treatise.
Some thinkers have gone so far as to say that the attributes of God are
neither His essence nor anything extraneous to His essence. This is
like the assertion of some theorists, that the ideals, i.e., the
universalia, are neither existing nor non-existent, and like the views
of others, that the atom does not fill a definite place, but keeps an
atom of space occupied; that man has no freedom of action at all, but
has acquirement. Such things are only said; they exist only in words,
not in thought, much less in reality. But as you know, and as all know
who do not delude themselves, these theories are preserved by a
multitude of words, by misleading similes sustained by declamation and
invective, and by numerous methods borrowed both from dialectics and
sophistry. If after uttering them and supporting them by such words, a
man were to examine for himself his own belief on this subject, he
would see nothing but confusion and stupidity in an endeavour to prove
the existence of things which do not exist, or to find a mean between
two opposites that have no mean. Or is there a mean between existence
and non-existence, or between the identity and non-identity of two
things? But, as we said, to such absurdities men were forced by the
great licence given to the imagination, and by the fact that every
existing material thing is necessarily imagined as a certain substance
possessing several attributes; for nothing has ever been found that
consists of one simple substance without any attribute. Guided by such
imaginations, men thought that God was also composed of many different
elements, viz., of His essence and of the attributes superadded to His
essence. Following up this comparison, some believed that God was
corporeal, and that He possessed attributes; others, abandoning this
theory, denied the corporeality, but retained the attributes. The
adherence to the literal sense of the text of Holy Writ is the source
of all this error, as I shall show in some of the chapters devoted to
this theme.
CHAPTER LII
Every description of an object by an affirmative attribute, which
includes the assertion that an object is of a certain kind, must be
made in one of the following five ways:—
First. The object is described by its definition, as e.g., man is
described as a being that lives and has reason; such a description,
containing the true essence of the object, is, as we have already
shown, nothing else but the explanation of a name. All agree that this
kind of description cannot be given of God; for there are no previous
causes to His existence, by which He could be defined: and on that
account it is a well-known principle, received by all the philosophers,
who are precise in their statements, that no definition can be given of
God.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account