Talk:Jewish philosophy

message: User:APH added a link to his "important publications" project. However, the section on Jewish philosophy is... empty. I have therefore removed the link until something has been added there. Unfortunately, most "Jewish philosophy" is firmly enmeshed in various works of rabbinic literature, such as Nachmanides' Torah commentary, and identifying these works would be tedious. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List of publications

message: At one or time another, every rabbi writes on a topic that can be considered philosophy. Nonetheless, that in of itself does not make that rabbi an actual philosopher.  Unless you fall for the modern day view of "continental philosophy", in which damn near everything ever written counts as philosophy, then we cannot count rabbis such as Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and Menachem Mendel Schneerson as philosophers. These rabbis did not formally study philosophy, nor did they attempt to systematically study philosophical issues.  Rabbis such as Joseph Soloveitch, Abraham Joshua Heschel and Neil Gillman, however, are. These rabbis engaged in years of formal study of philosophy, and they systematically wrote about philosophical issues as philosophy. RK 04:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Izak writes "RK please refrain from attcking me personally. Thank you".  Chill out, man. I am asking you to stop using polemical titles in the article. People can be described non-polemicaly.  How is this a personal attack on you? (It isn't.) Relax, Izak. 
Also, Izak, please read the above paragraph.  Just because someone is a rabbi and/or a Kabbalist, that does not make them a philosopher! In fact, they are usually totally separate professions. So why do you keep inserting Moshe Chaim Luzzato as a philosopher?  What evidence do you have to present that he is a philosopher? I am open to your views; but I need to know what they are!  Philosophers do not view R. Luzzato as a philosopher, and even the Encyclopedia Judaica does not describe him as such. As far as I have been able to ascertain, he never studied or wrote philosophy. He was a mystic. You should put him in a list of Kabbalists. RK 13:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
RK writes "Unless you fall for the modern day view of "continental philosophy", in which damn near everything ever written counts as philosophy,..." RK is certainly correct that this is a "modern day VIEW of "continental philosophy"", propounded by the likes of Sokal, Scruton and RK himself, but it shows a basic misunderstanding of the thinkers who are usually designated under that term. Rather, for these thinkers, everything counts as worthy of philosophical enquiry. And this is no different from the view of most great philosophers (Wittgenstein being an obvious exception in some ways). But what is particular about, say, Heidegger and Post-Heideggereans (such as Derrida, Nancy, Levinas) is an emphasis upon the influence of metaphysics, particularly of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, upon other areas of life, including language itself, particularly through religious and educational structures. Thus the question is not so much to question the validity of Platonism, but to assess it (paradoxically, for Platonism, in terms of what it designates,) as a "fact on the ground" (I do not wish to be contentious in this choice of phrase - it is simply the most convenient). Hence, unlikely texts are read in relation to canonical ones, and subjected to rigorous philosophical analysis in order to unearth the metaphysical inheritances that predetermine their views. Such a project lacks nothing in the way of philosophicality and, indeed, the very discipline and extended research it requires is itself largely responsibile for the off-the-cuff dismissals it receives from the likes of Sokal, Scruton and RK who are either too lazy, too philosophically undeveloped or too biased toward a received opinion (such as the fetish of positivism which haunts Anglo-American philosophy after Quine,) to give it due consideration, and who hence simply misunderstand it. RK should actively engage with "Continental Philosophy" in order to make an accurate statement upon it, or he should avoid mention of it at all. Received opinion garnered from populist diatribes should have no place in Wiki-philosophy, if we are to build it into an arena for informed philosophical enquiry and discussion. Simon
:Derrida, Nancy, Levinas are not even recognized as philosophers by many philosophers themselves.  In fact, Derrida, Nancy, Levinas attack most works of philosophy as meaningless. How can you leave this important fact out?  In any case, stop making this article about a single Wikipedia contributor ("RK") and deal with the actual content.  Your criticisms of me personally have no bearing on this article. Finally, your personal attacks on actual philosophers like Sokal as "lazy" demonstrate that you have no interest in working on an encyclopedia article, but merely wish to push a POV.  Remember, No Personal Attacks. RK 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we should erase Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bergson, Husserl, Jaspers, Hannah Arendt, Derrida, Nancy, Levinas, Paul Ricoeur, Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre, Althusser from the list of philosophers. Sorry for those I forgot... As a sidenote (but just as a sidenote, don't take it seriously please, I think Wiki-philosophy learnt me one thing: how much despise and ignorance a certain type of people (I won't say Analytic philosophy, I certainly hope this attitude doesn't represent all the Analytic tradition, does it?) show toward what is considered, in a small and old, surely too old place bound to get lost in space, once called "Europe". Santa Sangre 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Being a philosopher is not the same as being a rabbi

message: Did Emil Fackenheim self-identify as "reform?"  The few books of his I have read address major issues in "Jewish" thought, not major issues in or ideologies of the Reform movement. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fackenheim 

