Hermann Cohen et Franz Rosenzweig : deux modèles d'identité juive dans la pensée de Leo Strauss

2011 ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
Irene Abigail Piccinini
Keyword(s):  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Hermann Cohen

Living Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Vatter
Keyword(s):  
Political Institutions ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Political Condition ◽  
Faith And Reason ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
Jewish Philosophy ◽  
German Jewish ◽  
Hermann Cohen

This book discusses the political theology developed by German Jewish philosophy in the 20th century on the basis of its original reconstruction of the teachings of Jewish prophetology. In the shadow of the modern experiences with anti-Semitism, the rise of Zionism, and the return of charismatic authority in mass societies, the discourse of Jewish political theology advances the radical hypothesis that the messianic idea of God’s Kingdom correlates with a post-sovereignty, anarchist political condition of radical non-domination. However, this messianic form of democracy, far from being antinomian, was combined with the ideal of cosmopolitan constitutionalism, itself based on the identity of divine law and natural law. This book examines the paradoxical unity of anarchy and rule of law in the democratic political theology developed by Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, Gershom Scholem, Leo Strauss, and Hannah Arendt. Critical of the Christian theological underpinnings of modern “representative” political institutions, this group of highly original thinkers took up the banner of Philo’s project to unify Greek philosophy with Judaism, so influential for medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and rejected the separation between faith and reason, biblical revelation and pagan philosophy. The Jewish political theology they developed stands for the idea that human redemption is inseparable from the redemption of nature.

scholarly journals Jewish philosophy as a Direction of the World philosophy of Modern and Contemporary Times

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-442
Author(s):  
I Dvorkin
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Emmanuel Levinas ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Jewish Thought ◽  
Marginal Part ◽  
The World ◽  
European Philosophy ◽  
Jewish Philosophy

This article represents an analysis of the Jewish philosophy of the Modern and Contemporary as the holistic phenomenon. In contrast to antiquity and the Middle Ages, when philosophy was a rather marginal part of Jewish thought, in Modern Times Jewish philosophy is formed as a distinct part of the World philosophy. Despite the fact that representatives of Jewish philosophy wrote in different languages and actively participated in the different national schools of philosophy, their work has internal continuity and integrity. The article formulates the following five criteria for belonging to Jewish philosophy: belonging to philosophy itself; reliance on Jewish sources; the addressee of Jewish philosophy is an educated European; intellectual continuity (representatives of the Jewish philosophy of Modern and Contemporary Periods support each other, argue with each other and protect each other from possible attacks from other schools); working with a set of specific topics, such as monism, ethics and ontology, the significance of behavior and practical life, politics, the problem of man, intelligence, language and hermeneutics of the text, Athens and Jerusalem, dialogism. The article provides a list of the main authors who satisfy these criteria. The central ones can be considered Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza, Moshe Mendelssohn, Shlomo Maimon, German Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, Josef Dov Soloveichik, Leo Strauss, Abraham Yehoshua Heshel, Eliezer Berkovich, Emil Fackenheim, Mordechai Kaplan, Emmanuel Levinas. The main conclusion of the article is that by the end of the 20th century Jewish philosophy, continuing both the traditions of classical European philosophy and Judaism, has become an important integral part of Western thought.

scholarly journals The Place of Hermann Cohen’s Ideas in the Philosophy of Dialogue

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 62-94
Author(s):  
I. Dvorkin
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Personal Relationship ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
System A ◽  
Philosophical System ◽  
I And Thou ◽  
Philosophy Of Dialogue ◽  
History Of ◽  
Religion Of Reason ◽  
Hermann Cohen

