@article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {>Der Sabbat< as a Point of Reference for Evaluating Erich Fromm's Approach to Jewish Law: A Prelude to Fromm's Contribution to Modern Jewish Thought}, series = {Fromm Forum (English Edition - ISSN 1437-1189), 25 / 2021, Tuebingen (Selbstverlag), pp. 019-041.}, volume = {e25/2021d}, journal = {Fromm Forum (English Edition - ISSN 1437-1189), 25 / 2021, Tuebingen (Selbstverlag), pp. 019-041.}, language = {en} } @article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Reason and the future of historical consciousness : Examining a possible influence of Hermann Cohen on Erich Fromm}, series = {Achives of Philosophy, Pisa, Vol. 88, pp. 149-161.}, journal = {Achives of Philosophy, Pisa, Vol. 88, pp. 149-161.}, abstract = {In recent years, the influence of Cohen's Religion of Reason on Erich Fromm's con¬cept of Judaism began to appear in the research literature. The current study broadens the scope of Cohen's influence to include Fromm's concept of history, as well as his social criticism. In this paper I would like to suggest, that Cohen's criticism of >historical consciousness'intelligence< and >progress< in the mid- 20th century. Cohen's distinction between >reason< (Vernunft) and >consciousness< (Bewusstsein) is echoed in Fromm's distinction between >reason< and >intelligence<. For Cohen and Fromm, >reason< is an eternal universal and moral compass for evaluating history and progress. Both Cohen's >consciousness< and Fromm's >intelligence<, without >reason< as an ethical component, are perceived as a threat to the capability of the individual to achieve self-fulfillment, as well as to the progress of humanity.}, language = {en} } @article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Correlation and Orientation: Erich Fromm's Position on Religion in Light oft Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig}, series = {DAAT - A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah, Vol. 85 (2018), pp. vii-xxxv.}, journal = {DAAT - A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah, Vol. 85 (2018), pp. vii-xxxv.}, abstract = {This paper presents Fromm's (1900-1980) ap-proach to religion and religiosity, in light of Hermann Cohen (1842-1918) thought. Despite differences in their thought, Cohen and Fromm share some things in common. Their critique of culture is based on a unique definition of das Individuum, the human condition. They demon-strate a cautious approach to modernity and progress.}, language = {en} } @article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Reflections on Erich Fromm's Position on Religion in Light of Hermann Cohen}, series = {Fromm Forum (English Edition - ISSN 1437-1189), 22 / 2018, Tuebingen (Selbstverlag), pp. 126-142.}, volume = {e22/2018g}, journal = {Fromm Forum (English Edition - ISSN 1437-1189), 22 / 2018, Tuebingen (Selbstverlag), pp. 126-142.}, abstract = {This paper presents Fromm's (1900-1980) ap-proach to religion and religiosity, in light of Hermann Cohen (1842-1918) thought. Despite differences in their thought, Cohen and Fromm share some things in common. Their critique of culture is based on a unique definition of das Individuum, the human condition. They demon-strate a cautious approach to modernity and progress.}, 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} } @article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Idolatry}, series = {Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations Online, edited by Martin Thurner, Peter Sch{\"a}fer, Christoph Markschies, Amy-Jill Levine, Rainer Kampling and Walter Homolka. Berlin, Boston (De Gruyter) 2021, pp. 1-9.}, journal = {Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations Online, edited by Martin Thurner, Peter Sch{\"a}fer, Christoph Markschies, Amy-Jill Levine, Rainer Kampling and Walter Homolka. Berlin, Boston (De Gruyter) 2021, pp. 1-9.}, language = {en} } @article{Pinkas, author = {Pinkas, Ronen}, title = {Erich Fromm und Das Freie J{\"u}dische Lehrhaus in Frankfurt}, series = {Judaica: Neue Digitale Folge 4, (2023), 28 pp. [open access via https://doi.org/10.36950/jndf.2023.1.1]}, journal = {Judaica: Neue Digitale Folge 4, (2023), 28 pp. [open access via https://doi.org/10.36950/jndf.2023.1.1]}, abstract = {This article examines Erich Fromm (1900-1980) within the context of the so-called >renaissance of Jewish religious thought< in Germany during the early 20th century. It is well known that Fromm was a member of the Institute for Social Research, later called the Frankfurt School. The focus of this study, however, is on what has received little attention in research, namely Fromm's involvement in founding the Freies j{\"u}disches Lehrhaus (the Jewish House of Free Study) in Frankfurt. Fromm participated in the founding of the Lehrhaus as a student and later as a lecturer. During this time, Fromm also wrote his dissertation on Judaism at Heidelberg University. Methodologically, this paper intertwines the historical biographical axis, which deals with Fromm's connections to several thinkers: Rabbi Nehemia Nobel, Rabbi Georg Salzberger, Baruch Salman Rabinkow, Franz Rosenzweig, Ernest Simon and others, and the philosophical axis, which focuses on his dissertation, The Jewish Law. The Freies j{\"u}disches Lehrhaus in Frankfurt is primarily associated with Franz Rosenzweig and other thinkers who worked there, such as Gershom Scholem, Ernest Simon, Leo L{\"o}wenthal and Martin Buber, who wrote >Ich und Du< during the years he taught there. With the exception of Buber, the Lehrhaus was their first official teaching venue. The Lehrhaus was characterized by its dialogical atmosphere, and symmetrical relationships between teachers and students, which softened some of the rigidity that was the norm at German educational frameworks at the time. This atmosphere continued to influence Fromm in his adult life, in terms of his attitude towards religion, questioning of authority and his understanding of human nature. Finally, it later played a role in his departure from Freudian libido theory. This study presents some key ideas from his dissertation, including his position on religious dogma, particularly concerning the Karaite sect, a subject that he later taught as a lecturer at the Lehrhaus. Fromm's dissertation expresses his preoccupation with his Jewish identity and his examination of the complex theo-political reality in which the Jews of Germany found themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, including the debates between Orthodox Jews and reformers, and between Zionists and anti-Zionists. This article supports the claim that Fromm's position that religious factors play a central role in the historical process, which he held throughout his life, was formed in these early years. The article strengthens the scholarly position that Fromm's Jewish background is relevant to understanding his thought in general.}, language = {de} } @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} }