![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Swing dance was cancelled/postponed on account of snow. People in general seem wroth to leave their dorms. I didn't feel like watching a movie, although/several were being shown in the rooms of friends in my building. So I've been doing some homework reading. In fact, I should now be reading Strauss, but it isn't quite sinking in, so this is my break. (That's Leo Strauss the philosopher, not Claude Levi-Strauss the anthropologist, Richard Strauss the composer or Johann Strauss the composer: just to clarify.)
Before, I was reading a book entitled What is Scripture? by Wilfred Cantwell Smith. It isn't a book I'd have touched, most likely, except for class: it has that look that screams "I am an academic text, and am written primarily to be difficult to understand and dull to read!" And it is, just a little. But it's rather exciting, idea-wise. But I learned that the Song of Songs was sung in first century CE taverns, and this amuses me greatly. It also addressed- guess what- some issues that we've been addressing in my Maimonides class. This semester is shaping up to be a nicely interlocking one. It's either going to help me build a really nice understanding of some textual sources and how to address them, or drive me insane. Or quite likely both. In the meantime, I'm being rather excited about the idea that the concept of scripture went from being a matter of faith to a matter of sociology. This is exactly the sort of shift that I want to play with, except (also?) involving human behavior inside that system. I need to remember not to limit myself too much though: I know these fields I love, and have some ideas about how to unite them, but it's good not to forget that I get nerdily excited by the rest of the field too, mostly. (Except that I still can't bring myself to even contemplate taking either Zionism or Holocaust classes: too darn much propaganda, I'm sick of the whole field without even really having more than a tiny, tiny taste of what I seem to be sick of.)
My Maimonides class, I think, is going to help me remember that a. I am not, by first nature, a philosopher (something I know: I don't get that thrill from reading philosophy), but that b. I do enjoy it, especially aloud. It has always seemed like something that should be done slowly and actively, and when I read I tend to gulp first, analyze and struggle with later. Not a good trait for reading the Guide to the Perplexed, unfortunately. But it's this beautiful chance to read these things and look at what the philosophy and the assumptions say about Maimonides' ideas about how the world is set up, and how he sees human life. It's exciting. One of the articles I read recently (and posted briefly about) was talking about how his presentation of Matter and Form as female and male, respectively, demonstrated his views of the roles of men and women in life. It was really neat, especially since I'd just read that section of the Guide that same evening.
Tangentially: during the talk I went to last semester on Maimonides, someone asked what Maimonides' take on egalitarianism would be if he lived in the present day, rather than just over 800 years ago. The speaker said that he thought that Maimonides would have been egalitarian, he thought. The rationale I either remember or am making up is the way that Maimonides involves his comtemporary philosophy/ideals into his work in a way that suggests that he'd do the same with modern (elite) societal ideals if he lived now. Which makes me think- can anyone else see Maimonides as R. Roth? At least by reputation, it seems like a good match...
Before, I was reading a book entitled What is Scripture? by Wilfred Cantwell Smith. It isn't a book I'd have touched, most likely, except for class: it has that look that screams "I am an academic text, and am written primarily to be difficult to understand and dull to read!" And it is, just a little. But it's rather exciting, idea-wise. But I learned that the Song of Songs was sung in first century CE taverns, and this amuses me greatly. It also addressed- guess what- some issues that we've been addressing in my Maimonides class. This semester is shaping up to be a nicely interlocking one. It's either going to help me build a really nice understanding of some textual sources and how to address them, or drive me insane. Or quite likely both. In the meantime, I'm being rather excited about the idea that the concept of scripture went from being a matter of faith to a matter of sociology. This is exactly the sort of shift that I want to play with, except (also?) involving human behavior inside that system. I need to remember not to limit myself too much though: I know these fields I love, and have some ideas about how to unite them, but it's good not to forget that I get nerdily excited by the rest of the field too, mostly. (Except that I still can't bring myself to even contemplate taking either Zionism or Holocaust classes: too darn much propaganda, I'm sick of the whole field without even really having more than a tiny, tiny taste of what I seem to be sick of.)
My Maimonides class, I think, is going to help me remember that a. I am not, by first nature, a philosopher (something I know: I don't get that thrill from reading philosophy), but that b. I do enjoy it, especially aloud. It has always seemed like something that should be done slowly and actively, and when I read I tend to gulp first, analyze and struggle with later. Not a good trait for reading the Guide to the Perplexed, unfortunately. But it's this beautiful chance to read these things and look at what the philosophy and the assumptions say about Maimonides' ideas about how the world is set up, and how he sees human life. It's exciting. One of the articles I read recently (and posted briefly about) was talking about how his presentation of Matter and Form as female and male, respectively, demonstrated his views of the roles of men and women in life. It was really neat, especially since I'd just read that section of the Guide that same evening.
Tangentially: during the talk I went to last semester on Maimonides, someone asked what Maimonides' take on egalitarianism would be if he lived in the present day, rather than just over 800 years ago. The speaker said that he thought that Maimonides would have been egalitarian, he thought. The rationale I either remember or am making up is the way that Maimonides involves his comtemporary philosophy/ideals into his work in a way that suggests that he'd do the same with modern (elite) societal ideals if he lived now. Which makes me think- can anyone else see Maimonides as R. Roth? At least by reputation, it seems like a good match...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Perhaps within the Conservative Movement, in a limited context. One breaking point is that R' Roth is, by his own description, a halakhist first and foremost. Ramba"m was a halakhist, philosopher, scriptural commentator, practicing physician, and who knows what else.
The other issue, of course, is that most of the observant world refuses on principle to listen to anything R' Roth says . . .
From:
no subject
Why the abreviating of Rabbi as R' rather than R.? Is it to prevent confusion as to if we're talking about Rabbis or robots? (E.g. Asimov's R. Daneel Olivaw, etc.)
From:
no subject
The notation R' is more to avoid the notion that R is the person's first name. Of course, the robot thing did occur to me.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject