PD Dr. Amit Kravitz

Project description: “Die ,Religion’, das ,Politische’ und die begriffliche Gestaltung des ,Judentums’ bei Kant, Fichte, Hegel und Schelling”

In my research I focus on Kant’s, Fichte’s, Hegel’s and Schelling’s conceptions of ‘Judaism’ as resulting from their systematic approaches to the concepts ‘religion’ and ‘the political’.

I first claim that the respective conceptions of ‘Judaism’ can neither be fully explained in terms of prejudices, nor in light of each philosopher’s personal familiarity with Jewish theology (which was at any event minor). Alternatively, I hold that their perceptions are rooted in the structure of the concept of ‘universality’, which – given metaphysical constraints, which designate the realm of finitude as such – must be thought of as a consequence of overcoming an already existing preceding component. I term this universality ‘clouded universality [getrübter Universalismus]’. I explain why the component that must be overcome for the sake of ‘clouded universality’ has been identified time and again, in different contexts, with ‘Judaism’ (as a conceptual construct). In addition, I illuminate the unique way in which this conceptual structure comes to play a central role in German Idealism.

I then tackle in four chapters Kant’s, Fichte’s, Hegel’s and Schelling’s respective conceptions of ‘Judaism’ and show how each was carried out in light of the ‘clouded universality’ depicted above. I focus at length on Kant’s philosophy, since it served as the point of departure for an entirely new philosophical current, to which Hegel, Fichte and Schelling belong. I take special interest in the problem of the realization [Verwirklichung] of ‘reason’ in Kant’s philosophy, which according to Kant must begin with an absolute negation of ‘Judaism’.

Finally, I carefully address some possible accounts concerning the relation between those conceptions of ‘Judaism’ and later, anti-Semitic developments. On the one hand, I do not identify the philosophical context of Kant and German idealism with later developments, since assuming a clear-cut causal relation in the realm of ideas is fundamentally misleading. On the other hand, later developments must be located in relation to its historical antecedents; otherwise they will be viewed as an aberration or madness, i.e. as an inexplicable break in history itself. The best way to construe this relation is to ask exactly which components of those philosophical approaches have enabled a twisted use afterwards.