Franz Rosenzweig : the other side of the West -- Dissimilation -- Hegel taken literally -- Utopia and redemption -- Walter Benjamin : the three models of history -- Metaphors of origin : ideas, names, stars -- The esthetic model -- The angel of history -- Gershem Scholem : the secret history -- The paradoxes of messianism -- Kafka, Freud, and the crisis of tradition -- Language and secularization.

I The Sabbath The Sabbath, the sabbatical year, and the jubilee are all fundamental Biblical commandments which have in common the fact that they structure time according to the same original rhythm of six units of work followed by a unit of rest. In fact, here it is a question of one and the same principle applied successively to three temporal cycles: the succession of days, the succession of years, and the succession of epochs. The Sabbath, the basic temporal unit, (...) confers its particular cadence to the passing of days, which would otherwise be amorphous and which, if left to themselves, would all resemble each other. The sabbatical year interrupts the course of years and institutes a festive exception in which the earth and its inhabitants are delivered from the habitual servitude which governs their relations. The jubilee comes at the end of a historical period and inaugurates a new historical period. However, in contrast to the Sabbath and the shmita, which occur at the beginning of the seventh moment of the cycle, the jubilee begins at the start of the fiftieth year and not of the forty-ninth. From the point of view of the succession of historical epochs then, the jubilee marks not the end of a cycle but already the beginning of the following one. While the Sabbath and the shmita come in a way to fulfil and to crown the unity of time, the jubilee inaugurates a new phase, which is unknown with respect to the one that precedes it. (shrink)

L’invention de la théorie de l’inconscient, sur fond de Vaterkomplex non liquidé, semble avoir opéré chez Sigmund Freud – « Juif sans Dieu » revendiquant son athéisme –, comme un symptôme (Nom-du-Père) lui ayant garanti une « fidélité hérétique » dans son rapport contrasté au judaïsme. Peut-être bien que L’homme Moïse et la religion monothéiste (1939), œuvre testamentaire mise en chantier dans le contexte de la montée du nazisme en Europe, aurait à sa manière permis au fondateur de la psychanalyse (...) – au terme d’une méditation métapsychologique serrée sur la genèse et le devenir de l’identité juive –, l’esquisse d’une transfiguration par l’exil. (shrink)

Le présent ouvrage réunit les conférences que Stéphane Mosès a prononcées en janvier 2006, en tant que titulaire de la chaire de méta-physique Étienne-Gilson, à l'Institut catholique de Paris. Connu dès 1982, après la publication de son magistral ouvrage Système et révélation chez Franz Rosenzweig, préfacé par Emmanuel Levinas, son nom sera définitivement associé à l'auteur de L'Étoile de la Rédemption. Aussi bien fut-il un commentateur assidu des grands moments de la pensée juive moderne et contemporaine ou de (...) la philosophie allemande, y associant une incessante méditation de la Bible et du Talmud. C'est en examinant les différents types de relations aux textes pratiquées par les divers penseurs juifs, qu'il théorise progressivement une distinction, centralement exploitée ici, qui concerne la longue trajectoire de la pensée juive moderne depuis Moses Mendelssohn, entre " modernité normative " et " modernité critique ". (shrink)

Stephane Moses, Sistem si revelatie. Filosofia lui Franz Rosenzweig Bucuresti, Ed. Hasefer, Colectia Judaica, 2003.

The paper is dealing with the foundation of the Division for German Literature and Language at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from the point of view of its first head, Prof. Stéphane Mosès.

The article provides a brief overview on Hans Mayer’s life and work and his several stays in Jerusalem and with Stéphane Mosès.

Name der Zeitschrift: Naharaim Jahrgang: 11 Heft: 1-2 Seiten: 115-129.

De se attitudes seem to play a special role in action and cognition. This raises a challenge to the traditional way in which mental attitudes have been understood. In this chapter, we review the case for thinking that de se attitudes require special theoretical treatment and discuss various ways in which the traditional theory can be modified to accommodate de se attitudes.

Let me first state that I like Antti Revonsuo’s discussion of the various methodological and interpretational problems in neuroscience. It shows how careful and methodologically reflected scientists have to proceed in this fascinating field of research. I have nothing to add here. Furthermore, I am very sympathetic towards Revonsuo’s general proposal to call for a Philosophy of Neuroscience that stresses foundational issues, but also focuses on methodological and explanatory strategies.2 In a footnote of his paper, Revonsuo complains – as many (...) others do today – about what is sometimes called “physics imperialism”. This is the view that physics dominates the philosophy of science. I am not sure if this is still the case nowadays, but it is certainly historically correct that almost all work in the field of methodology centered around cases from physics. Although this has been changing, there are still plenty of special sciences philosophers did not worry about much. Admittedly, I am myself a trained physicist and not a neuroscientist and will therefore probably be biased negatively. As it is, I will discuss some examples from physics in order to illustrate my points. (shrink)

Professor H. L. Van Breda had hoped to write this preface, but his recent, unexpected and untimely death has left that task in my hands. Although my remarks will not be as eloquent and insightful as his surely would have been, some few words are clearly in order here; for the phenomenological community has not only lost the leadership of Fr. Van Breda these last years, but also the scholarship and leadership of Aron Gurwitsch and Alden Fisher - both contributors (...) to this volume - as well as that of Dorion Cairns and John Wild. Our leaders are fewer now but Herbert Spiegelberg is still very obviously one of them. This volume thus presents the work of some of the past and presently recognized leaders in phenomenology - e. g. Gurwitsch, Straus, and Fisher - but, more important perhaps, it also presents the work of some of those who are sure to be future leaders of our community of phenomenological philosophers, if in fact they have not already achieved this status. Most, if not all, of the contribu tors to this volume are in some way or another indebted to Herbert Spiegelberg and his work in phenomenology. (shrink)

Bayesian epistemology addresses epistemological problems with the help of the mathematical theory of probability. It turns out that the probability calculus is especially suited to represent degrees of belief (credences) and to deal with questions of belief change, confirmation, evidence, justification, and coherence. Compared to the informal discussions in traditional epistemology, Bayesian epis- temology allows for a more precise and fine-grained analysis which takes the gradual aspects of these central epistemological notions into account. Bayesian epistemology therefore complements traditional epistemology; it (...) does not re- place it or aim at replacing it. (shrink)

The Repugnant Conclusion served an important purpose in catalyzing and inspiring the pioneering stage of population ethics research. We believe, however, that the Repugnant Conclusion now receives too much focus. Avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion should no longer be the central goal driving population ethics research, despite its importance to the fundamental accomplishments of the existing literature.

A striking aspect of the so-called "Goldhagen debate" has been the bifurcated reception Hitler's Willing Executioners has received: the enthusiastic welcome of journalists and the public was as warm as the impatient dismissal of most historians was cool. This article seeks to transcend the current impasse by analyzing the underlying issues of Holocaust research at stake here. It argues that a "deep structure" necessarily characterizes the historiography of the Holocaust, comprising a tension between its positioning in "universalism" and "particularism" narratives. (...) While the former conceptualizes the Holocaust as an abstract human tragedy and explains its occurrence in terms of processes common to modern societies, the latter casts its analysis in ethnic and national categories: the Holocaust as an exclusively German and Jewish affair. These narratives possess important implications for the balance of structure and human agency in the explanation of the Holocaust: where the universalism narrative emphasizes the role of impersonal structures in mediating human action, the particularism narrative highlights the agency of human actors. Although historical accounts usually combine these narratives, recent research on the Holocaust tends in the universalist direction, and this bears on the sensitive issue of responsibility for the Holocaust by problematizing the common-sense notion of the perpetrators' intention and responsibility. Goldhagen is responding to this trend, but by retreating to the particularism narrative and employing an inadequate definition of intention, he fails to move the debate forward. It is time to rethink the concept of intention in relation to events like the Holocaust. (shrink)

Among the questions to be raised under the heading of “personal identity” are these: “What are we?” (fundamental nature question) and “Under what conditions do we persist through time?” (persistence question). Against the dominant neo-Lockean approach to these questions, the view known as animalism answers that each of us is an organism of the species Homo sapiens and that the conditions of our persistence are those of animals. Beyond describing the content and historical background of animalism and its rivals, this (...) entry explores some of the arguments for and objections to this controversial account of our nature and persistence. (shrink)

What are we? What is the nature of the human person? Animalism has a straightforward answer to these long-standing philosophical questions: we are animals. After being ignored for a long time in philosophical discussions of our nature, this idea has recently gained considerable support in metaphysics and philosophy of mind. Containing mainly new papers as well as two highly important articles that were recently published elsewhere, this volume's contributors include both emerging voices in the debate and many of those who (...) have been instrumental in shaping it. Some of their contributions defend animalism, others criticize it, still others explore its more general implications. The book also contains a substantial introduction by the editors explaining what animalism is, identifying leading issues that merit attention, and highlighting many of the issues that the contributors have raised. (shrink)

A commonly held idea regarding the nature of time is that the future is open and the past is fixed or closed. This article investigates the notion that there is an asymmetry in openness between the past and the future. The following questions are considered: How exactly is this asymmetry in openness to be understood? What is the relation between an open future and various ontological views about the future? Is an open future a branching future? What is the relation (...) between an open future and the question of whether contingent statements about the future are true or false? Is an open future compatible with a single determinate future? (shrink)