Modern philosophy
The Iberian-Dutch philosophers
The expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497, respectively, produced a new centre of Jewish thought: Holland, where many exiled Jews found a new and safer domicile; the tolerance of the regime seemed to provide guarantees against external persecution. This did not prevent, and indeed may have furthered, the establishment of an oppressive internal orthodoxy that was prepared to chastise rebellious members of the community. This was evident in the cases of Uriel Acosta (Gabriel da Costa) and Benedict de Spinoza, two 17th-century philosophers who rebelled against Jewish orthodoxy and were excommunicated for their views (Acosta twice).
Uriel Acosta
Belonging to a family of Marranos in Portugal, Acosta arrived in Amsterdam after having been brought up in the Catholic faith. His philosophical position was to a great extent determined by his antagonism to the dogmatism of the traditional Judaism that he encountered in Amsterdam. His growing estrangement from generally accepted Jewish doctrine is attested by his Portuguese treatise Sobre a mortalidade da alma (“On the Mortality of the Soul”). He held that the belief in the immortality of the soul has many evil effects and that it impels people to choose an ascetic way of life and even to seek death. According to him, nothing has tormented human beings more than the belief in an inner, spiritual good and evil. At this stage, Acosta affirmed the authority of the Bible, from which, according to him, the mortality of the soul can be proved.
In his autobiography, Exemplar Humanae Vitae (“Example of a Human Life”), Acosta took a more radical position. He proclaimed the supreme excellence of the natural moral law; when arguing before Jews, he seemed to identify this law with the Noahide Laws (the commandments given to Noah), thus suggesting a correspondence with the view of Albo. Accordingly, Acosta denied the validity of the argument that natural law is inferior to Judaism and Christianity, because he believed that both these religions teach the love of one’s enemies, a precept that is not a part of natural law and is a manifest impossibility.
Benedict de Spinoza
Born in Amsterdam but of Portuguese Marrano descent, Spinoza is unique in the history of modern Jewish thought. Although his work does not deal with specifically Judaic themes, he is traditionally included in this history for several reasons. First, it was through the study of Jewish philosophical texts that Spinoza was first initiated into philosophy. Second, Spinoza’s system is in part a radicalization of, or perhaps a logical corollary to, medieval Jewish doctrines, and the impact of Maimonides and of Crescas is evident. Third, a considerable portion of Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus deals with problems related to Judaism. He drew from Jewish religion and history, even using the Israelite commonwealth in the Tractatus as the template for his ideal state, though he was not centrally concerned with matters of Jewish theology and ritual.
The first chapters of the Tractatus show that the doctrine of prophecy is of central importance to Spinoza’s explanation of Judaism and that, in dealing with this subject, he used Maimonides’ categories, though he applied them to different people or groups of people. Maimonides held that the prophets combined intellectual perfection, which made them philosophers, with perfection of the imaginative faculty. He also referred to a category of persons, including lawyers and statesmen, endowed with a strong imagination but possessing no extraordinary intellectual gifts. Spinoza applied this category to the prophets, whom he described as possessing vivid imaginations but as not necessarily having outstanding intellectual capacities. He denied that the biblical Prophets were philosophers and used a philosophical and historical approach to the Scriptures to show that the contrary assertion is not borne out by the texts.
Spinoza also denied Maimonides’ assertion that the prophecy of Moses was essentially different from that of the other Prophets and that this was because Moses, in prophesying, had no recourse to the imaginative faculty. According to Spinoza, Moses’ prophecy was unique because he heard the voice of God in a prophetic vision—that is, in a state in which his imagination was active. In this assertion, Spinoza employed one of Maimonides’ categories of prophecy. Maimonides thought it improbable, however, that the voice of God was ever heard in prophetic vision, and he held that this category is purely hypothetical. In his classification of Moses, Spinoza was not concerned with what really happened in history; rather, he was attempting to fashion the biblical evidence according to Maimonides’ theoretical framework so that it would further his own theological and political purpose: to show that there could be a religion superior to Judaism.
This purpose made it imperative to propound in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus a theory concerning Jesus, whom Spinoza designates as Christus. The category and the status assigned to Jesus are similar to those that Maimonides attributed to Moses. Jesus is referred to in the Tractatus as a religious teacher who makes recourse not to the imaginative faculty but to the intellect. His authority may be used to institute and strengthen the religion Spinoza called religio catholica (“universal religion”), which has little or nothing in common with any of the major manifestations of historic Christianity.
The difference between Judaism and Spinoza’s religio catholica corresponds to the difference between Moses and Jesus. After leaving Egypt, the Jews found themselves, in Spinoza’s view, in the position of people who had no allegiance to any positive law. They had, as it were, reverted to a state of nature and were faced with the need to enter into a social pact. They were also an ignorant people and very prone to superstition. Moses, a man of outstanding ability, made use of the situation and the characteristics of the people in order to make them accept a social pact and a state founded upon it that, contrary to Spinoza’s scheme for his ideal communities, were not based first and foremost upon utilitarian—that is, reasonable—consideration of the advantages of life in society over the state of nature.
According to Spinoza, the social pact concluded by the children of Israel in the desert was based upon a superstitious view of God as “King” and “Judge,” to whom the children of Israel owed their political and military successes. The children of Israel transferred political sovereignty to God rather than to the representatives of the popular will. In due course, political sovereignty was vested in Moses, God’s representative, and in his successors. In spite of Spinoza’s insistence on the superstitious foundations of the ancient Israelite state, however, his account of its regime was not wholly unsympathetic, especially regarding its ability to curb human tyranny by its doctrine of divine sovereignty. Spinoza believed that the state contained the seeds of its own destruction and that, with its extinction, the social pact devised by Moses had lapsed and all the political and religious obligations incumbent upon the Jews had become null and void.
It could be argued that, because the state conceived by Spinoza is based not on superstitious faith but on a social contract originating in rational, utilitarian considerations, it does not need to have its authority safeguarded and stabilized by means of religion. Nevertheless, Spinoza apparently believed that religion is necessary. To fulfill this need and to obviate the danger of harmful religions, he devised the religio catholica, the universal religion, which is characterized by two distinctive traits. First, its main purpose, a practical one (which is furthered by recourse to the authority of Jesus), is to impel people to act in accordance with justice and charity. Such conduct is tantamount to obedience to the laws of the state and to the orders of the magistrates, in whom sovereignty is vested. Disobedience, however, even if it springs from compassionate motives, weakens the social pact, which safeguards the welfare of all the members of the community; in consequence, its evil effects outweigh whatever good it may produce. Second, although religion, according to Spinoza, is not concerned with theoretical truth, in order to be effective the religio catholica requires dogmas, which he set forth in the Tractatus. These dogmas are formulated in terms that can be interpreted in accordance both with the philosophical conception of God that Spinoza regarded as true and with widespread superstitious ideas. It follows that if they are accepted as constituting the only creed that everybody is obliged to profess, people cannot be persecuted on account of their beliefs. Spinoza held that such persecution may lead to civil war and may thus destroy the state. Philosophers are free to engage in the pursuit of truth and to attain, if they can, the supreme goal of humanity—freedom grounded in knowledge. There can be little doubt that the furtherance of the cause of tolerance for philosophical opinions was one of Spinoza’s main objects in writing the Tractatus.
As compared with the Tractatus Theologico-Philosophicus, the Ethics, Spinoza’s major philosophical work, bears a much more ambiguous relation to Jewish medieval philosophy. In a way, Spinoza’s metaphysical system, contained in the Ethics, can be regarded as drawing aspects of medieval Aristotelianism to their logical conclusions, a step that most Jewish (and Christian and Muslim) thinkers were unwilling to take, owing to their theological conservatism.
German philosophers
Moses Mendelssohn
The era opened by Moses Mendelssohn (1729–86)—i.e., c. 1750 to c. 1830—is sometimes called the German period of Jewish philosophy because of the large number of works on Jewish philosophy that were written in German. The German period is also marked by the emancipation of the Jews—that is, by the abrogation of discriminatory laws directed against them—and by their partial or complete assimilation. In this time in particular, the term Jewish philosophy applied especially to works that were primarily concerned with defining Judaism and offering a justification of its existence. The second of these tasks was often conceived of as involving a confrontation with Christianity rather than with philosophy. This change from what would have been the practice in the Middle Ages seems to have resulted from the demarcation of the sphere of religion in such a way that, at least in the opinion of the philosophers, possible points of collision with philosophy no longer existed. This development was stimulated by the doctrine of Spinoza, from whom Mendelssohn and others took certain fundamental ideas concerning Judaism.
