In this paper I argue that, to conceive transcendence, Levinas retrieves the Platonic concept of “separation” and deploys it in three ways: metaphysically, semantically, and affectively. Levinas finds in the interaction between being and the Good beyond being of Republic VI 509b a certain “formal structure of transcendence”—one in which a term is conditioned by another while remaining absolutely separated from it. This formal structure is subsequently deployed metaphysically, in the relation between creator and creature; semantically, in the (...) relation between meaning and sense; and affectively, in the relation between the desiring self and its desired aim. (shrink)

PDF with introduction and front and back materials. Abstract: A provocative examination of the consequences of Levinas’s and Adorno’s thought for contemporary ethics and political philosophy. This book unfolds a dialogue between Emmanuel Levinas and Theodor W. Adorno, using their thought to address contemporary environmental and social-political situations. Eric S. Nelson explores the “non-identity thinking” of Adorno and the “ethics of the Other” of Levinas with regard to three areas of concern: the ethical position of nature and (...) “inhuman” material others such as environments and animals; the bonds and tensions between ethics and religion and the formation of the self through the dynamic of violence and liberation expressed in religious discourses; and the problematic uses and limitations of liberal and republican discourses of equality, liberty, tolerance, and their presupposition of the private individual self and autonomous subject. Thinking with and beyond Levinas and Adorno, this work examines the possibility of an anarchic hospitality and solidarity between material others and sensuous embodied life. -/- “This is an extremely impressive, original, and thorough treatment of two key twentieth-century thinkers and their applicability to the most pressing social and political issues of our time.” — Jeffrey A. Bernstein, author of Leo Strauss on the Borders of Judaism, Philosophy, and History -/- “This book is an excellent and timely contribution to political and environmental philosophy, located around a nuanced historical and philosophical approach to Levinas and Adorno. It will be of great interest to anyone concerned with these figures or with the current moment.” — Martin Shuster, author of Autonomy after Auschwitz: Adorno, German Idealism, and Modernity. (shrink)

Does art have ethical possibilities? Can literature disclose our responsibilityfor other people? This short text aims to unfold some nuances of responsible and irresponsible art as they appear in Emmanuel Levinas's sparse remarks on aesthetics. We examine some common ways of conceiving Levinas's thoughts in literary studies, followed by a closer discussion of his ideas on the possibilities of art in "Reality and Its Shadow" and his late interviews on Vasily Grossman and Sacha Sosno.

This chapter explores Emmanuel Levinas’s and Lisa Guenther’s correlated accounts of the interruptive encounter with the other. According to both Levinas and Guenther, the other overflows the individual’s consciousness, challenges the latter to question the conditions of their own spontaneity, and ultimately reveals that consciousness alone is not sufficient to produce an intelligible experience of the world. Drawing on these thinkers, I suggest that the other not only contests one’s spontaneity but also provides one with any sense of (...) spontaneity in the first place. This implies that, in order for Descartes to perform his solitary meditations, he first had to withdraw from the intricate web of social relations in which he was always-already embedded. While the radically deceived cogito remains a mere thought experiment for him, Guenther shows how this living nightmare becomes a reality for many prisoners in solitary confinement. Deprived of meaningful human interaction for prolonged periods of time, many of these prisoners experience an unraveling of their very sense of self. My task in this chapter is fourfold. First, I explore the implications of Levinas’s claim that an ethical encounter with the face of the other calls the former’s spontaneity into question and ultimately teaches them the idea of infinity. Second, I show how the deeply unsettling human experiment of solitary confinement is unique and illuminating in that it forces prisoners into the otherwise-fictive “ideal” role of the solipsistic individual. Third, I argue that Guenther’s claims about the significance of caregiving can help heal both prisoners and non-prisoners by encouraging us to pass the gift of birth on to others, even total strangers, by extending our generosity to them. Fourth, and finally, I explore how other activists have argued against solitary confinement and prisons altogether, specifically because of their dehumanizing effects. As I attempt to show, Levinas’s emphasis on gentleness and Guenther’s account of generosity accord with the broader aim of pursuing of peace, nonviolence, and justice in the face of power in crisis. -/- . (shrink)

The ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas is typically associated with a punishing conception of responsibility rather than freedom. In this chapter, our aim is to explore Levinas’s often overlooked theory of freedom. Specifically, we compare Levinas’s account of freedom to the Kantian (and Fichtean) idea of freedom as autonomy and the Hegelian idea of freedom as relational. Based on these comparisons, we suggest that Levinas offers a distinctive conception of freedom—“finite freedom.” In contrast to Kantian autonomy, (...) finite freedom constitutively involves standing in certain social relations with others. And in contrast to Hegelian relational freedom, the social relations involved in finite freedom are not defined by mutual recognition, but by feelings of separation and even antagonism. Along the way, we promote a reading Levinas’s Totality and Infinity as a Hegel-style story of Bildung (development), and show how, on Levinas’s view, freedom can develop or mature in the life of the individual. (shrink)

