Response to Holocaust
Buber, Wiesel and Levinas respond to holocaust through writings that have philosophical and theological meanings. Their writing gives new dimensions and understanding of the Holocaust. Buber was a Jewish philosopher who used his extensive study of Judaism to highlight aspects of Jewish culture that are important in the comprehension of the holocaust. He refuted claims about the superiority of Jewish law and advocated for cultural transformation of Judaism. According to Buber, Judaism survived on contradictoriness (Buber 1996). Wiesel responded to holocaust in a humanistic way questioning whether the world shall ever learn from such atrocities. He also refers to holocaust in many of his writing as a theological occurrence (Bloom 2009). He doubted whether God could have been present at the time of Holocaust. He had known the Rabbi as the protector of the Jewish and such atrocities could not have occurred if indeed God was present. Levinas on the other hand, responds by exploring ethics and relating it to the activities that occurred during holocaust. His writings dwell on the evilness of the holocaust. According to Levinas, the anti-Semitism from a moral point of view was equivalent to anti-humanism. Therefore, humankind should take responsibility instead of shifting blame to God (Mayama 2010). He further refutes a theory that suffering was due to sin. He states the magnitude of suffering that was witnessed at concentration camps defies the proposition that it was due to evil deeds, and there was a greater reward for righteousness in the upper kingdom. Anne Frank response to holocaust differs from Buber, Wiesel and Levinas in the sense that her written works captured in her diary was a first hand account of the happenings at the concentration camps during the holocaust. Frank died at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and, therefore, never lived to respond to holocaust as the other three philosophers. However, she wrote about life at the camp, her experiences, relationship and development. In her diary, Frank mentions several issues that have significant meaning to human life. She talks about the inner meaning of real freedom, which she defines as the capacity to choose attitude even when one is subjected to sufferings and challenging situations. According to Frank, freedom of mind was more important and fulfilling than physical freedom from interference. At the camp, she had no physical freedom, but exercised another greater freedom of mind which enabled her to interact with fellow detainees and write insightful accounts of her life. The other concept that Frank defined was responsibility which according to her was the ability to accomplish the task one is expected to undertake. She stated that people should focus on their roles in life instead of thinking about themselves. Frank underwent tremendous suffering at the concentration camp that eventually led to her demise. All her daily experiences were marked with challenges. However, she did not take her sufferings as an obstacle to fulfilling her mission. She states that people should realize that they might get meaning in life during those moments when they are confronted with sufferings and unchanged situations. Frank views on sufferings differs from the Levinas because the latter does not believe that the sufferings Jewish endured at the concentration camp was part of human life. Levinas feels that people must be responsible for the atrocities committed by Nazi rule in 1940s. On the other hand, Frank sees sufferings as a means of finding deeper meaning of life.
References
Bloom, H. (2009). Elie Wiesel's Night. New York: Bloom's Literary Criticism.
Buber, M. (1996). The letters of Martin Buber: A life of dialogue. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Mayama, A. (2010). Emmanuel Levinas' conceptual affinities with liberation theology. New York: Peter Lang.
