Emmanuel Levinas

If for Caputo the universality of desire as self-appropriation and the singularity of the gift as desire-beyond-desire depend on and interweave with each other, they nevertheless do so as the communication between discrete and separable moments, that of the `sensible, rational circle of time' and the `exceeding and surpassing of ourselves'. The subject for Caputo seems to function as the temporary self-identity of construct. It is the "desire for restitution, fulfillment, reappropriation, well being". This agent-subject "always intends to act for (...) its own good". He says without this willing well-being "the subject/agent would never do a thing, nothing would happen or eventuate". Caputo's equating of the subject with a moment of re-appropriation ( he says `making an exhibit of ourselves', but can we make an exhibit of ourselves without unintentionally exiting from ourselves?) exemplifies the attempt to retain a remnant of a structuralist center as only the instant of contingency itself. In so doing, Caputo reifies what Derrida puts into question. (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)

Au point de départ de l'entreprise philosophique de Lévinas, il y a cette ambition et ce projet, repris de Heidegger, de distinguer une différence qui s'affirmerait en tant que différence ontologique. Si les premières œuvres réalisent un tel programme, il demeure qu'elles témoignent aussi d'une insatisfaction et de la nécessité de dégager une intrigue différentielle orientée et déployée autrement: le domaine ontologique se montrerait, en toute manière, affecté d'une limitation, un affranchissement serait alors requis — mais la possibilité de thématiser (...) le dépassement qui s'impose semblerait cependant gravement compromise. Nous nous proposons ici d'analyser le principe de cette résistance à l'ontologie qui se signifie intimement et radicalement chez Lévinas dans le contexte des œuvres du début; il s'agit, plus précisément, d'établir la genèse d'une insuffisance déclarée, de fixer la logique de cette impuissance qui entrave et définit la pensée lévinassienne de l'être, logique où un certain usage du négatif intervient d'une façon, croyons-nous, déterminante. L'examen d'une détermination décisive, qui pèse initialement et qui ne cessera de peser sur la philosophie de Lévinas, permet de découvrir le lien structural profond qui rattache une économie de l'être entravée au principe salvateur que l'œuvre de la maturité aura la charge d'établir: le recours à la notion libératrice d'une transcendance révélée se pose chez Lévinas dans la stricte conséquence d'un emploi contrarié de la négation au sein du propos ontologique. (shrink)

Jean Mair, au début du XVIe siècle, entreprend de montrer que linfini existe en acte. Son traité De l'Infini prolonge les débats du XIVe siècle sur l'infini et le continu. Le problème de l' infini y est traité d'une manière principalement logique. L'infini est un terme qui a plusieurs sens selon son usage dans des propositions. La distinction centrale est celle de l'infini au sens catègorématique et de l'infini au sens synatégorématique. Mais si les auteurs du XIVe siècle admettent tous (...) l'infini au sens syncatêgorématique, la plupar récusent l'être en acte de l' infini au sens catègorématique. C'est à ce dernier point que Jean Mair consacre l'essentiel de sa réflexion. A l'intérieur d'un cadre qui reste aristotélicien par sa problématique d'ensemble et la formulation des questions, il renverse, grâce aux outils conceptuels de la logique terministe, une thèse centrale dans l'aristotélisme. Son traité contribue ainsi à développer l'idée que l'infini peut exister dans la nature. At the beginning of the 16th Century, Jean Mair set out to prove that the infinite exists Hot just potentially but actually. His treatise Propositum de infinito prolonged the 14th Century debates over the infinite and continuity, and it dealt logically with the problem of the infinite. The infinite is a term that has several meanings, depending upon its usage in propositions. The distinction between the categorematic and syncategorematic infinites is the central one in the treatise. If 14th Century authors by and large accepted the syncategorematic infinite, the majority challenged the existence of an actual infinite in the case of the categorematic infinite. Jean Mair devoted the bulk of his reflections to the latter situation. Within a framework that remained thoroughly Aristotelian, both in his overall problematic, as well as in the way he formulated questions, Mair overturned a central Aristotelian thesis, with the aid of conceptual tools from terminist logic. In this way his treatise contributed to the development of the idea that the infinite can exist in nature. (shrink)

