Refine
Document Type
- Article (22)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Other (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Language
- English (30) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (30)
Keywords
- dialogue (2)
- American Jewish History (1)
- Bene Israel (1)
- Christian identity (1)
- East European Jewish History (1)
- Freud-Forschung (1)
- Freud-research (1)
- German-Jewish History (1)
- God’s image (1)
- Indian caste (1)
Institute
- Institut für Jüdische Theologie (30) (remove)
This paper discusses Franz Rosenzweig’s use of the term “the unconscious” (das Unbewußte) and possible influences on his understanding of it. I claim that for Rosenzweig, it is through the unconscious that the individual becomes aware of himself and becomes capable of fulfilling his longing to achieve self-fulfillment and eventually to take part in a collective redemption. The unconscious is often perceived as the mental sphere related to trauma and repression in which defense mechanisms and fantasies are evolved. Fantasies are psychological tools that allow the individual to cope with trauma, but they are also “layers of enclosedness,” illusions that should be dissolved. Hence, in the unconscious, we find a possibility of liberation.
So Many Things are Yours
(2023)
The poet and Talmud scholar examines Jewish texts, sexuality, and human vulnerability in poems that brim with wonder, sadness, sensuality, and humor.
Kosman’s second volume in English explores Jewish texts ―Bible, Talmud, midrash ― alongside bodies, physical desires, military experiences, even a refrigerator. Demons and fantasy enter these poems; so do politics, so does God. These are not religious poems in a conventionally liturgical, “inspirational” sense; yet they point to the big questions that religion asks: about love, hate, desire, violence, transgression, disappointment.
This paper is founded on two philosophical assumptions. The first is that there is a difference between two patterns of recognition: the dialectical and the dialogical. The second assumption is that the origins of the dialogical pattern may be found in the relationship between human beings and God, a relationship in which prayer has a major role. The second assumption leads to the supposition that the emphasis of the dialogic approach on moral responsibility is theologically grounded. In other words, the relationship between humanity and God serves as a paradigm for human relationships. By focusing on Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig, in the context of prayer and dialectic, this paper highlights the complexity of these themes in modern Jewish thought. These two important philosophers utilize dialectical reasoning while also criticizing it and offering an alternative. The conclusions of their thought, in general, and their position on prayer, in particular, demonstrate a preference for a relational way of thinking over a dialectical one, but without renouncing the latter.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, began his intellectual life with the Jewish Bible and also ended it with it. He began by reading the Philippson Bible together, especially with his father Jacob Freud, and ended by studying the figure of Moses. This study systematically traces this preoccupation and shows that the Jewish Bible was a constant reference for Freud and determined his Jewish identity. This is shown by analysing family documents, religious instruction and references to the Bible in Freud's writings and correspondence.
In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually contributed to the rational and ethical development of Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud’s Moses received extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his position on Freud’s latest work. This paper offers explanations for Fromm’s roaring silence on Freud’s Moses.
Tanakh, Mishnah and Talmud
(2022)