Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reading Maimonides' Philosophy in 19th Century Germany pp 129–153Cite as

The Return to Philosophy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 546 Accesses

Part of the book series: Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy ((ASJT,volume 15))

Abstract

The chapter discusses the reception of Maimonidean philosophy by ­Neo-Kantian Jewish philosophers such as David Neumark, Benzion Kellermann and first and foremost Hermann Cohen, claiming that the importance of Maimonides for Cohen’s modern Jewish theology cannot be overestimated. The Guide’s exclusive pursuit of philosophical truth, for which Maimonides declares himself to be ready to sacrifice all religious dogma, is an ideal point of reference for Cohen, especially because Maimonides clearly seems to agree with him that this truth can be derived from the literary sources of Judaism.

Only in this last phase of the modern rediscovery of the Guide, ending with the First World War, was Maimonides’ philosophical contribution to Jewish theology fully appreciated. It is now that an essential shift of focus from the legal aspects of Judaism not only to metaphysics, but primarily to ethics in the study of the Guide takes place. With the establishment of religious philosophy as an independent and prolific discipline within Wissenschaft des Judentums, the Guide was now read as a valuable document confirming the newly established theory that the Judaism of the Biblical prophets was a universal and humanistic religion of reason, with ethics as its main component. Maimonides’ radical concept of God, philosophically expressed in his teaching about the divine attributes, became a main contribution to the development of what would be called the theology of ethical monotheism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    David Neumark (1866–1924) was born (like Wolf Michel) in Szczerzec and came to Berlin in 1892. He studied at the Hochschule and earned a doctorate from Berlin University. While still a student he caused a sensation in Jewish circles by publishing a Hebrew article on the thinking of Nietzsche. Ordained rabbi in 1897, he officiated until 1904 in Rakonitz (Bohemia). In 1907 he accepted a call to Cincinnati to become professor of Jewish philosophy at the Hebrew Union College. His large-scale project of writing the History of Jewish Philosophy never materialized. Neumark writes in the preface to the first volume (pages v–vi) that he actually planned to write a monograph on Maimonides’ philosophy, but soon realized that it could not be appreciated without discussing Maimonides’ Jewish predecessors. They in turn demanded a sketch of Jewish philosophy both in antiquity and in Talmudic times, as well as a comparison with their Arab contemporaries. In addition, it became necessary to shed light on the period after Maimonides. Ultimately, Neumark conceptualized a nine-volume work that he still thought to be possible in 1907. Neumark published only the first volume upon his departure from Germany, and the first half of the second volume later in Cincinnati (1910). The second half of the second volume, which ends with a discussion of Ibn Gabriol, was published only in 1928 by Reuben Brainin, four years after Neumark’s death. Unfortunately, the original part about Maimonides was thus lost. Neumark claims that he had already prepared the manuscript for publication when he changed the whole concept of the work in 1907. On Neumark see Reuben Brainin Kol Kitvei, vol. 2, New York 1922, p. 231–45 (Hebrew), and Lou Silberman “David Neumark and the Task of Jewish Philosophy”, in: Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion At One Hundred Years (ed. Samuel Karff), Cincinnati, 1976, p. 398ff.

  2. 2.

    David Neumark Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters, Berlin 1907, vol 1, p. 4.

  3. 3.

    Neumark, Geschichte, p. 6.

  4. 4.

    Neumark, Geschichte, p. 10. See the discussion of Neumark’s approach in Jonathan Cohen Philosophers and Scholars: Wolfson, Guttmann and Strauss on the History of Jewish Philosophy. Lanham, MD 2007, p. 19ff. Cohen oddly believes that Neumark’s demand to purge Judaism of idolatry and mythology is “explicitly apologetic” – not only would the same then be true of Maimonides, this oft-repeated position in fact confuses the acceptance of the existence of irrational elements in historical Judaism with the acceptance of them being essential to the Jewish religion, which one can deny even without considering apologetics, as the Maimonidean example proves.

  5. 5.

    Neumark Geschichte, p. 286ff. Neumark rejects also any claim that Maimonides uncritically adopts teachings from Ibn Sina, a claim that he calls “almost a modern dogma” (p. 287).

  6. 6.

    For the first version see Rep. 509b: the famous ‘Good beyond being’ [epekeina tes sousisa]; for further discussion in connection with Maimonides, see Chap. 6.

  7. 7.

    Neumark Geschichte, p. 381f.

  8. 8.

    Cf. for example Philipp Bloch, who refers to Goethe’s maxim that true innovativeness lies in the ability to develop a received thought in such a way that nobody else would have found the depths that were hidden in it (Philipp Bloch “Charakteristik und Inhaltsangabe des Moreh Nebuchim”, in: Moses ben Maimon ed. Jacob Guttmann et al., Leipzig 1908, p. 4).

  9. 9.

    Neumark Geschichte, p. 277f. David Kaufmann Geschichte der Attributenlehre in der jüdischen Religionsphilosphie, Gotha 1877, p. 366.

  10. 10.

    Neumark, p. 143f. cf. Wilhelm Bacher Die Bibelexegese Moses Maimini’s, Budapest 1896 as Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule zu Budapest, (reprinted Gregg 1972), p. 44–62.

  11. 11.

    Guide II:2–12.

  12. 12.

    “The Aristotelian concept to view the heavenly spheres as living, intelligent beings is a beautiful metaphysical dream…” Zwi Batscha (ed.) Salomon Maimons Lebensgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main, 1984 p. 279.

  13. 13.

    Neumark Geschichte vol I, p. 589.

  14. 14.

    Neumark Geschichte vol. I – the discussion begins on p. 577 and is continued through to the end of the book.

  15. 15.

    Still in 1917, the liberal rabbi Max Dienemann writes an article on the lamentable state of Jewish Bibelwissenschaft, see Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums 81, Nr. 25, 289ff and 26, 301f. See here also Christian Wiese Challenging Colonial Discourse, Leiden 2005, p. 217ff. For Hermann Cohen and Wellhausen, see below. Cohen’s student Max Wiener was another example of a scholar who adopted the basic theories of Higher Criticism; see his Die Anschauungen der Propheten von der Sittlichkeit, Berlin 1909. Another pioneer of Jewish Bibelwissenschaft was the aging Heinrich Graetz, although his scholarship deliberately excluded the Pentateuch itself. But see the introduction to his Kritischer Commentar zu den Psalmen, Breslau 1882. For the entire complex of the Jewish reaction to Biblical Criticism, see Ran HaCohen Reclaiming the Hebrew Bible, Berlin 2010.

  16. 16.

    David Neumark, Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters, Berlin 1910, vol 2/1, p. 209ff. Hoffmann’s reply to Wellhausen is in his brochure Die wichtigsten Instancen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, Berlin 1902.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Matthias Morgenstern in Metzler Lexikon Jüdischer Philosophen, Stuttgart 2003, p. 307.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Colleen McDannell Religions of the United States in Practise, vol. II, Princeton, 2001, p. 392–395.

  19. 19.

    Neumark Geschichte, p. 142–144.

  20. 20.

    Hermann Cohen Jüdische Schriften III, p. 35. See here Ludwig Philippson’s bitter critique of a Wissenschaft that is only ‘Geschichtsmikroskopie’ (microscopic historiography) in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums 1879, No 45, p.707.

  21. 21.

    Hermann Cohen, Werke (ed. H. Wiedebach), vol. 17, Hildesheim 1997, p. 444f.

  22. 22.

    Abraham Geiger’s Nachgelassene Schriften (ed. Ludwig Geiger), vol. II, Berlin 1875, p. 127.

  23. 23.

    Benzion Kellermann “Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung Hermann Cohens”, in: Neue Jüdische Monatshefte, 1917/1918, p. 372. On Kellermann and Cohen, see Dieter Adelmann “Reinige dein Denken” Über den jüdischen Hintergrund der Philosophie von Hermann Cohen (ed. Görge K. Hasselhoff), Würzburg 2010, p. 277ff and below in this chapter.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Helmut Holzhey “Cohen and the Marburg School in Context”, in: (ed. R. Munk) Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism, Dordrecht 2005, p. 3–37.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Hermann Cohen Kant’s Theorie the Erfahrung, Berlin 1871. I used the second edition, Berlin 1885, p. 519.

  26. 26.

    Literally: a task, eine Aufgabe, ibid.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Hermann Cohen Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, Berlin 1922, p. 82: “Dem Denken darf nur dasjenige als gegeben gelten, was es selbst aufzufinden vermag.” It is interesting to see that Cohen obviously wants to create the impression that he only emphasized Kant’s true intentions concerning the thing-in-itself; see his remarks in Kant’s Theorie the Erfahrung, Berlin 1871, p. 518, and still in his own Logik, p. 419.

  28. 28.

    Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, p. 81: “Nur das Denken selbst kann erzeugen, was als Sein gelten darf.”

  29. 29.

    Hermann Cohen Ethik des reinen Willens, (Werke, vol. 7, Hildesheim 2002), p. 441f. See here Michael Zank “The Ethics in Hermann Cohen’s Philosophical System”, in: Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 13, 1–3 (2004) p. 1–15.

  30. 30.

    Hans Liebeschütz “Hermann Cohen and his Historical Background”, in: Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 13 (1968), p. 11.

  31. 31.

    For an analysis of this process see the introduction to Cohen’s Begriff der Religion by Andrea Poma. (Hermann Cohen Werke, vol. 10, Hildesheim 2008, p. 14–34.)

  32. 32.

    Hermann Cohen Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, Frankfurt 1929, p. 208f: Die “Auflösung des Individuums ist der höchste Triumph der Ethik.”

  33. 33.

    Religion der Vernunft, p. 148ff.

  34. 34.

    Religion der Vernunft, p. 19. See Lawrence Kaplan “Suffering and Joy in the Thought of Hermann Cohen”, in: Modern Judaism 21,1 (2001) p. 15–22.

  35. 35.

    This central concept is often used by Cohen in a much wider sense than the one described here and can be summarized in the words of Eugene Borowitz: “One cannot make statements about God which are not correlated with some assertion about humankind…at the same time one cannot properly speak about human beings without also saying something parallel about God.” (Choices in Modern Jewish Thought, New York 1983, p. 38). The concept represents a kind of religious humanism, against views where all that we know about God was revealed by God, or views where philosophy penetrates God-in-Himself. Still the best analysis of the concept is in Alexander Altmann “Hermann Cohens Begriff der Korrelation”, in: Zwei Welten, ed. Hans Tramer, Tel Aviv 1962, p. 366–399.

  36. 36.

    Rosenzweig relates the famous anecdote that Cohen on his journey to Russia in 1914 claimed he had been a ba’al tshuva already for 30–40 years, dating the return to 1880. (See his Einleitung to Cohen’s Jüdische Schriften, p. XXI.) Already in 1930 Heinz Graupe wrote about Rosenzweig’s “legend” of Cohen’s late theological discontinuity, a legend that must be “destroyed.” (In: Der Morgen 1929/30, No. 6, p. 651).

  37. 37.

    In another approach, Michael Zank dates the “turning point” to Judaism in Cohen’s thought to 1892, when Cohen starts thinking about the religious concept of atonement, for Zank the “core concept” of Cohen’s Jewish thought. (See Michael Zank The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen, Providence 2000, p. 107ff.)

  38. 38.

    See here Irene Kajon “Critical Idealism in Hermann Cohen’s Writings on Judaism”, in: Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism, p. 371–94.

