Diss. Phil. Bern.

Hasdai Crescas (1340 -1411), foi filosofo, rabino e homem público, que viveu em um período muito turbulento para as comunidade judaicas ibéricas e provençais, do final da Idade Média. Crescas fez uma crítica veemente ao paradigma aristotélico recebido da falsifa, que foi usado por Maimônides para embasar e provar a existência, unidade e incorporeidade de Deus, conceituado no Guia dos Perplexos como o ser necessário absolutamente transcendente em relação aos seres contingentes. Crescas elabora, em Or Hashem ( Luz do Nome Divino), um conceito alternativo de ser necessário, no qual as duas noções antitéticas de imanência e transcendência divinas se relacionam à distinção, no seio do ser necessário entre sua essência simples e os seus infinitos atributos. A essência simples e inefável do ser necessário se expressa em infinitos atributos no ato eterno e constante de doar na univocidade do ser, seu bem, sua atualidade, aos infinitos entes contingentes. Crescas, advoga que universo apesar de ontologicamente contingente é infinito em sua atualidade. Deus é assim concebido como causa primeira eterna e constante, a enteléquia e Lugar do Mundo. / Hasdai Crescas (1340-1411) was a philosopher, rabbi and public man, who lived in a very turbulent period for the Iberian and Provençal Jewish communities of the late Middle Ages. Crescas made a vehement criticism of the Aristotelian paradigm received from falsifa, which was used by Maimonides to ground and prove the existence, unity, and incorporeality of God, which was conceptualized in the Guide of the Perplexed as the absolutely necessary transcendent being in relation to contingent beings. Crescas elaborates, in Or Hashem (Light of the Divine Name), an alternative concept of being necessary, in which the two antithetical notions of divine immanence and transcendence relate to the distinction, within the necessary being between its simple essence and its infinite attributes . The simple and ineffable essence of the necessary being is expressed in infinite attributes in the eternal and constant act of giving in the univocity of being, its good, its actuality, to the infinite contingent entities. Crescas, advocates that universe although ontologically contingent is infinite in its actuality. God is thus conceived as the eternal and constant first cause, the entelechy and Place of the World.

Zugl.: Heidelberg, Hochsch. für Jüdische Studien, Diss.

Les philosophes juifs du Moyen Âge emploient des stratégies d’écriture ésotériques pour traiter certains problèmes d’importance capitale. L’opposition de la « thèse religieuse » de la création du monde et de la « thèse philosophique » de son éternité en est l’exemple type. Ces « arts d’écrire » ont été généralement considérés, depuis les travaux de Leo Strauss, comme des moyens de dissimuler une opinion hétérodoxe, en vue de se prémunir contre la persécution politique. Nous nous engageons à comprendre cet « ésotérisme », non pas comme un stratagème politique, mais comme la conséquence proprement philosophique d’une difficulté intrinsèque à certains problèmes qui mettent en défaut les capacités expressives du langage, comme en l’occurrence la tentative d’énoncer l’origine radicale de toute chose. À partir de cette hypothèse, nous abordons le traitement de la création du monde chez des philosophes juifs actifs entre le Xe et le XVe siècles, qui soutiennent chacun une thèse différente sur la question (Saadia Gaon, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Maïmonide, Isaac Albalag, Gersonide et Ḥasday Crescas). Nous montrons comment la perspective doxographique, visant à identifier la « véritable thèse » de chaque auteur, n’est pas appropriée eu égard à de tels écrits ésotériques et nous efforçons de mettre en lumière, à travers eux, un style original du philosopher qui s’invente dans le moment médiéval de la rencontre de la philosophie et de la « révélation ». / The Medieval Jewish philosophers used esoteric writing strategies in order to deal with matters of critical importance. The opposition between the « religious theory » of the creation of the world and the « philosophical theory » of its eternity constitues one of the most typical example of such subjects. Since Leo Strauss’ works, these « arts of writing » have been generally considered as means of hiding heterodox opinions, used by the philosophers in order to avoid political persecution. We try to show that this esotericism does not stem from mere political calculation, but from intrinsically philosophical considerations : the limitation of langage itself, that fails to express certain issues, such as the radical origin of all things. From this starting point, we discuss the views and writing strategies of diverse Jewish philosophers, active between the 10th and the 15th centuries, each of whom held a different theory on creation (Saadia Gaon, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Isaac Albalag, Gersonides and Ḥasday Crescas). We argue that the doxographic perspective, aiming at identifying each author’s « real view », is not appropriate when dealing which such esoteric writings, which we propose to envisage as the manifestation of a specific philosophical style, emerging in the Medieval period from the confrontation between philosophy and « revelation ».