Parallel between Tanya and Nichomanian ethics

[The New Yorker]

I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that Perek Alef Tanya seems to be a ripoff of Aristotle's Nichomanian Ethics which was written many centuries earlier. Was the Alter Rebbe perhaps well versed in the works of ancient philosophers? Or perhaps Aristotle, in search for wisdom, conversed with the rabbis of his time and was privy to some of the secrets of the Zohar.

Specifically, the Alter Rebbe's describtion of the four types of ppl: Tzadik V' Tov Lo, Tzadik V' Ra Lo, Rasha V' Tov Lo, Rasha V' Ra Lo-- is exactly how Aristotle describes HIS four classifications of humans: The Virtuous Man, The Continent Man, The Incontinent Man, and The Vicious Man.

I've noticed a few other parallels between Chasidus and the works of ancient philosophers, so if anyone can shed some light on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[The Eighth King]

Perhaps he was well versed in Torah. Straight from a Gemoro in Brochos 7a, 61a and a Zohar Mishpotim 117b.

[The New Yorker]

What about the concept of everything being composed of earth, air, fire, or water. Hellenistic philosophers beleived this as well. What is the source?

[Maskil]

You will find many parallels in the categories of the two (lhavdil) systems. I won't get into the history of it, but there are many category-names in the Kabala of the Zohar and Chazal that are similar to l'havdil the category names of Greek philosophy. You named a few.

There's more: The four elements and the fifth hiuli. the different levels of the soul according to Aristotle parallel l'havdil the nefesh, ruach, neshama system. And there are others I can't think of right now.

Many Jews feel the need to claim that they took it from us. Personally, I don't think it is necessary to approach it that way in order to refute the apikorsus that usually flows from the claim that they preceded us.

I think it's can be simply explained by saying that we shared the same language to talk about these matters. Just because we use the same terms, it does not follow that we have the same views. Just the opposite. The Jewish views of many of these topics differ significantly from the ways the goyim viewed them.

We see this on a non-kabbalistic level too. The Rambam wrote the Moreh Nevuchim to explain where the Torah is compatible and incompatible with the way Aristotle describes the world. He used Aristotle's dictionary, but that is not the same thing as saying he believed the same things as Aristotle.

So too, kabala, and later Chassidus, in some issues used same the well-known map as the Greek Philosophers. But Chassidus merely used the map. But they arrived at a very different place (obviously).

L'moshol, if an AKU"M used a map of the city to get to his beis gilulim, and I used the same map to go to yeshiva, nobody would have a taina on me that I used the same method as the Oveid Avodah Zarah.

(V'Kol Zeh b'derech efshar)

[The Eighth King]

What about the concept of everything being composed of earth, air, fire, or water. Hellenistic philosophers beleived this as well. What is the source?R' Chitrik references Midrash Rabba, Naso, Parsha 14:12; Zohar Chadash Bereishis, ch. 5; Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 3-4; Zohar Vol. 1, 263a; Zohar Vol. 1, 5b and more.

[Also see the Gemoro in Chulin 127a. An even earlier source (for 3 of the 4 Yesodos) is Sefer Yetzirah, and it is also mentioned (all 4 Yesodos) in Sefer Raziel HaMalach.]

[Yankel Nosson]

The nations also inherited knowledge of the world from their ancestors via Noach's sons. The original idolotors knew very much about ruchniyus, and they used it for their own advantage. (Ruchniyus they recognized, but not Elokus). Maskil's metaphor about the street map is very good.

Regarding Aristotle, see Toras Chayim, Noach, the Mitteler Rebbe describes apikorsim as "knowing their master" but desire to rebel against him, and disparages those who deny the achdus of Hashem ("like Aristo and his assistants") as the very worst, worse even than the klipa of Avodah Zora who at least acknowledge Hashem as "Eloka d'Elokaya" (G-d of the gods).

I recall that I once came across a desription in a sefer of Chabad Chassidus (Mitteler Rebbe? Freidicker Rebbe?) of Aristotle's arrival in Heaven, that he claimed great things for himself and he was rejected...but I can't seem to find the reference.

[The Eighth King]

To continue Y"N's train of thought, see the Gemoro in Chagiga 15b where it states the reasons Acher went of the path, one of which is:אמרו עליו על אחר בשעה שהיה עומד מבית המדרש הרבה ספרי מינין נושרין מחיקו The danger of studying these works is understood automatically. (If you read the previous words of the Gemoro you will also understand the danger of goyish music.)

