Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (4)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (4) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (4) (entfernen)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (4)
Schlagworte
- Buber, Martin (1)
- Hasidism (1)
- Jewish philosophy 20th century (1)
- Judaism (1)
- Martin Buber (1)
- Myth-Activism (1)
- Volkism (1)
- Zaddikim History of doctrines (1)
- Zionism (1)
- activism (1)
- myth (1)
- politics (1)
- theopolitics (1)
“Ich Habe Nicht Geantwortet”
(2020)
The exchange between Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig on the status of halakha is a well known, but also frustrating fixture in scholarship. For rather than responding to Rosenzweig’s critique, Buber seems to retreat in silence, claiming to be “unable to speak” about his position on Jewish Law. Scholars have generally tried to explain Buber’s failure to respond on philosophical and biographical grounds. What I propose, by contrast, is to revisit the question of Buber’s silence and secrecy from a hermeneutical standpoint, arguing that Buber engaged in a deliberate strategy of concealment that constituted its own form of response. The hermeneutics of silence discloses a call for religious renewal that follows a state of Dialogvergessenheit, but which cannot be made audible. Neither dialogue nor its remembrance can be commanded. While Buber struggles with his Nichtredenkönnen, he also stands in a tradition of secretive hermeneutics – the Jewish hermeneutics of sod.
This study offers a view into Buber's conception of the social role of the “person of spirit” – the individual who, in other contexts, would be called philosopher, thinker, or intellectual.A key element of the person of spirit's role, according to Buber, is the evaluation of social reality – judging the public's ability to be guided by the realm of the spirit at any given hour while responding to the challenges that this particular hour may present. The person of spirit is required to constantly mediate between “heaven” and “earth” – between the ideal and reality – even if in a particular situation the moral action which has to be taken can only be partial, and will fall short of the absolute demand of the spirit.Buber emphasizes that the influence of the spirit on reality always begins with an effort of the “person of spirit” to transform him or herself from a monological to a dialogical person. Without a dialogical affinity between the person of spirit and their community, there can be no real effect of the spirit on reality.The person of spirit is, therefore, according to Buber, fully involved in the social life of the community. Our study shows that Buber shaped this figure of the “person of spirit” by combining the model of the biblical prophet, who is sent to the people, with the model of the Hasidic leader who acts according to the principle of the “Descent of the Zaddik.” The person of spirit is required to live their life in a “Thou” relationship with their community, and is therefore frequently descending from an elevated spiritual level to the level of the people, in order to empathetically share their mundane worries, fears, and afflictions.By comparing the models of the biblical prophet and the Hassidic Zaddik to the model of the Greek prophetes and Plato's philosopher-king, we can, according to Buber, reflect on the role of the person of spirit in society in our time as well.
Hasidic Myth-Activism
(2019)
Since the 1970s, Buber has often been suspected of being a Volkish thinker. This essay reconsiders the affinity of Buber’s late writings with Volkish ideology. It examines the allegations against Buber’s Volkish thought in light of his later biblical and Hasidic writings. By illuminating the ideological affinity between these two modes of thought, the essay explains how Buber aims to depart from the dangers of myth without rejecting myth as such. I argue that Buber’s relationship to myth can help us to explain his critique of nationalism. My basic argument is that in his struggle with hyper-nationalism, Buber follows the Baal Shem Tov and his struggle against Sabbateanism. Like the Besht, Buber does not reject myth, but seeks instead to repair it from within. Whereas hyper-nationalism uses myth to advance its political goals, Buber seeks to reposition ethics within a mythic framework. I view Buber’s exegesis and commentaries on biblical and Hasidic myths as myth-activism.
Gilgul of Meaning
(2021)