Messianica ratio. Affinities and Differences in Cohen’s and Benjamin's Messianic Rationalism

Abstract

In my paper, I intend firmly to criticize Taubes' interpretation of Benjamin's Theology as a modern form of Gnosticism (Benjamin as a modern Marcionit). In a positive way, I sustain rather thesis that Benjamin's Messianism is in close connection with his conception of reason (“the sharpened axe of reason”) and, in particularly, with paradoxical unity of Mysticism and Enlightenment, which, according to famous definition of Adorno, distinguishes his thought. As a radically anti-magical and anti-mythical conception of historical time, Benjamin's Messianism has to be considered as an original synthesis between motifs of mystical tradition of Jewish Kabbalah and motifs belonging to rationalist tradition of Jewish philosophy. Moving from Cohen's standpoint of a continuity between Maimonides and Kant, I consider therefore affinity between his messianic conception of history and that of Benjamin. Both, Benjamin and Cohen, share, together with reference to a priori of idea of justice, reference to Kantian connection between rationality and hope. Hence originates non-eschatological Messianism of both. Motives of difference between Cohen and Benjamin’s messianic idea are to be found, conversely, in their different way to consider idea of the infinite task and of its infinite fulfillment in context of historical time. Unlike fundamentally ethical interpretation that Cohen gives of this relationship, Benjamin understands it ontologically in a monadological sense. This explains constitutive relationship that exists, in Benjamin's philosophy, between Origin, Fragment and Revelation. In light of this connection, Benjamin's messianic understanding of historical time exceeds Scholemian alternative between a restorative and a utopian conception of Messianism. Consequently, Krausian motto “Ursprung ist das Ziel” (“The Origin is Goal”) displays its truth in idea of messianic fragment or spark.