Advertisement

Abstract

Freeing oneself from one’s prejudices is a task which the vast majority of modern philosophy sets as a condition for proper rational enquiry and for communication between men on an equal footing and without bias.1 It is not easy, however, to recognise one’s prejudices. In fact, it is very often he who feels immune that is most subject to its influence.2 This is true of the thinkers considered here, ever ready to accuse others of prejudice, whilst being convinced of the irreproachability of their own point of view. The danger lies in forgetting that even our own point of view is both relative and conditioned. Within a tradition that transmits not only behavioural patterns, but also more or less explicit ready-made judgements, the question is whether to subject these judgements to rational observation and, through comparing and contrasting them, arrive at an argued and personally satisfying opinion, or close oneself within those acquired certainties, refusing “to submit oneself to the law of the best argument”.3 In this case, the force of prejudice is shown in its most negative sense. Challenging of person, who claims to be free of bias, is a necessary precondition for dialogue, but it is not the only one.4 Should this person refuse the search for truth implied also in the questioning of his convictions, then the dialogue loses its significance and fails even to be a pleasant conversation with others.5

Keywords

Jewish Community Jewish Question Universal History Ritual Murder Progressive Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For the importance of this requirement see Jürgen Habermas, Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 19922, 104, 218.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For Gadamer’s insistence on this point see his interview in Hans-Georg Gadamer im Gespräch, ed. Carsten Dutt. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1993, 20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul Ricoeur, Temps et recit, III, Le temps raconté. Paris: Du Seuil, 1985, 325–326, which recalls the well-known polemic between Gadamer and Habermas in their contributions to Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik, ed. Karl-Otto Apel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971. After pointing out that the term “prejudice” has various meanings, Ricoeur locates it “within the orbit of judgement” and compares it to the party to the case in a trial. If this party sought to set itself up in its own court, it would be like a claimant challenging his own magistrate. This is what prejudice does when it refutes the higher appeal of reason. For the importance of the critical moment in Ricoeur, see Gianni Paganini, La filosofia francese nella seconda meta del novecento, in Storia della Filosofia, previously edited by Mario Dal Pra, vol. XI, torn I, edited by Gianni Paganini. Padova: Vallardi-Piccin, 1998, 261–265, 279–282.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For the hermeneutics of the dialogue in Gadamer, but also for the criticism raised by Karl-Otto Apel on the inadequacy of his methodology, see Paolo Spinicci, Fenomenologia ed ermeneutica and Oltre l’ermeneutica in Storia della Filosofia, XI, torn I, ed. Paganini, 609–616, 639–649.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    On the need for criticism within dialogue and understanding, see Giuseppe Cambiano, Ermeneutica e filologia, “Rivista di filosofia”, 1997, 3, 448–460, who complains that in Gadamer’s interpretation of platonic dialogue there is a loss of the critical dimension “of doubt, of comparison” (448, 460), of confutation (456–457) and sustains Socrates’ asymmetric position towards interlocuters and traditional language, confirming his objective of freedom from prejudice (458–459).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See Gadamer, op. cit., 19.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, Gesammelte Werke, I. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986, 281; for this observation Ricoeur, op. cit., 325–326.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Georg Simmel, Die Hauptprobleme der Philosophie, it. tr. A. Banfl — P. Costa. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1996, 6; Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie. Eine erkenntnistheoretische Studie, Gesamtausgabe, ed. Otthein Rammstedt, II. Frankfürt: Suhrkamp, 1989, 326, 333.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For insistence on this point, also with respect to the position of Habermas, see Raymond Boudon, L’ideologie. L’origine des idées reçues. Paris: Fayard, 1986, it. tr. Gregorio De Paola, L’ideologia. Origine dei pregiudizi. Torino: Einaudi, 1991, 7–8, 125–129, 134–135, 136.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    In this sense Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 282 saves the so-called Populärphilosophie of the German Enlightenment.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jerusalem oder über religiöse Macht und Judentum, 1783, Gesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe (JubA). Stuttgart: Frommann, 1971—, VIII, 134–35, tr. Allan Arkush, Hannover and London: University Press of New England, 1983, 67, see also JubA, III, 335–36.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gegenbetrachtungen über Bonnets Palingenesie, JubA, VII, 98–99.