Cet article se propose d'interroger la notion d'ipséité chez Lévinas et M. Henry, dans la mesure où ces pensées ont en commun de rechercher l'ipséité en deçà de l'intentionnalité, dans l'expérience du se sentir, que M. Henry nomme « affectivité ». Il s'agit de montrer dans un premier temps, en nous appuyant principalement sur De l'existence à l'existant, que la pensée de Lévinas, souvent comprise comme une pensée de la transcendance soi-disant opposée à l'immanence henrienne, comporte un moment d'immanence, plus (...) précisément, qu'elle découvre cette transcendance dans l'immanence du se sentir. Mais, tandis que M. Henry oppose l'affectivité à la sensibilité, Lévinas montre que l'auto-affection est en même temps une hétéro-affection. Ainsi, d'accord avec M. Henry pour affirmer qu'être soi c'est se sentir, Lévinas affirme dans le même temps qu'un tel se sentir est impossible! Mais ce qui vient ainsi menacer la certitude de soi-même n'est-il pas aussi un moyen d'échapper à une autre forme de perte de soi, qui viendrait de l'accablement du moi par la pesanteur ou la « matérialité » de l'existence? C'est pour répondre à cette question que la seconde partie de ce travail demande si l'affectivité — envisagée sur le plan de la temporalité, du langage et de la relation à autrui — doit être pensée comme immanence ou comme transcendance. This article sets out to question the notion of selfhood in Lévinas and M. Henry's thoughts, insofar as they both contend that selfhood rests on the experience of self-feeling, what M. Henry calls « affectivity ». First, I try to show that Lévinas's philosophy — especially in De l'existence à l'existant —, although often understood as one of transcendence supposedly opposed to Henry's immanence, in reality finds this transcendence in the immanence of self-feeling. But, while M. Henry opposes affectivity to sensibility, Lévinas shows that auto-affection is at the same time hetero-affection. Thus, Lévinas agrees with M. Henry in asserting that selfhood is self-feeling, but, at the same time, thinks that such self-feeling is impossible! But, isn't what thus comes to menace the certitude of oneself also a means of avoiding another kind of loss of individuality, that comes from being weighed down by the burden or the « materiality » of the existence? It is to answer this question that the second part of this article explores whether affectivity must be thought of as immanence or transcendence. (shrink)

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)

Phenomenology and ancient Greek philosophy. The title of this book, indicating these topics as its two main subjects, could give the impression that the subjects are held together by a circumstantial “and.” The title would then indicate a connection between phenomenology and a topic, ancient Greek philosophy, the way titles such as Art and Phenomenology, Phenomenology and Psychological Research, Phenomenology and Virtue Ethics do. This impression would be wrong. First, ancient Greek philosophers take pride of place in the dialogues initiated (...) by many phenomenologists with various figures from the history of philosophy. Second, this is not just because phenomenological philosophers have tended to regard ancient Greek philosophy as the revered beginning of Western thought, reflection upon which may help illuminate any topic modern human beings wish to inquire into or give it a kind of historical dignity. It is first and foremost because ancient Greek philosophy, understood as the scientific attempt to understand the world, ourselves, and our place in the world, in the phenomenological tradition is regarded as one important origin of contemporary Western philosophy and science, even if contemporary philosophy and science is also determined by a new ideal of philosophy that emerges in early modernity. Indeed, for most phenomenologists, Greek philosophy can be regarded as the roots supporting this new ideal—even if these roots are sometimes hidden from sight or forgotten. The main rationale for confronting ancient Greek philosophy phenomenologically is accordingly the attempt to bring to light in its full radicality the phenomenon “philosophy.” Unearthing philosophy as it was originally understood by Greek thinkers may, according to many phenomenologists at least, help us understand what philosophy in the full sense of the word was, has been, and may be again, but also what it has become or even degenerated into in modern times, for instance positivism. It is this way of approaching ancient Greek philosophy that we wish to concentrate on in this book, in the hope that the volume will prove instructive both to people who have an interest in ancient Greek philosophy and wish to know more about the phenomenological approach to it and to people who work within phenomenology and wish to know more about the various approaches to ancient Greek philosophy characterizing the phenomenological movement. We have therefore sought to make the introduction and the individual chapters accessible to non-experts, for instance by transliterating all Greek text, and confining quotes in other languages than English to footnotes and glosses. (shrink)

Alison Assiter has put together a work that has the potential to create an exciting and stimulating debate in Kierkegaard circles. Mostly because she portrays Kierkegaard as an idealist ontologist, that is, a philosopher of not just human nature (i.e. subjectivity), but also nature in its cosmic totality. Thus, what I find most admirable is that with Assiter we have a thinker who has the philosophical courage to suggest that the purported relationship between Schelling and Kierkegaard leads necessarily to bold (...) philosophical consequences. Since Günther Figal’s 1980 article, Schelling und Kierkegaards Freiheitsbegriff, which gave us the first clue of the Kierkegaardian connection to Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift, scholars have primarily focused on reemphasizing the actual possibility of (the early) Schellingean heritage in Kierkegaard, meanwhile forgetting to ask themselves what consequences this connection might have on our interpretation of Kierkegaard’s corpus. Assiter’s book is an attempt to draw such a long needed consequence. (shrink)

