Q&A: Maimonides’ Proofs in The Guide for the Perplexed
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Maimonides’ Proofs in The Guide for the Perplexed
Question
Do the four proofs that Maimonides wrote at the beginning of Part II of The Guide for the Perplexed have any real validity in light of modern physics?
Answer
I don’t know. If you want, spell them out here and we can discuss them. Preferably one by one.
Discussion on Answer
Today we know more than that: there is no such thing as motion in an absolute sense at all. Motion relative to what?
Maimonides is operating within an Aristotelian conceptual framework; I wouldn’t recommend studying those parts of his writings (including the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah).
A question for Yoav: why are you studying The Guide for the Perplexed at all?
Why is it relevant nowadays?
For me, The Guide for the Perplexed is just embarrassing…
It’s hard for me to spell it out, since I haven’t really studied Maimonides’ words carefully. Basically, the point of my question was to know whether it’s worthwhile to study these proofs.
In any case:
Maimonides’ first proof is from the eternal motion of the spheres (if we accept the eternity of the world). He assumes that eternal motion requires an eternal mover, if I understood correctly.
Today we know that motion needs an initial mover, and afterward it is preserved, as long as there is no force opposing it.
Thank you very much.