message: Someone added a new introduction, but it was vague and offered no sources.  It basically said that Jewish philosophy didn't even exist, and that the article only existed because it was a "scholarly" subject.  That new intro made clear that real Jews don't even deal with philosophy, and that Jewish philosophy is non-Jewish and maybe even atheist.  That entire intro had to go as it subtly made personal attacks on Jews who study philosophy (including much of the faculty of Yeshiva University and Bar Ilan, Orthodox institutions).  It was very was misleading. Finally, it made the provably false claim that this was some sort of "latter day" attempt at apologetics, which is just bizarrely.  Jews have engaged in serious philosophy since before the time of Saddya Gaon, and except in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, Jewish philosophy has always been held in high regard by a large part of the Jewish community.  I can't imagine what a Yeshiva would like without the works of the Jewish philosophers, but it would small indeed. RK 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed introduction 

message: Needs to be added: Salomon Maimon
: I read his page, and from what I saw there, he was a philosopher but he neither philosophized about Judaism nor did his Judaism particularly inform his philosophy.  So, for now, I'd be inclined to leave him off this page. --Ben Kovitz 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salomon Maimon

message: How is Spinoza post-enlightened? :) Kind of strange title. Why not simply "Enlightnment"? I don't know why, I always thought Spinoza belonged to the Enlightenment tradition... Santa Sangre 04:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point!  I'll look at the text. RK 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Enlightnment? 

message: Is it just me or is the tone of voice in the Holocaust Theology section rather informal, unencyclopedic and conversational in nature? Admittedly, I know very little about the subject, otherwise the entry would be changed by now. Still, does anyone have something they would like to share about that area? It might need some help.--Son of More 07:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward wording in Holocaust Theology? 

message: I restructured the article today, by grouping the sections into historical periods.  This cleans up the table of contents and might even lead to a nice intro.  I hope someone will review the new structure to be sure I didn't botch anything. I also marked Position in the history of thought as needing citations. --Ben Kovitz 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructured the article 

message: Hartshorne influenced Alexander? I have never heard a more ridiculous anachronism in my life. When Alexander died, in 1938, Hartshorne,s published works were only The Philosophy and Psychology of Sensation and Beyond Humanism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.115.243 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Alexander 

message: Hey there, the supposed link to Routledge links to a flaccid/erected penis image. Could someone please restore the original link ? --'Inyan (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuks ! 

message: Over the last few months, one editor (Jim Harlow) has made huge expansions to this article, putting forth a highly personal interpretation of Jewish thought in general, amounting to OR at the very least.  A lot of interesting points were made, but
#most of them are about Jewish thought in general and not about anything recognisable as philosophy in the normal sense
#there are lengthy and unnecessary passages about the ethnic and historical setting, which do not in any way relate to the intellectual content of what follows
#they are in a colloquial, argumentative and frequently awkward style 
#their cumulative effect is to transform the entire article into a personal essay quite unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia
#a great deal of it is wildly inaccurate.  For example, the particular Islamic group called "Ismailis" are named after their seventh Imam, who happens to have been called Ismail.  This has nothing to do with the claim that all Arab Muslims are "Ishmaelites" and, as such, inheritors of primitive monotheism, which is shared by all Muslims [note: this paragraph was added by me though I was not logged on at the time: Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've also left comments on Jim's talk page. .  Jheald (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how anything other than incremental edits could be justified. Also, isn't the scope of this article too grandiose? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present state of article 

message: Thank you for these constructive comments Sir Myles, Jheald and 'bus stop'.  My contributions are not intended be nefarious or conflating.  In the "Medieval Period" section I intend only to illustrate the line of Rationalist scholastic tradition that begins with Saadia's use of Muta'zili doctrine as it threads its way along North African Coast into al-Andalus and subsequently diffused throughout the Diaspora after expulsion in 1492 with new insights.  In the "Enlightenment" section, I intend to update the section to illustrate the explosion of new Philosophic pursuits and illuminate the migration of Rationalist Philosophy out of Germany into Diaspora Communitites.
I have a plan for cleaning this article up - by updating tangential pages such as Jewish tribes of Arabia (which omitted a few tribes) so that I can excise excessive detail from this entry.  As for the interaction of Jewish Arab tribes with Prophet Mohammed, I intend to excise that section and submit it for inclusion in Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad.
In addition, I'm going to assemble tables in accordance with April8's recommendations - this should allow me to remove virually all of the Hachamim details (and I can submit any upgrades to their respective pages.
Is that along the lines of what you sugggest?  Jimharlow99 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly going in the right direction - thank you for all the work you're putting in on this.  I suspect there will be more discussion, on the most appropriate balance between different parts of the topic, and the exact best way to present some of the material; but those discussions will be much easier to have once the article is back broadly into the shape a wikipedia article should be.   Jheald (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: I'll be updating the maps to use  instead of Settlement maps - this wil lreduce the number of maps and provide more flexibility in placement on the page Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: Not sure how Moses Mendelssohn fits into this category.  He died in 1782, long before the emancipation of Prussian Jewry in 1812.  Where could emancipation be said to have taken place by the time of his death, let alone the heyday of his career?RogerLustig (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello RogerLustig - Thank you, your commentary is correct; Prussian emancipation did not take effect until 1812 CE.  However, the emancipation movement, in general, began twenty years earlier in Western Europe.  Although Mendelssohn straddles this moment in time it seemed more appopriate to categorize him on the progressive side of emancipation since his manner of reasoning stimulates new ideas which are part and parcel of the emancipation movement.   I'd like to draw your attention to the wiki entry for Jewish Emancipation wherein the emancipation movement commenced in France in 1791 CE. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Jim.  My bad--Moses M died in 1786, not 1782.  But that's still 5 years before the Revolutionary moment, and a year before the Hapsburg Empire mandated surname-adoption for its Jews.  (Joseph II, for all his faults, deserves mention in this article, no?)  Mendelssohn was certainly the great figure of Haskalah, but that's not the same as emancipation.  Let's strengthen the articles on both topics! RogerLustig (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello RogerLustig - Excellent suggestion!  In order to keep the article at, or near, its current length in kilobytes I'll need to reconsider some of the additions I've been working on.  Mendelssohn is unique in his time and difficult to classify.  Let me see if the Habsburg (Josef II) influence deserves mention of its own...aside form the obvious..and if this might warrant re-examination of enlightenment under the auspices of this article.  One of the topics I've been wrestling with is the Convero/Marrano families of Mexico and the pressures of Habsburg Monarchy (Emperor Maximillian) influencing Catholic zealotry.  Even though the Spanish Inquisition officially ended in 1830's it seems counter-intuitive to illustrate Jewish emancipation during a time of Jewish oppression, at the hands of Catholic zealots, in the Western Hemisphere.  I'd enjoy hearing your views on this.  --Jimharlow99 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Emancipation? 