Like Spinoza, Mendelssohn held that it is not the task of Judaism to teach rational truths, though such truths may be referred to in the Bible. Contrary to what he called Athanasian Christianity—that is, the doctrine set forth in the Athanasian Creed—Judaism has no binding dogmas; it is centred on inculcating belief in certain historical events and on the observance of religious law, which includes the ceremonial commandments. Such observance is supposed to lead to happiness in this world and in the afterlife. Mendelssohn did not reject this view out of hand, as Spinoza would have done. Indeed, he seems to have been prepared to accept it, God’s mysteries being inscrutable, and the radicalism and what may be called the consistency of Spinoza being the complete antithesis of Mendelssohn’s apologetics. Non-Jews were supposed by Mendelssohn to owe allegiance to the natural moral law.
Solomon Formstecher
Whereas Mendelssohn continued the medieval tradition (at least to some extent) or adapted Spinoza’s doctrine for his own purposes, the Jewish philosophers of the first half of the 19th century generally followed the teachings of the non-Jewish philosophers of their own time. In Die Religion des Geistes (“The Religion of the Spirit”), Solomon Formstecher (1808–89) may have been influenced by F.W.J. von Schelling (1775–1854) in his conception of nature and spirit as manifestations of the divine. In Formstecher’s view, there are two types of religions that correspond to these manifestations: the religion of nature, in which God is conceived as the principle of nature or as the world soul, and the religion of the spirit, in which God is understood as an ethical being. According to the religion of the spirit, God has produced the world as his manifestation in full freedom and not, as the religion of nature tends to profess, because the world was necessary for his existence.
The religion of the spirit, which corresponds to absolute religious truth, was first manifested in the Jewish people. The religious history of the world may be understood as a process of universalization of the Jewish religion, according to Formstecher. Thus, Christianity propagated Jewish conceptions among the nations; however, it combined them with pagan ideas. The pagan element is gradually being eliminated—Protestantism, in this respect, marks considerable progress. When at long last the Jewish element in Christianity is victorious, the Jews will be right to give up their isolation. The progress that will bring about this final religious union is already under way.
Samuel Hirsch
The main philosophical work of Samuel Hirsch (1815–89), titled Die Religionsphilosophie der Juden (“The Philosophy of Religion of the Jews”), was decisively influenced by G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831). Hegel’s impact is most evident in Hirsch’s method and in the task that he assigned to the philosophy of religion—the transformation of religious consciousness into conceptual truth. Contrary to Hegel, however, he did not consider religious truth to be inadequate compared with philosophical truth.
In Hirsch’s view, God revealed himself in the first stages of Jewish history by means of miracles and prophecy. At present, he manifests himself in the miracle of the existence of the Jewish people. Hirsch further maintained that Christianity and Judaism were identical at the time of Jesus and that a decisive break between them was caused by Paul. When the Pauline elements are eliminated from Christianity, it will be essentially in agreement with Judaism, though Judaism will preserve its separate existence.
Nachman Krochmal
Nachman Krochmal (1785–1840), a native of Galicia (at that time part of Austria), wrote the highly influential Hebrew treatise More nevukhe ha-zman (“Guide for the Perplexed for Our Time”), on the philosophy of history and on Jewish history. Krochmal’s philosophical thought was based on the notion of spirit. He was mainly concerned with the “national spirit” that is proper to each people and that accounts for the characteristics differentiating one people from another in every domain of human activity. The national spirits of all peoples except the Jewish are, according to Krochmal, essentially particular. Hence, when the nation becomes extinct, the national spirit either disappears or, if it is powerful, is assimilated by some other nation. The perpetuity of the Jewish people, according to Krochmal, is the result of their special relation to the Universal Spirit, who is the God of Israel.
Solomon Steinheim
Solomon Ludwig Steinheim (1789–1866), the author of Die Offenbarung nach dem Lehrbegriff der Synagoge (“The Revelation According to the Doctrine of the Synagogue”), was apparently influenced by the antirationalism of the German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). His criticism of science is based on Jacobi’s work, though he did not agree with Jacobi in opposing discursive reason to the intuitive knowledge of God; Steinheim contrasted human reason with divine revelation. The main point of opposition between revelation, vouchsafed to the prophets of Israel, and reason is that the God posited by reason is subject to necessity—he can act only in accordance with laws. Moreover, reason affirms that nothing can come from nothing. Accordingly, God is free to create not a good world but only the best possible world. Revealed religion, on the other hand, affirms the freedom of God and the creation of the world out of nothing.
