1 METAPHYSICAL EXPLANATION AND “PARTICULARIZATION” IN MAIMONIDES’ GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED Dr. Owen Goldin Marquette University ABSTRACT: Within the Guide of the Perplexed Maimonides presents an argument that is intended to render probable the temporal creation of the cosmos. In one of these arguments Maimonides adopts the Kalamic strategy of arguing for the necessity of there being a “particularizing” agent. Maimonides argues that even one who grants Aristotelian science can still ask why the heavenly realm is as it is, to which there is no reply forthcoming but “God so willed it.” The argument is effective against the Arabic Neoplatonic Aristotelians, but not against Aristotle himself. Aristotle’s response to Maimonides would be that the latter is in effect asking, “Why are there the essences there are?”, a question that Aristotle would take to be fundamentally misplaced, since he holds that the existence of the theoretical primitives of every science is to be assumed. Nevertheless, Maimonides’ challenge has force for those who recognize a demand for a metaphysical explanation for there being those kinds of things posited as primitive by the natural sciences. In this paper I consider the metaphysical explanations Aristotle and Maimonides provide for the very being of the cosmos as a whole. I focus on Maimonides’ criticisms of the Aristotelian view that the cosmos had no temporal creation. I argue that the authentic Aristotelian account is not susceptible to Maimonides’ challenges because Aristotle holds a different conception of what metaphysics is, and what a good metaphysical explanation should be. But Maimonides’ challenges are actually directed not towards the teachings of Aristotle himself, but towards his teachings as interpreted by his Arabic expositors. I argue that Maimonides’ challenges are partially successful since they reveal gaps and difficulties in what Maimonides takes to be the Aristotelian account. In indicating the sources of the Aristotle/Maimonides debate in the second book of the Guide, I hope to clarify the implications of the two different accounts of what metaphysical understanding is. I In the dedicatory epistle of the Guide of the Perplexed Maimonides states that this work was written for his pupil Rabbi Joseph, son of Judah, and those like him, “however few they are” (Guide, I:Epistle Dedicatory:3). 1 Maimonides’ description of the state of Judah’s learning is thus of great importance in discerning the nature of the