10. Monday, November 29, 2010

10. Monday, November 29, 2010 - RLG220 - Monday, November...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
RLG220 - Monday, November 29, 2010 Emil Fackenheim - tries to blow out of the water the notion that the holocaust was a product of thoughtlessness - they were part of a process and subject to forces under their control - these people didn’t really know what they were doing: whether it was hitler at the top, or the man who pushed people into the gas chamber - the people who come after the holocaust who are capable of thought and critical judgement, can impose a meaning onto the holocaust that the perpetuators and victims can not understand - the perpetuators were denied their freedom as much as the victims - a philosopher has a higher perspective and is not caught up in the events and can derive/ impose a meaning on these terrible events - p201 “the holocaust may paralyze thought. ... pivotal importance for the whole present inquiry” this thought carried over to p202 “the allied forces destroyed the. .. insignificantly” makes a distinction between the holocaust world and the third reich (rose in January 1933 and was put to an end when the war ended in April 1945) the holocaust world is a chunk of reality: the nazis created a world and the death camps were considered to be a functioning system there was thought that went into this, and it was connected by a logic it was not something that arose by accident there was also a logic present in the third reich: laws, constitutions was the holocaust world created by people who were insane? if this is true, they are not hold liable as they are acting in a way that they themselves don’t understand if the holocaust world is something that was done unconsciously, like behaviour - action still has forethought can you impose meaning on something that was done unconsciously p201: “the nazi logic was irresistible, but was being resisted” if the goal was the total and complete destruction of the Jewish people, and it didn’t sound so crazy to inmates in Auschwitz, as results were coming about as the logic was irresistible, it should be irresistible by both the perpetrators and the victims are the perpetuators supposed to cooperate or not cooperate with this logic?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/18/2011 for the course RLG 220H1 taught by Professor Professornovak during the Fall '10 term at University of Toronto- Toronto.

Page1 / 3

10. Monday, November 29, 2010 - RLG220 - Monday, November...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online