“FROM MOSES TO MOSES” 185
Tufayl, Andalusian phi losophers like himself, in whose writings the more
pessimistic, or perhaps realistic, streak is discernible. Although Ibn Bajja
follows the well- paved Platonic tradition, he focuses on the imperfect
state, where the phi losopher is a stranger, living a secluded, withdrawn
existence, and hoping for better times in the future. Ibn Tufayl, who de-
velops Ibn Bajja’s insights, examines, on the one hand, the option for the
philosopher to become a ruler of an imperfect, but “good- enough” state,
and the possibility of altogether withdrawing from human society, on the
other.
As noted by Pines, some passages of the Guide show traces of the in-
fl uence of Ibn Bajja’s conception of the phi losopher as isolated stranger
in his own community. Speaking about the prophet, who has achieved
intellectual perfection, Maimonides says:
It is likewise necessary for the thought of that individual [that it]
should be detached from the spurious kinds of rulership and that his
desire for them should be abolished— I mean the wish to dominate
or be held great by the common people and to obtain from them
honor and obedience for its own sake. He should rather regard all
people according to their various states with respect to which they
are indubitably either like domestic animals or like beasts of prey. If
the perfect man, who lives in solitude, thinks of them at all, he does
so only with a view to saving himself from the harm that may be
caused by those among them who are harmful if he happens to as-
sociate with them, or to obtaining an advantage that may be ob-
tained from them if he is forced to it by some of his needs.^107As noted by Pines, this passage “may echo the conception or the vocabu-
lary used by Ibn Bajja when dealing with these problems.”^108 The perfect
man lives in solitude, and his interaction with society consists mainly of
protecting himself from it.
This defensive attitude, however, is only one option for the perfect
man. The inner withdrawal described by Ibn Bajja, in which the phi loso-
pher travels in his mind to his own country, is also espoused by Maimo-
nides. Maimonides attributes such a behavior to the patriarchs as well as
to Moses. “Abraham our father” used his own judgment to arrive at true
monotheism and rebelled against the Sabian religion surrounding him.
Maimonides depicts him as standing alone, acting tirelessly to spread the
word, “and he was traveling and preaching, and summoning people, going
from city to the city and from kingdom to kingdom, until he reached the
land of Canaan, where ‘he called the name of the Lord, God of the
(^107) Guide 2.36 (Dalala, 262; Pines, 371– 72).
(^108) Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” cvii.