  39. 39.

    Hermann Cohen Briefe (ed. B. Strauß), Berlin 1939, p. 24.

  40. 40.

    Da ich nun aber einmal keinen Beruf in mir fühlte, die Philosophie des Maimonides auszulegen, so war ich des Vertrauens, es werde uns allmählich gelingen, in die ‘Nation Kants’ uns einzuleben… The letters are published by Helmut Holzhey “Zwei Briefe Hermann Cohens an Heinrich von Treitschke” in: Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts 12, 1969 p. 187. To the first letter, Cohen received an answer from Treitschke that gave him some hope his fellow scholar would at least “state one point more precisely” in future publications. We don’t know which point that was, as the answer from Treitschke was lost in a tragic incident of German-Jewish history, when Cohen’s widow Martha, aged 82, was deported to Theresienstadt.

  41. 41.

    For a discussion of the Maimonidean ruling, see Steven Schwarzschild “Do Noahides Have to Believe in Revelation”, in: The Pursuit of the Ideal (ed. M. Kellner), New York 1990, p. 29ff. For Cohen’s discussion of Spinoza and Maimonides, see Cohen’s “Spinoza über Staat und Religion”, in: Jüdische Schriften III, 290ff. See also: Michael Nehorai “How a Righteous Gentile can Merit the World to Come” [Hebrew], in: Tarbiz 61 (1992), p. 31–82 and Hannah Kasher “The Torah as a Means of Achieving the World to Come” [Hebrew], in: Tarbiz 64 (1995), p. 301–6.

  42. 42.

    Hermann Cohen “Die Nächstenliebe im Talmud, ” in: Jüdische Schriften I, p. 145–174 (159). For an extensive discussion of the text see Michael Zank, “Hermann Cohen und die rabbinische Literatur,” in Stephane Moses and Hartwig Wiedebach, eds., Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy of Religion, (Hildesheim 1997) 263–291, here 272–276; and Dana Hollander “Ethical-Political Universality Out of the Sources of Judaism: Reading Hermann Cohen’s 1888 Affidavit In and Out of Context”, in: New Directions in Jewish Philosophy, ed. Aaron Hughes and Elliot Wolfson (Bloomington, 2009). On Cohen and Natural Law, see David Novak “Das noachidische Naturrecht bei Hermann Cohen”, in: “Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums”; Tradition und Ursprungsdenken in Hermann Cohens Spätwerk; ed. Helmut Holzhey [et al.], Hildesheim 2000, p. 225–243.

  43. 43.

    Hermann Cohen “Liebe und Gerechtigkeit in den Begriffen Gott und Mensch”, Jüdische Schriften III, p. 45. Twentieth century Maimonidean scholars generally reject this ethical interpretation and identify the attributes of action in Maimonides with God’s action in nature. See for example Shlomo Pines “The Limitation of Human Knowledge according to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides”, in: Maimonides: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Joseph A. Buijs, Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988, p. 111.

  44. 44.

    Liebe und Gerechtigkeit, p. 46.

  45. 45.

    Ethik des reinen Willens (Werke, vol. 7, Hildesheim 2002), p. 453. See also the introduction by Steven Schwarzschild to the 1981 reprint of the Ethik in Cohen’s Werke, vol. 7, Hildesheim 1981.

  46. 46.

    About the notion that God loses religious value as an idea, see Schwarzschild’s argument with Rosenzweig in Steven Schwarzschild “Franz Rosenzweig’s Anecdotes about Hermann Cohen”, in: Gegenwart im Rückblick: Festgabe für die Jüdische Gemeinde zu Berlin 25 Jahre nach dem Neubeginn, ed. H. A. Strauss and K. R. Grossman, Heidelberg, 1970, S. 209–218.

  47. 47.

    Hermann Cohen Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, Giessen 1915, p. 82. On the ontological value of ideas in Cohen see Steven Schwarzschild’s introduction to the Ethik.(Hermann Cohen Werke, vol. 7, Hildesheim 1981, p. XIX).