In recent years, work in cognitive science on human subjectivity as 4E has found a significant precedent in, connection with and enrichment from phenomenological understandings of the human person. Correspondingly, both disciplines have shed light on the nature of intersubjectivity in a complementary way. In this paper I highlight an underexplored aspect of phenomenological and 4E understandings of intersubjectivity, namely that these approaches make space for the possibility of properly intersubjective interactions with more than one other person at once. This (...) insight is important, I argue, because the philosophy of intersubjectivity has tended to focus on the self-other dyad as the primary unit of intersubjectivity from which all other forms of intersubjectivity can be extrapolated. Against this, I will argue that multi-person intersubjectivity is possible because of, and not in spite of, the nature and structure of individual subjectivity itself. We find our intersubjective capacity has the possibility of simultaneous engagement with multiple others built in ‘all the way through’, in virtue of being 4E. Despite the emphasis on subjectivity as embodied and worlded in the phenomenological tradition, we find that this ‘dyadic paradigm’ has been prevalent in some of the work of the classic phenomenologists. In this paper I look at the accounts of intersubjectivity offered by Jean-Paul Sartre and Emmanuel Levinas. I outline how – in different ways, with different emphases and to different extents – both Sartre and Levinas embody something of this dyadic paradigm. This, in turn, I argue, highlights an incongruity in each of their accounts on the issue of the other’s existence in the world as 4E. This tension is most stark in Sartre’s case. I will argue that his account of the-other-as-subject explicitly fails to appreciate the other’s subjectivity as 4E. His definitionally dyadic account of ‘the look’ is indicative of this. In Levinas’ case, the issue is more subtle, as he explicitly acknowledges ‘the face’ of the other in materially worlded and embodied terms. Nevertheless, I will argue, Levinas’ account of intersubjectivity, including his account of ‘the Third’, also indicates a version of a dyadic paradigm which runs counter to the logic of a fully 4E appreciation of intersubjectivity. I will argue that minimally there is tension or ambiguity in Levinas’ account on this issue. (shrink)

Argues for the role of personal acquaintance in both love and concern for individuals, as such. The challenge is to say what personal acquaintance is and why it matters in the way it does. These questions are addressed through the work of Emmanuel Levinas. Topics include: the ethics of aggregation, the basis of moral standing, and the value of human life.

“The gift of bread from my mouth” serves as a byword for “Levinasian ethics,” the precise meaning of which is often taken for granted. It is not at all clear that a prescriptive ethics could ever be derived from these passages; it is also a hyperbole for responsibility. Discussion of this figure almost universally ignores the parallel, and explicitly ethical, discussion of Isaiah 58, where the breaking of bread represents the perplexity of hunger, the rejection of oppression, and the proximity (...) of God. The breaking of bread is not a self-standing account of ethics but is paralleled by the ethics of the broken fast. The “gift of bread from my mouth” helps to explain the repeated references to fasting throughout Levinas’s authorship. The varying figures of the broken bread frame an ontological drama: sensibility, separation, proximity, and diachrony—and presses the sense that possession and the ego are ethically futile, as the alterity of hunger is proximal or “at the core” of the subject. (shrink)

In Alain Badiou’s most recent work, L’immanence des vérités, psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan once again figures peripherally but saliently. What is their specific relation in...

Levinas and the Night of Being investigates the ontological character of Totality and Infinity that has frequently been overlooked, suggesting that this ontological character is constituted by nocturnal events of being, the dark foundations that undergird the intentional activity of consciousness. Through a close reading of Totality and Infinity, Levinas and the Night of Being begins with the separation of the self and the nocturnal event of the enjoyment of the elemental that establishes the self as the same in its (...) independence and self-sufficiency. In its sameness, the self can then encounter the Other as other through the nocturnal event of the speech of the Other. The encounter with the Other through speech and language is the foundation for the nocturnal event of the pluralization of existence through fecundity, culminating in what Levinas and the Night of Being calls a world shared with the Other, a world of sociality and justice. This review emphasizes that Levinas and the Night of Being, by addressing the ontological character of Totality and Infinity, offers a significant contribution to the field of Levinas studies and points toward a valuable path for future research that examines how ontology and ethics might be thought together rather than in opposition. (shrink)

In public discourse trauma is predominantly framed as an overwhelming event undergone by the individual. In this article I first provide a brief genealogy to trace the emergence of what is now the dominant temporal framework of psychological catastrophe. I supplement this evental nosology with a durational consideration of trauma by drawing on the works of Henri Bergson and his articulation of duration, memory, and lived experience. Durational trauma accommodates liminal and ongoing experiences of the catastrophic that are equally devastating (...) to the paradigmatic exemplars of PTSD. This alternate account entails different modalities of reparation and responsibility to the systemic traumatization of others. For this I draw on Levinas and his intersubjective ethics drawing out the relevancy his work has for this concept of durational trauma. Levinas’s emphasis on expiation avoids the reification of the trauma of the other as spectacle and draws into focus one’s own participation in the circulation and continuation of ongoing traumatic networks. This contributes to the emergent alchemy of reading Bergson and Levinas together, but likewise, to philosophy of trauma and the ethical responsibility and temporality of ongoing systemic harm. (shrink)