About Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929)
He was a Jewish theologian and philosopher who lived between 1886 and 1929. Born in Kassel, Germany, Franz Rosenzweig belonged to a minimally observant middle class German Jewish family. At the Universities of Munich, Gottingen and Freiburg, he studied Philosophy and History. Rosenzweig got influenced by his cousins and close friend (Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy) to be converted to Christianity. However, determined to keep his faith as early as Christians did, he resolved to remain Jewish first, before becoming converted into Christianity. One day after he had attended the Yom Kippur services in Berlin, Ronsenzweig underwent some mystical experiences that led him to become a “Baal Teshuvaa”, or a “master of return” to his Jewish religion (Levenson chap. 6). Although he did not record what had transpired, he never again thought of converting to Christianity. As from 1913, he decided to turn to Jewish Philosophy. While writing his doctoral dissertation on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, he rejected the idealism promoted by the then Germany philosophers and embraced a philosophy that was not founded on abstractions of human beings (Levenson chap. 6).
The Structure of the Star of Redemption
The Star of Redemption (1921) is considered the magnum opus of Rosenzweig, and it is a description of God’s relationship with humanity and the world. In the diagram above, it is important to realize that they are connected with revelation, creation and redemption. According to him, if one makes the diagram with God at the top, and self and the world below, it is evident that it will generate a map of the Star of David. As already noted, since he was rejecting abstractions of idealism, Rosenzweig sought to replace ideals with actual existence of humans, and thus, he said that revelation arises here and now ( within one’s space and time), but not in Metaphysics(Levenson chap. 6). Samuelson (315) has noted that the Star of Redemption represents a configuration of three elements: God, humans and the world, to form three vectors. The first vector which is creation is formed when things and humans are created by God and put to the world. The other vector is revelation, which arises when there is movement of God’s information to the humans. The third vector, which is redemption, happens when humans endear or move to God (Samuelson 297-301; Levenson 97-100).
Why did he draw it?
It is important to note that before constructing his religious system, Rosenzweig had studied a lot the philosophy of Hegel and had become disillusioned with his idealism. However, the Hegel’s publication of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences had culminated the Spinoza’s thesis of logical formula comparable to that of Euclid’s geometry to understand theology. Hence he sought to bring an actual system that brings the clear relationship between God and humans and the universe. Secondly, he thought that philosophy alone was inadequate to explain more about the reality among the three elements as God, humans and the universe. According to him, Philosophy cannot know what transcends reality or human knowledge. A la Kant, there are always limits of rational knowledge of humans. As for Judah Halevi, what goes beyond the rational knowledge is faith; Rosenzweig calls this belief. In fact, he argued that the origin of philosophy was an attempt of escaping death (Samuelson 302). Rosenzweig, thus, noted that philosophical enterprises were illusionary because while struggling to know what is knowable a lone, it is obvious that Philosophy cannot realize what may happen after death. The other reason for the star diagram is that he was arguing to refute the abstraction of the German idealism by the fact that human beings were concrete people living in concrete world with concrete things in specific time and space. In this regard, he was convinced that since Philosophy begun from abstraction or nothingness (doubt), as it moves to something (Samuelson 302), it was ignoring the fact that humans and the universe and God are not abstract. Moreover, his configuration of the elements and movements meant that the universe and humans had their origins, and without interruption, they could progress to the end. In this regard, he argued that without external source of knowledge, humans cannot know themselves and God better. In this regard, without revelation one cannot even be aware of himself well (Samuelson 304).
