[applause] >> thank you, john. thanks to the "chicago tribune" printer's row lit fest and thanks to all of you for choosing books over the beach on a sunday. it looks like something of an endangered species and it's wonderful to see so many people who care about the future of an endangered species. books have a great we're told, an old adage, but they seldom have birthdays meaning office can seldom say i know when i started to write this book. but this one i can. it was september of 2001, and i was a professor at johns hopkins and had to give a talk at nyu on muslim jewish christian relations in the middle ages which is especially.

so i got on a plane -- train in baltimore. the train was full of politicians, because there was no air travel in this part of september 2001 and they're all going to ground zero for president bush's honoring of the dead. behind me sat john mccain. to my right sat richard perle. i don't know if you know who richard perle is but he was on his cell phone most of the ride trying to convince leslie stahl to do an interview of saddam hussein and ask them why he bombed the twin towers. and when he finished talking to leslie stahl, he would call the pentagon and explain what he was doing, trying, i think the phrase he used was -- [inaudible]. a commercial. don't focus. anyway, i got off the train watching history being made, the

fear that we all had as americans, a new fear was being given a face. and that face was the face of saddam hussein. not to say islam. when we got off the train i got on the subway to go to nyu. the subway was empty because it went under the former twin towers. so there were only two other people on the subway with me, and one was a welder who is going to the cleanup site, no longer rescue site by the cleanup site, and the other one was a friend of his. and they were talking about why this had happened. so they were engaged in the process of trying to give it a face as well. the destinations they had were it's because of the jews. it's the jews agreed that turned new york into a symbol of capitalism. that's why they hate us but it's because the jews killed christ

that they hate us, these kinds of explanation. i was a little stunned at hearing explanations that seemed familiar to me from a medieval world being used to explain in a 21st century the bright, or not so bright, new dates of the 21st century, our new fear, our new calamity, our new changing world. and i sat out and to ask what it is about a set of ideas, in this case about judaism, that they can serve effectively to give so many people a way of making sense of the world, even if the world changes so rapidly around them. so the book is really not one of your usual histories of anti-semitism. the word anti-semitism might come up once in the book. it's not a history of bad things happening to jews. in fact, there are really very,

very few real juice in the book at all. it's a book about, and this is something new, it's a book about how much of the world learned to think in terms of judaism and to understand itself as lost in a struggle to overcome judaism, and to understand the dangers it confronts, people can understand the dangers they confront in their everyday lives, the changes that are happening in their world in terms of judaism. now, i thought i know it, i'm interested in the middle ages, but i wanted like a case, like a psychoanalyst -- i'm not a psychoanalyst but like a psychoanalyst i wanted to get deeper, to get beyond what i already knew. i don't want to speak of fortunes are really i stood looking in places in the ancient world. and there are lots of places an agent world where people thought

a lot about jews. one of the ones that the one i work on in the most in this book is ancient egypt. so before christianity, before islam. and i begin ancient egypt in which israel and the jews were used to make sense of a wide range of events ranging from drought and disease, to defeat by foreign armies and occupation by foreign invaders, to protest of a roman tax policy. and you see going to rome and calling roman emperors like claudius jew to their face. what did he mean by this? why did they make sense of the world to call an emperor who was not a jew a jew? especially because you know, you have to really believe this stuff, you're going to lose your head for. all these people were killed for saying this, except one who's getting a stature of the city,

so the emperor took this to be a miraculous sign that he should be spared. my point was how do they deal events so strongly? how do to help them make sense of the world, even when their opponents were not real juice at all? so have are useful at the judaism might have been to the ancient egyptian commonly became something much more powerful, much more flexible, much more adaptable with two great religions that were born in the aged world. christianity and islam. both of these religions had to explain how they were related to, but different from the judaism with which they claimed relations but also claimed to have some sense that superseded. in order to do this they had to think constantly about their relationship to the old testament and to the jews who

were its carriers in their society. and we can see this thinking goes on in all of the scriptures of the new religion. so in the new testament, one of my favorite examples in the new testament is the reason jesus on the road to emmaus. you know the story of two disciples are working on the road to emmaus and they're very sad because they have thought that jesus was the massage. they're talking to each other on the road, [inaudible] but they weren't going. they're going for consolation. and a third figure approaches him, a stranger, and ask them why they're on the path? have you not heard, ha have yout heard of this person who was crucified? we have thought he would be the savior of israel. this third figure, the stranger began to explain to them all of the scripture, all of the prophet to show it had to be so.