An examination of Emmanuel Levinas’ writings on money reveals his distance from—and indebtedness to—a philosophical predecessor, Georg Simmel. Levinas and Simmel share a phenomenological approach to analyses of the proximity of the stranger, the importance of the face, and the interruption of the dyadic relationship by the third. Money is closely linked to the conception of totality because money is the medium that compares heterogeneous values. Levinas goes beyond Simmel in positing an ethical relation to money permitting (...) transcendence. (shrink)

Genealogies in philosophy can be tricky and even a little dangerous. Lines of influence and inheritance run much more linearly on paper than in reality. I am often reminded of Robert Frost's "Mending Walls" and the attention that must be paid to what is being walled in and what is being walled out. In other words, William James and Emmanuel Levinas are not natural conversation partners. I have always read James as a fellow traveler of Edmund Husserl, and placed (...) both in a line of thought that might share Franz Brentano and Wilhelm Dilthey as forebears. In this genealogy, Levinas appears with an asterisk, or after one. Maurice Natanson described Husserlian phenomenology as an elderly grandparent who comes down to dinner just a little bit too early, making everyone uncomfortable. Seating Levinas next to James brings to mind some similar scene. What basic premises or positions do James and Levinas share? Is Levinas a Jamesian pragmatist? Is he a radical empiricist? Does James offer an ethics that parallels or even complements Levinas's rigorous ethical phenomenology? (shrink)

Premières pages et table des matières du Que sais-je ? sur Emmanuel Levinas.

This essay contrasts two ethical architectures: (i) Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics of alterity, where ethics is “first philosophy” and responsibility toward the Other manifests itself in the face-to-face encounter as a prior and asymmetric demand; and (ii) the Philosophy of Belonging (PB), whose ontological thesis — to be is to belong — shifts the source of normativity from an essentialist ethical a priori toward the concrete construction of habitable, open, and non-arbitrary forms of belonging, sustained by healthy limits, institutions, and (...) material arrangements. The key difference expanded here is that Levinas, although anti-rationalist and relational in his phenomenology, preserves an essentialism: responsibility would be constitutive of the human prior to relation; PB rejects this a priori due to lack of scientific grounding and due to historical and empirical evidence of moral variability, and instead introduces an operational program: diagnosis of failures of belonging (pathologies), distinction between individual–group–institutions, a criterion of non-arbitrariness, and a praxis of peace based on economic-political integration and institutional design, within a non-ergodic universe. This article has been written with the assistance of ChatGPT. (shrink)

Our era is profoundly marked by the phenomenon of exile and it has become increasingly urgent to rethink the concept and our stance towards it. Permeated with references to the stranger, the other and exteriority, the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas signifies towards a positive understanding of exile. This original and compelling book distills from Levinas' philosophy a wisdom of exile, for the first time shedding a positive light on the condition itself.

In Otherwise than Being, Levinas writes that the alterity of the Other escapes “le flair animal,” or the animal’s sense of smell. This paper puts pressure on the strong human-animal distinction that Levinas makes by considering the possibility that, while non-human animals may not respond to the alterity of the Other in the way that Levinas describes as responsibility, animal sensibility plays a key role in a relation to Others that Levinas does not discuss at length: (...) friendship. This approach to friendship addresses a gap in Levinas’ work between the absolute Other for whom I am responsible and the “brother” who is my political equal. (shrink)

This chapter proposes that encountering the Other through the face can be conditioned by social and built technologies. In “The Name of a Dog, or Natural Rights,” Emmanuel Levinas relates his experience as a prisoner of war, held in a forced-labor camp in Nazi Germany. He contrasts being denied his humanity by other humans, “called free” (DF, 152), while being recognized as human—indeed as a friend—by a dog the prisoners named Bobby. The episode suggests that though the concept of (...) the face applies to humans, the face is not enough for facing, at least not in the setting of the camp. By contrast, the prisoners seem able to face and be faced by Bobby, even if Levinas remains inconclusive about whether the face applies to animals elsewhere. It follows that the face is operating less like a property, and more like a capacity, a mode as Levinas calls it. But what conditions encountering an Other in this mode? If the face is neither sufficient for facing, nor prior to it, then what conditions facing (or effacing)? I propose that social structures, techniques, architectures, professional roles, and so on matter in coming to face (or efface) the Other. I conclude this from analyzing human-animal encounters in a scientific space of exception: the animal lab. Building on empirical accounts of animal research, I propose that animal research is populated by what I call “technologies of effacement.” These include: (1) built architectures; (2) entering and exit procedures; (3) protective garments and equipment; (4) identification and labeling techniques; and (5) experimental protocols. These technologies serve other manifest ends, but they operate to condition encounters between humans and animals in the lab: they help block the face of humans and animals. (shrink)

Marion has criticized Levinas for failing to account for the individuation of the Other, thus leaving the face of the Other abstract, neutral and anonymous. I defend Levinas against this critique by distinguishing between the individuation of the subject through hypostasis and the singularization of self and Other through ethical response. An analysis of the instant in Levinas’s early and late work shows that it is possible to speak of a “nameless singularity” which does not collapse into (...) neutrality or abstraction, but rather explains the sense in which anyone is responsible for any Other who happens to come along. (shrink)

El presente estudio procura establecer una serie de considerandos a propósito de las concomitancias y desavenencias entre el pensamiento de Plotino de Licópolis y Levinas de Kaunas, el desafío deviene a partir de la aparente relación entre el Uno plotiniano y el Infinito levinasiano, a su vez se considera la posibilidad de acceso del ser humano, entidad particular, al punto originador, llámese este Uno o Infinito. Summary: This study aims to establish a series of ideas about the similarities and (...) disagreements between the thought of Plotinus of Lycopolis and Levinas of Kaunas, the challenge becomes apparent from the relationship between the " One " Plotinian and " Infinity " Levinas, in turn, considers the accessibility of human beings, particular entity, the originator point, call it: One or Infinite. El presente estudio se circunscribe dentro del área de la metafísica. Si bien se ha realizado algunas investigaciones al respecto, por ejemplo en Schroeder y Benso (2008), esta pesquisa resulta innovadora en el ámbito castellano. Huelga indicar que el texto mencionado se convierte en un importante pilar para el desarrollo del texto en cuestión. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper we will propose a new Portuguese translation of “Thinking about death on the basis of time [Penser la mort à partir du temps], a conference made by Emmanuel Levinas; in the second part we will discuss temporality and duration (with special reference to Bergson) as important concepts to understand the underlying ideas of the 1976 conference. Na primeira parte deste trabalho proporemos uma nova tradução de “Pensar a morte a partir do tempo (...) [Penser la mort à partir du temps]”, uma conferência proferida por Emmanuel Levinas; na segunda parte discutiremos a temporalidade e a duração (especialmente referindo Bergson) como conceitos importantes para compreender as ideias que subjazem à conferência de 1976. (shrink)

In the philosophical works of Emmanuel Levinasʼs early career, it is in a phenomenology of Eros that he claims to have uncovered the site of what he calls ʻtranscendenceʼ. This is no small claim. According to the argument of the later Totality and Infinity (1961), the history of Western philosophy is to be thought as the history of the ʻphilosophy of the sameʼ. Within this polemical generalization almost the whole of Western philosophy is characterized as a totalizing discourse which aims (...) to reduce everything to the categories of a thematizing consciousness. Conceptual structures are employed (or presupposed) in order to make diverse phenomena commensurable within a system, and according to Levinas this operation always constitutes a reduction of what is ʻotherʼ to the order of the ʻsameʼ. In agreement with a certain transcendentalism which is itself implicated in Levinasʼs critique, these structures of thought are then equated with consciousness itself; the thematizing project is one of mastery in which noemata will of necessity conform to noesis, in which the object is constituted for and by the subject. The experience of transcendence, so rare in this version of philosophyʼs history, is the experience of whatever is and truly remains other than me, recalcitrant to mastery through conceptualization and to the transcendental project of the subject to construe everything as originating from within itself. If, then, it is first of all in the erotic relation that the possibility of the experience of transcendence is said to arise, Eros can in no sense be dismissed as an unimportant or peripheral theme for Levinas, and a full investigation is warranted, especially given the current interest in Levinasʼs work, interest which is not limited to the discipline of philosophy. Furthermore, as the notion of Eros is closely associated, textually and conceptually, with what Levinas calls ʻthe feminineʼ, critical attention has been excited amongst feminist scholars of various persuasions, with claims – both positive and negative – being made for Levinasʼs significance as a resource for feminist philosophy and feminist politics. If assertions of a ʻLevinasianʼ feminism, no matter how qualified, tend to rest on the idea that Levinasʼs phenomenology of Eros, and analyses of ʻthe feminineʼ mark a break in or a new departure from a ʻmasculinistʼ tradition, this article seeks, in part, to argue to the contrary. (shrink)

Emmanuel Levinas’ thought seems to be strictly neither rational, phenomenological nor ontological, and it thus intentionally exposes itself to the asking of the question ‘why call it philosophy at all’? While we may have trouble containing Levinas’ thought within our traditional philosophical boundaries, I argue that this gives us no reason to exclude him from philosophy proper as a mere poser, but rather provides the occasion for reflection on just what it means, in an ethical manner, to call (...) something ‘philosophical’. Instead of asking whether or not philosophy can ‘contain’ Levinas’ thought, I contend that it would be more ethical to instead re-phrase the question in terms of ‘sociality’. When we do this, I argue, we can indeed justifiably call Levinas’ thought philosophy. (shrink)

Emmanuel Levinas is one of the most elaborately discussed moral philosophers of recent decades, and his philosophy has many adherents. I believe, however, that the scholarly literature on his work...

In this paper, I will present what I take to be a standard view of morality, and I argue that this view amounts to a paradox: the moral event or moral concern, the source of morality, ultimately leads, through moral theory, to a denial of itself. I will show how Badiou and Levinas take a way out of this and in doing so deny the possibility of anticipating the moral. Furthermore, I claim that this anticipatory moment can be introduced (...) back by means of the concept of “practical wisdom” as used in analytical virtue ethics. Finally, I argue that the Kantian notion of the sublime is structurally the same as the moral event in Badiou and Levinas, and that our view of the sublime can benefit from both Levinas’ view and the concept of “practical wisdom” as well. (shrink)

Adorno and Levinas argue from distinct yet intersecting perspectives that there are pathological forms of freedom, formed by systems of power and economic exchange, which legitimate the neglect, exploitation and domination of others. In this paper, I examine how the works of Adorno and Levinas assist in diagnosing the aporias of liberty in contemporary capitalist societies by providing critical models and strategies for confronting present discourses and systems of freedom that perpetuate unfreedom such as those ideologically expressed in (...) possessive individualist and libertarian conceptions of freedom. (shrink)

After a brief introduction and orientation (section I), this dialogue between Levinasian and Beckerian thought is approached along the lines of two major themes concerning consciousness which emerge in very different contexts and registers in their work (sections II and III), and one tantalizing question that is raised with great force by the dialogue (section IV). The two themes revolve around the subtle dialectical interplay that runs throughout the thought of both Levinas and Becker – the switching between internality (...) and externality, non-rational and rational; otherness and sameness; life and death – an interplay that is summed up in the dialectic between non-reflexive and reflexive consciousness. The Beckerian and Levinasian notions of the non-reflexive consciousness (section II) relate to their respective and in many ways convergent claims about a non-rational primal human state characterized by global vulnerability, awe and guilt, especially before the face of the other. Their analyses of reflexive consciousness (section III) relate to their interpretations of the problematic ideal of the free, self-constituting and self-mastering individual, and the impetus located therein towards the repression of what is Other to the self. Finally (section IV), the question is raised as to whether (and to what extent), following Levinas, sources of compelling ethical value might be legitimately understood as emerging out of Becker’s conception of primordial human vulnerability. (shrink)

El artículo aborda la relación entre Nietzsche y Levinas, en particular se enfrenta a la concepción de cuerpo y narración sostenida por cada autor. En ese sentido se afirma que la aparente distancia que existe entre ambos pensadores puede reducirse a partir de las temáticas que se estudian en este trabajo. A la luz de todo ello, la lectura del cuerpo de Nietzsche y la comprensión de narración de Levinas no habrían sido solo reflexiones filosóficas, sino más bien (...) el pretexto para que ambos pensadores critiquen el pensamiento establecido y propongan, cada uno a su modo, un quehacer filosófico que afecta directamente la existencia humana en cuanto reflexión sobre las formas como se comprende la vida misma. (shrink)

Emmanuel Levinas objects to traditional theodicy. But his objection to theodicy is so untraditional that God’s existence is incidental to it. The primary problem with theodicy, he argues, is not evidential but ethical. The primary problem with theodicy is not that its claims are false, but that its claims are offensive. In laying out Levinas's unusual view, I first sketch out the specifically ethical nature of theodicy’s offense: failing to acknowledge suffering. Next I discuss Levinas unusual account (...) of this suffering, which theodicy fails to acknowledge. I then show how Levinas’ accusation against traditional theodicy does not hinge upon positive claims for the existence of God. I show how Levinas’ ethical objection to theodicy serves equally well as an objection to the negative existence claims of atheism. For atheism, too, has an overlooked “atheodicy” which fails to acknowledge suffering, and so may similarly offend. -/- I then shift from the theoretical to the practical. I treat the insights gained regarding theodicy and its offenses not as ideas considered but as a strategy lived. I offer a profile of the biblical figure of Esau, whose remarkable reaction to God’s malicious absence involved no consolation, sense of grievance, or resentment of his brother Jacob, God’s beloved. I conclude that the brothers’ eventual rapprochement demonstrates a deep spiritual affinity between atheist and theist. Both live out their lives under "a gospel not to be preached". And the end of such preaching suggests a way forward in our own God-centered disputes. (shrink)

This study presents a reconsideration of Levinas’s concept of the feminine. This reconsideration facilitated by a philosophically informed analysis of Levinas’s Talmudic readings on that subject. The innovation of this research is based on the methodology which combined the two corpuses of Levinas’ writings as important parts of his thought. Two main phenomena are derived from Levinas’ Talmudic readings and arouse main principles of his ethics. In the hearth of the discussion on Eros stated the differentiation (...) of feminine and masculine in Levinas’ thought, and its implication of gender and Ethics of otherness. In the center of Levinas’ terminology of maternity stated his phenomenology of pregnancy, and its ethical implication on responsibility to the other. The extreme responsibility committed to the subject since there is a immanent conflict between parents and their child. The characters of Leivnas’ discussion which described here are obligating the reconsideration of the philosophical question: are Levinas’ concepts of the feminine exclusive to the women? The subjects of Levinas’s exploration of the feminine, in this view, emerge from his Talmudic readings, but his phenomenological analysis of those very subjects goes beyond what can be found in those readings. Analyzing the meaning of the difference between the sexes—the topic of one of the Talmudic readings—leads Levinas to a wider phenomenological treatment of the status of woman that does not bypass the feminine voice. Delving into the Talmudic concept of rodef (persecutor) as applied to the relationship of fetus and mother leads Levinas to a phenomenological analysis of the concept of maternity and readiness to accept responsibility (even suffering) for the Other. Those two discussions lead us to a rereading of Levinas’s essay “Phenomenology of Eros” and enable us to rebut the charge that in that essay Levinas presents only a masculine voice. Levinas’s concept of “responsibility” will be seen to resemble the feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan’s concept of “care.” We must then reconsider whether Levinas’s concept of the feminine is exclusively the domain of women. (shrink)

Levinas never engaged closely with Fichte’s work, but there are two places in the chapter “Substitution,” in Otherwise than Being (1974), where he mentions Fichte by name. The point that Levinas underscores in both of these passages is that the other’s encounter with the subject is not the outcome of the subject’s freedom; it is not posited by the subject, as Fichte has it, but is prior to any free activity. The aim of this paper is to deepen (...) the comparison between Levinas and Fichte, giving special attention to Fichte's own novel theory of intersubjectivity and the summons. One result that emerges from this treatment is that both Levinas and Fichte view the second person in a way that has no equivalent in the current philosophical landscape. On this reading, each thinker views responsibility to the other, not only as an immediate and particular obligation, but also as an asymmetrical relation that gives the other moral priority. (shrink)

The universe is full of beings. Throughout the history of philosophy and of human thought many have sought ways to articulate this multiplicity and unity of being. The result, in western philosophy at least, was the birth of Metaphysics in general, and Ontology in particular. In the past, the discourse on being became very abstract such that it had no resemblance to being as encountered every day. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), set out to re-orient being towards the lived experience. He called (...) his being Da-sein, which literally means “being there”. Heidegger emphasized that being as expressed in Da-sein lacked authenticity and was plagued with anxiety. To correct the defective Da-sein, Heidegger proposed taking Da-sein back to its origin. Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995), too set out to bridge the gap between the being of ontology and the being of the lived experience. Levinas went further than Heidegger by en-fleshing Da-sein. In the end Levinas developed a philosophy of the Face. The Face for him was where beings met. To be in the world then was to be a Face in interaction. This interaction is sufficient-reason for the self-expression of the Face on both sides of the encounter. With this encounter, the Face has a choice, either to withdraw or to stand ground and throw itself out there. In this, paper I will interpretatively juxtapose Heidegger’s Da-sein and Levinas’ Face. I will affirm the work of these two philosophers and draw my own inferences from their conclusions. The specific inferences that I will draw are: (a) To be is to be in contradiction. (b) There is a cosmic sympathy among beings. (c) Everyday being is infinite and Transcendent. I am aware that there was an active dialogue between Heidegger and Levinas, with the latter taking exception to the political implications of the former’s philosophy. In this paper, I will stick to elements of their thoughts from which I to draw specific conclusions. (shrink)

El artı́culo se propone leer los ensayos de Levinas: Algunas reflexiones sobre la filosofı́a del hitlerismo y De la evasión como dos capı́tulos de un mismo discurso en el cual el autor muestra cual pueden ser los peligros y los riesgos de un pensamiento ontológico cuidadoso del Ser. Levinas estudia el hitlerismo como una filosofı́a de aceptación radical del estatus quo del existente desde la cual se puede salir solamente evadiendo, asumiendo, es decir, la condición de revuelta hacia (...) el Ser como una modalidad anti ontológica de nuestro estar en el mundo. La evasión es pensada como una categorı́a capaz de salir de la condición de ser-encadenado a su propio ser de la ontologı́a nazi y del mal que eso comporta. Según Levinas, entonces, la ontologı́a no es del todo inocente, ya que en unos puntos comparte la lógica del poder nazi. El intento es leer estos pequeños libros como un manifiesto aun hoy valido contra cualquier forma de poder que cultiva el sentido de la pertenencia a una comunidad ontológica, biológica y espiritual. Y una invitación a rebelarse. (shrink)

A prevalent interpretation of Heidegger today is what I will call for the sake of convenience, the Levinasian reading. According to this perspective, Heidegger's Being as Ontological Difference grapples with the contradiction between the subjectivism of representationality and the absolute other to representation. But the concept of Being as Ontological difference risks risks being mistaken for a Kantian unconditioned ground of possibility. Derrida argues that the Levinas reading mistakes the ontic for the ontological. Being is not a concept, the (...) ontological difference is not the difference between the subjective and the empirical, but difference WITHIN the subjective and the empirical. (shrink)

This article reinterprets Levinas’s account of ethical subjectivity by centering the temporality of the pas encore (“not yet”) and drawing on new materials in Œuvres complètes. I argue that, in Totality and Infinity, eros and ethics are internally continuous: eros generates a responsible not yet of time, secured by fecundity and oriented to the Third. Unpublished notebooks and drafts show Levinas grounding subjectivity in the hopeful openness of the present and discerning in erotic life a hidden orientation toward (...) the future—the not-yet that gives a yet-to-come, a surplus that becomes responsibility. On this basis, time appears not primarily as projection toward a distant horizon but as an ethical delay within the present, a not yet that resists closure. The dossier of Totality and Infinity clarifies the links among enjoyment, Desire, fecundity, and mortality, and explains why the phrase from Entre Nous—“the future of death in the present of love”—becomes legible only in light of this background. The result is a distinct account of erotic temporality: love’s time is a responsible not yet that opens the present for the Other and, through fecundity, widens into the time of the Third. (shrink)

La figura de Jean Héring (1890-1966) ha recibido un reconocimiento limitado en el ámbito general de la filosofía de la religión e, incluso, en el entorno más cercano a la fenomenología. Este estudio se propone rastrear el impacto del magisterio de este autor en la obra de Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995). Investigaremos una influencia poco explorada en los estudios especializados y que, sin embargo, resulta crucial para comprender el desarrollo del pensamiento del filósofo judío, en particular en lo que respecta (...) a su recepción inicial del método fenomenológico y en su evolución posterior hacia los desarrollos de una interpretación peculiar de la fenomenología que considera a la ética como filosofía primera. Pero este trabajo pondrá también de relieve la decisiva y temprana contribución del filósofo alsaciano al debate sobre la relación entre fenomenología y teología. Se pretende corregir así el injustificado silencio que la crítica ha venido dispensando a este autor y a su decisiva contribución en el camino de la fenomenología. The figure of Jean Héring (1890–1966) has received only limited recognition in the broader field of the philosophy of religion and even within the circle most closely linked to phenomenology. This study seeks to trace the impact of Héring’s teaching on the work of Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995). We will explore an influence that has been little examined in specialized research and which, nevertheless, proves crucial for understanding the development of the Jewish philosopher’s thought—particularly with regard to his initial reception of the phenomenological method and his subsequent evolution toward a distinctive interpretation of phenomenology that regards ethics as first philosophy. At the same time, this work will also highlight the decisive and early contribution of the Alsatian philosopher to the debate on the relationship between phenomenology and theology. In doing so, it seeks to correct the unjustified silence that scholarship has maintained concerning this author and his crucial role in the historical trajectory of phenomenology. (shrink)

El artículo presenta un estudio de la visión antropológica de Martin Buber (1878-1965) y Emmanuel Levinas(1906-1995), la postura de ambos procura un “volver al ser humano”, el primero desde la óptica del pensamiento dialógico y el segundo a partir del planteamiento de alteridad. Los autores describen un itinerario antropológico con una innegable influencia de la tradición judía, (hasidista y mesiánica),en contraposición a las posturas totalizantesde la filosofía moderna(Hegel, Heidegger), es por esta razón que se considera oportuno establecer un paralelismo (...) entre ambos para desvelar las desavenencias, pero enfocando las concomitancias en torno a la pregunta ¿Qué es el hombre?El artículo asume como objetivo reconocer las “cercanías” y “lejanías” entre los autores, a partir de nociones clave como: “Yo-Tú” buberiano y “Visage” levinasiano, la búsqueda del sentido de lo humano desde la intersubjetividad y reciprocidad frente a la extrañeza y radical alteridad. El artículo concluye exponiendo un pensamiento que responde a la vida, donde la ética se manifiesta como filosofía primera. (shrink)

