Response to Holocaust
|← Art History Response Paper||Duska’s Conception of Loyalty →|
Buy custom Response to Holocaust essay
Martin Bauber was born in Vienna Austria in the year 1878. He studied philosophy and at history in Leipzig, Zurich and Vienna. As a student he embraced Zionist movement, the Zionist Movement belief was that the Jewish people should return to historical Israel. By joining the Zionist movement Bauber called for the Jews to return to Israel and furthermore return to spiritual and cultural roots of Judaism. Bauber mentioned that the Jewish people needed to be united by common belief not only their simple heritage. On the other hand Emmanuel Lavina was born in Kauna, Lithuania of Jewish parents .He is a philosopher whose philosophy is related to his own experience during The Second World War. His parents died in the Holocaust and as soldier he became a prisoner of the war in Germany. In his work Lavina is concerned with ethics. Viktor Frankl was Doctor born in Vienna on March 26, 1905.
Frankl was made head of the neurological department of Rothschild Hospital, the only hospital for Jews in Vienna during the Nazi regime. He made many false diagnoses of his patients in order to circumvent the new policies requiring euthanasia of the mentally. Viktor Frankl’s theory and therapy grew out of his experiences in Nazi death camps. He present that people who had hopes of being reunited with their loved ones, or who had projects they felt they needed to complete, or who had great faith, tended to have better chances of surviving than those who had all but lost hope. For Wiesel was born in Sighet, in Romania. After World War II, Wiesel taught Hebrew and worked as a choirmaster before becoming a professional journalist. Weisel reflection on the holocaust in to two perspectives on the relations between religion ethics and memory he brings the situation of the holocaust.
In its important to understand that Wiesel, Lavina, Frankl and Beuber all had experience on the holocaust. They all provide deferent ideologies on the response to the holocaust. For Bauber response was that the holocaust happened because of many factors and the German were not solely responsible for it. According to him it was due to religion and quest for social justice. Lavina views and response to the holocaust was more holistic, in his work he brings the notion of origin of moral which unfold at an individual level and ethics (Avon 24). He calls for ethics transformation after the holocaust and this is the only way of discovering the truth of ethics. He argues that the Weisel philosophy and incite of moral ethics. He thus tries to distinguish ethics from ontology. According to him the holocaust was a result of lack of ethics where a person acts in a different way that he is not supposed t act. Lavina critical question the ethics of Heidegger and Husserl. Levinas is concerned that Western philosophy has been preoccupied with Being, the totality, at the expense of what is otherwise than Being, what lies outside the totality of Being as transcendent, exterior, infinite, anterior, the other.
He concluded that evil and suffering lead to the holocaust. Weisel on his part he sees that holocaust as an event that changes an individual way of thinking and to associate with other human being. Wiesel brings more arguments in favor of a normal relation between doubt of or even rebellion against divinity and the affirmation of faith in limit situations like the holocaust. He present and establish an ethics of responsibility toward other without withdrawing God importance in history in regard to the Holocaust. Wiesel’s uses his own reflections to show how the memory of the Holocaust might act as a moral duty of any human being, as a factor of interpersonal solidarity and of community cohesion (Wiesel 45). He further argues that the memory of the Holocaust acts as a protector, as a shield against despair and madness, as a reason to stay alive.
From a prisoner in the most dreaded concentration camp in Bohemia Frankl present first hand response and inside knowledge of the holocaust. For him the desire and hope to live was the most encouraging thing that append to him in the concentration camp. He survived because he hard hope to live even having been in four Nazi death camps including Auschwitz from 1942-45, whereas his parents and other members of his family died in the concentration camps. He presents belief that humanity's primary motivational force is the search for meaning, and the work of the logo therapist centers on helping the patient find personal meaning in life, however dismal the circumstances may be. Frankl describe freedom as the freedom to determine one own attitude and spiritual well being (Frankl 78). This was his personal freedom while he was in the concentration camp and it was deep into him that not even the Nazi guard could remove out of him. He also describe suffering as being in position where cannot exercise your mental and spiritual right as in the situation in the concentration camp.
In conclusion, in my opinion the fact that Weisel and Frankl were victims of the concentration camp give them and detail and inside happening in there. It therefore give their reason more meaning and truth about the suffering torture that the Jewish were undergoing in the concentration camp. With that kind of first hand information Frankl gives a detail account of the suffering where he concludes that those who had hope to live are the people who managed to survive.
Buy custom Response to Holocaust essay
- Duska’s Conception of Loyalty
- Response on Korea Film
- Art History Response Paper
- Whispering Corridors