so in this vision, and, of course, it turned out to bejesus, on the road to emmaus what you see is the new testament, teaching is adherence, how to engage the predisposition, the jewish tradition and telling them something making sense of the world and why the messiah is the messiah. we see the same thing in the koran many of the chapters of the koran. what are the earliest and the longest is all about how to make sense of the hebrew process pros clinic which will ship between us and the scriptures and people who carry them. so for these religions are standing and islam, judaism came to mean a mistaken way but relating, a mistaken way of relating to the world and to god, a basic confusion of priorities between the material and the spiritual.

the real and the ideal. to christianity and islam both turn to judaism and i will explain what h i mean by this word, into basic concept was which to criticize and make sense of the world. they applied it relentlessly not only to real jews but much more importantly, to each other. here's a key point. i just want to stress it. anti-judaism does not demand living jews, because of the idea of -- i do when acoustic or and muslim ask a certainly, they become jewish. for that are ending of becoming jewish. it might seem strange to you but it's actually st. paul's own word from galatians were the earliest christian text. he says here, he reports that he said to st. peter since you, though you're a jew, live like a

gentile and not like it you, how can you compel the gentiles to gdi's. the use of the word jew the eyes to characterize a gentile and appropriate relationship to the laws and customs of a tradition became shorthand for a logic that could make sense of any christian incorrect to the world and description. anyone who loves the world too much, anyone who stood in was immature world and in this life, anyone who is to understand the literal meaning of language becomes a jew. so much so that by the 1600s, very famous english poet george herbert could write a poem like this. this is 1633. he that love and love amidst the world's delights before true christian joy has made a jew is choice, and is a judas jude.

he's writing any country would have been no jews alive for almost 400 years. he's not writing about real jews. is writing about all the christians around in. any of the relationships in the world makes you a judas jude. it's this power of criticizing any and every christian or muslim behavior in this world that made anti-judaism a key concept in the western. so my book is about what this concept does, and possibly involving interpretation of the world. how people, ancient, medieval, modern, even as make sense of the world by using these concepts. so the book contains countless examples of this kind of work that i even have a section on a glance become associated with judaism and a christians attackeattacked each other, untl together calling each other a plant eaters. but that's a little esoteric, i

know. salinity just one example of this logic. said the canker vegetable by vegetable. [laughter] shakespeare people often talk about the merchant of venice as a play that puts jews at the very center of the theater. but, in fact, in shakespeare's day, remember shakespeare wrote of the very beginning of the commercial theater, 10 years before the first picket for money had been sold -- ticket. the beginning of a new commercial. and shakespeare and all of the contemporaries, so we choose before shakespeare, shakespeare is using the figure to make sense of a lot of things going on in his world to be using it because he knows his audience will understand. what are some things he is time to help his audience think about, and he's thinking about? one of the things he's trying to

tell the audience to think about is theater, how does theater use words? theater is kind of a tricky thing. it's selling the words that are fake words, right? any christian world, in fact i'm not sure how many of you know they were not very fond of theater. the theaters of london were sometimes shut down. so shakespeare's legitimizing that buddies also legitimizing the commercial society, it took years before the merchant of venice the lending of money interest had just been legalized for the first time in england. shakespeare's father had frequently been, sometimes been condemned for lending money at interest. shakespeare himself lend money for interest. taboo and condemned and criminal as a jewish now legitimizes itself. the merchant of venice shakespeare gives you several figures and tries to differentiate between the christian way of money and