Kierkegaard and Levinas are both philosophers of singularity. The latter, in Difficult Freedom and Proper Names, strongly criticizes the former, accusing him of subjectivism, violence and underestimation of ethics. However, the distance separating the two is very short, especially if one reads carefully Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript. In this article it is argued that both thinkers refuse impersonal totality, conceive Infinity as irreducible, ethics as directed towards the other person and suffering as necessary during lifetime. Above all, both Kierkegaard (...) and Levinas think of subjectivity as originally addressed beyond itself, towards Infinity. (shrink)

Murdoch and Levinas both believe that our humanity requires us to suppress our natural egoism and to be morally responsive to others. Murdoch insists that while such a morality presupposes a ’transcendent background’, God should be kept out of the picture altogether. By contrast, Levinas argues that, in responding morally to others, we make contact with God (though not the God of traditional Christianity) and that in doing so we become more God-like. I attempt to clarify their agreements (...) and differences, and I offer some criticisms of their conception of humanity, God, and the relationship between them. (shrink)

Este trabajo analiza la crítica de Levinas a la tradición filosófica occidental en relación con la noción de Dios. Dicha tradición ha tendido a comprender la divinidad en términos ontológicos, reduciendo su trascendencia al ámbito del ser. Frente a ello, Levinas propone una reinterpretación en clave ética, donde Dios no se presenta como objeto de conocimiento, sino como exigencia que se manifiesta en la relación con el otro. A través del análisis de conceptos como el infinito, el deseo, (...) la conciencia o el lenguaje, se muestra cómo la trascendencia desborda el pensamiento y se expresa en la responsabilidad hacia el prójimo. (shrink)

This essay brings Emmanuel Levinas and Watsuji Tetsurō into constructive philosophical engagement. Rather than focusing primarily on interpretation — admittedly an important dimension of comparative philosophical inquiry — my intention is to put their respective views to work, in tandem, and address the problem of the embodied social self.1 Both Watsuji and Levinas share important commonalities with respect to the embodied nature of intersubjectivity —commonalities that, moreover, put both thinkers in step with some of the concerns driving current (...) treatments of social cognition in philosophy and cognitive science. They can make a fruitful contribution to this discussion by lending a phenomenologically informed critical perspective. Each in their own way challenges the internalist and cognitivist presuppositions informing the currently dominant “Theory of Mind” paradigm driving much social cognition research. Moreover, their respective views receive empirical support from a number of different sources. (shrink)

It is generally recognized that Adorno and Levinas should both be read as urging a rethinking of ethics in light of Auschwitz. This demand should be understood in terms of the acknowledgement of transcendence. A phenomenological account of the event of Auschwitz developed by Todes motivates my use of Cavell’s distinction between acknowledgement and knowledge. Both Levinas and Adorno argue that an ethically adequate acknowledgement of transcendence requires that the traditional concept of transcendence as represented in theodicy must (...) be rejected. This rejection takes the form of a rejection of theodicy (Levinas) and a negative theodicy (Adorno). I argue that Adorno’s response is superior because it is a response to the specificity and particularity of the event of Auschwitz as the destruction of, rather than merely the denial of, the humanity of both perpetrators and victims. (shrink)

In this work, I have compared the views of Hans Georg Gadamer and Emmanuel Levinas on various concepts of culture and understanding of the ‘man’ within the framework of Western civilization with the help of three of their essays. In two lectures of Gadamer—‘Culture and Peace’, delivered at Salzburg in 1980, and ‘Man and His Hand in Modern Civilization’, delivered in Munich in 1978—and several essays by Emmanuel Levinas such as ‘The Philosophical Determination of the Idea of Culture’ (...) (1983). If both authors are critical of the rational based on the technique and calculation of the concept of culture inherited from the Enlightenment, and further, if this concept is embodied in the bourgeois and later in industrial societies, as retraced in the first chapter, the authors differently see the way out of the dehumanizing crisis of the modern era. (shrink)

This is a comprehensive critique of the Heidegger problem and while putting forward a critique of Heidegger; it establishes the sanctity of Levinas. In the process of doing so; the reviewer touches on the problems of not considering Edith Stein in a book of this sort. When I got my tenure in India, one wisecrack on the board of interviewers asked me how Kit Marole influenced Shakespeare. I knew that he was just quoting Wayne C Booth's stuff on Macbeth. (...) John E Drabinski and Eric S Nelson are not those wisecrack sorts. They are serious scholars and this review gives them their due. They have shown the Janus nature of the Nazi, Heidegger who was instrumental in gassing Edith Stein, who needs to be known more throughout the academy, which COVID 19 has successfully destroyed. And we need Levinas and Stein to rebuild a world which will be mediated soon by drones and inane webinars and contactless nonsense. This reviewer suggests that we read this book with great care. And not participate in meaningless online events. (shrink)

In one of the sections of Of God Who Comes to Mind, Levinas expressly mentions the need to go “beyond intentionality” as far as the description of the ethical rapport goes. Such language on the part of Levinas has compelled certain commentators to maintain that Levinas “has gone beyond the notion of intentionality.” This abandonment of phenomenological description brings to the fore, however, a number of problems. Indeed, if the other does not allow herself to be reduced (...) to a phenomenological description, how then are we to account for that other? This essay will attempt to respond to these questions and show that, while Levinas does rework phenomenological conceptuality, he does not abandon phenomenological discourse in his descriptions of the ethical encounter. Our demonstration will focus more precisely on the concept of intentionality which, we shall show, is never abandoned by Levinas. Rather, it is reworked by Levinas in order to account for the other in a way that respects her alterity, thereby allowing for an ethical Sinngebung to take place. (shrink)

The article seeks to reclaim a type of fear lost in silent omission in education, yet central to the development of an ethical subject. It distinguishes the fear described by Martin Heidegger through the concept of befindlichkeit and fear for the other as an essential moment for ethics articulated by Emmanuel Levinas. It argues that the latter conception of fear has inverted the traditional assumption of the ideal ethical subject as fearless. It then examines how Levinas’s interpretation of (...) fear might contribute to the discussion on fear and responsibility in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It concludes that fear for the other reveals our tremendous capacity to suffer for the other, which is an aspect of the emotional life that has not been identified in the general educational discourse. This inattention manifests itself as a categorical omission in which the existence of fear for the other is not recognized and impedes the ability of educators to address ethics as it is deeply lived. (shrink)

This paper offers an analysis of Peirce’s phenomenology in relation to classical metaphysical and religious traditions as well as contemporary philosophical perspectives, such as Kant, Heidegger, and Levinas. By engaging Gnostic, Christian, and Platonic accounts of the divine and of evil, the study situates Peirce’s categories within a broader metaphysical conversation. Particular attention is given to the phenomena of pain and pleasure, understood as elemental structures of Firstness that, when developed within lived existence, disclose a vision of the human (...) condition that bears striking affinities to Gnostic interpretations. Through this reading, Peirce emerges as a thinker whose phenomenology, though pragmatist in orientation, opens onto an almost Gnostic apprehension of human suffering, finitude, and the possibility of transcendence. (shrink)

This paper studies Bergson’s notions of utility and affect in light of their relationship to the process of self-constitution as it is developed in Time and Free Will and Matter and Memory as well as how these ideas were taken up in the thought of Levinas and Whitehead. I begin by mentioning three basic critiques of Bergson’s work focusing on the charge that his philosophy is problematically impersonal. In the first part of the paper, I explore how the notion (...) of affect may counter such a charge. Affect, although sparsely treated, plays a fundamental, determining role in Bergson’s notion of self-constitution. I then show how this view might be at odds with Bergson’s determination of nature as utilitarian. In light of this conflict, the paper speaks of two Bergsons, one overly utilitarian and the other with a vague but important focus on affect. Part two then outlines the basic metaphysics of Whitehead and Levinas in order to show that their critiques of utilitarian and vital philosophies share the same focus on affect that was already present in Bergson’s philosophy. Noting this similarity, the paper concludes by arguing that, in the moments when they seem most critical of Bergson, it is possible to read Whitehead and Levinas as being, in fact, distinctly Bergsonian. (shrink)

Adorno und Levinas haben in ihren im Abstand von wenigen Jahren erschienenen Hauptwerken "Negative Dialektik" (1966) und "Totalität und Unendlichkeit" (1961) vom Anspruch epistemischer Beherrschung der neuzeitlichen Erstphilosophie Abstand genommen. Anders als für die Denker der Postmoderne wird ihre Kritik jedoch nicht als ein Abbau der Vernunft in Richtung rationaler Beliebigkeit inszeniert. Beide beanspruchen die neuzeitliche Erstphilosophie so zu überwinden, dass ein vorbegrifflicher bzw. vorthematischer Fremdsinn als konstitutiv für die intentionale Leistung von Eigen-Sinn gedacht wird.

At the heart of Levinas’s work is the apparently simple idea that through the encounter with another person, we are forced to give up our self-concern and take heed of the ethical relation between us. But, while simple on the surface, when one tries to characterize it in more detail, it can be hard to fit together the various ways in which Levinas talks about this relation and to identify precisely what he took its normative structure to be, (...) as this is described in a number of apparently different ways, that are not obviously compatible or equivalent, such as “command,” “call,” “summons,” “demand,” and so on. In this chapter, we intend to focus on these different characterizations and show what makes them different while also endeavoring to find a way in which Levinas’s conception may nonetheless be fitted together into a coherent account of the face-to-face encounter that is at the heart of his ethics. We will begin by considering the different normative terms used to characterize the encounter in that text and show how they are conceptually distinct from one another; we will then offer a way to read Levinas’s position to nonetheless show how these different normative relations can be fitted together into a stable position. (shrink)