[Yankel Nosson]

The Rebbe brings (LS 30, p269) from the Tzemach Tzedek, who wrote to one of the Maskilim of his days:
"love Plato, love Aristotle, but love the Truth more than everything else." :cool:
1029

In addition, there is a thread here on Chabadtalk that touches on this
Seder Ha'Doros (by R' Yechiel Halperin of Minsk, about 250 years ago):

3385 - "Plato received wisdom from the prophets, and Socrates studied from Achitofel and Assaf Ha'Karchi." (This is also brought in Toras Ha'Olah by the Rema, this topic is referenced in Sefer Ha'Sichos 5701, p. 67 in footnotes)

3442 - "In the Kuzari manuscript, beginning of maamar beis, it is written that the works of the philosophers have roots and foundations in the wisdom taught by the Jews to the Casdeans, who passed it on to the Persians and Medeans, from there to the Greeks, and only then to the Romans. With the passage of time, the Jewish roots were no longer mentioned or remembered, and it was attributed only to the Greeks and Romans ..."

In Shvilei Emuna (by a talmud of the Rosh) it say, "When Alexander [the Great] went to Yerushalayim, he gave his teacher Aristotle control over Shlomo Ha'Melech's books. He plagiarized his philosophies from there, and called them by his own name ..." There are many sources, both Jewish and non-Jewish that mention these traditions.

[Maskil]

I tend to prefer YN's approach in post 6 more than that of post 8. It's not that I don't think Aristotle could have taken stuff from Klal Yisroel. It's just that there is no record of that anywhere. Therefore it's not worth using as a debating point, since the "other side" of the argument will say "Mi'heichi Teisi?" or merely accuse us of cheap apologetics. The fact that this understanding of Chochmo Yevonis is not found anywhere in divrei Chazal tends to weaken the point as well.

Also, "Yaft Elokim L'Yefes V'yishkon b'Oholei Sheim" does not say that Yefes really got it from Sheim. So why do we need to be so insecure?

The Kuzari doesn't claim that Greek wisdom came from the Jews. He claims the Greeks picked it up from the Persians. He dismisses most of it anyway since it's all just mental gymnastics, whereas Klal Yisrael has a mesora to back the Torah up.

[iskafya]

Derech Agav, the quote from the Tzemach Tzedek is also mentioned by the Chavaos Yair (No.9) but with a slight variation. His quote is as follows: The Greek chief of philosophers said: "Love Socrates; love Plato; only the truth love more."

[The New Yorker]

I tend to prefer YN's approach in post 6 more than that of post 8.
Proven or not, I found YN's post 8 much more satisfying. The similiarities are more than just in use of language. The catagories are so detailed and specific that they must share the same origion. The 5 levels of the soul, for example, is an elaborately esoteric concept, and I find it difficult to beleive that greek philosophers just reffered to them as the commonly accepted notion of their time. The analogy of the map also confused me, because if these catagories, if you will, are merely the outline of both ancient greek philosophy and contemporary chasidic philosophy, someone must have drawn this map...

[Yankel Nosson]

Proven or not, I found YN's post 8 much more satisfying. The similiarities are more than just in use of language. The catagories are so detailed and specific that they must share the same origion. The 5 levels of the soul, for example, is an elaborately esoteric concept, and I find it difficult to beleive that greek philosophers just reffered to them as the commonly accepted notion of their time. The analogy of the map also confused me, because if these catagories, if you will, are merely the outline of both ancient greek philosophy and contemporary chasidic philosophy, someone must have drawn this map...
The world is created from Torah and all reality comes from Torah. However from the perspective of world, there 2000 years of Tohu before the 2,000 years of Torah. When the Torah comes on the scene (i.e., revealed to humanity), there is already a world full of ideas here. Torah as revealed in the chumash takes many things for granted, such as the existence of slavery, marriage, business, farming, etc. The Torah doesn't need to explain what is a slave, only how to conduct slavery in a Torah-dike manner.

So the nations of the world were not blank slates when the Torah was revealed (even though the source of everything is actually in Torah, but this is on a concealed level). The reason they worshipped avodah zora is because the spiritual mechanisms were evident to them. (How much was "mesora" from the early generations and how much was their own observation is not relevant.)

The point is that they didn't need Torah to tell them the facts (whereas we are unable to perceive the spiritual mechanisms of the world so we need Torah to tell us), they needed Torah to tell them how to behave in relation to those spiritual powers.

[Maskil]

The analogy of the map also confused me...My point was that it's okay even if the Greeks drew the map and we used the map to reach the Torah's conclusions.

[Bittul]

I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that Perek Alef Tanya seems to be a ripoff of Aristotle's Nichomanian Ethics
I've noticed a few other parallels between Chasidus and the works of ancient philosophers, so if anyone can shed some light on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
The first sentence is written very disrespectfully, the final paragraph is well written.

On topic, you have forgotten that the Alter Rebbe gives 5 types of people, not 4, so your premise is flawed. Aside from the fact that the 5 types originate in the Gemara, not from the Alter Rebbe.

