Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.1
0.8
Journals
Religions
Special Issues
Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment...
share announcement

Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought

A special issue of Religions (ISSN 2077-1444). This special issue belongs to the section "Religions and Humanities/Philosophies".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (1 March 2024) | Viewed by 8386

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Ze’ev Strauss

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Institute for Jewish Philosophy and Religion, Universität Hamburg, 20148 Hamburg, Germany
Interests: history of Jewish Religion and Theology; Jewish Pedagogics; Jewish sources of German Idealism
Dr. Libera Pisano

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08002 Barcelona, Spain
Interests: contemporary Jewish philosophy; philosophy of language; German-Jewish Thought; anarchism and gender studies
Dr. Michah Gottlieb

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Arts & Science, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA
Interests: modern Jewish thought and philosophy; German Jewish thought and culture
Dr. José María Sánchez de León Serrano

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Serra Húnter Fellow, Facultat de Filosofia, University of Barcelona, 08001 Barcelona, Spain
Interests: modern philosophy (from Descartes to Hegel); philosophy of religion; philosophy of history

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) and Salomon Maimon (1753–1800) played a significant role in both the German and Jewish Enlightenments. Both valued rational autonomy and sought to rethink Judaism in modern terms. Topics of major debate during the Enlightenment such as religion, skepticism, language, Bildung, and tolerance, were at the center of their reflections and both embodied enlightened cosmopolitanism and the complex encounter between German and Jewish culture. However, despite their common commitment to Enlightenment, their philosophical outlooks were largely opposed. Where Mendelssohn’s philosophy was balanced and tolerant, Maimon’s was radical and iconoclastic. Mendelssohn embraced a theism predicated on common sense, whereas Maimon was a metaphysical skeptic.

Skepticism and tolerance are defining themes of Maimon’s and Mendelssohn’s intellectual projects. In exploring these themes, this issue will highlight the complexities and ambiguities of the Jewish Enlightenment. The tension between religion and philosophy, revelation and reason, religious authority and rational autonomy and tradition and progress will be explored.

We welcome papers that deal with topics such as:

  • Certainty, common sense and skepticism in metaphysics, ethics and politics;
  • Revealed vs. natural religion;
  • Philosophical readings of Hebrew scripture and rabbinic literature;
  • Tolerance, pluralism, and the Other;
  • Bildung and self-cultivation;
  • German–Jewish symbiosis and the ideals of the Enlightenment;
  • The impact and afterlife of Mendelssohn’s and Maimon’s undertakings.

Dr. Ze’ev Strauss
Dr. Libera Pisano
Dr. Michah Gottlieb
Dr. José María Sánchez de León Serrano
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Religions is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Judaism
  • Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah)
  • Skepticism
  • Tolerance
  • Education (Bildung)
  • Exegesis
  • German Enlightenment
  • Religion
  • Philosophy
  • Reason

Published Papers (7 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

14 pages, 266 KiB  
Article
Tolerance for the Tolerant “Other”—Moses Mendelssohn’s Claim for Tolerance in the “Vorrede/Preface” (1782)
by Anne Sarah Matviyets
Religions 2024, 15(4), 516; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040516 - 22 Apr 2024
Viewed by 245
Abstract
In this paper I discuss Moses Mendelssohn’s argumentation on religious tolerance in his “Vorrede” (“preface”) that he added to his translation of Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel’s letter “Vindiciae judaeorum” in 1782. Instead of solely deducing Mendelssohn’s idea of religious tolerance, I examine Mendelssohn’s [...] Read more.
In this paper I discuss Moses Mendelssohn’s argumentation on religious tolerance in his “Vorrede” (“preface”) that he added to his translation of Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel’s letter “Vindiciae judaeorum” in 1782. Instead of solely deducing Mendelssohn’s idea of religious tolerance, I examine Mendelssohn’s argumentation strategies. For this purpose, I firstly determine the political and social conditions in which Mendelssohn wrote the “Vorrede”. Secondly, I examine the normative reasons or resources that Mendelssohn argues for tolerance with. In my observation, he is legitimizing religious tolerance on the normative resources of philosophical reasons (natural law/universal reason) and pragmatic reasons (utility). Further, I will analyse Mendelssohn’s concept of a tolerant Judaism in the “Vorrede”. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
13 pages, 284 KiB  
Article
Scepticism against Intolerance? Moses Mendelssohn and Pierre Bayle’s “Dialogue” on Spinoza in Mendelssohn’s Philosophische Gespräche (1755)
by Guillem Sales Vilalta
Religions 2024, 15(1), 49; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010049 - 27 Dec 2023
Viewed by 648
Abstract
The goal of this article is to argue for the three following theses: (1) that Moses Mendelssohn’s Philosophische Gespräche (1755) offer a rehabilitation of Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) in explicit opposition to the stigmatization that Spinoza suffered in the German lands from the beginning [...] Read more.
The goal of this article is to argue for the three following theses: (1) that Moses Mendelssohn’s Philosophische Gespräche (1755) offer a rehabilitation of Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) in explicit opposition to the stigmatization that Spinoza suffered in the German lands from the beginning of the 1670s; (2) that the article “Rorarius” from Pierre Bayle’s (1647–1706) Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697–1698) is a crucial source for Mendelssohn’s strategy to rehabilitate Spinoza; (3) that Mendelssohn’s use of Bayle as a source constitutes an unexplored link between oppressed religious minorities. To show this, the article will consist of an introductory part to set the subject matter and three subsequent parts, one for each of the points that I am going to argue for. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
27 pages, 370 KiB  
Article
The Systematic Unity of the Theoretical and Axiotic in Salomon Maimon’s Late Philosophy
by Timothy Franz
Religions 2023, 14(8), 1045; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14081045 - 16 Aug 2023
Viewed by 889
Abstract
By a close reading of Salomon Maimon’s 1794 Essay on a New Logic or Theory of Thinking, this article shows, first, how Maimon radically criticized his previous metaphysical systems while painstakingly reestablishing Kantian transcendental philosophy on a theory of reflexive cognition. Second, [...] Read more.
By a close reading of Salomon Maimon’s 1794 Essay on a New Logic or Theory of Thinking, this article shows, first, how Maimon radically criticized his previous metaphysical systems while painstakingly reestablishing Kantian transcendental philosophy on a theory of reflexive cognition. Second, it shows how he employed this theory to ground innovative accounts of both formal and transcendental logic, including a reformulation of Kant’s schematism. Third, it shows how he employed it to ground his axiotic philosophy. Specifically, he argued that his reflexive theory of cognition constituted the necessary condition for the theories of Kantian morality, natural rights, works of art, and finally for a metaphysics according to which God creates the world ex nihilo. Maimon’s achievement is impressive and unique. It is a theory of the systematic unity of theoretical and axiotic philosophy that rivals other Enlightenment systems and, if anything, anticipates later works of Hans Wagner and Werner Flach. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
24 pages, 395 KiB  
Article
Berlin’s Savoyard Vicar: Religious Skepticism and Toleration in Mendelssohn and Rousseau
by Jeremy Fogel
Religions 2023, 14(6), 761; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14060761 - 08 Jun 2023
Viewed by 858
Abstract
While both Mendelssohn and Rousseau were deeply spiritual thinkers whose writings continually reflect a profound belief in a benevolent God, they both still used religious skepticism in order to undermine the logic of religious intolerance. In doing so, these religious thinkers reflect a [...] Read more.
While both Mendelssohn and Rousseau were deeply spiritual thinkers whose writings continually reflect a profound belief in a benevolent God, they both still used religious skepticism in order to undermine the logic of religious intolerance. In doing so, these religious thinkers reflect a critical assumption they share with the far less religiously inclined David Hume, namely, that skepticism is a critical tool for the promotion of tolerance. This paper analyses the skeptical and tolerant similarities in Mendelssohn’s and Rousseau’s religious thought. It explores Mendelssohn’s reception of Rousseau, before focusing on Rousseau’s arguments for religious tolerance and showing both how they reflect a skeptical undercurrent and how Mendelssohn uses many similar skeptical arguments for the same purpose. Finally, this analysis will lead to concluding thoughts on the dialectic between skepticism, faith and tolerance in the Enlightenment, and more generally, for skeptical believers ever since. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
