Search results

Given current levels of social fragmentation and legal polycentrism, which today is at stake is the principle of secularity of the state-form, but the very survival of its theoretical and practical, originally defined as universal and eternal but really as historically determined as the Western liberal paradigm that arose. The survival is challenged by the new constituent power of the corporate logic of the market aimed at playing monopoly (i.e. sovereign) of a type not only technical knowledge and science and business, but led to political and legal control of the area symbolic. ; Ante los actuales niveles de fragmentación social y de policentrismo jurídico, lo que hoy en día está en juego no es el principio de laicidad de la forma-Estado, sino la subsistencia misma de sus fundamentos teóricos y prácticos, originariamente definidos como universales y eternos, pero en realidad tan históricamente determinados como el paradigma liberal occidental del que se derivaron. Dicha subsistencia es puesta en entredicho por el nuevo poder constituyente de la lógica corporativa del mercado tendiente a la reproducción monopolística (es decir soberana) de un tipo de saber ya no solo técnico científico y empresarial, sino dirigido al control político-jurídico de la esfera simbólica.

My dissertation is intended to analyze the work of Gershom Scholem with the scope of outlining his importance within the context of twentieth century Jewish thought. A great deal of this thesis is thus devoted not only to Scholem's political interventions and interviews, indeed a marginal part of his research, but also to detect the trace of a constant philosophical interest in his scholarship. First chapter provides the historical context, dealing briefly with some of the most important figures of the German-Jewish philosophical scene: Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, and Franz Rosenzweig. The role of Ahad Ha'am and cultural Zionism is also presented. Second chapter is devoted to Scholem's conception of language and to the analysis of the notions of Revelation and Tradition as developed in some of his most important essays. Central in this context is the role played by Franz Kafka, whose novels can be seen indeed as a sort of paradigm through which Scholem interpreted not only the main figures of Kabbalah, but also the whole theology of Judaism. An investigation of Scholem's methodology and conception of history is to be found in third chapter. Three elements that contributed very much to shape Scholem's scholarship are taken in particular account. First of all, Scholem's polemics against the Wissenschaft des Judentums, which finds its ground on an organicistic and non-essentialistic approach to Jewish history. Then, the early appreciation for Nietzsche and Lebensphilosophie, though later neglected by Scholem, is here seen as a possible source for the vitalistic and anarchic elements that characterize his research. Finally, a great part of this chapter is dedicated to a comparison between Scholem's conception of Jewish history and Walter Benjamin's Thesis on the concept of History (1940). Although much of scholarly effort has already been devoted to the relation between Scholem and Benjamin, the presence of Benjamin's last work in Scholem's research still needs to be considered in all its significance. With the aim of investigating Scholem's approach to Jewish history and historiography, two essays are taken in particular consideration: Memory and Utopia in Jewish History (1946), a lecture Scholem gave in the aftermath of the Holocaust in front of a Zionist audience, and On History and Philosophy of History, the text of Scholem's response to a talk on "History and Hermeneutics" given by Paul Ricoeur within the context of the "First Jerusalem Philosophical Encounter" (1974). Chapter four deals with Scholem's conception of messianism. After showing the importance of messianism in Scholem's research and the originality of his interpretation, the relevance of Scholem's position is highlighted through the analysis of the two most important polemics in which Scholem has been involved. The critiques of Scholem's opponents, Baruch Kurzweil and Jacob Taubes, have been taken here as a tool to show the philosophical and political concerns hiding behind the core of Scholem's analysis. With the help of some unpublished material, the last part of the chapter presents an overview of the relation between messianism and zionism in Scholem's work. His early zionism being loaded with metaphysical and messianic overtones, after moving to Palestine Scholem had to face a strong disenchantment, which lead him to separate his zionist affiliation, as a part of a historical responsibility and political decision, from messianism, which indeed he considered to be something rather un-historical and confined to an utopian plane. Fifth chapter intends to show the peculiarity of Scholem's attitude toward secularization. According to Scholem, the passage through secularism in Judaism has to be intended as a necessary moment, though not definitive, being part of a dialectics that cannot be foreseen in advance. An analysis of Scholem's 1926 letter to Rosenzweig is also offered, showing the philosophical significance of Scholem's reflections on the importance and the risks entailed in the secular revival of the Hebrew language.