[Avodah] Rambam's naturalism

[David Riceman]

Micha Berger wrote:
> The nearest I could find was (from about 1/5th of the way into pereq 18):
>   
>> This benefit is very great in the case of prophets, and varies
>> according to the degree of their prophetic faculty: as it varies in
>> the case of pious and good men according to their piety and
>> uprightness.
>>     
>
> But notice he's saying that HP is in proportion to their nevu'ah (or to
> chassidus and tzidqus), not that it actually is their nevu'ah.
>   
See Ibn Falaqera, Moreh HaMoreh, at the end of 3:18 (he cites 3:52 and 
2:12).
> However, the fate of a bird isn't a product of what's most appropriate
> for that particular bird. Unlike the case of events that occur to people,
> or at least to those who get HP. It's hashgachah minis or hashgachah
> kelalis, depending on whether the rishon is looking to the fate of the
> species (HM) or to the Divine Wisdom inherent in natural law (HK) --
> but it's still hashgachah.
Universals are a problem for the Rambam.  See Falaqera again, at the 
beginning of 3:18, summarizing Plato and Aristotle (unfortunately 
without specific references).
> Whereas I'm arguing that the debate between Epicurus and Aristotle
> was about this exact point. Epicurus thought that there were events
> that "just happened", whereas Aristotle believed that events come
> from intellects turning the potential into the actual, and therefore
> everything can ultimately be traced back to Divine Wisdom. The only
> thing is, that Wisdom usually is that there should be a rule, and not
> that this particular case should have this particular outcome.
>   
You need to add qualifiers here.  Epicurus thought that all events just 
happened; Aristotle thought that many events come from physical law.
> When seen in contrast to Epicurus, because Aristo believed in teleological
> causes (things happening for a purpose), he did have a non-random
> universe. All of nature was the product of someone's will.
This is inaccurate.  Not all of nature; much of nature.  Some of it is 
random.  Descartes was the first (since the Kalam) to deny randomness.

David Riceman