Global Aspirations

By: Jonathan Seidel

Jewish cultural critics and humanism: Abarbanel, Hirsch, Leibowitz, Levinas, Sacks and Shagar   

One of the unique aspects of R Sacks’ thought is his cultural criticism. His style is special in its utilisation of the Torah to illuminate a secularised them. Unlike his predecessors, his books and some of them specifically promoted Jewish ideas to the larger world instead of defending Judaism from hostile invaders.

The first point to look is large focus on what can Judaism bring to the world. Many Jewish intellectuals have written to defend or promote Judaism. Almost always to the Jew to quench his struggles. In the case of the Spanish thinkers to the moderns, the use of philosophy was to assist the Jew in his pride. Do not worry here is a blueprint and a shield to uphold Judaism against antagonism. R Sacks does write for the Jew defending it in a few books, his overall theme even in the Jewishly iced books is what they can do for the world. In both Faith in the Future and To Heal a Fractured World draw on Jewish ethics to aid the mad world. On the one hand he speaks to the pride of the Jew in the global world as well as the non-Jew who can benefit from the Jewish ideas. R Sacks’ intent is to draw immense value that Judaism can provide for the world rather how can Jews align with the changes. The perspective is shifted and it lends an ear to a specified point no other thinker has tried. 

R Sacks’ usual sparing partner is R Shagar. The latter spends much of his books treading on postmodernism and mysticism. Quoting Lacan and R Nachman. Despite his focus on the prevailing issues, his response is personalised and Jewish targeted. How does a Jew deal with these issues. Even in times of ambiguity he relates to the Jewish side and the Jewish perception. He does tread into Sackian territory but overall highlights what can mysticism do for the Jew rather what can the Jew do for the world. In the same vein, R Hirsch before him took a humanistic route to the modern view. While adjusting to the humane elements he proposed how the Jew reflects in the modern age. How does the Jew acclimate to the inquiries. R Sacks does touch on these topics but outweighs them with his focus on the Jewish contribution to the world rather that what the world can give the Jew. 

Still, R Sacks’ cultural criticism is followed by these scholars rather deeply. Abarbanel is the most primed and famous for his Democratically promoted ideals once he found his way to Venice. To some extent the capability of cultural criticism is only so honest and inventive without theocracy. Abarbanel was of the predecessors during the Renaissance when “free press” was permissible. To write against the grain instead of writing against another. Meaning, the difference between a Jewish scholar responding to a christian scholar that my god is better than your god with that theocratic system is a problem. The political makeup was a start but Abarbanel proved he could assault the old ways and search for a new one. The lavish comfort of venetian republicanism rather than religious rule. The humanism displayed in his biblical commentary seeks a new age of religiosity with a new political model for Jewry. 

R Hirsch took Abarbanel further. While locating his work in the modern realm, he sought to bolster Jewish life in the global world. Unlike Mendelssohn, this was no defence of Judaism but a promotion of future Jewish life. Jerusalem does gift some insights on the matter but Hirsch wrote considerably on the notion of a different religious model that priorly ascertained. Like Abarbanel, he wrote a biblical commentary, a legal philosophy and other intellectual works. The goal is the range and the product. It wasn’t only his openness to secular studies but his universalistic tug. R Hirsch in a similar vein to R Sacks empowered the Jewish ethical equality among believers. Hoping for the Abrahamic inspiration to shine a light on the world. Like R Sacks, he saw Judaism as illuminating in the emancipated aspirations. His humanism was far more relevant to accepting of modernity than it was of focusing the religious spirit on a wider scale. While spending less time defending and instead promoting, there is much of recognition and respect that he saw as imperative in the modern age. 

R Kook like R Shagar later on promoted mystical universalism. While not necessarily spending too much time on the socio-cultural venue, he did speak much of the power of Jewish influence on the world. The mystical qualities were now seen as an equal measure for all humanity. His messianic pull contributed to his advocacy of the biblical texts intensifying the Jewish spirit with the modern world. Unlike his contemporaries, R Kook saw potential in the modern age. Advancing instead of recoiling like R Shagar did with postmodernism. In the Hegelian motif, this was just a continuation not a reversal. R Kook relied on his Hebrew and religious knowledge but he nevertheless sought to engage in the profound aspects of the changing world. His respect for secular settlers only heightened his view of the universal. They weren’t rogue agents but brothers assisting in reclaiming the world. He used his mystical jargon and poetic terminology to cultivate a metaphysical experience that unified the sacred and profane. He defended tradition but advocated discussion between the two. 

