@article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Freud's Moses and Fromm's Freud: Erich Fromm's silence on Freud's Moses - a silence of negation or a silence of consent?}, series = {Interenational Journal of Philosophy and Theology, Routledge 2022, 23 pp. [open access via https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2022.2140184]}, journal = {Interenational Journal of Philosophy and Theology, Routledge 2022, 23 pp. [open access via https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2022.2140184]}, abstract = {In 1939 Sigmund Freud published his latest book, Moses and Monotheism, which is his most unusual and problematic work. In Moses Freud offers four groundbreaking claims in regard to the biblical story: [a] Moses was an Egyptian [b] The origin of monotheism is not Judaism [c] Moses was murdered by the Jews [d] The murder sparked a constant sense of unconscious guilt, which eventually contributed to the rational and ethical development of Jewish monotheism. As is well known, Freud's Moses received extremely negative reviews from Jewish thinkers. The social psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on Freud as well as on Judaism and the biblical narrative, did not explicitly express his position on Freud's latest work. This paper offers explanations for Fromm's roaring silence on Freud's Moses.}, language = {en} } @article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Animal rights - Jewish perspectives}, series = {The Turn - Zeitschrift f{\"u}r islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik, No. 3: Mensch \& Unmensch, 2022, pp. 65-88.}, journal = {The Turn - Zeitschrift f{\"u}r islamische Philosophie, Theologie und Mystik, No. 3: Mensch \& Unmensch, 2022, pp. 65-88.}, abstract = {This article raises the question why is it that, despite Jewish tradition devoting much thought to the status and treatment of animals and showing strict adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What has prevented the expansion of the golden rule: »Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD« (Lev 19,18) and »That which is hateful to you do not do to another« (BT Shabbat 31a:6; JT Nedarim 30b:1) to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas's ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: The ›I‹ is committed to the other, regardless of the other's attitude towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?}, language = {en} }