18 pages, 496 KiB  
Article
“On Enlightenment in Religion”—Skepticism and Tolerance in Educational and Cultural Concepts within the Berlin and Breslau Haskalah
by Uta Lohmann
Religions 2023, 14(3), 326; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14030326 - 28 Feb 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1223
Abstract
Numerous discussions on religion were held within the communicative network among Jewish enlighteners in Berlin and Breslau. These discussions were characterized by a hitherto unknown form of skeptical and critical questioning of religious customs and practices of Ashkenazi Jewry. Moreover, they were characterized [...] Read more.
Numerous discussions on religion were held within the communicative network among Jewish enlighteners in Berlin and Breslau. These discussions were characterized by a hitherto unknown form of skeptical and critical questioning of religious customs and practices of Ashkenazi Jewry. Moreover, they were characterized by an unprecedented skeptical questioning of religious customs and traditions of Ashkenazi Judaism. The places of these discussions were located where many different people gathered and contributed in their verbal exchanges to their mutual understanding. The experience of different opinions became the starting point for a self-reflective comparative review process of their own religious positioning and to their own stand on questions of an individual’s education and development. These oral discourses in many ways found expression in written statements, as in introductions to German translations of Biblical books and liturgical texts, in school programs, journals and modern sermons. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
11 pages, 254 KiB  
Article
Four Jewish Visions of the Garden of Eden
by Warren Zev Harvey
Religions 2023, 14(2), 221; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020221 - 07 Feb 2023
Viewed by 1894
Abstract
What was life like for Adam and Eve before they sinned? What was their sin? What was this mysterious Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? The views on these questions of four major Jewish thinkers: Moses Maimonides (1138–1204), Moses Nahmanides (1194–1270), Moses [...] Read more.
What was life like for Adam and Eve before they sinned? What was their sin? What was this mysterious Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? The views on these questions of four major Jewish thinkers: Moses Maimonides (1138–1204), Moses Nahmanides (1194–1270), Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), and Solomon Maimon (1753–1800), are discussed and contrasted. For Maimonides, the Garden of Eden was the Garden of Pure Reason, and sin consisted in the abandonment of Reason. For Nahmanides, like Augustine, the Garden of Eden story is about the human beings’ attainment of free choice with all its grave problems. Criticizing Maimonides and Nahmanides, Mendelssohn followed Plato and Judah Halevi, arguing that the Garden of Eden story is about maintaining a harmony between intellect and desire. Maimon agreed with Maimonides that the Garden of Eden was the Garden of Pure Reason, but, following Kant, he argued contra Maimonides that the moral rules are rational and a priori. All four thinkers held that the Garden of Eden was a paradigmatic place of tolerance—either because rational people do not harm others, or because desireless people have no desire to harm others, or because well-balanced people have noble virtues. In an Excursus, Maimon’s “Merry Masquerade Ball” is interpreted. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
13 pages, 1342 KiB  
Article
Moses Mendelssohn as an Influence on Hermann Cohen’s “Idiosyncratic” Reading of Maimonides’ Ethics
by George Y. Kohler
Religions 2023, 14(1), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14010065 - 03 Jan 2023
Viewed by 1454
Abstract
Surprisingly, there are at least three major theological subjects where Hermann Cohen seems to agree with Mendelssohn—against standard Jewish Reform theology. Even more interesting: All three points stand in connection with the religious thought of Moses Maimonides (1137–1204), the medieval halakhist and philosopher, [...] Read more.
Surprisingly, there are at least three major theological subjects where Hermann Cohen seems to agree with Mendelssohn—against standard Jewish Reform theology. Even more interesting: All three points stand in connection with the religious thought of Moses Maimonides (1137–1204), the medieval halakhist and philosopher, whose radical theological ideas Mendelssohn mostly rejected and Cohen generally adopted. Should this observation be true, however, we might assume that Cohen took at least a few hints for his own reading of Maimonides from Mendelssohn. This conclusion would then in itself be surprising, because Cohen, contrary to the Jewish Reform theologians of the 19th century, and in fact contrary to everyone else, read Maimonides in what was generally called an “idiosyncratic” way: For Cohen, Maimonides was a proto-idealist, who often followed Plato much more than Aristotle, and who sometimes even anticipated Immanuel Kant. Even more exceptionally, for Cohen Maimonides’ philosophy in the Guide of the Perplexed was focused on a theology of ethics rather than on a metaphysics of knowledge of the divine. I will attempt to provide proof-texts showing that on these three points Mendelssohn and Cohen are essentially in harmony. Still, my proofs for a probable Mendelssohnian influence on Cohen depend on a very close reading of both Mendelssohn’s relevant passages, as well as of the corresponding texts in Maimonides. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Skepticism and Tolerance: Moses Mendelssohn, Salomon Maimon, and Jewish Enlightenment Thought)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-7
Back to TopTop