The'Seventh Cause': On Contradictions in Maimonides'" Guide of the Perplexed"

It is well known that the main hindrance in understanding The Guide of the Perplexed are the contradictions with which it is replete. One can not escape the frustration of encountering contradictions and inconsistencies in almost every subject in the treatise, contradictions that almost every student of the Guide – medieval or modern – has tried to explain or to solve. In fact, Maimonides himself gives notice of the contradictory nature of the Guide. The last part of his introduction lays out seven causes for 'contradictory or contrary statements to be found in any book or compilation', and comments that 'divergences that are to be found in this Treatise are due to the fifth cause and the seventh'. The fifth cause is pedagogic or didactic: in obscure philosophical matters that are difficult to conceive the writer should begin his presentation with what is easier for the listener's imagination. 'Afterwards', says Maimonides, 'in the appropriate place, that obscure matter is stated in exact terms and explained as it truly is'. The seventh cause is different. It is generally understood as meaning that in some obscure philosophical matters the writer should conceal his views from the multitude by contradicting himself; furthermore, he should also hide from the vulgar the contradictions themselves. This understanding of the seventh cause was elaborated especially by Leo Strauss and was adopted by most of the modern scholars. Many (if not all) of the classical interpreters of Maimonides in the Middle Ages, from Samuel ibn Tibbon and on, also subscribed to it. For some of the latter (among them Ibn Kaspi) as well as for Strauss and his followers, the seventh cause became a hermeneutic device for deciphering the Guide's inner layer. The way to reveal Maimonides' views, they argued, is to seek for the hidden contradictions, and then decide which side of the contradiction conveys his genuine position and which side serves only as a device for concealing it. The main point of the paper is that Maimonides' language in the seventh cause should be better understood as having a radically different meaning. Through a close reading of the original Judeo-Arabic text of the Guide it is demonstrated that the necessity to contradict according to the seventh cause is not socio-political, namely to conceal philosophical truths from the multitude. The necessity to contradict originates from the very nature of the philosophical discourse. This discourse, according to Maimonides, is dialectical. The dialectical nature of philosophy – especially in celestial physics and in metaphysics – stems from the fact (mentioned several times by Maimonides throughout the Guide) that the premises that these subjects are based on are not obvious or evident. Hence, the philosophical discourse in these subjects has to proceed by taking into account different and sometimes contradicting assumptions. This nature of philosophy could be hazardous for the multitude. The latter is in need for fixed dogmas and can not sustain uncertain doctrines. Thus, Maimonides recommends that the writer should conceal the dialectical nature of philosophy from them. This reading of the seventh cause suggests that the Guide is a dialectical work. Its position on the various subjects of physics and metaphysics can be uncertain and inconclusive. Moreover, it maybe the case that the dialectical discourse (which is based on contradictory premises) serves also as a necessary (though insufficient) preparation for philosophical flashes, i.e. rational intuitions, which according to Maimonides is the ultimate goal of philosophical understanding.