He has noted that the analysis of the elements and courses of relationship lies beyond Philosophy and in fact meta-philosophy. One needs to combine meta-philosophy with revelation in order to gain a clear grasp of them. In this case, Rosenzweig says that that although humans can apply rational minds to understand the relationships between elements and their vectors or movements, the data that must facilitate that understanding should come from external source - God. The data from the external source is revelation and has to be communicated or revealed. In the current world there are several written manifestations of revelations in Holy Scriptures. Apparently, philosophy or meta-philosophy is only useful in understanding the relationship between elements to a certain extent, and therefore there must be a shift to a more advanced course for a full grasp of them. This shift, according to Rosenzweig, is Theology (Samuelson 308). Thus, while interpreting the religious texts, concerning the three elements, there are those texts that can be interpreted purely on Philosophical grounds. Rosenzweig has been using his best ability to analyze them logically and rationally to get claims about them. Additionally he puts it that when the texts are philosophical, the discipline for their analysis is Philosophy, and conclusions reached will be called knowledge. On the other hand, that is in his Part II of the book, when texts are sacred, the discipline that will be involved will be called Theology. The proper conclusions reached after their analyses as Holy Scriptures will be beliefs (Glaube). It is important to realize that the differences between Philosophy and Theology in this domain is not about the way one reads the texts, but rather the source and the epistemic claims derived from it. In the case of Philosophical interpretation, the case will involve a human being drawing his account from the text using his independent mind. However, in Theology, the text will involve invocation of external sources, to arrive at such claims (Samuelson 310-317).
Samuelson (317) points out that the star is a dialect for (Abrahamic) religions. In this regard, in Part 1 of Rosenzweig’s book, the vision of reality is the expression of the ancient religions of the pagans such as those in Greece and Asia. The vision in Part II finds its course in religions such as Islam. In this regard, Rosenzweig believed that although Islam speaks about revelation just as other religions like Christianity and Judaism do, it is not really a revealed religion. It is a religion that wishes to have the same status as Christianity and Judaism; that is to have prophetic beliefs and revelation beyond what other human beings can otherwise know. In this regard, he believes that Islam bridges between Philosophy and the other two Abrahamic religions. Part III of the book focuses on what he believes to be thinking that invokes the end of his time, and it concerns Christianity and Judaism only. He has believed that it is only human beings that the can begin the work of redemption; he is clear that the work of redemption cannot be done by God, but rather by a human being. Further, it cannot be done by mere studying of Philosophy and Science or by political programs. It can only be done through prayers, and he has dedicated the whole of part three to the meanings of prayer as per Judaism and Christianity. In the Part III too, he calls the first chapter, fire while the second one as rays. In this case therefore, Jews are fire, as they are enlightened at birth whilst Christians are still yearning to become, a situation that can only be so at the end of days.
So, in Part II, transformation to the enlightened status occurs through love, which originates from God. Thus, Christians are still at transformation stage by the virtue of practicing love through the structures of the church and politics of their countries. Rosenzweig has however, put the Jews beyond space and time; their world is liturgical and they will occupy it all the time. This can be witnessed through their daily spiritual and physical acts. Every physical act of a Jew requires an accompanying prayer. For instance, apart from having daily three sessions of prayers, they have put aside the day of Sabbath for doing nothing other than praying. He has added that the Jews have no land of their own, as they live in the land that belong to Christians and pagans. The land of Israel (that they own) is Holy and it cannot go. Further, the Jews do not have an official language of their own; they use the language of Christians and pagans. He has noted that what the Jews speak in their holy language are prayers. They are these prayers that invoke the coming of the end-days. However, the Kingdom of God will only come when all distinctions in the world are over so that there can be only one light in the world- the truth (Samuelson 317- 325).
Where Rosenzweig’s Philosophy Went Wrong
Rosenzweig’s meta-philosophy can be at least misleading in some sense. It tends to present Philosophy as sets of conclusions. In this regard, philosophers are yet to agree universally on the completeness of universal reason to render the truth on God and its creation without resorting to revelation. It has been noted that Rosenzweig, having been a student of Hermann Cohen, would become objected to Spinoza’s believe in rationalism as the source of consciousness about God. Obviously Cohen has seen this in the Maimonides’ philosophy that has left some room for revealed faith (Samuelson 315).
Rosenzweig purports that, relying on external sources of information is needed for one to get a full grasp of the elements and their relationship in the Star of Redemption diagram. However, external sources of information can sometimes be problematic in that one cannot be sure if what he believes in is right or wrong. Contrary to this, relying on one’s knowledge, by in some cases involving scientific manipulations, will be important to guarantee certain advantages over reliance to external sources (Theology) (Samuelson 309). One will obviously be certain in what he believes.
Rosenzweig has treated all elements mentioned in his star diagram as movements, but not as substances. For him he believes that they are movements in the process of moving in certain direction for them to become something at the end. He has contended that the end itself will be limited to some definitely controlled processes. In this way, he gives himself as a disciple of Cohen, whom he saw as a transitional figure from idealism of Plato and the new Philosophy that he himself was presenting. However, it could have been better if he had contented that among the elements, as God, humans and world, there are substances. In fact he had put it clearly that all movements originated from God, who cannot only be a movement (Samuelson 309-319).
His Philosophy still owes much from abstraction since, on the question of the existence of God, he has attributed to the Medieval Philosophers. Thus, he fails to use his diagram of the Star of David to prove the existence of his God; the star offers only the relationship between God and man and the universe. He seems to be confusing between Philosophy and Idealism; he is suggestive that history of Philosophy is the history of idealism, and in that history, there are no non-idealistic philosophers such as Aristotle as well as Anglo-Americans like Russell. It can be noted that idealism is just one of the domains of Philosophy, as there are others as Philosophy of Religion, Analytic Philosophy, Logic, and so forth (Samuelson 305).
Rosenzweig has assumed that all laws that govern relationships and movements are purely theological or devine. In the universe of Physics, energy, mass, forces and motion can be translated into each other, when regarding some special relationships. The issues of scientists are not very much unrelated with what Philosophers say about substances and processes. Although there are process, even major ones like water cycle, nitrogen cycle and so forth, scientists are yet to describe these process in terms of spirituality, and there are best knowledge that have been tested on how they occur. The laws that govern these substances and processes are quantitative, and as such, they are non-moral. They are actually known equations, such as those in Calculus, that have been made to explain temporal rates of changes in space over time (Samuelson 326).
He has tended to understand that all humans are the same, with the only categorization being that based on religion as Jews, Muslims and Christians. According to various religious Philosophers, on rational perspectives, all animals or rational creatures can be ordered in a hierarchical structure depending on their moral values. Among animals, it is obvious that a human being will rank as the most highest in moral values, followed by other primates like the ape. It has been obviated that he comes below the celestial creatures like the angels. However, as part of human species, all religions have agreed that prophets have been manifested as the most perfect and ideal human beings. In the moral hierarchy, they rank between human beings and angels (Samuelson 326-27).
Further his star diagram is still limited in describing the purposes of different of creatures in the universe. Various evolutionary psychologists and biologist have suggested that there is always a central purpose for the existence of every species or rather every creation in the universe (Samuelson 328). For instance, the common differentiations between males and females are exhibits that they must complement each other for their species to survive. On this point too, it has been believed that morals are biological features due to human evolutions (Samuelson 330). The author has also been criticized for working hard to promote Zionism (Levenson 78). He and others aimed to create a real Jewish individual, and thus a Zionist (Levenson 71).
Conclusion
Although the model has appreciated the fact that reasons alone cannot claim the ultimate truth about God and has drawn various relationship between Him and man and the universe, it has been hampered by several limitations or inadequacies. It only considered three elements, without realizing others like animals and their purposes. Moreover, the author seems to confuse between idealism and the overall Philosophy. His assertions and background on Judaism has made him to develop a philosophy that promotes a Jewish individual as the ultimate holy person over others. Lastly despite relying on external source of information only for theological matters, his diagram does not explain the existence of God.
Works Cited
Levenson, Alan T. An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thinkers: From Spinoza to Soloveitchik.
Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Print.
Samuelson, Norbert M. Jewish Philosophy: An Historical Introduction. New York: Continuum.
Print.