In general there will always be similarities between systems of thought and behavior, and the further back you go in history the harder it is to tell which came first.

[The New Yorker]

The first sentence is written very disrespectfully, the final paragraph is well written.

On topic, you have forgotten that the Alter Rebbe gives 5 types of people, not 4, so your premise is flawed. Aside from the fact that the 5 types originate in the Gemara, not from the Alter Rebbe.

In general there will always be similarities between systems of thought and behavior, and the further back you go in history the harder it is to tell which came first.

Why must ppl be so defensive on this forum? Who was I disrespecting exactly, the Alter Rebbe? Notice the key word: SEEMS to be a ripoff. The Alter Rebbe doesnt need you to be his lawyer, his teachings speak for themselves. Noone else seemed to take offense at the way I phrased the question, and your tendancy to go on the attack is just a sign of insecurity. As if your not strong enough in your beleifs to be able to handle them being analyzed.

Furthermore, I came on here to get answers to a question that's been plaguing me recently and Yankel Nosson and Maskil have offered me informed and beleivable solutions (thank you). Your post demonstrated ignorance on the subject, was partially irrelevant, and offered a typical copout answer, so I suggest you speak only on matters which you actually know something about.

[Bittul]

Do you really believe the phrase "seems to be a ripoff" is a respectful way of posing your question?
Do you really believe that the fact that no one else noticed that your comparison was incorrect makes the point any less valid?

[milwaukee]

I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that Perek Alef Tanya seems to be a ripoff of Aristotle's Nichomanian Ethics which was written many centuries earlier. Was the Alter Rebbe perhaps well versed in the works of ancient philosophers? Or perhaps Aristotle, in search for wisdom, conversed with the rabbis of his time and was privy to some of the secrets of the Zohar.

Specifically, the Alter Rebbe's describtion of the four types of ppl: Tzadik V' Tov Lo, Tzadik V' Ra Lo, Rasha V' Tov Lo, Rasha V' Ra Lo-- is exactly how Aristotle describes HIS four classifications of humans: The Virtuous Man, The Continent Man, The Incontinent Man, and The Vicious Man.

I've noticed a few other parallels between Chasidus and the works of ancient philosophers, so if anyone can shed some light on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Aristotle used Aristotelian logic to reach and reveal certain truths in the world. Through observation and experince vechulu he came to accurate conclusions of human nature.

Tanya reveals the truth of human nature, iow reality. Reality can be revealed through objective observation (as Aristotle did) or through going directly to the source that describes reality.

This explains why Aristotle and the Alter Rebbe's understanding of human nature are in some ways compatable.

Hope this makes sense. let me know if you need clarification.

[Maskil]

NYer, a few points should be made:

Bittul made a good point about the Greek system not having a Beinoni.
Human beings all deal with the same general condition. Life, death, good, evil, children, food, men and women. The fact all ancient cultures dealt with these issues, and that ancient neighboring cultures had a common language they used to talk about these subjects, should not be cause for Wellhausen-ian dismay (or glee).

The apikorus class will foam at the mouth when they hear the similarities since they see the "proof" that we got it from the goyim. They carry the argument further. They say, "So you see that it's okay to adopt goyish beliefs, cultural norms etc.".

The traditionalist rightly fears this conclusion, so he rushes to say, "They got it from us.". But can't really prove it either.

The Greek culture of 2300 years ago wasn't only Greek. They were busy conquering and being conquered, assimilating and being assimilated by cultures throughout the Meditteranean, and then into the Middle East with Alexander. The Kuzari is of the opinion that they got a lot of their ideas from the Persians. The Persians in turn had their own neighborhood that included the Babylonians and a strong Jewish Golus Elite.

During the times of the Torah and Yehoshua, the world surrounding Klal Yisroel was smaller. We had the 7 nations, Amalek, Edom, Ishmael, Mitzrayim, the Plishtim. The era of Nach gave us Ashur and Bavel too. And at the end of Nach, we got Persia in the mix too.

Bais Sheini gave us Yavan and Rome. Yavan and Rome created such a cholent of ideas throughout the west and east that it's difficult to pinpoint who the originator of a specific concept was. Even if it was Greek, there wasn't only one Yavan. I know that in "Al Hanissim" we simply say Malchus Yavan Ha'resha'ah. But among the Greeks, it wasn't all k'ish echad b'lev echad either. Beis Aristotle had serious differences with Beis Plato etc. And even when ideas can conclusively be traced back to Aristotle, it isn't as if he said major chiddushim. For the most part, his skill was in categorizing and discerning levels, types, kinds, species etc.

