" -- Franklin H. Littell In To Mend the World Emil L. Fackenheim points the way to Judaism's renewal in a world and an age in which all of our notions -- about ...

Comprises the Charles F. Deems Lectures delivered at New York University in 1968. Discusses the significance of the Holocaust, emphasizing theological issues, and its uniqueness in history. An authentic response to it - religious or secular - is a commitment to the autonomy and security of the State of Israel. Refers to Jewish midrash to explore the meaning and significance of the Holocaust and relates Jewish thinking about the Holocaust to Jewish thinking about earlier catastrophes. Jewish particularism remains a scandal (...) to modern secularism. Pt. 3 (p. 67-104), "The Commanding Voice of Auschwitz", states that the death of God occurs in the inward realm of the spirit alone and nowhere else. The imperative for Jews is not to flee being Jewish: "Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories. They are commanded to survive as Jews". (shrink)

Investigates the assumptions of such philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger and Sartre regarding Jewish existence.

"Jewish Philosophy and the Academy reflects in broad terms on the current state of Jewish philosophy in the university. This generation of university teachers lives at a unique historic junction. It is the last to be taught by the giants of European Wissenschaft des Judentums and the first to experience the remarkable expansion of Judaic scholarship in Israel and abroad." "Emil Fackenheim suggests that if we are indebted to Athens for the philosophical method, we are also indebted to Jerusalem (...) for the ethical content of philosophy, which is both an intellectual and a moral challenge. This dual challenge shapes the diverse papers in this volume."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved. (shrink)

IN THE PREFACE to his Philosophy of Right Hegel writes: "Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig"--"What is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational." In paragraph 6 of the third edition of his Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences he repeats this statement verbatim, calling it "simple." Few interpreters, however, have ever found it so. Even friendly critics are baffled; hostile ones dismiss it as either scandalous or senseless. Two centuries after Hegel's birth (...) there is thus still room for a modest exposition of the meaning of this famous Hegelian statement, much more so for one of its "simplicity." Both tasks, however--and in particular the second, seemingly hopeless one--should be undertaken in full awareness of two conditions which the Encyclopedia passage considers evident but which can be taken as such no longer. One is possession of "religion." The other is the kind of philosophical "culture" which includes "knowledge" of "God.". (shrink)

If, in content and in method, philosophy and religion conflict, can there be a Jewish philosophy? What makes a Jewish thinker a philosopher? Emil L. Fackenheim confronts these questions in a profound and insightful series of essays on the great Jewish thinkers from Maimonides through Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and Leo Strauss. Fackenheim also contemplates the task of Jewish philosophy after the Holocaust. While providing access to key Jewish thinkers of the past, this volume highlights the exciting (...) achievements of one of today's most creative and most important Jewish philosophers. (shrink)

A detailed exploration of Jewish thought and how it compares with the ideas of modern philosophy.

This appraisal became conventional opinion, and has remained conventional opinion until this day. In practically any history of philosophy which bothers with Schelling at all one can find this threefold condemnation of his work: that it consists of a number of more or less disconnected systems; that none of these is properly worked out; and that from 1804 on, they get worse and worse. As a result of this opinion, few historians have been interested in Schelling. When in 1944 air (...) raids destroyed the Munich University Library, among the treasures destroyed were thousands of Schelling manuscript pages, mostly written in his later years. It seems that in nearly one hundred years nobody was sufficiently interested in these manuscripts to do anything with them. (shrink)

Post's Nachlass has recently been made available to the public in an archive in the U.S.A. After a short summary of his life and career, this article indicates the character and content of the manuscripts, and their significance is assessed. Two short passages are transcribed; and. as a separate item, a paper of the 1930s on the paradoxes is reproduced.

Recent research has neglected Philo's philosophy. Philo is an enigma to scholars, not primarily because his ideas grow from the "Hellenistic mixing bowl of Alexandria," nor even because of the difficult literary form of his writings, but because of the ambiguity of his position as a whole. Is he a philosopher, a mystic, a Pharisee? Where does the real Philo speak, and what is a Nebenstroemung? In answer to these questions, most recent scholars hold either that his philosophy is not (...) the most important part in Philo, or at least that the safest approach to him lies in non-philosophic material. In any case, Philo's philosophy has been neglected, and thus Wolfson's work fills a real gap: for whatever the merit of these views, Philo is a philosopher as well, and one who even before the present study was known to have exerted great influence on subsequent philosophy. (shrink)

There is, of course, a very obvious sense in which the historical study of a work such as the Politics can be of philosophical significance. "The wisdom of Aristotle grows on the mind as one ponders upon it", in the sense that many of his thoughts and observations may be immediately assimilated to political situations and types of political thinking which are wholly different. But to stop there would be inadequate from the viewpoint of both the historian and the philosopher. (...) A Politics "in modern dress" could be full of misleading modern concepts or at least overtones, obscuring the real meaning of Aristotle in its desire to make it mean something to the modern reader; historically inadequate, it would by the same token be philosophically almost irrelevant, since it would achieve little more than random confirmation, or enrichment in mere details, of views previously held by the modern thinker. A profounder task is set at once by historical and philosophical exigencies: a Politics "in modern dress" must really convey in modern English language the meanings, connotations, overtones of its ancient Greek words. What this involves perhaps only the philosopher can fully understand: for behind the unending struggle to dispel modern connotations and overtones, possessed by English terms roughly corresponding to the Greek, emerges the need for subjecting to criticism one's own unconscious philosophical presuppositions. Imperative for the historical understanding of works such as the Politics, this effort is required also for their profounder philosophical fruitfulness for the modern thinker. Our present situation illustrates this fact: if the philosopher of today offers no more than a political doctrine or "ideology," his will be but one of the views on the market, excelling the others perhaps in degree but not in principle. Only if he starts out with making radically conscious the specific unconscious presuppositions of modern political thought can he hope to arrive at a position lifted in principle above the conflicting ideologies. But to discharge this notoriously difficult task there is no better means than the study of different significant thinking in different significant situations; and of all objects of such studies none is more satisfactory than Greek political thought,--because it is at once profoundly different from modern thought and yet sufficiently related to it to remain relevant, and, it need hardly be added, because it is always great.--To take the example of Aristotle's "shocking" views on slavery and censorship: within the framework of other political doctrines, we should find such views irrelevant philosophically, simply ignoring them after our shock; in the case of Aristotle, however, even these views are rooted in moral ideals partly our own, and therefore the shock becomes here an unbearable challenge of profound philosophical fruitfulness, forcing us to face Aristotle articulate on first principles on such first matters as the nature of man and of political association. (shrink)