Resumo Moisés Maimônides é um dos mais importantes pensadores medievais. Sua obra filosófica o Guia dos perplexos não apenas se tornou uma referência fundamental para os pensadores judeus até os dias atuais, mas também exerceu intensa influência sobre os autores latinos durante a escolástica cristã. O Guia aborda diversos temas, dentre eles, há a questão do mal. Maimônides não acredita na existência de um mal substancial. Sem estatuto ontológico próprio, o mal é meramente privação do bem e se divide em (...) três classes: mal natural, o mal que um homem inflige a outro ou aos demais em geral e aquele mal que o homem causa a si mesmo. Este artigo visa expor a perspectiva racionalista de Maimônides sobre a questão do mal e a fundamentação desta na matéria, a importância da Lei, bem como sua consequente proposta de conduta ética.Moses Maimonides is one of the most important medieval thinkers. His philosophical work, The Guide for the Perplexed, has not only became a fundamental reference for Jewish thinkers up to the present day, but it also exerted a strong influence on Latin philosophers during the Scholastic period. The Guide covers several themes, and among them is the issue of evil. Maimonides does not believe in the existence of a substantial evil. Evil does not have ontological status and is merely the privation of good. It can be divided into three types: natural evil, the evil that a man imposes on others, and the evil that a man causes to himself. This article intends to explain Maimonides’ rationalistic approach to the question of evil and its grounding in matter, the importance of Jewish Law, as well as the notion of ethical conduct that follows from this approach. (shrink)

"This book examines the longstanding debate between philosophical optimism and pessimism in the history of philosophy, focusing on Aristotle, Maimonides, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Camus. Philosophical optimists maintain that the world is optimally arranged and is accordingly valuable, and that the existence of human beings is preferable over their nonexistence. Philosophical pessimists, by contrast, hold that the world is in a woeful condition and ultimately valueless, and that human nonexistence would have been preferable over our existence. Schopenhauer criticizes the optimism (...) he locates in the Hebrew Bible and in Spinoza for being unable to square the presumed perfection of the world and its parts, including human life, with the suffering and misfortunes observable in them, and for leading to egoism and thereby to cruelty. Nietzsche, in turn, criticizes Schopenhauer's overtly pessimistic view, inter alia, for furtively positing a perfect state for one to aspire to, thus being latently optimistic. Similarly, Camus charges Nietzsche, who announces his rejection of both optimism and pessimism, with deifying the world and oneself, thereby reverting to optimism. Interestingly, Aristotle countenances an optimistic theory, later adopted and developed by Maimonides, that is arguably capable of facing Schopenhauer's challenge. Aristotelian optimism accounts for the perfection of the world in terms of a hierarchy of value between its parts, with human beings ranked relatively low, and recommends an attitude congruent with that ranking"--. (shrink)