contracts and the jewish approach to money and contractor even though there are no jews in england. you can see back when the crucial judgment scene when porsche comes on the stage as judge and says, which is the merchant here in which the jew? that is not easy to tell. this society is to find new ways of justifying force of all other commercial activity it's doing, its new forms of conduct, its new form of commerce, and it doesn't by using a figure of judaism. no jews in england for six inches but everyone knows what it means. it doesn't mean he doesn't have an effect on real jews. 150 years later, when england is debating the jews, trying to decide whether to grant choose citizenship or not, exhibit a in the argument what you should not be granted citizenship is look at this jew, would you grant

citizenship to some like a. shot like a just an invention. the book takes you through many such examples for enlightenment. how the enlightenment, there's me cite some let's say we take to on the one hand the side that says church and king and the of and the side that says priest and monarchies are instruments of tyranny from superstition and oppression but both sides understood the trouble they were involved in for enlightenment or what was called -- 5 reaction, counterrevolution, understood in terms of one of the most popular books on the need for enlightenment by the baron in

1770, says then they are, europe, break the unbearable yoke of the prejudices of which you are afflicted. what's the prejudice by which that reflected? was the top of the book? the spirit of judaism. even as a jewish population of france is .0001%. i could double, i could pile, in fact i have to apologize, the 600 pages of history, of stories about how people learn to think about the rapidly changing world by thinking about and thinking with judaism. so much so that when the french revolution rates a both its greatest opponents, edmund burke, understands, in england, under since the french revolution as a victory of the jews over the nobility of europe, and its greatest proponent or one of its great

proponents, the german philosopher, under since the french evolution as a vigorous victory over judaism in the history of your. both sides can see the same event in anti-jewish terms even though come again, .001, or something like this, on the population of france. so i tried to show how in modern thought, for example, in modern philosophy to take one example this logic is constantly working its way through the western tradition. kant understood himself as the first philosopher to overcome jewish superstition. hegel on the other hand understood kant as a judaizers. and in his history of philosophy he situates kant among diversities doing this from another key places him right among the jews and he and his friend used to call hagel, just a golf kant the moses of our nation. that's hagel.

who comes next? schopenhauer sure looks at a glance as hagel is a follower of the jakarta. i don't write to me do. they do. noted each of these, none of these a jewish philosophers. they're all the great philosophers of modernity, right? all of them think their task is over, the judaism of all previous philosopher. now, the result of this as i try to show in the book is that by the 20th century there is no aspect of modern culture that cannot be thought of in terms of judaism and anti-judaism. so much so that you find like in parliament during, an austrian, a member of congress in 1970 saying culture is what one jew plagiarizes from another. the great impresarios of this discourse, of this logic, were

of course the nazis. but again we need to remember that this logic could be applied to anybody and everybody. of course, real jews, millions of real jews suffered from the nazis of this logic but a judaizers all of jews of culture. of the 112 artists that hitler and others condemned as degenerate artist, jewish artists, only six were jews even by the nazis definition of judaism. the others were all other things. the same is true of the many musicians like -- condemned. or the many mathematicians. tenacity with jewish mathematics is, david, condemned as jewish mathematicians even though they were not jewish. so the nazis were, of course the most relentless and the most

successful impresarios of this discourse. and they presented themselves as saving the world from jewish ways of thought. remember the line at the burning of anti-german books in 1933, he says the age of rampant jewish intellectualism is at an end. by which he meant the age of all those jewish pashtun to give me the age of just jews, the age of although those ways thinking we call jewish. so their success in deploying it, the nazis success in to point this logic of anti-judaism i tried to demonstrate, can only be understood, i want to argue, not as some product of a french increased movement but within this history that encoded the threat of judaism into some of the most basic concepts of western thought.

and we generated that threat a new forms for new times. helping many of europe's citizens not only germans, even its most educated and critical citizens like, make sense of their world in anti-jewish terms. so in its largest sense this book is an inquiry into the power of the history of thought or if the present is not independent of the past, if the cognitive possibilities of the way we can think at any given moment, even in our own moment, might be conditioned by habits of thought acquired overlong creative time, over time in history, then we need to find a way to become aware of those habits of thought, lest we find ourselves acting in the grip. and mike lancaster without anderson that history, without understanding the habits of thought, we cannot understand how or why societies could so

terribly confuse the nature of the dangers they confront and become convinced that the living exemplars of israel and jewishness are the cause of all of its problems. i ended my book in 1950, a we, too, i think live in an age with its own jewish question. and i could hold at my expense in a summit as an example of this although it was what triggered the book. we live in an age in which many millions of people are exposed daily to some variant of the argument that the challenges of the world they live in ou are bt explained in terms of israel. many of today's critical thinkers rejected the possibility that history, that the history of thinking about judaism can tell us anything about our present situation. some, many, see the attempt to evoke history as an example of special pleading.

that is, as an attempt to deny the real responsibility of, say, the people of israel or the criticisms levied against them. as happens when, for example, histories of anti-semitism or the holocaust are invoked to reject any criticism of the actions of the state of israel. and often i think people who were the implications of history are not critical our right. history can easily be, unreflective and impede criticism, impeded self-awareness rather than furthering it. but it seems to me that the greater danger lies in tec of confidence that we are independent of our past and our sense of reality owes nothing to habits of thought over the habits we formed over time. we do make our own history, but we don't make it as we please. and an awareness of the gravity of the past exert upon us can be a powerful stimulus through consciousness about the ways in

which we see the world today. i don't think we can afford to live without such an awareness, especially not today. and that's what i wrote the book. i really look forward to your questions. thank you. [applause] [inaudible] my question is, is a particular way of thinking or even have opposing sort of things on religious belief? or this is something else, that make a jew just different,

particularly, and, therefore, have this aggression against, or people who became a jew, not really a jew also have this? or you think it's deeply rooted to religion, but for many years ago? >> that's a very interesting and very difficult question. on the one hand, its circuitry that the thinking of people do with real jews is different from the kinds of thinking they do with the jews they turn others into. so for example, just use the example of the nazis, they were certainly many people judaizers by the logic i described, many non-jews the composers, the mathematicians from the writers, the pages that are mentioned

were not put in concentration camps and liquidated. real jews are. so there are differences, but i don't think we can understand the power of the one without the other. you, the reason why the system of thought is so useful is because it has the flexibility to a lot of work in the world. otherwise it would've disappeared long ago. it has the flexibility to characterize any community come in the individual in the world and want a characteristic so for example, in islam already one of the artist islamic things was the shiites are the jews of our community. that's a sunni thing. the shiites said the same thing about the sunnis, and about other sects. and this kind of logic was very useful. now, of course, how does it use works in the world, has an effect on real jews in positions of the willful real jews was a very complicated question.

and i suspect that there's no way we can ever know exactly what amount of something has to do with a particular case of jewish history, of the roles we'll just play in a society and what part of it has to do with the vast edifice of thought that has been built upon judaism in the western world. i think the two are in constant interplay. but i suspect we have a lot easier time thinking about we'll judaism than about the power that imagine a judaism has on the world. that's what it's really important to stress this power. during world war ii, to great german philosophers wrote that to call someone a jew is a pretext to work him over until he resembles the image. and i think this is quite right. that's the power of the logic that i'm talking about. >> a couple of things.

one, the merchant of venice happened in venice, not in england. and in the play there are no, there's no character developed which is in good. which is i see shakespeare saying that new judaism or christianity aren't any good. both of them supported slavery. and porsche was a crook. it was not developed but there was nothing bad about it. the other thing is that i think you are underestimating with a jewish power means today. 53% -- o. and 53% of the fed.