  48. 48.

    Hermann Cohen “Charakteristik der Ethik Maimunis”, in: Werke, vol. 15, ed. Hartwig Wiedebach, Hildesheim 2009, p. 161–269. Henceforth CEM. The old edition from Jüdische Schriften III, p. 221–289 is given in brackets. For an English translation and commentary, see Almuth Bruckstein Ethics of Maimonides, Madison 2004.

  49. 49.

    Martin Kavka Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy, Cambridge 2004, p. 110.

  50. 50.

    CEM 220. (JS 257).

  51. 51.

    In fact, all neo-Platonic medieval Jewish philosophers and many kabbalists hold the theory of emanation, which is nothing but continuous creation. The traditional Jewish morning prayer contains the line about God renewing every day the act of creation ().

  52. 52.

    See here Kavka, p. 110. This contradiction was first described by Cohen’s student Benzion Kellerman, see Chap. 6.

  53. 53.

    CEM 219. (JS 256f.)

  54. 54.

    Religion der Vernunft, p. 4f. Quoted in the English edition: Hermann Cohen Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism, trans. by Simon Kaplan, New York 1972, p. 4.

  55. 55.

    Religion der Vernunft, p. 72. [English 63].

  56. 56.

    See here Kenneth Seeskin “Maimonides and Hermann Cohen on Messianismus”, in: Maimonidean Studies 8 (2008), p. 375–392; Amos Funkenstein, “Maimonides’ Political Theory and Realistic Messianism” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 11 (1977), p. 81–103 and Menachem Kellner Maimonides on the “Decline of the Generations”, Albany 1996, p. 69ff.

  57. 57.

    Geiger says in a sermon in Wiesbaden from 1869 that “It was not the inflexible outward law that gave Israel its steadfastness, but the winged word that the prophets announced…” (Nachgelassene Schriften I, p. 439, my translation). But the emphasis on the Biblical prophets for the Reform Movement can be traced back at least to the 1840s – to Holdheim’s vision of a religion of prophetic ethics for example. In a public lecture from 1907 Cohen’s student Benzion Kellermann drafted a radical concept of Judaism that was almost exclusively based on the prophetic message and altogether rejects the ‘ritual’ of the Pentateuch. See B. Kellermann Liberales Judentum, Berlin 1907.

  58. 58.

    For Wellhausen’s assessment of Judaism see his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, New York 1957, p. 508ff. Cohen, in the Ethik from 1904, still celebrates Protestant Biblical criticism for an apparent ‘discovery of the universalism in the prophet’s concept of God’ (Ethik des reinen Willens, 1907, p. 406). More critical is Cohen’s obituary on Wellhausen from 1918 (Jüdische Schriften II, p. 463ff.). For Cohen and Wellhausen, see also Michael Zank, Atonement, p. 480–87. Interestingly, Cohen’s student Max Wiener already in 1909 in part refuted Wellhausen’s theory of the “ethical revolution”, brought about by the prophets, and showed traces of the prophetic ideas in older parts of the Pentateuch (implicitly accepting, though, Wellhausen’s division of the Pentateuch by different authors). See his Die Anschauungen der Propheten von der Sittlichkeit, Berlin 1909, p. 33f.

  59. 59.

    Cf. the Talmudic discussion between Rabbi Yochanan and Mar Samuel about the Messianic Age. While Yochanan believes that all miracles that the prophets announced will already take place in that time, Samuel is convinced that there will be no difference from the present state of affairs except for the liberation of Israel from foreign rule () – TB Berachot 34b, Sanh 99a, Pesachim 68a, Shabbat 63a.

  60. 60.

    See Rabban Gamliel in TB Shabbat 30b: In messianic times the earth will produce cake and silk dresses, trees will continuously bear fruit, and women will give birth every day.

  61. 61.

