1

Shalom,

I did some background research on the RaMBaM for my BA Thesis and remember that there has been one source that stated something quite platonic that for him having correct abstracted thought of something is to take part of it, which does not really fit into the picture of Maimonides.
It's a pity I cannot remember the source or find it again...
Can anybody think of something plausible or refer me to some possible source?

Toda rabba

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    Hi and welcome to MY! "there has been one source that stated something quite platonic that for him having correct abstracted thought of something is to take part of it, which does not really fit into the picture of Maimonides", I'll admit, I found this sentence hard to follow - would it be possible to flesh it out a bit into digestible chunks? :) We are glad to have you with us
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Feb 13 at 16:01
  • Thank you for having me and welcoming me here! Sure, I used the platonic terminology "to take part of it" to describe how I was understanding the source, ie. to assimilate the "form" (to use an aristotelian term) of the thing itself which knowledge is being deduced from. I took it quite Ashlagian as "spiritual beings are seperated by the difference of form" (Yehuda Ashlag: Petichah LeChockmat HaKabbalah 13 link with abstract thought being included within the extension of the term spirit.
    – Skylark Soldierz
    Feb 13 at 17:56

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .