Hermann Cohen

1. Introduction

Hermann Cohen (1842–1918) is widely regarded as one of the founders of the Marburg school of Neo‑Kantianism and as a key architect of modern Jewish philosophy. Working first as a systematic philosopher at the University of Marburg and later as a theologian at the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin, he sought to reinterpret both Kant’s critical philosophy and Judaism in mutually illuminating ways.

Within Neo‑Kantianism, Cohen is often grouped with Paul Natorp as a representative of a rigorously “scientific” approach that analyzes the conditions of knowledge, ethics, and culture without appealing to metaphysical entities. At the same time, his mature writings describe Judaism as a “religion of reason” whose central doctrines—creation, revelation, messianism—are understood as ethical and rational ideas rather than as supernatural descriptions.

Scholars frequently emphasize three interconnected strands in Cohen’s thought:

• A systematic ethics of the pure will, in which moral obligation is conceived as an endless task oriented toward justice.
• A conception of law and the state as necessary institutions for realizing ethical ideals.
• A reinterpretation of Jewish sources—biblical, prophetic, and rabbinic—as privileged yet critically examinable articulations of universal ethical monotheism.

Interpretations of Cohen diverge on key questions. Some read him primarily as a rigorous Neo‑Kantian for whom Judaism offers illustrative material; others treat him as a Jewish theologian who uses Kantian tools in the service of religious renewal. More recent studies consider him a bridge figure whose work anticipates debates about human rights, social democracy, and the ethical foundations of political community.

2. Life and Historical Context

Hermann Cohen was born on 4 July 1842 in Coswig, Anhalt, into a modest Jewish family; his father served as a cantor. He studied philosophy and classical philology in Breslau, Berlin, and Halle between 1861 and 1865, entering the German university system during a period of intense debate over Kant’s legacy and the role of Jews in a rapidly modernizing society.

Cohen’s academic career was closely tied to the University of Marburg, where he became Privatdozent in 1873 and later full professor. Marburg, a relatively small university, developed into a major center of Neo‑Kantianism, shaping a generation of students who would later influence philosophy, theology, and political theory across Europe.

In 1912 Cohen retired from Marburg and moved to Berlin to teach at the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, an institution associated with the Science of Judaism movement. This transition marks a contextual shift from a general philosophical faculty to a Jewish scholarly setting that encouraged systematic reflection on Judaism’s texts and history.

Cohen’s life unfolded amid the unification of Germany, rising nationalism, debates about emancipation and assimilation of Jews, and the growth of social democracy. During World War I he lectured and traveled in support of the German cause, a stance that has been variously interpreted as patriotic loyalty, hope for Jewish integration, or misjudgment of emerging political realities.

He died in Berlin on 4 April 1918, reportedly from pneumonia contracted while traveling. His final years, marked by war and political upheaval, frame his late writings on messianism, suffering, and the ethical vocation of the state.

3. Intellectual Development and Neo-Kantian Background

Cohen’s intellectual development is often divided into overlapping phases corresponding to shifts in his engagement with Kant, science, and Judaism.

During his formative years, Cohen immersed himself in Kantian texts and contemporary debates on epistemology. Early writings already display the hallmark Neo‑Kantian move: replacing questions about reality “in itself” with questions about the conditions of the possibility of experience. This orientation culminated in Kants Theorie der Erfahrung (first edition 1871; expanded 1885), where he interprets Kant’s “transcendental” project as an investigation into the normative procedures that constitute scientific knowledge.

At Marburg, Cohen, alongside Paul Natorp, helped shape the Marburg school of Neo‑Kantianism. This school is commonly characterized by:

Cohen extended this methodological program to ethics and, eventually, religion. His notion of the “pure will” reinterprets Kant’s practical reason as a rational structure oriented toward an endlessly receding ideal of justice. This emphasis on infinite approximation parallels his account of scientific progress.

Regarding Judaism, early interpreters often claimed that Cohen’s specific interest in Jewish themes appeared only late. More recent scholarship, however, points to continuities: his early focus on universality, normativity, and the idea of humanity is seen as preparing the way for his later theological writings. The move to Berlin in 1912 intensified his engagement with Jewish sources, but did not fundamentally abandon the Marburg methodological commitments. Instead, Cohen sought to show that Jewish tradition itself could be read as a historically rich articulation of Neo‑Kantian ideals.

4. Major Works and Central Themes

Cohen’s major writings form a loosely systematic whole that stretches from epistemology to ethics, aesthetics, and religion. Scholars commonly group them into a “system of philosophy” followed by a religion of reason grounded in Jewish sources.

Key Works

Central Thematic Threads

Across these works, several recurring themes can be identified:

• The Ideal as Infinite Task: In both science and ethics, truth and justice function as regulative ideals never fully realized, yet normatively binding.
• From Individual to Community: Cohen frequently moves from the structure of individual cognition or will to the community and finally to humanity as an ethical idea.
• Law and Institutionality: Especially in Ethics of the Pure Will, law (Recht) and the modern state are treated as indispensable for enacting moral obligations.
• Religion and Reason: In his late work, religious concepts—God, creation, revelation, messianism—are reinterpreted as expressions of rational ethics rather than as supernatural descriptions.

Interpretive debates concern the continuity of these phases: some commentators emphasize a shift from secular system‑building to theology; others stress the underlying methodological unity linking all stages of Cohen’s oeuvre.

5. Core Ideas: Religion of Reason and Ethical Monotheism

Cohen’s notion of a “religion of reason” (Religion der Vernunft) characterizes religion as a mode of life in which doctrines and practices are justified by their contribution to universal ethics. Judaism, in his view, is the historical tradition that most clearly articulates this structure, though the ideal itself is not limited to one people or confession.

Religion of Reason

For Cohen, religion of reason:

• Grounds belief not in mystical experience or metaphysical speculation, but in rationally criticizable ethical ideals.
• Understands doctrines such as creation and revelation as ideas that orient moral responsibility.
• Treats God as a regulative idea: the conceptual focus of the demand that justice ultimately be universal and unconditional.

He writes, for instance:

"

“Ethical monotheism means: God is thought only in relation to the human being, and the human being only in relation to the idea of humanity.”

— Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism

Ethical Monotheism

Cohen’s ethical monotheism reinterprets the belief in one God as inseparable from a universal ethical obligation. Monotheism is not primarily a claim about the number of deities; it is an affirmation that:

• Moral obligation is universal and not confined to a particular group.
• The prophetic concern for the poor, the widow, and the stranger anticipates modern notions of social justice.
• The idea of God guarantees the unconditionality of ethical demands, even when institutions fail.

Debate persists over how “religious” this account is. Some scholars read Cohen as reducing theology to ethics; others argue that his concept of God preserves a distinct religious dimension, particularly through prayer, repentance, and hope. Still others interpret his position as an early attempt at a post‑metaphysical theology that reframes, rather than abandons, traditional dogma.

6. Ethics, Law, and the Idea of Humanity

In Ethics of the Pure Will, Cohen develops an ethics in which duty is conceived as an infinite task oriented toward the idea of humanity. This idea functions as a regulative ideal of a fully just community in which every person is recognized and protected.

Pure Will and Infinite Task

The pure will is the rational will freed from self‑interest, oriented solely by universalizable norms. Ethical life, on this view, is never complete:

"

“The task of ethics is infinite; it can never be completed, only ever more nearly fulfilled.”

— Hermann Cohen, Ethics of the Pure Will

This structure mirrors his account of scientific progress as endless approximation to truth.

Law and the State

Cohen insists that ethics cannot remain merely internal or subjective. Law and political institutions are required:

"

“Law is the organization of the ethical idea within the community of human beings.”

— Hermann Cohen, Ethics of the Pure Will

Thus:

• Law (Recht) translates moral demands into enforceable norms.
• The state is evaluated according to how it protects the vulnerable and approximates the idea of humanity.
• Individual virtue is supplemented—and in some respects surpassed—by institutional justice.

The Neighbor and Humanity

Cohen famously writes:

"

“The neighbor is the firstborn of the idea of humanity.”

— Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism

Concrete responsibility toward the neighbor—the specific other in need—is the point of departure for the universal idea of humanity. Ethics proceeds from the singular to the universal, not the reverse.

Commentators diverge on how closely this account remains tied to Kant. Some emphasize Cohen’s continuity with Kantian deontology; others underline his greater attention to social structures, poverty, and the juridical state, viewing him as an early theorist of social ethics rather than purely individual moral autonomy.

7. Methodology: Neo-Kantianism and Jewish Sources

Cohen’s methodology combines Neo‑Kantian critical philosophy with the philological and historical tools of the Science of Judaism. He seeks neither to abandon rational criticism in favor of revelation nor to dissolve religious tradition into mere history.

Neo‑Kantian Method

From Marburg Neo‑Kantianism, Cohen retains:

• The focus on transcendental conditions: asking what makes science, ethics, or religion possible as rational enterprises.
• A methodological preference for “regulative ideas” over metaphysical claims.
• The notion of an infinite task, indicating that rational inquiry and ethical progress are open‑ended.

Engagement with Jewish Sources

At the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, Cohen systematically re‑read:

• Biblical narratives (e.g., creation, Exodus) as symbolic articulations of ethical ideas.
• Prophetic literature as historical expressions of concern for the oppressed.
• Rabbinic texts as elaborations of law and community that anticipate modern legal rationality.

His approach can be summarized as follows:

Cohen often describes Judaism as the “source” (Quelle) of the religion of reason, not as its exclusive embodiment. Proponents of this reading emphasize his openness to universality; critics argue that his method risks subordinating the particularities of Jewish practice and belief to an abstract ethical program.

Another line of interpretation stresses that Cohen’s methodology helped open the way for later thinkers (such as Rosenzweig and Levinas) to engage Jewish texts philosophically, even when they criticized his rationalist framework.

8. Engagement with the State, Social Democracy, and Justice

Cohen’s reflections on politics emerge primarily from his ethical and legal philosophy and from his responses to the social questions of late 19th‑ and early 20th‑century Germany. He interpreted the modern state as a key institution for approximating justice, particularly for the poor and marginalized.

The State and Ethical Task

Within his Neo‑Kantian framework, the state is judged by how it embodies the idea of humanity:

• It must secure legal equality and protect civil rights.
• It should promote social welfare, addressing poverty and economic inequality.
• Its legitimacy rests on serving the ethical development of citizens.

Cohen regarded the legal order as the necessary mediation between individual morality and universal humanity, an outlook that many see as anticipating later welfare‑state theories.

Attitude toward Social Democracy

Cohen showed sympathy for aspects of social democracy (notably its commitment to social justice and workers’ rights) while maintaining a distance from revolutionary or materialist strands. He envisaged gradual reform through law rather than class struggle, aligning with more moderate interpretations of social democracy prevalent in his time.

Scholars disagree about how to classify his politics:

Justice and the Vulnerable

Drawing on prophetic themes, Cohen foregrounded the widow, orphan, and stranger as paradigmatic figures of vulnerability. The measure of a just state, in his view, is how it treats these groups. This emphasis has been interpreted as an early philosophical articulation of what later discourse calls human rights or social justice, though Cohen formulates these concerns in the language of ethical monotheism and legal duty rather than rights‑based liberalism.

9. Reception and Influence on 20th‑Century Thought

Cohen’s influence extends across multiple fields, though its contours have shifted over time.

Immediate Reception

In the early 20th century, Cohen was primarily known as a leading Marburg Neo‑Kantian. His students and interlocutors included Paul Natorp, Ernst Cassirer, and others who carried aspects of his epistemology and philosophy of science into debates about logic, symbolism, and culture. Within Jewish circles, his late works influenced teachers and students at the Hochschule and beyond.

Jewish Philosophy and Theology

Cohen’s impact on modern Jewish thought is particularly significant:

• Franz Rosenzweig engaged deeply with Cohen, initially admiring his religion of reason but later criticizing its universalism and lack of attention to concrete revelation and community.
• Leo Strauss studied Cohen and later reflected on him as a central figure in the crisis of modern Judaism, weighing his rationalism against classical political philosophy.
• Emmanuel Levinas took over and transformed certain motifs—especially the primacy of the Other and the ethical significance of the face‑to‑face encounter—while distancing himself from Cohen’s confidence in rational system‑building.

Some see these later thinkers as successors who radicalize Cohen’s ethical insights; others treat them as critics who expose the limitations of his Neo‑Kantianism.

Philosophy, Law, and Political Theory

Cohen’s ideas also influenced:

• Debates in legal philosophy, particularly through his conception of law as an ethical institution.
• Discussions of social democracy and welfare policy in Weimar‑era thought.
• Interpretations of Kant that stress the methodological and normative over the metaphysical.

His influence waned mid‑century with the decline of Neo‑Kantianism but has experienced a revival since the late 20th century, as scholars reassess Neo‑Kantianism’s role in the prehistory of analytic philosophy, phenomenology, critical theory, and contemporary theology.

Interpretations remain divided over whether Cohen should be read primarily as a systematic philosopher, a Jewish theologian, or an early proponent of post‑metaphysical ethics. This plurality of receptions underscores the multifaceted character of his work.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

Cohen’s legacy is often described as bridging 19th‑century German idealism and 20th‑century debates on ethics, religion, and the state. Historically, he stands at a crossroads where Kantian philosophy, the Science of Judaism, and emerging social‑democratic concerns intersect.

Place in the History of Philosophy

In the history of philosophy, Cohen is:

• A central figure in Neo‑Kantianism, influencing epistemology, philosophy of science, and the concept of the ideal as an infinite task.
• An important precursor to later discussions of normativity and regulative ideals in both analytic and continental traditions.
• A reference point for understanding the transition from classical metaphysics to methodological and critical approaches in philosophy.

Significance for Modern Jewish Thought

For Jewish thought, Cohen’s attempt to articulate a philosophically rigorous Judaism has been both foundational and controversial. Many regard him as one of the first to offer a comprehensive Jewish philosophy of religion that fully engages with modern critical methods. Others argue that his rationalism underplays liturgy, narrative, and particular communal practices.

Ongoing Debates

Current scholarship assesses Cohen’s historical significance along several axes:

These debates indicate that Cohen’s work remains a touchstone for discussions about how religious traditions can contribute to universal ethics, how law and the state can embody moral ideals, and how critical philosophy can engage particular historical sources without abandoning its commitment to rational justification.