Erich Fromm and Gershom Scholem met each other in Frankfurt in the early 1920’s. Both were young, intelligent and ambitious and would later become famous celebrities, Fromm as a psychoanalyst and social critic, Scholem as a pioneering historian of Jewish mysticism. But they did not become friends. Rather the opposite, one can say that a certain animosity arose between the two. Scholem has published nasty comments on Fromm. In one Fromm was quite unjustly called a “psychoanalytical Bolshevik”. Scholem’s claim that (...) Fromm was an enthusiastic Trotskyist is not correct either, although Fromm expressed some admiration of Trotsky as a person. Fromm, on the other hand, did not publicly comment Scholem as a person, but criticized his theories on messianism on some points. The question why the two felt an antipathy towards each other is not easy to answer. On some issues they had different views, which of course is not a sufficient reason not to be friends. The fact that they developed along contrary lines might have been of importance. And finally, some reasons for the fact that certain persons just don’t fit together are not possibly to determinate. (shrink)

If national education is, as Ilan Gur-Ze’ev thinks, inevitably a matter of agents for and victims of a national system, only a “counter-education” can correct it. Martin Buber shared many of Gur-Ze’ev’s concerns, but advocated a more positive view of national education. This essay examines Buber’s development of his pedagogical theory in its context, notes his influence on several educational models, investigates how his view of national education either continues or is ignored in the modern State of Israel, and shows (...) that his positive view draws not only on his “I-Thou” dialogical insight but also on his advocacy of a myth of Zion, a myth that provides an alternative not just to the dominant myths in Israel today but also to Gur-Ze’ev’s counter-education. (shrink)

U Rozencvajgovom tekstu?Das?lteste Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus. Ein handschriftlicher Fund?, iznenadjuje nepostojanje komentara jednog od najmisterioznijih fragmenata tog kratkog dvostranog rukopisa koji je Rozencvajg otkrio 1914. godine u Pruskoj drzavnoj biblioteci u Berlinu. Rozencvajg detaljno analizira svaki njegov deo dokazujuci cinjenicu da rukopis kojim je napisan ovaj dokument ne podrazumeva da je Hegel i autor tog teksta, potpuno stavljajuci u drugi plan onaj slavan, sasvim anarhistican i radikalan fragment o drzavi. Dakle, moje pitanje je zasto izostaje Rozencvajgova argumentacija o Selingovom (...) razumevanju drzave ili preciznije, kako su Selingovi stavovi o drzavi inkorporisani i transformisani u tekstovima Franca Rozencvajga? Kako Rozencvajg upotrebljava ove fragmente i zasto nigde ne tematizuje Selingove refleksije o drzavi ili Selingovo revolucionarno ucenje o drzavi, kako ga naziva u pomenutom tekstu? (shrink)