My aim is to prove that Hermann Cohen was not only a philosopher of dialogue but has played an exceedingly important role in the history of that current of thought. His books Ethics of Pure Will (1904) and Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism (1919) offer a detailed analysis of the relationships between I and Thou, I and It, I and We. In the first book these relationships are considered from the ethical-legal point of view and in the second from the viewpoint of religious anthropology. However, Cohen considers the problem of inter-personal relationships not in isolation, but as an important component of his entire philosophical system. Deduction of the concept of personality in Ethics of Pure Will is based on Cohen’s logic of the origin expounded in the first part of his system in The Logic of Pure Cognition. Cohen explains that the origin of the self-consciousness of I as a personality is not the external world, but another person, i.e. Thou. In turn, the partnership relationships between I and Thou create the community We which forms the basis of the law-governed state. The process of artistic creation in the framework of inter-personal relationship is explored in Aesthetics of Pure Feeling. Finally, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism formulates the conception of religion as the most complete realisation of inter-personal relationship. Thus, dialogism became an important dimension of Cohen’s entire philosophical system, a fact noted by Martin Buber. Franz Rosenzweig, in unfolding dialogical thinking, expressly appeals to all the elements of Cohen’s system. There are signs of his influence on Bakhtin’s doctrine. Thus, examining Cohen’s doctrine as part of the philosophy of dialogue gives insights into this entire trend as a coherent whole.

Diaspora in Modern Jewish Thought

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-150
Author(s):  
Noam Pianko
Keyword(s):  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Jewish Thought ◽  
Moses Mendelssohn ◽  
A Value ◽  
Theodor Herzl ◽  
Theoretical Evolution ◽  
Hermann Cohen ◽  
Horace Kallen ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Modern Jewish Thought

This chapter explores the broad contours of concepts of diaspora in modern Jewish thought. Philosophers, intellectuals, religious thinkers, and non-Zionist nationalists who disagreed on the ideal political structure for Jewish collective life (including Moses Mendelssohn, Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, Simon Dubnow, Hannah Arendt, Mordecai Kaplan, and Horace Kallen) shared a commitment to diaspora as a value, rather than just a fact, of modern Jewish life. Yet the emergence of the terminology of diaspora in tandem with the rise of nationalism and Zionism shaped the theoretical evolution of diaspora as the binary opposite to homeland and statist visions of Jewish identity. As a result, seminal Zionist theorists deeply critical of diaspora life, such as Theodor Herzl, Achad Ha’am, and David Ben-Gurion, also had a key role in framing the significance of diaspora. Modern theories of diaspora internalized and contested the privileged position of territory and sovereignty demanded by the rise of nationalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Covenant, History, and the Holocaust: Revisiting Emil Fackenheim's Jewish Philosophy

2016 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-143
Author(s):  
Daniel Rynhold
Keyword(s):  
Emmanuel Levinas ◽  
Introductory Courses ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Jewish Thought ◽  
Historical Circumstance ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Lasting Impression ◽  
Jewish Philosophy ◽  
Modern Judaism ◽  
Hermann Cohen

In the twentieth century, historical circumstance in the form of the Holocaust led to theodicy's returning to the forefront of the philosophical agenda, particularly in Jewish thought. As a result, post-Holocaust theology is almost always an element of introductory courses on modern and contemporary Jewish philosophy, if not introductory courses on modern Judaism simpliciter. Many working in the field of Jewish philosophy, therefore, probably first encounter Emil Fackenheim (1916–2003), and the infamous turn of phrase that ensured his immortality in the realm of Jewish thought, early on in their studies. Fackenheim was one of the most influential post-Holocaust philosophical voices in what soon became a cacophony. This German-born philosopher's (and ordained Reform rabbi's) concept of the 614th commandment—not to grant Hitler a posthumous victory (in his own words “the only statement of mine that ever became famous”)—has captured the imagination of many a student and often made a lasting impression. Yet it seems that one of the concerns at the forefront of this new expansive monograph on Fackenheim's philosophy is that for the majority, this constitutes both their first and last exposure to his thought, leaving them with an extremely contracted view of his conceptual palate. The result, noted in the book's introduction, is that Fackenheim has never really been considered a Jewish philosopher worthy of mention in the same breath as Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, or even latterly Emmanuel Levinas and Joseph Soloveitchik. In this volume, a case is presented for including him on that list.

scholarly journals Ernst Bloch as a Non-Simultaneous Jewish Marxist

Religions ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 346
Author(s):  
Przemyslaw Tacik
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Emmanuel Levinas ◽  
Walter Benjamin ◽  
Specific Form ◽  
Christian Tradition ◽  
Ernst Bloch ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Jewish Heritage ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Hermann Cohen