message: I pressed the "UNDO" button.  There is no empirical evidence that Rashi was a Philosopher - there is, however, broad and general concensus among Jewish Scholars of the early Tosafist School that he was a brilliant Talmud, Torah and Tanach commentator who wrote over 300 responsa and Halachic decisions for far flung Jewish Communities.  Philosophy was not an intellectual pursuit in Northern France as we find in Italy, Spain, North Africa and Babylon.
--Jimharlow99 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rashi?  A Jewish Philosopher? 

message: Hello Gilabrand - you updated the Jewish Philosophy page with a philologist and a pulpit Rabbi - your edit was subject to undo because your edit might be construed to be vandalism by those who have placed a "three month topic ban" and "editing block" upon you - and no one wants that to ocur. Should you be able to, provide evidence in the form of references, that your edit was improperly undone, then I will stand aside on this issue.
I do want to thank you for prompting me to look into Leo Baeck and create a section just for Philosophers of the Progressive Movement.Jimharlow99 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilabrand 

message: Is this article supposed to include mention of philosophers who are Jewish but whose philosophy isn't focused on Jewish themes?  The opening to the article says that "Jewish philosophy includes all philosophical activity carried out by Jews," and in the lists of contemporary philosophers there were some people mentioned there who are Jewish but whose philosophy doesn't really engage with Judaism - like Saul Kripke and Thomas Nagel.  I added a few more.  But do these people really belong in the article?  Should it just be mentioned that there are lots of philosophers who are Jewish (such as x, x, and x) but that that's not the focus of this article? Lkjowa (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the article can accommodate both.  Philosophy of Judaism/the Jewish people could go first.  Philosophers who are Jewish but whose work does not explicitly engage with Judaism can be discussed in subsequent sections, by their area of contribution to philosophy.  I think that from the perspective of the reader, people would want to visit this article for both types of information.  However, philosophers whose work does not seem to deal with Judaism may be influenced in some way by their Jewish background, so the issue becomes more complex when we start to choose which individuals to write about.  --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me.  Thanks.  Lkjowa (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I moved the discussion of "Philosophy of Science" to the section dealing with Jewish Philosophers whose philosophy isn't focused on Jewish themes.  The philosophers who had been discussed in the "Philosophy of Science" section--Joseph Agassi, Adi Ophir and Yehuda Elkana--are not focused on Judaism per se, and so I think they belong in this section.  I included the text of the section in a footnote, so that it wasn't lost.  It could be restored to the main body of the article text if desired.Lkjowa (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Philosophers whose philosophy isn't focused on Jewish themes 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313185226/http://www.jtsa.edu/x12578.xml to http://www.jtsa.edu/x12578.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624183933/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-09182003-143438/unrestricted/07_aed_chapter2.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-09182003-143438/unrestricted/07_aed_chapter2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jewish philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530082824/http://english.sadnatenosh.org/ to http://english.sadnatenosh.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jewish philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308032809/http://radicalacademy.com/adiphiljewishindex.htm to http://radicalacademy.com/adiphiljewishindex.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wrote about this briefly in an edit, but inserting direct quotes from other academic articles without making it clear they're quotes is plagiarism. I noted this in the section on Sa'adya Gaon, but suspect it is present in other parts of the article. I placed quotes around copy-pasted sections (which are, to the credit of previous editors, in the citations), but having entire sections copy-pasted is not ideal. I'm unsure if I can personally rewrite more than a couple of sections, but will do my best and would appreciate help! Val907 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism