Rabbi Soloveitchik, in the lonely man of faith, investigates the essential loneliness of the person of faith in today’s society. Rabbi examines the dual nature of man through an analysis of the apparent contradictions in the portrayals of Adam. Adam’s portrayals are in each of the two creation stories presented in Genesis through Adam I and Adam II. Additionally, In the first Genesis account, God commands Adam I to dominate the earth. In the second account, Adam II lives in the Garden of Eden in a close relationship with God. Adam I is a technologically sophisticated, utilitarian secular figure. Adam II, on the other hand, is a more spiritual creature in touch with the Divine. According to Rabbi Soloveitchik, therefore, in the lonely man of faith, the disparity represents the fundamental paradox integral to humans.
For more information on Rabbi Soloveitchik in the lonely man of faith, click
ADAM I AND ADAM II IN THE TWO ACCOUNTS OF CREATION OF MAN
Rabbi Soloveitchik in the lonely man of faith proposes that the two creation accounts portray two types of man. The quest for dignity which is a surface social quality attained by control over one’s environment guides Adam I. He is a creative and majestic personality who espouses a practical-utilitarian approach to the world. Adam II, in the lonely man of faith, on the other hand, is guided by the quest for redemption. He is humble and submissive and yearns for an intimate relationship with God and with his fellow man. These differences carry over to the type of community each one creates. Adam I creates a natural work community while Adam II creates the covenantal faith community. Finally, the demand to be both Adam I and Adam II leads to a built-in tension in individual’s lives.
For more information on Adam I and Adam II in the two accounts of the creation of man, click
COMPARISON BETWEEN RAV SOLOVEITCHIK PHILOSOPHY AND MAX SCHELER’S PHILOSOPHY
Rabbi Soloveitchik in the lonely man of faith presents a theory of religious experience just like Max Scheler. Soloveitchik contends that a modern method of scientific theory should be emulated to access the contents of religious cognition. Scheler, like Rabbi Soloveitchik, maintains that religion is an autonomous cognitive approach to reality. Scheler however also claims that the object of religious psychic acts is God. Soloveitchik rejects Scheler’s views and holds, in contrast, that the objects of religious cognition are everyday phenomena. Soloveitchik adds that the immediate religious experience contents are inaccessible and not the objects of the philosophy of religion. Lastly, Adam Max Scheler has not argued on Adam I and Adam II’s creation accounts.
Additional attachments
>> Download
