The Guide of the Perplexed was completed in 1190 and contains Maimonides' most extensive philosophic discussions.

Ostensibly a letter written to an advanced student who cannot decide whether to follow philosophy or the teachings of his religion, it is in reality much more: a commentary on biblical terms that appear to ascribe corporeal qualities to God, an uncompromising defense of negative theology, an extended critique of the kalam, a systematic treatment of creation, prophecy, and providence, and a theory of jurisprudence.

According to Maimonides, all of Jewish law aims at two things: the improvement of the body and the improvement of the soul. The former is in every case a means to the latter. The soul is improved by acquiring correct opinions and eventually knowledge on everything humans are capable of knowing. The more knowledge the soul acquires, the more it is able to fulfill the commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5) to love God. The biggest stumbling block to love of God is the belief that the only way to remain true to the Bible is to interpret it literally. The result of literal interpretation is a material conception of God, which, in Maimonides' opinion, amounts to idolatry.

The Guide has long been considered a controversial work and in some rabbinic circles was originally banned. By rejecting literal interpretation, it raises the question of whether Maimonides' reading of the Torah corresponds to what the prophets understood or represents a philosophic reconstruction that owes more to Aristotle and Alfarabi than it does to Moses. It also raises the question of whether the real meaning of the Torah is too controversial to be taught to the average worshipper and should be restricted to the educated few; in short the question of esotericism.

Maimonides' last two works of note are the Treatise on Resurrection, published in 1191, and the Letter on Astrology, published in 1195.[3] The former was written in answer to the charge that while he may profess belief in bodily resurrection, Maimonides did not really hold it. The charge is not without merit given that Maimonides' conception of the afterlife is purely intellectual and that his naturalism makes him suspicious of miracles. He defends himself by saying that the important issue is not whether and how resurrection will occur but whether it is possible for it to occur. As for the latter, once one accepts belief in creation, the possibility of bodily resurrection follows immediately. The Letter on Astrology was written at a time when many people believed that the heavenly bodies exert influence over human events. Nevertheless, he argues that there is no scientific basis for this belief and that it should be abandoned even if support for it can be found in the sacred literature.

Facing ever-growing demands on his time, Maimonides worked himself into a state of exhaustion and died in Fostat in 1204. An old saying has it that from Moses to Moses, there was none like Moses.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/

The major development in Maimonidean studies, however, is an interpretive one. Pines worked closely with Leo Strauss on the 1963 English translation of Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, which remains the best complete English version of his philosophical magnum opus. Strauss, who wrote the introductory essay to the translation, had an idiosyncratic way of reading many premodern thinkers, including Maimonides. In brief, Strauss understood Maimonides to be engaged in a vast project of deception, of concealing his real beliefs, in order that those incapable of understanding and accepting them not become perplexed and dislodged from their simple pieties.

Strauss's way of reading Maimonides finds its way into this article when Pines suggests that Maimonides was a closet Aristotelian who (really) believed in the eternity of the world. Never mind that Maimonides says the opposite to this; for the Straussian, this is just the point: to conceal one's real beliefs, and to suggest the opposite from what one explicitly argues for. There are still Straussian interpreters and interpretations, but they are in retreat. Philosophical scholars tend to rest content with mulling over the actual arguments that Maimonides presents. Further, in response to the Straussian position that there exists a deep divide between philosophy and the law (religion), between Athens and Jerusalem, recent scholars such as Isadore Twersky (1967) and David Hartman (1976) argue that, on the contrary, Maimonides grounds philosophy in the law and understands the law as subserving in large part suprapolitical ends.

Scholars seem less taken with the Maimonidean reaction to Avicenna (Ibn Sn) than Pines appears to be. The Islamic thinkers who have more recently emerged as significant for Maimonides are al-Frb and Ibn Bjja (Avempace). They tend to be important for their influence on Maimonides' moral and political theorizing. Pines is still good on Maimonides' practical philosophy. Especially to be noted is his insistence on a Platonic element in his view of the summum bonum. Often Maimonides is presented as endorsing Aristotle's view that human happiness is a function of contemplative activity alone. Pines rightly resists this, noting that Moses, the political prophet, is paradigmatic for Maimonides. Indeed, the end of the Guide makes clear that imitation of God mirrors God's providential care for the created world.