Each of these eras will show that what Klal Yisroel had in terms of Mitzvos and hanahagos shared some outward similarities with the neighbors' chukas hagoy. Big deal. A Jew once pointed out, "Is it so wondrous that both the Jews and l'havdil the Phoenecians had Harvest festivals, or spring festivals? It's human nature (i.e. from Adam Harishon) that people will be makir tov for their bounty! But as goyim gravitated towards pirud and A"Z, they express this universal matter in a A"Z'dike way, and the Torah always placed the focus of the inyan on Ein Od Milvado."

Don't confuse the language with the message. Two different messages can be written using a similar language.

[The New Yorker]

Don't confuse the language with the message. Two different messages can be written using a similar language.
That's exactly what I found so unsettling about the similiarities-- that greek philosophy which condoned a hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle would share the same infrastructure as chasidic texts which preach selflessness and g-dliness. It makes more sense to me now though, given the history. Thanks for your input.

[The New Yorker]

Do you really believe the phrase "seems to be a ripoff" is a respectful way of posing your question?
Do you really believe that the fact that no one else noticed that your comparison was incorrect makes the point any less valid?

I won't fight with you. I opologize if you were offended my choice of words. Please just take my question at face value and do not interpret it as some hidden agenda to undermine the Alter Rebbe.

You are right that there are many aspects that diffrentiate Aristotle's view from the Alter Rebbe's doctrine (among them the relevance of g-d in it all), and that Aristotle does not mention the Beinani-- it was the fact that there are similiarities at all that bugged me. I've also noticed countless other similiarities to both chasidus and to my limited knowledge of Rambam, and just found it to be a strange coincidence that a philosophy which preaches heresy would share the same foundation as a book which is reffered to as "the secrets of the Torah".

[The New Yorker]

Tanya reveals the truth of human nature, iow reality. Reality can be revealed through objective observation (as Aristotle did) or through going directly to the source that describes reality.

This explains why Aristotle and the Alter Rebbe's understanding of human nature are in some ways compatable.

Hope this makes sense. let me know if you need clarification.

Interesting theory, but very subjective. It only works under the assumption that the Tanya is the ultimate truth (and I'm not saying that it's not). As Maskil pointed out, its important to avoid "cheap opologetics". It's a cute little reconciliation but lacks concrete evidence.

[yanqui]

On borrowings from Aristotle:

1) Aristotle predated Rashbi by about 400 years, so if there was borrowing, it's pretty clear which direction it went.

2) Rambam's ethics in Pirke Avos/Shmonah Prakim and in Hilchos Deos derive a lot from Aristotelian ethics, with necessary modifications for the Torah/God-centeredness of Judaism. If the Alter Rebbe paralleled that, it shouldn't be too surprising.

3) As for loan-words, the Mishna and Gemara are full of them. E.g., Sanhedrin. Sandek. Apotropos. Prozdor. Afikomen. Sapir-Whorf were wrong, at least as regards Hebrew: just because we don't use a native word for something, doesn't mean that we didn't have the idea before we borrowed the word from elsewhere. Beis Din Hagodol is Sanhedrin, just Sanhedrin is shorter. Same for shul - it's shorter than Beis Haknesses.

If the Tanya parallels Nicomachean Ethics, then, it shouldn't be cause for concern - perhaps there's really an ideal ethics, and Aristotle happened to find it without Revelation.

[Bittul]

Glad we cleared things up a little.

Parallels can be found between most system, as humans revolve around similar ideas, no matter where they are. Consider that Zalman Shachter "discovered" similarities between Chabad Chasidus and Mahayana Buddhism, lhavdil elef havdalos. In that case, there is no way one could have developed from the other. These are 2 systems that grew in continents that had no contact with each other, at least significant contact, at the time. Yet the ideas are similar!

If I'm not mistaken, what is considered the most valid proof that one culture derived from another is the actual terms being similar. Thus, we know exactly where "hiuli" came from, as the word remained the same wherever the concept was adopted. In this case, I don't think Aristotle used terms similar to tzadik or rasha, but then again I can't read Greek :-).

[Maskil]

If the Tanya parallels Nicomachean Ethics, then, it shouldn't be cause for concern - perhaps there's really an ideal ethics, and Aristotle happened to find it without Revelation.

Perhaps he found components of it. But even his biggest Jewish fan the Rambam wouldn't say he found "it".

[The New Yorker]

Glad we cleared things up a little.

Parallels can be found between most system, as humans revolve around similar ideas, no matter where they are. Consider that Zalman Shachter "discovered" similarities between Chabad Chasidus and Mahayana Buddhism, lhavdil elef havdalos. In that case, there is no way one could have developed from the other. These are 2 systems that grew in continents that had no contact with each other, at least significant contact, at the time. Yet the ideas are similar!

That is so interesting. What a strange coincidence. I don't know much about buddhism but Ive actually seen the earth, air, fire, water, water thing mentioned in asian-culture inspired books on feng shui design. Perhaps these beleifs are most common-sensical than they seem at first glance.