and that's, that's the power -- summit. >> that keeps the united states locked in with israel making the palestinians the center of all the conflicts in the world today. >> those are two really interesting points, and i love you reading of porsche. icon in a way, i couldn't agree with you more about porsche being a crook. but i'm not at all sure that the play is clear about that. in fact, my reading -- >> she was a racist. >> you've asked a question everythinat athing now it woulde to answer it, and that's the procedure here. but i agree that the slave is an important aspect of the play and it is shylock this is you have your slaves, that form of contract and i, if i told you to give up the form of contract you

wouldn't give it a. why should i give up my form of contract come this pound of flesh? so there's no doubt that the play puts slavery and asked a question which is perhaps critical about slavery. but porsche, this immortal shrine, this living, breathing saint i think shakespeare culture, and we can debate whether he means it ironically or not, and belmont, this blessed i would all end up at the end, hundreds of years of critics have debated the vast majority have taken the play, and belmont in particular to be a blessed isle, to be a christian associate partner i agree with you my reading of the play is a lot more ambivalent, like yours, but nevertheless i think it's very important that for shakespeare the crucial foil to think about these problems was that you. as for your second question, the audience has come and i think there are lots of disagreements,

i would only say this, this is a one of the points of my book, how we perceive reality and what we take to be the relevant reality in any given moment is shaped by our habits of thought. you may feel that the attitudes towards jews in the world are justified by the real power. i'll just give you an example of a for a critical thinker who shared this logic. another well-known german philosopher who fled the nazis, was employed by the rothschilds in france and inflicted the u.s. and wrote a book called the origins of the totalitarian to which he thought to explain anti-semitism in particular. and she rejected any appeal to history. should rejected any appeal to the power of ideas. she said as follows. she said she saw what a joker she said after world war i there

was a joke those going around come to guys on. one says to the other what's wrong with the world, the jews control everything? the jews have all the power. the other one says you're right, you're right, the jews, the jews and the bicycle riders. and the first one says, the jews of course but by the bicycle riders? and the second was is why the jews? the point with is a joke was that, her point with a joke which is not my, but her point was that if an ideology is going to move the masses, it is going to make sense of the world to millions and i talk about ideas that make sense of the world to millions, it has to have a relation to reality. that is, she insisted that the jews, anti-semitism came about not because of habits of thought or ways of making sense of the world, but because of what the jews we were in the world. they were a come responsibly, herbert, co-responsible which is

like saying that slaves have come responsibility for slavery or that capital has call responsibility, labor has corresponds with the capital or any other such, i think quite strange ethical notion. but for the point was come responsibly. she said look, all these economic statistics prove that the jews are members of the upper middle class, not the german people. and she said a bunch of economic statistics, all of them gathered by not economists. so in other words, her own attempt to represent reality was utilizing theory laden data. that is, data collected with a set of ideals already behind. and against all i'm trying to say is, all our data is always related. we need to become conscious about what our assumptions are. why we think that this is the proof of jewish conspiracy or

jewish power and why we accept that vision a reality. all really is not independent of the concepts, the habits we bring to it. serve. >> the more you speak the more my mind races off on different tangents. >> is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> it's a very confusing thing. let me give a quick tangent out of the way. i don't know anybody has, or spoken an ill -- [inaudible] but maybe the first one that i know that speaks ill of her in public. first of all, someone who kept company, i'll put quotes on company, while he partnered with

the nazis is someone who i have absolutely no respect for. also, her book, medieval, does it have any doubt? such as a clever type of the statement, and insight. yeah, his meaning in life was being efficient and being the uber bureaucrat. but it doesn't mean that the parts of them didn't grapple or, you know, suppress or whatever what he was really doing. so her, you know, or perception, the banality of evil to me is just clever. it's not worth, there's no profundity there and she should get no kudos, actually kudos for that. but let me ask you, first of all, i would like to talk to you afterwards if i could, because

time doesn't permit me. i want to ask you a question but i go back to ancient egypt, and i read your review, the review of your book in "the new york times." and i found several other insights to be wonderful, but in your speech today when you started like that ancient egypt, or for that i started thinking this morning, okay, where could this man be coming from? and i thought okay, i'll start with -- i have to share a quote from tiberius that you may have heard of that others may not have. and tiberius called a beyond comical, the of the universe. and i will let you and the people are interpreted talk whatever way you want. that's one thing.

but why was he so anti-jewish? and i think about judaism, judaism has always been a civilization of diaspora speedy's i had to ask you to get to the question because i see we're going to be interrupted in a minute. >> okay. there are three aspects a sea of white judaism may have been speech is that the question or is that a statement? >> it's a statement. i'll put a question mark after it. >> like in jeopardy, right. >> i'm flexible. you know what speed is why did you and i speak afterwards? >> yes. >> i just want to say on the question of egypt, it is a very complex question about which the educated people disagree.

and i, after writing the first chapter, i met and fell in love with a person who works in egypt and knows his material very well. and we disagreed on aspects of whether -- we're still getting married -- [laughter] such as want to point out that many of these questions, many of these, for example, are more whole than text. and when you're interpreting into the holes, very often the context, the things you believe about the setting affect how you interpret the material. so for sure, as with any historical topic, there's a lot of work that goes into elaborating a position and can different points of view on it. >> it's a pleasure to meet you but i had a question. when i was a student, i took a lot of philosophy and literature and i once took this class called philosophy in religion

and we read maimonides, aquinas and others. it was in recent as each one was a different faith. islamic, jewish and christian. they tried to prove the existence of god. what i found interesting was the sort of drew from each other. i don't know if that's an example pro-judaism but it's at least deriving inspiration from it, especially when aquinas looks back to maimonides and reading a biography of tolkien. world war ii was coming, he defended jewish people. so i guess in the course of your studies have you seen any examples from history of pro-judaism or something like that? >> oh, yes. yes, absolutely. you know, we each that are subject to very often someone writes about slavery.

we don't ask them why they don't write about abolition. i think that my goal was to describe a system of thought. i think it is a system of thought which is constantly changing, has a very long history, and is a system of thought we don't very much like to think about today. partly because we have been caught you really think about our freedom from history. we want to find consolation in examples like tolkien. although i've read articles about how told qian's doors are -- we want to find positive examples. we want to find relief from the grimace of history. and i have no problem with that. it isn't rebuild a task i set myself the, often i write about come in packages to the course on as long philosophy that

begins, gives maimonides an important place not as a transmit of islamic philosophy to muslims. he wasn't read much by muslims as someone who learned a huge amount from islam and transform judaism and philosophy in the process. so absolute their many places of ideas and history of ideas is full of what we can call the principle of hope. but that wasn't my task here. my task here is to try to recall into modernity at a moment in which we think we know reality. we think reality is opinion polls. we think reality is a certain view of the geopolitical order, et cetera. we think we know it and we think we are independent of the kinds of habits of thought that might be shaping where we see significance in the world. i think there are some key problems in the world where our habits of thought are still great present, so i wanted to try to excavate those habits of thought. but, of course, there are many

stories, many histories that could be written that would look very different hud and i will leave those to myself and other mustard right now i'm finishing a book, i'm writing, finishing the introduction of a book ethical be called something like neighboring face, islam, judaism, christianity, which is how people live together. my first book was about that, too. but we don't want to forget in looking at examples of how people live together that there is also such a thing as a habit of thought. and that's what i'm trying to uncover your. please. and john, you will tell us when -- >> thank you for your very interesting worse. i have two questions. the first is the $64,000 question. why do so may people seem to be so obsessed with jews and judaism? what sort it is the root of the threat that seems to be perceived? if this is him as simple as

christianity simply differentiating itself from its jewish roots. and in addition, it seems like we have a lot of examples today of judaism and sort of not specifically jewish, not specifically jewish western thought harmonizing a lot, and why that seemed to only be a feature of the more modern world. and the second question, you can choose which are both you and respond to, is that in your opinion, do you see a lot of what i would argue particular criticism of israel and of zionism and judaism et cetera to be a direct outgrowth of this anti-judaism in history? or do you think that there's a stronger thing there that we ought to hit as well? thank you spent well, those sound like a three, safety 4000 those question and i want to

know how much will give me for each one? [laughter] the second verse because it's closer related to the previous question. i wouldn't say it's only modernity. and the previous question gave examples from the medieval period in which there was harmony, face but i think there's always been in every period of history moment in which in fact dominant moments in which this, did you call the proximity? what did you call it, this harmony? harmonization has occurred. so it's just not the subject of this book. and i would add that no cumulative number of harmonies would detract from this other aspect of how, that's one. the 64,000-dollar question, so the book, trying to give an answer that the whole book is an accurate.

and hold -- is the answer that we're bad at sports? >> no. >> i was hoping. >> that the modern obsession. [laughter] know, but i would say that some people speak some sociologists speak of what they call the action of age and that's the moment in which according to them, much of the world learned to think in terms of the dissension between the visible material world and the ideal or spiritual world. so we have a kind of split reality, right, in which the really important, the immortal, the truth is not what's in the thing before you. so that split was for a long time thought of, and if you study plato, you know one way of thinking about it, right? but with christianity can again

be thought of in terms of the difference between jew and christian. so this is way judaizing became such a powerful way of making sense of the world. all of the sudden, all of human knowledge built on the distinction between what seems to be and what really is got thought about could be translated into jewish terms are just to give you one quote from jesus' words about this, when he gives an example he says, whitewashed tombs that looked beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones. merchant of venice says the same thing but what are those whitewashed tombs for jesus? the pharisees, the rabbis. those who want to be called rabbi. this creation of a split reality, that is, so that we and our world make sense of why things that look good might not

be good and why things that look bad might be good, we make sense of the complexity of the world through this split reality came to be given the negative side of it, the name of jew in christianity. that's the basic argument of why, and in early islam it's given the name of hypocrite, who are the jews and their allies. these are basic concepts that allow us to make sense of the complexity of the world. and that's why they are so useful. that's my, i know you look very skeptical and have every right to be. i would only urge you to buy the book and read it. [laughter] >> okay, our last question. >> pretty mean. i'm wondering if you find any systematic manifestation of the

cultural judaizing that you spoken of tonight outside the familiar war that persist in the middle east, that you can think, may think is because of anti-judaism? and my second question is, if you have some legacy, particular to your culture that you would like to be remembered for? >> i have to beg your forgiveness but the first part of the question i didn't catch. >> it sounds like your book as a lot about your cultural influence. you use examples in the literature, view of politics, and i'm wondering if it may

manifest itself as some concrete way that you can speak to. >> got it. no. that's a beautiful question. it's not a question i can really answer in the book come in the sense of the book is not about jewish culture at all. there's not a word about, well, in the footnotes someplace i civil, this is interesting that they used -- christians used canes but i do those kinds of things. but the book itself has nothing to do with real jews, nothing. much of it happens in regions where there are no jews at all. it has to do with how categories of thought, category jew, category muslim. and many of the categories.

the category real, category ideal, category materials, category spirit, the category letter, is used by process when nixon several. summit turned to me and outraged and said i'm a what an old testament reading of the law. a new and old testament reading. and right there you have an example of someone taking an idea about how jews relate to the world and making sense of a faculty meeting with it, right? that's the kind of work that this book is about. it has nothing to do with jewish contributions to anything, sports, nothing. is really not about real judaism. it's about how the world learned to think with and through and about judaism. and that all too often has nothing to do with real jews.

so thank you. [applause] >> alt-a, thanks everybody. was a little surprised to see the 4:00-445 time the group was the most interest at rapt audience i think we've had all day. it's a testament to your own interest in subject or to david's expertise but either way it was very interesting conversation. >> [inaudible] [applause] >> thank you. we're going to go ahead and have david cipher you guys up here in the front. if you could form a single file line behind this gentleman. we're trying to keep this thing moving, so please if you guys have a question just limited to one question and let's make use of davidson efficiently here. i know you guys could talk to him all the. thanks every u also coming. have a great afternoon. the lit fest appreciate you.

[inaudible conversations] >> i don't understand where that comes from. >> i think that there is all kinds of realities about what happens in israel, that someone living in israel can take, have a certain opinion on a palestinian -- and i think those

are very important realities that we have to find ways of thinking about it. what is kerry's to me though from framework of this book is why it is that those realities, which from some measures would seem -- might seem local. assume such global meaning. and i don't think we can understand why they assume such global meaning without having some sense of the history of ideas i'm trying to describe it. of course, many people do. many people insist it has nothing to do with this, that it's all about the outrageous behavior of the state. now, lots of states behave outrageously. we kill, the u.s. kills more people in drone attacks in afghanistan and pakistan every

year than have been killed in any war since 1973 by the israelis, probably in total. and yet i don't see any of my colleagues saying i'm going to embargo, i will refuse to come to speak at an american university even though from the point of view of war crimes and the point of view of colonialism, we come if take those discourses, i'm guessing you should, if those discourses, you see yourself motivated by, this is the first place, or china, or russia. so why is it that particularity can become, can assume such a universal meaning as, in fact as the particular, right? think of contemporary french philosophers who claim that israel is the residue of the particular that must be overcome in a universal revolution. that's the kind of thinking i'm trying to point to.

>> do you see -- >> that concludes booktv's live coverage of the "chicago tribune" printer's row lit fest. >> is a look at some books that are being published this week.

>> want for the authors and a new future on booktv and a booktv.org. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. >> i'm the editor of "national review." i've a lot of books i want to read this summer but as a political journalist i'm looking had, looking at candidates on the republican side.

other people and look at his chris christie so i picked up his new book called chris christie, the inside story of his rise to power. it's a fun read so far and it takes you back into chris christie's political scene in new jersey before became u.s. attorney, he was a morris county freeholder involved in a lot of county politics. and so it takes us behind the store, behind a politician we seemed on the magazine covers with president obama in new jersey and asked his chris christie and is told by people who really no new jersey politics. is a fun read so far. i would recommend because chris christie i think is a likely liy contender and jakart she got iny came from and what his politics mean ahead of the election. second book on my list is but a colleague, kevin williamson wrote a new book called the end is near and it's going to be awesome. one reason i think this book is a lot of fun is because the

fiscal cliff earlier in 2013 was a big story recover in "national review" but later this year you're going to the debt limit be the story that consumes congress. he looks at the debt from a political perspective, a historical perspective, talk to the consequences of the debt, how it is taking up a lot of congresses time. how it could potentially ruin the country, make because you go broke. he does it with some wit, with some pundits i think the end is near is a great book by kevin williamson. third on my list is this town by mark leibovitz. as a journalist resource gaza, always talk about what's really happening behind the scenes. how stories get written, the power struggles but not only within politics but within to me. so mark you as the heir of the beltway crowd is coming out with a book in july, this town, it's all about that, the inside seen, in the georgetown salons, the famous georgetown salons. that book gives us a story and a

color of the washington and the political and media establishment is all about. and for fun, the book i'm looking forward to reading is called nikki and willie. the parallel lives of baseball's golden age. i was just out in spring training in arizona watching my cleveland indians, chicago cubs play baseball and a ran into willie mays was getting out there in age but this book is great because it looks at two men, mickey mantle and willie mays who came of age at the same time, became serve at the same time and actually formed a lifelong friendship, something i never knew. so that's a great book. i think would be a big book for baseball fans this summer. so that's my list and looking forward to reading them all. >> let us know what you read this summer. tweet us at a booktv. posted on her facebook page or send us an e-mail at the booktv@c-span.org. >> you've been watching booktv, 48 hours about programming beginning saturday morning at eight eastern through monday morning at eight eastern. ..

>> host: i want to start with a couple issues just breaking this week. i want to start with the front page of "the wall street journal." ruling blocks iphone sales, the u.s. international trade commission thisee