This paper suggests that the enactive approach to ethics could benefit from engaging a dialogue with the phenomenology of Emmanuel Levinas, a philosopher who has given ethics a decisive role in the understanding of our social life. Taking the enactive approach of Colombetti and Torrance as a starting point, we show how Levinas’ philosophy, with the key notions of face, otherness, and responsibility among others can complement and enrich the enactive view of ethics. Specifically, we argue that Levinas can provide, (...) on the one hand, a phenomenological characterisation of ethics itself, of its nature and fundamental meaning, and on the other, an account of how sociality, affectivity and embodiment, as presented in Colombetti and Torrance’s work, combine to bring about the ethical experience. However, we also point out that introducing Levinas to the enactive approach could be challenging. It is not obvious how sense-making and value-making, as centred on the precariousness and potential death of the subject, would account for the ethical experience as grounded on the precariousness and potential death of the other. (shrink)

What is or should be the place of the ethical dimension in a general enactive theory of sociality? How should such a dimension be understood and articulated within the more general picture of the enactive approach to social life? In this paper, building on Emmanuel Levinas’ philosophy, we argue that ethics should be understood as a distinct dimension of the complex and multidimensional phenomenon of sociality; a dimension of radical otherness that intertwines with but does not reduce to the intersubjective (...) dynamics of social life. In showing the particular place that the ethical dimension occupies in the general picture of sociality, we show, following Levinas, why sociality is more than intersubjectivity and how enactivism, if interested in a comprehensive account of ethics, would benefit from this insight. (shrink)

L’installation est généralement appréhendée comme un dispositif qui prescrit au public une expérience. Cette contribution souligne les enjeux phénoménologiques et éthiques qui traversent l’idée de pourvoir prescrire à l’autre son expérience. Après avoir situé la démarche dans le paysage des interactions entre phénoménologie et art, l’étude propose quatre étapes de dialogue, entre phénoménologie, d’une part, et œuvres d’art, d’autre part, à travers lesquelles différentes perspectives sur la question de l’expérience de l’autre seront articulées. À l’issue de ce parcours, il apparaîtra (...) que, parmi les outils qui nous servent à analyser l’expérience esthétique, le schème classique de l’intersubjectivité et de l’empathie, et l’a priori d’universalité qui le sous-tend, doivent nécessairement être complétés par des approches qui ne réduiraient pas la singularité et l’altérité de l’autre personne, et qui permettraient ainsi de mieux saisir la dimension proprement sociale et éthique de certaines expériences esthétiques contemporaines. Installation art is generally understood as a device which prescribes an experiment to the public. This contribution underlines the phenomenological and ethical stakes that cross the idea of prescribing to the other his experience. After recalling the general interactions between phenomenology and art, this study proposes a four stages dialogue between phenomenology and works of art on the question of the other’s experience. It will appear that the classical schema of intersubjectivity and empathy, and the a priori of universality which underlies it, must be necessarily supplemented by approaches which would not reduce the other’s singularity and otherness, and which would better understand the social and ethical dimension of certain contemporary aesthetic experiences. (shrink)