"Religion", the "Political" and "Judaism" in Classical German Philosophy.

我的研究将集中在康德哲学和德国唯心主义中的宗教、政治和犹太教的概念。正如我认为，在这些哲学家的工作犹太教的概念，不能被视为完全由他们与实际的犹太人或与犹太神学(他们的知识非常有限)的熟人决定；也不能降低到古典基督教对犹太教的立场(如马吉安，奥古斯丁或路德，立场扎根在某种程度上，在保罗的著作)。我并不是说这些因素在这方面没有任何作用(我也不是说它们所起的作用微不足道或不重要)。相反，我认为他们对犹太教概念的分析也受到了其他不可减少的内在系统考虑的影响，与他们理解宗教和一般政治的独特方式有关，这些考虑需要特别关注，以便更充分地理解犹太教在这些哲学家的工作中被概念化的方式。我进一步认为，尽管他们的工作存在差异，但这些哲学家有重大的共同点，根源于康德哲学提出的独特挑战：试图弥合理性与其在历史上的实现之间的差距。由于内在的形而上学的制约，理性不能立即在历史上实现，而它的实现需要对它之前的东西进行绝对的否定。康德确定了这种否定的对象，这应该导致Vernunft宗教在理性和历史之间进行调解，以及对政治本身的否定，在这种情况下，他将其与犹太教联系在一起。费希特、谢林和黑格尔利用了康德这种独特的张力的不同方面，提出了弥合上述理性与历史之间鸿沟的不同方法。如果没有他们试图克服的康德框架的背景，他们对犹太教的概念是无法理解的。最后，我计划讨论这些犹太教概念之间的可能关系，这些概念植根于对宗教和政治的总体理解，以及后来的反犹太主义发展。这一讨论一方面将在没有确定康德和德国唯心主义及其后来发展的哲学背景的情况下进行，因为在盖斯特领域假设明确的因果关系从根本上是误导的。另一方面，后来的发展必须定位于历史先例；否则，它们将被视为反常或疯狂，历史本身的断裂。因此，探索这种关系的最好方法是问一问，在这些哲学方法中，什么会使它们成为可能，或者使它们后来容易被应用、扭曲和适应纳粹意识形态。

My research will focus on the concepts of religion, politics, and Judaism in the philosophy of Kant and German idealism. As I argue, the concept of Judaism in the work of these philosophers cannot be seen as having been wholly determined by their acquaintance with actual Jews or with Jewish theology (their knowledge of which was very limited); nor can it be reduced to classical Christian positions towards Judaism (such as that of Marcion, Augustine or Luther, positions that are rooted, to some extent, in the writings of Paul). I do not claim that such factors did not play any role whatsoever in this regard (nor do I argue that the role they played was minor or unimportant). Rather, I suggest that their analysis of the concept of Judaism was also influenced by other irreducible, inner systematic considerations as well, related to the unique way they understood religion, and politics in general, and that these considerations require specific attention in order to more fully understand the way that Judaism is conceptualized in the work of these philosophers. I argue further that despite the differences in their work, these philosophers share significant common ground, rooted in the unique challenge arising from Kantian philosophy: The attempt to bridge the gap between reason and its realization in history. Reason cannot, due to inherent metaphysical constraints, be realized in history immediately, and its implementation necessitates an absolute negation of that which precedes it. Kant identifies the object of this negation, which ought to lead to Vernunftreligion as mediating between reason and history, with the negation of the political as such, which he identifies in this context with Judaism. Fichte, Schelling and Hegel drew on different aspects of this unique Kantian tension, suggesting different ways to bridge the abovementioned gap between reason and history. Their conception of Judaism cannot be understood without the context of the Kantian framework, which they try to overcome. Finally, I plan to address the possible relationships between such conceptions of Judaism, rooted in the understanding of religion and politics in general, and later, anti-Semitic developments. This discussion will be carried out without identifying the philosophical context of Kant and German idealism with later developments on the one hand, since assuming a clear-cut causal relation in the realm of Geist is fundamentally misleading. On the other hand, later developments must be located in relation to historical antecedents; otherwise they will be viewed as aberrations or madness, a break in history itself. The best way to explore this relationship, therefore, is to ask what in these philosophical approaches would enable them or make them prone to later be applied, twisted, and adapted to Nazi ideology.