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See Logik Blomberg, Gesammelte Schriften, Akademie Ausgabe. Berlin-Leipzig, 1900— (AA), XXIV, 169; for the wider view on prejudice pp. 161–94, also Logik Pölitz, 547–556, Logik Philippi, AA, XXV, 424–33, Logik Busold, 640–44, Wiener Logik, 869–79; Logik Dohna Wundl, 737–42; on this subject, see Marina Savi, Il concetto di senso comune in Kant. Milano: Franco Angeli, 1998, 64.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Logik Blomberg, 170–71.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ibid., 167.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Logik Pölitz, 551. On the relationship between Enlightenment and criticism of prejudices, see Werner Schneiders, Auβlärung und Vorurteilskritik. Studien zur Geschichte der Vorurteilskritik. Stuttgart: Frommann, 1983, especially pp. 56–65 for the part played by the tradition as natural prejudice, that is prior to the critical stance.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Logik Blomberg, 179–185, Logik Pölitz, 552–556, Logik Philippi, 429–432, Wiener Logik, 875–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Claus von Bormann, Die Zweideutigkeit der hermeneutischen Erfahrung, in Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik, ed. Apel, 92–94.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Die Dynamik der Geschichte und der Historismus (1952), in Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Klaus Stichweh, II. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1983, 310–320; Wahrheit und Geschichtlichkeit (1969/70), ibid., 466–467.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Was ist Aufklärung, AA, VIII, 35, 40.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zum ewigen Frieden, AA, VIII, 386.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benedetto Croce, La storia come pensiero e come azione, Laterza, Bari 19382, 38–9, 41. On the importance of this work in the development of Croce’s thinking, see Manlio Ciardo, L’inflnito e la storia in Benedetto Croce. Napoli: Guida, 1990, 59–68. In the comparison between Croce and Salvemini, Eugenio Garin (Osservazioni preliminari a una storia della filosofia, 1959, in La filosofla come sapere storico, Laterza: Bari 1990) explains the “contemporaneity” of the history (p. 33) as a two way link between the present and the past (p. 78) in the necessary projection towards the future and recalls the remark of Droysen that “amongst historical materials there are also the consequences [...] consequences that contemporaries did not know, and had no presentiment of” (p. 73).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    On the discussed question between the late eighteenth century and the beginnings of the twentieth century and on the emerging difference between ‘Universalgeschichte’ and ‘Weltgeschichte’, see Fulvio Tessitore, Il senso della storia universale. Milano: Garzanti, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Michel de Montaigne, Essais, III, 2 (Du repentir), Alexandre Micha, 3 voll. Paris, 1969, III, 20–21.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karl Jaspers, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Zürich: Artemis, 1949, 15.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ibid. 41.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ibid. 85.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ibid. 323.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L’impossible antisémitisme (1937), in Le mystère d’Israël et autres essais. Paris: Desclée, 1965, 30–1.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    On the medieval origin of this accusation see J. Friedrich Battenberg, Die Ritualprozesse gegen Juden in Spätmittelalter und Frühneuzeit. Verfahren und Rechtsschutz, in Die Legende vom Ritualmord. Zur Geschichte der Blutbeschuldigung gegen Juden, ed. Rainer Erb. Berlin: Metropol, 1993, 95–193 and Andreas Angerstorfer, Jüdische Reaktionen auf die mittelalterlichen Blutbeschuldigungen vom 13. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, ibid., 133–177: they draw a parabola of such incriminations from 1144 in Norway to 1636 at Lublin (p. 133) registering their decline in the modern age.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Between 1890 and 1899 a debate took place in the Austrian parliament on such a charge, as documented by Albert Lichtblau, who reports anti-Semitic statements in the Social Christian party, Die Debatten über die Ritualmordbeschuldigungen im österreichischen Abgeordnetenhaus am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, ibid. 267–93. On the continuation of the accusation until 1930, see George L. Mosse, Toward the Final Solution. A History of European Racism. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1978, 114.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See Furio Jesi, L’accusa del sangue. Mitologie dell ‘antisemitismo, postfazione di David Bidussa. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1993, pp. 12–61. Here the trial at Damascus in 1840 is reconstructed: it involved European consulates and its echo arrived very quickly, as we will see, in books with historical and philosophical pretensions. Its outcome then recurred as a sort of proof in the following polemics and was still recalled in 1890 during the above mentioned debate at the Austrian parliament, see Lichtblau, op. cit., 277.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ibid., p. 54.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See René Gérard, L’orient et la pensée romantique allemande. Nancy: Thomas, 1963, 5–8, 33–41, 54, 91–2, 144–45.