The paper attempts to reassess the fundamentally paradoxical position of Ernst Bloch in 20th century philosophy in the light of the Marranic condition. Indebted, among others, to Jewish heritage and Christian tradition, Bloch considered himself primarily a Marxist. Bloch’s uniqueness consists in the stunning equiponderance of the currents he drew from. Contrary to a classic model of modern Jewish philosophy, inaugurated by Hermann Cohen, Bloch’s thinking does not allow of easy juxtaposition of “sources” with languages into which they were translated. In this sense, Bloch cannot be easily compared to Franz Rosenzweig, Emmanuel Levinas or even Walter Benjamin (although he bore some striking similarities with the latter). His position at least partly stems from a specific form of directness with which he often used these languages, composing his philosophy in quite an anachronist manner. For this reason his thinking—in itself “die Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen”, as one of his key concepts theorises—is a very modern, internally incoherent space of cross-fertilising inspirations. The paper demonstrates two levels on which Bloch’s indebtedness to Judaism might be analysed and then re-assesses his Marxist affiliations as a kind of modern faith which, in a specifically Marranic manner, seals the simultaneity of the non-simultaneous.

From Confrontation to Cooperation: The Philosophical Foundations of the Joseph B. Soloveitchik-Irving Greenberg Schism on Jewish-Christian Dialogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Daniel Ross Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Orthodox Judaism ◽  
Interfaith Dialogue ◽  
Direct Influence ◽  
Religious Philosophy ◽  
Extensive Discussion ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Hermann Cohen

Abstract The place of interfaith dialogue in Orthodox Judaism has been the subject of extensive discussion. This article offers a reading of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's and Rabbi Irving Greenberg's stances on interfaith dialogue that situates them in a Jewish philosophical context. Some scholars have argued that Soloveitchik's refusal to engage in Jewish-Christian theological dialogue must be understood historically; others have argued that his opposition to such dialogue must be understood halakhically. This article, building upon the view articulated by Daniel Rynhold in his 2003 article that Soloveitchik's stance on interfaith dialogue must be understood philosophically, posits that in order for Soloveitchik's stance on interfaith dialogue to be fully understood, it should be studied bearing in mind the influence of Hermann Cohen upon Soloveitchik's religious philosophy. This article, which demonstrates the direct influence of Franz Rosenzweig upon aspects of Greenberg's thought, further argues that in order for Greenberg's stance on interfaith dialogue—as well as his interfaith theology—to be completely grasped, his positions upon these theological matters must be studied with the awareness of Franz Rosenzweig's influence upon his thought. The reading offered in this article of Cohen and Soloveitchik and of Rosenzweig and Greenberg does not purport to minimize the irreconcilable differences between these thinkers; nonetheless, it believes that the substantial resemblances—and, in the case of Rosenzweig and Greenberg, the direct influence—between the views of Christianity held by these pairs of figures are significant and suggest a reconsideration of the role of philosophy in the story of American Jewish theology.

The Satyr as Prophet: Notes on the “Jewish” Michelangelo

Images ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-64
Author(s):  
Asher Biemann
Keyword(s):  
Popular Culture ◽  
Sigmund Freud ◽  
Martin Buber ◽  
Italian Renaissance ◽  
Michelangelo Buonarroti ◽  
Ernst Bloch ◽  
Franz Rosenzweig ◽  
German Jewish ◽  
Jewish Intellectuals ◽  
Hermann Cohen

AbstractFocusing on the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the essay argues that there existed a Jewish fascination with the work of Michelangelo Buonarroti that was representative not only of a larger German and Jewish Italophilia at the time but also indicative of Jewish aesthetic concerns. Lodged between popular culture and the intellectual quest for an aesthetics that would problematize the figurative image and the classical sense of the beautiful, the Jewish reception of Michelangelo was guided by the themes of terribilita, unfinishedness, and the destruction of form. What emerges is a consistent dialectic of image and anti-image particularly in the writings of Salomon Ludwig Steinheim, Sigmund Freud, Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and Ernst Bloch. But what also emerges is that German Jewish intellectuals entertained a great, though often ambivalent, admiration for the Italian Renaissance and the culture of modern Italy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document