Hermann Cohen
There seems to be little connection between the Jewish philosophers of the first half or two-thirds of the 19th century and Hermann Cohen (1842–1918), the head of the Neo-Kantian school centred at the University of Marburg. Cohen may be regarded as a rather unusual case among the Jewish philosophers of his and the preceding generations because of the dual nature of his philosophical thought—the general and the Jewish—and the uneasy equilibrium between them. Judaism was by no means the only important theme of his philosophical system; indeed, it was not even his point of departure. For most of his life, Cohen was wholly committed to his brand of Kantianism, and he displayed considerable originality in its elaboration. It has been maintained with some justification that his doctrine manifests a certain (unintentional) kinship with Hegel’s, though Cohen’s idea of God is based on an analysis and development of certain conceptions of Immanuel Kant. In Cohen’s view, reason requires that nature be conceived of as conforming to a single rational plan and that there be harmony between the domains of natural and moral teleology (ultimate purposes or ends). These two requirements in turn require the adoption of the idea of God—the word idea being used in the Kantian sense, which means that no assertion is made about the metaphysical reality of God.
Cohen’s later works increasingly emphasized generally religious and specifically Judaic elements. Some scholars, most notably his student Franz Rosenzweig, interpreted this as a major turn in Cohen’s thought. In the late 20th century, however, most scholars held that the more-pronounced Judaism in Cohen’s later works was the culmination of his overall philosophical system, not a radical departure from it.
Franz Rosenzweig
Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929) published his main philosophical work, Der Stern der Erlösung (The Star of Redemption), in 1921. It begins by rejecting the traditional philosophical denial of the fear of death, maintaining instead that this fear is the beginning of the cognition of the All. Humans should fear death, despite the indifference of philosophy and its predilection for accepting death. Traditional philosophy is interested exclusively in the universal, and it is monistic—its aim is to discover one principle from which everything can be derived. This tendency of philosophy, however, denatures human experience, which knows not one but three separate domains (which Kant had referred to in a different context), namely, God, the world, and humanity.
According to Rosenzweig, God (like the world and like humankind) is known through experience (the experience of revelation). In Greek religion, the most perfect manifestation of paganism, every one of these domains subsists by itself: the gods, the cosmos, and the human as the tragic, solitary, silent hero. Biblical religion is concerned with the relation between the three: the relation between God and the world, which is creation; the relation between God and human beings, which is revelation; and the relation between humans and the world, which leads to salvation. Under the influence of Schelling, whose term and concept he adopted, Rosenzweig pursued a “narrative philosophy” that renounces the ambition to find one principle for everything that exists and that follows biblical religion in focusing on the connections between the three domains and between the words and acts that bring about and develop these connections.
Biblical faith brought forth two valid religions—Christianity and Judaism. The first is described by Rosenzweig as the eternal way; the Christian peoples seek in the vicissitudes of time and history the way to salvation. In contrast to them, the existence of the stateless Jewish people is not concerned with time and history; it is—notwithstanding the hope for final salvation—already an eternal life, renewed again and again according to the rhythm of the Jewish liturgical year.
Martin Buber
Among the leading thinkers of the 20th century was Martin Buber (1878–1965), whose impact was felt by both Jews and non-Jews. In his early period, Buber was led, partly through empathy with Jewish and non-Jewish mysticism, to stress unitive experience and knowledge, in which the difference between one person and another and between the individual and God tend to disappear. But in his final period he taught—following, as he claimed, a suggestion of Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72)—that a human being can realize himself only in a relation with another, who may be another person or God. This conception of the “I and Thou” relationship led to the formulation of Buber’s view of the dialogical life—the mutual, responsive relation between one person and another—and accounts for the importance that he attached to the category of “encounter.”
Emmanuel Lévinas
During the late 20th century the thought of the French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas (1905–95) exercised worldwide influence. In his main work, Totality and Infinity (1961), Lévinas emphasized ethics, as opposed to epistemology, as the primary means for achieving one’s relation to the “Other.” This relationship is based on the existential and material need of the other person rather than on one’s abstract knowledge of him. In this philosophical program, Lévinas drew upon rabbinic tradition as well as the philosophical anthropology of Cohen, Rosenzweig, and Buber.