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See Joseph Lecler, Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme. Paris, Aubier, 1955, II, 189, 316, 387. In addition we may already mention the book Vindiciae Judaeorum, written by the rabbi of Amsterdam, Menasseh Ben Israel, and published at London in 1656, which pleaded the cause of the readmission of the Jews to England. The second edition came out in 1708.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    There are very different estimations about the increase in the Jewish population in Germany during the eighteenth century, see Paolo Bernardini, La questione ebraica nel tardo illuminismo tedesco. Studi intorno allo “Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden” di C.W. Dohm (1781). Firenze: Giuntina, 1992, 26–7, 125. Their number is estimated here at about 70,000 for 1750. In any case, hostile reactions show the fear of their immoderate increase (see ibid., 14, 83).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    The struggle for a freedom also in favour of the Jews has been stressed by Leo Strauss, Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft. Untersuchungen zu Spinozas theologisch-politischem Traktat. Berlin, 1930 (repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1981), p. XII. Although he admits that Spinoza reduced “to a minimum” what was “specifically Jewish” and “specifically Christian” (p. 96), he corrects the critical stance of Cohen (p. XI).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johann Maier, Das Judentum. Von der biblischen Zeit bis zur Moderne. München: Kindler, 1972, 646–51, 662–63, where an account is also given of the range of attitudes with harsh controversies. David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry. 1780–1840. New York — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987 besides the assertion that the category of assimilation is somewhat “anachronistic”, being a product of later ideologies (pp. 4, 7), underlines the role of the Haskalah, which was disaffected with rabbinical tradition and tried to reshape “a new Jewish identity” (p. 5, see also pp. 60–61).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    It is well known that Hannah Arendt, The Origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, 1966, 4, 9, 12–13, 18, 20, 29, 30, 32 insisted on the convergence of interests between the national state and rich or emerging Jews in the bureaucratic and cultural sphere and instead she discovered the “crystallization” of political anti-Semitism in the time of imperialism, when the functions previously carried out by Jews became unnecessary and so their force was weakened. Besides the historical thesis, the evaluation of which lies outside our investigation, it is sufficient to stress here the ambiguity of that presumed agreement between national state and Judaism, as emphasized by Arendt (pp. 7, 13): on the one hand, the former was interested in the latter only as long as it remained separate from the rest of society, on the other hand, Judaism was called upon to make drastic renunciations through assimilation. On the meaning of this thesis by Arendt, see Richard J. Bernstein, Hannah Arendt and the Jewish Question. Cambridge-Oxford 1996: Polity Press, 46–70. On the opportunistic policy of the Prussian kings, which favoured the concentration of rich Jews in Berlin, see Deborah Hertz, Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1988, 39–47. On restrictions and hateful impositions still existent under Frederick II, see Heinz Knobloch, Herr Moses in Berlin. Auf den Spuren eines Menschenfreundes. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 19983, 56–59, 139–140, 146–153, 278.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steven M. Lowenstein, Jewish Responses to Moses Mendelssohn, in Moses Mendelssohn und die Kreise seiner Wirksamkeit, ed. Michael Albrecht etc. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994, 334, 336–42. Mention is made of the families Itzig, Ephraim and Isaac, the latter afterwards becoming Fliess. See also Lowenstein, Jewish Upper Crust: the Itzig Family, in Profiles in Diversity. Jews in a Changing Europe 1750–1870, ed. by Frances Malino and David Sorkin. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 184–193. The search for a closer link by this well-off stratum with the German bourgeoisie through the “Bildung” has been harshly critized by Mosse, who complained about the distance of this German-Jew movement from the common people, see German Jews beyond Judaism. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985, 4, 11–12, 19, 25, 30–31, 33–34, 40, 72–74. Also Hannah Arendt insisted on the detachment of the “parvenu” from the so-called pariah, see for the evaluation of this thesis Bernstein, op.cit., 16–22.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dominique Bourel, Mendelssohn und Lavater. Ein Fauxpas in der Aufklärung, in Das jüdisch-christliche Religionsgespräch, ed. Heinz Kremers and Julius H. Schoeps. Stuttgart-Bonn: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1988 42 in giving an account of the success of Mendelssohn from 1755 to 1769, calls the Phaedo a “European bestseller”. Frederick II, however, vetoed Mendelssohn’s election to membership of the Royal Academy, see Hertz, op. cit., 65, 87–88; Knobloch, op. cit., 194–200, 203. Mendelssohn was invited to Frederick’s palace in Potsdam, but under circumstances that diminished this honour from the king (see Knobloch, op. cit., 207–213).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hans Liebeschütz, Das Judentum im deutschen Geschichtsbild von Hegel bis Max Weber. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967, 7–11.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    On the favourable situation and on the “model-organization” of the Jews in Berlin around Mendelssohn, see Bernardini, op. cit., 30–2. Their importance grew in the nineteenth century and in the first decades of the twentieth century so that they became the point of reference for the German Jews, see Peter Gay, Freud, Jews and Other Germans. Masters and Victims in Modernist Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, 173–174 and for examination of the “Berlin-Jewish Spirit”, pp. 167–188.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    On this emancipating function, see Jacob Allerhand, Das Judentum in der Aufklärung. Stuttgart: Frommann, 1980, 76–78, 105–06, 109–114, where the aesthetic quality of the translation is appreciated more than its philological strictness. Mendelssohn’s aim was the teaching of “two pure languages”, Hebrew and German, from a conservative point of view (Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 71–72), but his translation gave rise also to perplexity and opposition in Jewish communities. Besides the fear that it would be used only to learn German, bringing Jewish terms nearer to modern thought and the effort to enhance aesthetic aspects nurtured suspicions, particularly in the communities of East-Europe. Enthusiastic supporters were to be found above all in the new communities, in the highest social strata and, of course, in those who aspired to the assimilation of European culture, see Jacob Katz, Mendelssohns schwankendes Bild bei der jüdischen Nachwelt, in Moses Mendelssohn und die Kreise seiner Wirksamkeit, ed. Albrecht, 352–60. For a broad analysis of Mendelssohn’s translations and his exegetic criteria, see Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment. London: Peter Halban, 1996, 46–88; Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn’s Biblical Exegesis, in Moses Mendelssohn im Spannungsfeld der Aufklärung, ed. Michael Albrecht and Eva J. Engel. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 2000, 243–276. For oppositions arising within Judaism, see Knobloch, op. cit., 247–249, 270–271; Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment, 88–89. For the standard value his translations assumed for Jewish Enlightenment writers, see Sorkin, Preacher, Teacher, Publicist: Joseph Wolf and the Ideology of Emancipation, in Profiles in Diversity, ed. Malino and Sorkin, 116–119.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    On the difficult conciliation of the two purposes and spheres of publications in Hebrew and German, see Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 81. In his opinion, such a balance was destined to dissolve in the subsequent generation (pp. 71–72). On the roots of this dualism in Judaic tradition, see Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment, 28–29.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Israel Levine dwells upon the need for applying to them the concept of nation, but at the same time upon the rising difficulty, Faithful rebels. A study in Jewish speculative Thought. London: The Soncino Press, 1936, 131–35, and, at a hard moment for the Jewish identity, he recognises it especially in Messianism.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See Jacob Katz, The Term ‘Jewish Emancipation ’. Its Origin and Historical Impact, in Studies in nineteenth-century Jewish intellectual history, ed. by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1964, 1–25.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liberalismus und Sionismus, Gesammelte Schriften (GS), III, ed. Reinhold and Annemarie Mayer. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1984, 557–58, for the importance of this passage, see Gianfranco Bonola, Introduzione a La Scrittura. Saggi dal 1914 al 1929. Roma: Città Nuova, 1991, 22; see also Der Ewige, Mendelssohn und der Gottesname, GS, III, 802–04. On the effort by Rosenzweig and Buber in their translation of the Bible to render the “virtualities” of Jewish words avoiding the usual and distracting associations, see Emmanuel Levinas, La pensée de Martin Buber et le judaïsme contemporain, in Idem, Hors Sujet. Cognac: Fata Morgana, 1987, 24–25.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rosenzweig, Der Ewige, Mendelssohn und der Gottesname, 814–15. On the humanistic inspiration of Rosenzweig himself in his progressive recovery of the Jewishness inherent in the tradition, see Levinas, Le grand témoin, in Idem, Hors Sujet, 74–6.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    On the following depreciation of Hebrew and Yiddish, see P. Gay, op. cit., 109–110.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    The merits are acknowledged by Rosenzweig, Der Ewige, Mendelssohn und der Gottesname, 801. On the importance of the undertaking of Mendelssohn who opened European culture and, above all, the German language, to Judaism see Karlfried Gründer, Hamann und Mendelssohn, in Religionskritik und Religiosität in der deutschen Aufklärung, ed. K. Gründer and K.H. Rengstorf. Heidelberg: Schneider, 1989, 113.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    See besides the above mentioned criticism of Mosse and Arendt, Gay, op. cit., 93–94, 102–103, 105–106, 111, 153, 166–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Tomasoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Facoltà di Lettere e FilosofiaUniversità Del Piemonte OrientaleVercelliItaly

Personalised recommendations