Reviews for Jewish Intellectual History

The average rating for Jewish Intellectual History based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-11-30 00:00:00 James Marnie University of Pennsylvania professor David Ruderman's excellent lecture series focuses on Jewish Identity in the modern era by examining the ideas and influence of a small group of critical thinkers. The course begins with the exiles of the Inquisition in the Venetian ghettos in 1516 and then moves to Amsterdam and Baruch Spinoza. In many cases, Ruderman examines subsequent thinkers' work as both a response to Spinoza and the conditions of the era in which they reside. His analysis of the origins and thinking of the major divisions of contemporary Judaism: Modern or neo- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist is fascinating. Lectures on Martin Buber, Theological responses to the Holocaust, and Jewish Feminist theory also stood out. Ruderman has an impressive command of his subject and is a highly skilled lecturer. I highly recommend this series.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-11-21 00:00:00 Simon Cuellar I saw this course advertised in the Wall Street Journal and bought it the same day. I broke a rule, I usually only buy Great Courses from Audible when they have their 2 for 1 sale. I’m glad I broke my rule. This lecturer turned me on to History of the Jews by Graetz written in about 1860, I read Volume I before I finished this course. That book is an insider looking inward in such way a way that an outsider can see how a European Jew had to think about himself one way while the world was forcing a stifling conforming norm in such a way that an unique intellectual perspective was required in order to authentically understand themselves through themselves and not the stifling conforming norms from the prevailing group without a group since all context starts with them. That’s really not a small feat and this lecture similarly shows how different Jewish thinkers thought about the problem differently from the stifling conforming norms while thinking about themselves as themselves. I made a mistake in my previous readings. I absolutely loved Spinoza’s Ethics and started reading his other major work Theoretical-Political Treatise, and I couldn’t stand it because of the constant Bible citations. My bad, this lecturer starts his thesis with that book and showed why it matters. He’ll say Spinoza was an insider that advocated an outsider perspective and connects that to St. Paul. That theme will pop up in a lot in the lectures and now I realized that I made a mistake by not finishing Spinoza’s book. We’re thrown into a world not of our own creation and get distracted and lost while everything around us re-enforces the prevailing paradigm of the moments that make up our experiences such that our experiences are understood only from our other experiences. What happens though when the background of the world you’re thrown into is not part of the stifling conforming norm and your identity for yourself and preferred self-aware sub-group is different? Part of the answer is revealed through these lectures. The identity that has no identity is the ruling paradigm; for example, gender that is not conforming to the stifling norms of the gender that has no gender, or in other words all but the male gender identity is considered different and gets shouted down as ‘identity politics or political correctness’ and accused of special pleading and marginalized; or similarly as in 1650 Western Civilization the religious background presumption would be the religious group that was not a group, or in other words Christian, while the not-Christian was not considered to be part of the default background and at best were considered as other if they were considered at all; or one final example, until recently all sexuality was considered to be heterosexuality and anything that was not part of that sexuality was not considered that to such an extent that ‘the they’ made it into a tautology when they blindly proclaim that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ thus ending all discussion. The story the lecturer tells is how one keeps one’s identity when the stifling norms of conformity make you the other to such an extent that the conforming paradigms have marginalized you to the status of special pleading and will blindly damn you for your crime of ‘identity politics or political correctness’ while they the privileged group are always the default group and never by definition need to appeal to an identity since their identity is the only non-identity identity and what is correct starts with them and their conforming stifling norms by their default beliefs. What do we do when we are different and not conforming and are alienated from the prevalent default group that has no group since all identity derives from them by fiat? These lectures shed light upon that question while highlighting a 400 year conversation that was taking place outside of the prevailing stifling norms thus empowering anyone towards a more authentic understanding.