Before reaching R Shagar who is the most Kookian with a splash of R Sacks, Profs. Leibowitz and Levinas deserve their own analysis. Both were more rational than upholding esoteric ideas and both were highly critical of society. Each from a different perspective honed in on Jewish prowess to the world. Leibowitz was not only a universalist at times but a political critic who on the radio show lamented on decisions made by the government or the army. He was not only a philosopher but a cultural icon. Unlike Levinas and even R Sacks he was a daily speaker who provided insight to his listeners. Leibowitz argued outside the lens of Judaism. R Sacks generally dealt globally as Leibowitz dealt nationally. Though this is not entirely genuine for the latter. Leibowitz also differentiated the Jewish from the hellenistic political. It is here where it seems he desires to keep religion and politics separate. Religion is a particularist matter not to be prodded on the global or national stage. 

Levinas was a philosopher before a Jewish one. There is little doubt his grand ideas having Jewish lacing underneath but his works were regularly “secular” and his Jewish ones minute. He is well regarded as a philosopher Jew rather than a Jewish philosopher. It is more his ideas that are then secreted into his religious works. His universalism is potent in his talmudic readings. A humanist and an existential critic. Levinas found mysticism as an ethical produce like R Kook to help fix the world. A dominant notion of Tikkun olam found frequently by modern Jewish thinkers though with Leibowitz being the seeming exception. Levinas’ focus on otherness applied to all humanity. Levinas in this way is quite similar to R Sacks though R Sacks’ use of biblical sources and Judaic teachings is better versed. Though not all too different their goals were similar finding responsibility and integrity at the core of their foundational wisdom. 

R Shagar is probably the most in between. R Shagar is a postmodernist and a mystic so on the one hand he promotes Jewish identity but at the same time acknowledging the relativism. He dispenses with objective truth but not with Tikkun olam. His linguistic metaphysics is a model of particularist imprint in the world of universalist relativism. Instead of applying shared truths he implies Jewish truth or value to the equation. If Tikkun is a benchmark of his philosophy fixing the shattered vessels then it is a universal goal even if there is no uniform model of doing so. R Sacks uses religion to promote an objective criteria for ethical understanding while R Shagar uses Judaism to promote a subjective criteria for ethical understanding. R Shagar’s postmodernism is not isolated nor indifferent to the world. He is an astute cultural critic more than R Sacks especially internally. Yet for R Shagar his internal and even external criticisms are mystically laced while R Sacks remains scientific. 

Each of these thinkers discussed their age and prevailing issues. Seeking a universalistic pull to accommodate the Jewish world. The major difference being the spectrum and aptitude. R Sacks’ universalising particularity is not uncommon in general but infrequent in the scientific rational mind. Instead of his predecessors who used mysticism and spirituality to bring people together, R Sacks focused on the political nature. He devised biblical thought as a socio-cultural mark. Playing with pragmatics instead of whipping up metaphysical utterances. In this regard, Leibowitz while seeming out of touch may have been closer than it may seem. Despite his division of religion and state, he found the problematic aspects in religious extremism and secularist onslaught. The nature of his critique may find similarities with R Sacks’ notion of Plato’s ghost. While this needs more research and analysis, it is safe to say that R Sacks didn’t invent the universalistic core cultural criticism embedded in his works yet his work is still indeed unique.    

R Sacks’ uniqueness stems from his ability to write to Jews and non-Jews. Focusing on Judaism and religion as a whole. What can Judaism do for the world. Tikkun olam is the bedrock of much mystical modernism but is rationalised by R Sacks to the molecular level. The way people see each other is pragmatic rather than deeply spiritual. The human condition is a tribal association that needs to be corrected with empathy and understanding. Jewish contribution is with others not against nor coercive. This is the power of R Sacks.