Shaʻar derekh ha-limud: she-k. e. ṿe-e. yakhol li-zekhot li-ketarah shel Torah -- Shaʻar ʻAṭeret rosh: ʻaśarah maʼamarim - ḥizuḳ ʻetsot ṿe-hadrakhah -- Sefer Ashirah ʻuzekha: perush ʻal Pereḳ shirah.

The movement known as Deutsche Physik (German physics) evolved hand in hand with National Socialism. It represented a marginal but vocal group of German scientists and science scholars who profiled themselves as defenders of “Aryan” science and called for the elimination of the “Jewish spirit” that they saw as epitomized by Albert Einstein’s relativity theory and as dominating the natural sciences, even in Nazi Germany. This infamous movement is most associated with the Nobel laureate physicists Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, (...) who founded it and gave it its initial political impetus during the early years of the Third Reich. However, in its main and final phase, between 1937 and 1943, the movement was no longer led by Lenard and Stark but by the philosopher of science Hugo Dingler (1881–1954) and his Munich-based circle. Tracing the development of his career until 1937, this article examines how Dingler came to play this role both despite and because of the significant differences between his and the better known Lenard-Stark strand of Deutsche Physik. Special attention is paid to Dingler’s subversive use of theoretical principles—particularly his framing of his work as a radical search for certainty—to advance the movement’s antiscientific agenda. (shrink)

The cinematic Other is interpreted as an unconscious personality, a denied part of the protagonist that appears in his life as a shadowy menace who won't go away. Overall the book aims to show how movies envision the unconscious Other we all too often project on other people.

The cinematic Other is interpreted as an unconscious personality, a denied part of the protagonist that appears in his life as a shadowy menace who won't go away. Overall the book aims to show how movies envision the unconscious Other we all too often project on other people.

The “Assyrian Century,” the period of Assyrian rule in the Levant, is usually regarded as an era of prosperity and economic progress. As far as the southern Levant is concerned, this reconstruction more or less reflects the reality on the southern edge of the region—in the areas of Philistia, Judah, and Edom. But what was the situation in the northern part of the country, in the territories of the former kingdom of Israel and adjacent territories, regions that had become Assyrian (...) provinces? It is the aim of this paper to scrutinize the archaeological data from these regions in order to shed light on the settlement and demographic reality in those provinces, and furthermore to reassess Assyrian policy in the west. After summarizing previous research, the article will present the available archaeological data, which will then be compared with that from the southern part of the country in order to enable a reexamination of the Assyrian empire’s policy in the west. (shrink)

Qu’est-ce qu’un conflit religieux et comment devrait-on le définir ? En quoi un tel conflit diffère-t-il des autres ? Quelles sont les variables qui le désignent comme « religieux » ? La définition d’un conflit en ces termes importe-t-elle ? Autrement dit, que nous apprend-elle sur sa nature, ses buts, ses règles, ses procédures et ses limites et, en particulier,..

An engaging and inspiring set of reflections by one of the master educators of today's Jewish world - full of delightful stories, compelling analysis and generosity of spirit. Read it and your faith in the Jewish future will be renewed. - Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.

In this essay I will argue for the existence of a Bolshevik Center, which coordinated the activities of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Social Democratic Party. This Bolshevik Center was dissolved in an intra-Bolshevik factional dispute on the eve of Lenin's writing his "Materialism" and "Empirio-Criticism." The source of the conflict in the Bolshevik Center related to disagreements over Lenin's tactics following the 1905 revolution. The leader of the anti-Lenin opposition was Bogdanov. But the struggle over tactics could not be (...) contained in the political sphere; it spilled over to the philosophical. Lenin's "Materialism" and "Empirio-Criticism" was written as a refutation of Bogdanov's philosophical thought in an attempt to drive him out of the Party. This essay will trace the events which led to the dissolution of the Bolshevik Center. In order to be able to follow the tactical debates a definition of terms to be used throughout this paper would be helpful. In terms of the strategic problems facing the Bolsheviks, as well as members of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, in their attitude to the Duma, the word 'Boycott' will refer to those who argued that the Bolsheviks should not participate in the Duma in any capacity. The Boycottists maintained that the Bolsheviks should not even participate in the elections to the Duma. The word Ultimatism refers to those among the Bolsheviks who wished to participate in the Third Duma, but who favored the total obedience of the Russian Social-Democrats who might be elected to the Duma to the Central Committee of the Party. Ultimatism refers to the control and hegemony of the Central Committee over any social-democratic delegates who might win elections to the Third Duma. Otzovism means 'removing'. The Otzovists were those among the Bolsheviks, who advocated the removal of any social-democratic delegate in the Third Duma who disobeyed the directives of the Party Central Committee. 'Ultimatism' and Otzovism concerned questions of Party authority. The Otzovist recommended the expulsion of any delegate in the Duma who abrogated the authority of the Party organs. Boycottism did not deal with questions of Party authority as such, but rather was fundamentally a tactical question: participation or non-participation in the Duma, e.g. 'parliamentarism' vs revolution. (shrink)

In this essay I will argue for the existence of a Bolshevik Center, which coordinated the activities of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Social Democratic Party. This Bolshevik Center was dissolved in an intra-Bolshevik factional dispute on the eve of Lenin''s writing hisMaterialism and Empirio-Criticism. The source of the conflict in the Bolshevik Center related to disagreements over Lenin''s tactics following the 1905 revolution. The leader of the anti-Lenin opposition was Bogdanov. But the struggle over tactics could not be contained (...) in the political sphere; it spilled over to the philosophical. Lenin''sMaterialism and Empirio-Criticism was written as a refutation of Bogdanov''s philosophical thought in an attempt to drive him out of the Party. This essay will trace the events which led to the dissolution of the Bolshevik Center.In order to be able to follow the tactical debates a definition of terms to be used throughout this paper would be helpful. In terms of the strategic problems facing the Bolsheviks, as well as members of the Russian Social-Democratic Party (RSDP), in their attitude to theDuma, the word Boycott will refer to those who argued that the Bolsheviks should not participate in theDuma in any capacity. TheBoycottists maintained that the Bolsheviks should not even participate in the elections to theDuma. The wordUltimatism refers to those among the Bolsheviks who wished to participate in the ThirdDuma, but who favored the total obedience of the Russian Social-Democrats who might be elected to theDuma to the Central Committee of the Party.Ultimatism refers to the control and hegemony of the Central Committee over any social-democratic delegates who might win elections to the Third Duma.Otzovism means removing. TheOtzovists were those among the Bolsheviks, who advocated the removal of any social-democratic delegate in the ThirdDuma who disobeyed the directives of the Party Central Committee. Ultimatism andOtzovism concerned questions of Party authority. The Otzovist recommended the expulsion of any delegate in the Duma who abrogated the authority of the Party organs.Boycottism did not deal with questions of Party authority as such, but rather was fundamentally a tactical question: participation or non-participation in theDuma, e.g. parliamentarism vs revolution. (shrink)