    See Maimonides’ introduction to Mishnah 10 in Sanhedrin (perek helek) and Laws of Repentance 8:8.

  62. 62.

    Laws of Kings and Wars, end. See Aviezer Ravitzky “To the Utmost of Human Capacity: Maimonides on the Days of the Messiah”, in: J.L. Kraemer (ed.) Perspectives on Maimonides, Oxford 1991, p. 209–56.

  63. 63.

    Kavka, p. 113. The mathematical representation is nonetheless imprecise. It seems that the puzzling question of Will Cohen’s Messiah ever come is essentially a mathematical discussion that can be compared to the possibility of calculating the area beneath a curve: although the result is taken as if exact, it is in fact an approximation.

  64. 64.

    See TB San 97b for a debate between Rav and Samuel about the need for repentance to hasten the messianic age.

  65. 65.

    Religion der Vernunft S. 361. This is, of course, only the initial (but nevertheless decisive) step of Cohen’s messianism. Here Maimonides’ influence ends. In the interpretation of Isaiah’s suffering servant to mean that not might but humility characterizes the Messiah, Cohen stands on his own – despite some claims to Maimonides’ use of the virtue of humility in Cohen’s essay on Maimonides’ ethics. See for the non-Maimonidean Messianism in Cohen: Andrea Poma “Suffering and Non-Eschatological Messianism in Hermann Cohen”, in: Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism, p. 413–428.

  66. 66.

    For a detailed discussion of Cohen’s approach, see Chap. 7.

  67. 67.

    This is discussed in extensive detail in Chap. 7 below.

  68. 68.

    For Maimonides overall religious universalism, see his celebrated formulation in Laws of Shmitah 13:13, for discussion Menachem Kellner “Maimonides’ True Religion: For Jews or All Humanity?”, in: Meorot 7:1, 2008, p. 2–28, and Howard Kreisel “Maimonides on Divine Religion,” in: Jay Harris (ed.) Maimonides After 800 Years: Essays on Maimonides and His Influence (Cambridge 2007) p. 151–166.

  69. 69.

    Kellermann (1869–1923), one of the classical representatives of the neo-Kantian school who interpreted Judaism as “ethical monotheism”, studied with Cohen in Marburg, taught later at the Jewish School and officiated as rabbi in Berlin, promoting radical reform. In 1917 he initiated a debate with Ernst Troeltsch about the ‘ethical monotheism’ of the Biblical prophets. Kellermann published as his main philosophical works an extensive study on the concept of the ideal in Kant (1920) and a neo-Kantian analysis of Spinoza’s Ethics. (1922).

  70. 70.

    Benzion Kellermann, Die Kriege des Herrn, 2 vols. (Berlin 1914–1916).

  71. 71.

    Benzion Kellermann Liberales Judentum, Berlin 1907, p. 11.

  72. 72.

    Guide II: 36. For an extensive discussion of Maimonides’ theory see Howard Kreisel Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy, Dordrecht 2003, p. 239ff.

  73. 73.

    Kriege des Herrn II, p. 63 note.

  74. 74.

    Kriege des Herrn II, p. 57 note.

  75. 75.

    For a general discussion of these forms of intellect see Herbert A. Davidson Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect, New York 1992.

  76. 76.

    Kriege des Herrn I, p. 255. The entire discussion is on p. 241–255.

  77. 77.

    Kriege des Herrn II, p. 303f (emphasis in the original). My paraphrase gives only a small part of this important text, which continues to develop a thorough philosophical account of Jewish neo-Kantian religious thinking inspired by ideas found in the Guide. I hope to elaborate on these points as well as on Kellermann’s neglected work in general in a future study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Jewish Thought, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

    George Y. Kohler

Authors
  1. George Y. Kohler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kohler, G.Y. (2012). The Return to Philosophy. In: Reading Maimonides' Philosophy in 19th Century Germany. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4035-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation