Emmanuel Levinas is one of the most important figures of twentieth-century philosophy. Exerting a profound influence upon such thinkers as Derrida, Lyotard, Blanchot, and Irigaray, Levinas's work bridges several major gaps in the evolution of continental philosophy--between modern and postmodern, phenomenology and poststructuralism, ethics and ontology. He is credited with having spurred a revitalized interest in ethics-based philosophy throughout Europe and America. _Entre Nous_ (Between Us) is the culmination of Levinas's philosophy. Published in France a few years before his death, (...) it gathers his most important work and reveals the development of his thought over nearly forty years of committed inquiry. Along with several trenchant interviews published here, these essays engage with issues of suffering, love, religion, culture, justice, human rights, and legal theory. Taken together, they constitute a key to Levinas's ideas on the ethical dimensions of otherness. Working from the phenomenological method of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Levinas pushed beyond the limits of their framework to argue that it is ethics, not ontology, that orients philosophy, and that responsibility precedes reasoning. Ethics for Levinas means responsibility in relation to difference. Throughout his work, Levinas returns to the metaphor of the face of the other to discuss how and where responsibility enters our lives and makes philosophy necessary. For Levinas, ethics begins with our face to face interaction with another person--seeing that person not as a reflection of one's self, nor as a threat, but as different and greater than self. Levinas moves the reader to recognize the implications of this interaction: our abiding responsibility for the other, and our concern with the other's suffering and death. Situated at the crossroads of several philosophical schools and approaches, Levinas's work illuminates a host of critical issues and has found resonances among students and scholars of literature, law, religion, and politics. _Entre Nous_ is at once the apotheosis of his work and an accessible introduction to it. In the end, Levinas's urgent meditations upon the face of the other suggest a new foundation upon which to grasp the nature of good and evil in the tangled skein of our lives. (shrink)

Internationally renowned as one of the great French philosophers of the twentieth century, the late Emmanuel Levinas remains a pivotal figure across the humanistic disciplines for his insistence--against the grain of Western philosophical tradition--on the primacy of ethics in philosophical investigation. This first English translation of a series of twelve essays known as _Alterity and Transcendence_ offers a unique glimpse of Levinas defining his own place in the history of philosophy. Published by a mature thinker between 1967 and 1989, these (...) works exhibit a refreshingly accessible perspective that seasoned admirers and newcomers will appreciate. In today's world, where religious conceptions of exalted higher powers are constantly called into question by theoretical investigation and by the powerful influence of science and technology on our understanding of the universe, has the notion of transcendence been stripped of its significance? In Levinas's incisive model, transcendence is indeed alive--not in any notion of our relationship to a mysterious, sacred realm but in the idea of our worldly, subjective relationships to others. Without presupposing an intimate knowledge of the history of philosophy, Levinas explores the ways in which Plotinus, Descartes, Husserl, and Heidegger have encountered the question of transcendence. In discourses on the concepts of totality and infinity, he locates his own thinking in the context of pre-Socratic philosophers, Aristotle, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, and Descartes. Always centering his discussions on the idea of interpersonal relations as the basis of transcendence, Levinas reflects on the rights of individuals (and how they are inextricably linked to those of others), the concept of peace, and the dialogic nature of philosophy. Finally, in interviews conducted by Christian Chabanis and Angelo Bianchi, Levinas responds to key questions not directly addressed in his writings. Throughout, _Alterity and Transcendence_ reveals a commitment to ethics as first philosophy--obliging modern thinkers to investigate not merely the true but the good. (shrink)

The thirteen essays collected in this volume investigate the possibility that the word "God" can be understood now, at the end of the twentieth century, in a meaningful way. Nine of the essays appear in English translation for the first time. Among Levinas's writings, this volume distinguishes itself, both for students of his thought and for a wider audience, by the range of issues it addresses. Levinas not only rehearses the ethical themes that have led him to be regarded as (...) one of the most original thinkers working out of the phenomenological tradition, but he also takes up philosophical questions concerning politics, language, and religion. The volume situates his thought in a broader intellectual context than have his previous works. In these essays, alongside the detailed investigations of Husserl, Heidegger, Rosenzweig, and Buber that characterize all his writings, Levinas also addresses the thought of Kierkegaard, Marx, Bloch, and Derrida. Some essays provide lucid expositions not available elsewhere to key areas of Levinas's thought. "God and Philosophy" is perhaps the single most important text for understanding Levinas and is in many respects the best introduction to his works. "From Consciousness to Wakefulness" illuminates Levinas's relation to Husserl and thus to phenomenology, which is always his starting point, even if he never abides by the limits it imposes. In "The Thinking of Being and the Question of the Other," Levinas not only addresses Derrida's Speech and Phenomenon but also develops an answer to the later Heidegger's account of the history of Being by suggesting another way of reading that history. Among the other topics examined in the essays are the Marxist concept of ideology, death, hermeneutics, the concept of evil, the philosophy of dialogue, the relation of language to the Other, and the acts of communication and mutual understanding. (shrink)

Lire ensemble: cela devrait s'entendre en plus d'un sens, au fil croise d'au moins quatre lectures. La premiere et la seconde sont la double attention, explicite ou plus secrete, que Derrida et Levinas ont accordee, chacun, a leurs oeuvres respectives et a l'effet de celles-ci sur leur cheminement. L'un et l'autre se sont ecoutes et cela fait deja deux lectures. A chaque moment de son histoire, la philosophie rassemble des penseurs autour d'une (ou plusieurs) oeuvre(s) singuliere(s) a laquelle ils se (...) confrontent communement. Ils forment alors autour d'elle parfois contre elle la constellation de ses lecteurs, dans la conviction, partagee, qu'aucun pas ne saurait etre accompli hors cette confrontation. Pour tous deux, outre la phenomenologie husserlienne, une oeuvre s'est imposee plus qu'aucune autre: Etre et temps de Heidegger qu'ils n'ont cesse de lire et relire, sinon ensemble, du moins en echo. A celle-ci, bien d'autres pourraient etre ajoutees, a commencer par celles qui auraient pour foyer les recits de Blanchot ou les poesies de Celan voici une troisieme facon d'entendre ce qui les associe. Mais on a parle de quatre lectures. La derniere est celle qui preside doublement a l'organisation de ce volume. Il ne s'agit plus de ce que Derrida et Levinas ont lu ensemble, mais de la facon dont nous les lisons ensemble a la fois l'un et l'autre et a plusieurs. (shrink)

Deux cours. Les deux derniers professés par Emmanuel Lévinas en Sorbonne, durant l'année universitaire 1975-7976. Deux cours qui sont comme une glose méditative autour de quelques mots : Dieu, la mort, le temps. En ouverture, la mort et le temps. Pour la première fois, ces deux notions qui parcourent l'œuvre entière du philosophe sont longuement explicitées. Parallèlement, Lévinas renoue avec sa recherche sur le mot Dieu, inversant les termes du diagnostic heideggerien : lorsque la philosophie a confondu, dès son origine, (...) Dieu et l'être, ce n'est pas tant le second qui a été oublié, c'est d'abord le premier qui a été éclipsé. La tâche de la pensée revient alors à libérer Dieu de l'emprise métaphysique. Au final, ces deux textes éclairent sous un autre jour et à partir d'un angle nouveau trois des thèmes majeurs de la réflexion d'Emmanuel Lévinas. Mais ils reviennent aussi, au gré d'une parole vagabonde, sur d'autres notions fondamentales de l'œuvre : la responsabilité, Autrui, la patience, le Dire, la transendance, le témoignage... (shrink)

The fruit of the author's many courses on Emmanuel Levinas in Europe and the United States, this study is a clear introduction for graduate students and scholars who are not yet familiar with Levinas's difficult but exceptionally important oeuvre. After a first chapter on the existential background and the key issues of his thought, chapters 2, 3, and 4 concentrate on and include a short text, "Philosophy and the idea of the Infinite," which contains the program of Levinas's entire oeuvre. (...) Chapter 5 is a companion to the reading of Levinas's first opus magnum, Totality and the Infinite. It analyzes the structure of this book and shows how its questions and answers adhere together. "Through phenomenology toward a saying beyond phenomena and essence" could be the summary of Levinas's attempt to think, with and against Martin Heidegger, the otherness of the Other. -- Amazon.com. (shrink)

La mort, le temps : deux notions fondamentales qui parcourent toute l'œuvre d'Emmanuel Lévinas et qui, pour la première fois, sont ici précisément thématisées. À partir d'un dialogue serré avec deux contemporains d'envergure, Heidegger et Bloch, et quelques-uns des grands penseurs de la tradition, Aristote, Hegel et Kant notamment, le philosophe développe une formidable méditation qui propose d'éclairer les rapports noués dans la réflexion occidentale entre la mort et le temps. Ainsi, à la démarche heideggerienne qui entend penser le (...) temps à partir de la mort, il oppose l'idée que l'on peut inscrire la mort dans le tissu du temps. (shrink)

I learned very early, perhaps even before 1933 and certainly after Hitler’s huge success at the time of his election to the Reichstag, of Heidegger’s sympathy toward National Socialism. It was the late Alexandre Koyré who mentioned it to me for the first time on his return from a trip to Germany. I could not doubt the news, but took it with stupor and disappointment, and also with the faint hope that it expressed only the temporary lapse of a (...) great speculative mind into practical banality. It cast a shadow over my firm confidence that an unbridgeable distance forever separated the delirious and criminal hatred voiced by Evil on the pages of Mein Kampf from the intellectual vigor and extreme analytical virtuosity displayed in Sein und Zeit, which had opened the field to a new type of philosophical inquiry.Could one question the incomparable impression produced by this book, in which it immediately became apparent that Heidegger was the interlocutor and equal of the greatest—those very few—founders of European philosophy? that here was someone, this seemed obvious, all modern thought would soon have to answer? Emmanuel Levinas has been professor of philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure Israélite de Paris and at the University of Paris I . Among his books that have been translated into English are Totality and Infinity, Ethics and Infinity, and Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Paula Wissing, a free-lance translator and editor, has recently translated Paul Veyne’s Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? (shrink)

"Ausweg aus dem Sein" , das zuerst 1935 in den "Recherches Philosophiques" veröffentlicht wurde, ist laut der Biographin von Levinas, Marie-Anne Lescourret, "sein allererster persönlicher Text". Doch weit mehr handelt es sich bei diesem Text um den Grundstein Levinasschen Denkens, das mit einer grundlegenden Abrechnung mit der ontozentristischen Philosophie Heideggers, einem Auflehnen gegen die Totalität und Omnipräsenz des Seins, gegen seinen Lastcharakter, der das Dasein zu erdrücken droht, anhebt.

In unserer Gegenwart der unwiderruflichen Globalisierung und digitalen Technifizierung, in welcher wir zum ersten Mal in unserer menschlichen Geschichte konkret die Mittel zu einem Gattungssuizid in der Hand haben, ist keine Frage für ein ernsthaftes philosophisches Denken so fundamental wie jene von Kant unter dem Titel „Alles Interesse meiner Vernunft“ am Ende der „Kritik der reinen Vernunft“ gestellte: Was aber sollen wir mit dem, was wir dank unseres Wissens tun können, in unserer Freiheit aber tun? (Vgl. KrV A 805). Husserls (...) Methode kritisch aufnehmend, selbst aber von Heideggers „Sein und Zeit“ ausgehend, dessen Hermeneutik der Zeitigung des Daseins zum Tode jedoch aufbrechend und überschreitend in die Frage nach dem Heil unseres Daseins angesichts des Anderen, hat sich kaum ein Denker des 20. Jahrhunderts dieser Frage so intensiv zugewandt wie Emmanuel Levinas. Das vorliegende Werk umfasst eine Reihe von Studien zu Levinas, die diese Frage als ihren Mittelpunkt haben und sich insbesondere auch auf die in Deutschland noch kaum bekannten Schriften aus dem Nachlass von Levinas stützen. Zusammen mit ihnen wird im deutschen Original ein bereits auf Tschechisch, Italienisch und Spanisch publiziertes Gespräch zugänglich gemacht, welches der Verfasser 1981 mit Emmanuel Levinas in Paris führte. Aus ihm stammt der Titel des Werkes. Was in ihm zur Sprache kommt, sucht nach einer Antwort philosophischen Denkens auf die Frage: Menschlichkeit – schaffen wir das? (shrink)

This paper examines two claims currently made of Heidegger and Lévinas: that Heidegger, work and man, had no adequate ethics; and that Lévinas draws attention to this both in his own work and in the ground for ethics that he sought to give through the assertion of an explicitly Platonic ethics of transcendence to the ‘Good beyond Being’. The paper takes as a statement of Lévinas ethics his text ‘Alterity and Transcendence’ and shows, by relating what he says (...) to Plato, Aristotle and Heidegger, that Lévinas’s ethics are themselves shaped by a commitment to intersubjectivity which fails to achieve a genuine orientation to the ‘other’ of contemporary discourse, and that results only in the self-positing of the subject. Finally it examines Heidegger’s own discussions of alterity, ethics and being-with-one-another to show how Heidegger’s work does in fact point to what an ethical discourse of the other is seeking to achieve. (shrink)

In the interview conducted with Giovanna Borradori, after the attack on the World Trade Centre, in September 2001, Jacques Derrida is pressed to specify connections between his own thinking, Heidegger's deployment of the term ‘event’, and the use of the term ‘event’ to pick out the unprecedented character of that attack. Derrida intimates that the attack is, perhaps, not as unprecedented, not the ‘wholly other’ which it has been framed as being. His reading of that event is to move (...) it from a naive status, as ‘wholly other’, to a philosophically inflected thinking of the political, in the mode of the ‘wholly otherwise’, that is, in a sense to be made out here, whereby politics takes precedence over physics, as the originator of the basic components to be thought, and whereby the future takes precedence over the past, as the site at which what is arrives. The principal aim of this article is to consider how to think this counter-factual ontology, in the mode of a future anteriority. The article will set out Heidegger's move from affirming a fundamental ontology, of Dasein, to an ontology in parentheses (vom Ereignis) but will show how both of these are objectionable, on different counts, to Derrida and to Levinas. Derrida explores the options of supplementing an inadmissible thetic stance, with respect to the future, and therefore with respect to what there is, by developing the notion of the prosthetic, that which stands in for the impossible, timelessly asserted thesis. Levinas invents a new mode of phenomenology which opens a route into this ‘wholly otherwise’. These two strands of enquiry contribute to an analysis displacing these versions of ontology, in favour of a reformulation of political ontology. A subsidiary aim is to clarify Derrida's reservations with respect to the Heideggerian notion of the event. These reservations about Heidegger's usage throw light on his reluctance to deploy the term, within an analysis of the destruction of the World Trade Centre. (shrink)

La tolérance pose certaines questions essentielles aux analyses phénoménologiques de l’intersubjectivité. Tout d’abord, comme Sartre ou Heidegger l’avaient souligné, dans quelle mesure la tolérance ne se retourne-t‑elle pas toujours en une intolérance plus profonde, sous les formes de l’indifférence à l’égard de l’autre ou bien d’une domination qui réduit l’altérité d’autrui à des propriétés imposées, le privant de sa liberté? Mais si l’on prend au contraire le parti de construire un concept positif de tolérance pour penser la relation éthique, (...) alors le problème est de maintenir une double exigence : celle d’accueillir autrui en s’ouvrant à son altérité par rapport à moi, mais aussi celle de ne pas traiter cette altérité comme une différence abstraite. Il s’agit de reconnaître que la manifestation d’autrui est toujours située dans le monde, impliquant un ensemble de valeurs et de croyances susceptibles d’être en inadéquation avec les miennes, et qui doivent être supportées ou endurées malgré tout dans certaines limites sûrement impossibles à fixer a priori. Ainsi le phénomène de la tolérance demande que l’on envisage les normes absolues de la rationalité éthique comme toujours déjà particularisées dans des situations sociales concrètes, avec leurs caractéristiques politiques, culturelles, cultuelles et historiques contingentes. Nous montrons dans cet article que c’est précisément ce que Levinas (et Derrida à sa suite) comprend lorsqu’il aborde la question de l’intersubjectivité à partir du problème du tiers. La tolérance donne ainsi l’opportunité de penser les conditions du cosmopolitisme comme structure phénoménologique de la relation intersubjective (le rapport à l’autre comme rapport situé mondainement), même si l’on pourra alors se demander, en conclusion, si la tolérance abordée dans une perspective de l’émancipation, au sein d’une « histoire universelle d’un point de vue cosmopolitique », n’appartient pas à la vision philosophique des Modernes et de l’ Aufklärung, et si elle est encore tenable dans un monde de plus en plus dominé par l’essence de la technique. (shrink)

Detailed exposition of the nine layers of signification of human mortality according to Emmanuel Levinas's phenomenological and ethical account of the meaning and role of death for the embodied human subject and its relations to other persons. Critical contrast to Martin Heidegger's alternative and hitherto more influential phenomenological-ontological conception, elaborated in "Being and Time", of mortality as Dasein's anxious and revelatory being-toward-death.

A certain type of metaphysical manicheism has become quite prevalent among Levinas readers who insist in declaring his ethics to be a morally and, ultimately, politically necessary departure from Heidegger’s ontology. This approach inadequately moralizes Levinas’ articulation of the ethical which, I argue here, ought to be understood as an account of the pre-reflective normative conditions of ontology as meaning. In this paper, I seek to show that Levinas account of Ethics is squarely rooted in the epistemology of (...) class='Hi'>Heidegger’s Being and Time and that, his phenomenological articulation of pre-deliberative normativity may be read as the Deduction and Schematism of Being and Time, that is, as its central mechanism. (shrink)

In this article, the differences between Jean-Luc Marion, Emmanuel Levinas and Martin Heidegger’s approaches to ontotheology are discussed. Whereas Marion argues for a historical approach to this question, i.e., testing whether ontotheology can be detected in this or that thinker in this history of philosophy, this article aims, with Levinas and Heidegger, for an ontological approach to the question concerning ontotheology. In this regard, this text expresses wonder about Marion’s claim that Medieval theology would not have succumbed to (...) ontotheology whereas ancient and modern did. It is shown that ontotheology, for Levinas as well as Heidegger, might not be overcome with a simple command but rather belongs to the very structure of thought. The article concludes with offering some corrections to the Levinasian ‘God outside of onto-theology’ by a more phenomenological account of being-in-the world. (shrink)

Examining Levinas's critique of the Heideggerian conception of temporality, this book shows how the notion of the feminine both enables and prohibits the most fertile territory of Levinas's thought. The author suggests that though Levinas's conception of subjectivity corrects some of the problems Heidegger's philosophy introduces, such as his failure to deal adequately with ethics, Levinas creates new stumbling blocks, notably the confining role he accords to the feminine. For Levinas, the feminine functions as that which facilitates but is (...) excluded from the ethical relation that he sees as the pinnacle of philosophy. Showing that the feminine is a strategic part of Levinas's philosophy, but one that was not thought through by him, the author suggests that his failure to solidly place the feminine in his thinking is structurally consonant with his conceptual separation of politics from ethics. (shrink)

This book explores the ethical and political implications of the debate between Martin Heidegger and Emmanuel Levinas on the question of Place. It relates their debate to larger disagreements concerning ontology and ethics, the status of humanism, and the relationship between worldliness and transcendence. Ultimately, in an epoch characterized by tribalism and globalization, the Heidegger-Levinas debate illuminates the need for a contemporary politics of place that enables human beings to dwell and practice hospitality.

Levinas subverts the traditional "ontology-epistemology," and creates a "realm of difference," the realm of "value," "ethic," and "religion," maintaining that ethics is real metaphysics. According to him, it is not that "being" contains the "other" but the other way round. In this way, the issues of ethics are promoted greatly in the realm of philosophy. Nonetheless, he does not intend to deny "ontology" completely, but reversed the relationship between "ontology (theory of truth)" and "ethics (axiology)," placing the former under the (...) "constraint" of the latter. Different from general empirical science, philosophy focuses more on issues irrelevant to ordinary empirical objects; it does have "objects," though. More often than not, the issues of philosophy cannot be conceptualized into "propositions"; nevertheless, it absolutely has its "theme." As a discipline, philosophy continuously takes "being" as its "theme" and "object" of thinking. The point is that this "being" should not be understood as an "object" completely. Rather, it is still a "theme-subject." In addition to an "object," "being" also manifests itself in an "attribute" and a kind of "meaning" as well. In a word, it is the temporal, historical, and free "being" rather than "various beings" that is the "theme-subject" of philosophy. /// 列维纳斯颠覆了传统的 "存在论一知识论" 开创了一个 "异域", 即 "价 值"、"伦理" 和 "宗教" 的领域，强调伦理学才是形而上学。不是 "存在" 包容 了 "他者" 而是 "他者" 包容了"存在"。伦理学问题得到了哲学上大幅度的提 升。他不是完全否定 "存在论" 而是把 "存在论一真理论" 和 "价值论→仓理学" 的关系颠倒了过来，将前者置于后者的 "制约" 之下。哲学作为一门学科，仍以 "存 在" 为研究主题与思考 "对象", 只是这个 "存在" 作为 "对象" 并非完全在 "客 体" 意义上来理解，而仍是一个 "主题一主体", 该存在不仅展示为一物，展示为 一 "属性", 而且展示为一种 "意义"。作为哲学 "主题一对象" 的不是 "诸存在 者", 而是 "时间性的一历史性的一自由的" "存在"。. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Endnotes.

Levinas' Heidegger-Kritik, der in seinem Totalité et Infini zweifellos grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt, stürzt zunächst in Verwirrung : der Begriff der Totalität, in dem nach Levinas Heideggers ontologisches Denken befangen bleibt, scheint nur ein solcher für das Sein des Seienden als solchen und im Ganzen zu sein, Levinas' Idee eines diese Totalität transzendierenden „Unendlichen” aber eher Heideggers Gedanken des Seins selbst nahezukommen ; der Unterschied zwischen Totalität und Unendlichem, den Levinas begründet, scheint fast ein Gleiches zu bedeuten wie die „ontologische (...) Differenz” bei Heidegger, hinwiederum aber bleibt für Levinas das Sein offenbar die bloße Totalität des Seienden, indessen es ein Seiendes par excellence, nämlich der Andere ist, das unendlich die Totalität übersteigt, auf die alle Ontologie das Sein des Seienden reduziert. Aber die reduktiven Tendenzen in Heideggers ontologischem Denken, auf die Levinas kritisch hinweist, sind in der Tat unverkennbar ; sie finden ihren schärfsten Ausdruck in Heideggers ausdrücklicher Zurückweisung der Ethik als einer eigenständigen philosophischen Aufgabe. Die zur Debatte stehenden Positionen lassen sich klären im Rückgang auf Husserl : dessen Denken scheint zwiegespalten zwischen der Reduktionsforderung, die hervorgeht aus dem Verlangen nach einem absolut Gegebenen als „adäquat” Gegebenem, und dem Festhalten an der Gegebenheit auch von solchem, was nie adäquat gegeben sein kann, als einer „originären”. Vielleicht trifft es zu, daß Heidegger bei all seiner Kritik am Begriff der Wahrheit als Adäquation doch aufs entschiedenste Husserls Tendenz zum Rückgang auf adäquate Gegebenheit, also die Tendenz der Reduktion vertieft hat, indessen Levinas -nach dem Vorgange von Merleau-Ponty -strenger auf dem eigenen Rechtsgrund des inadäquat Gegebenen als eines Ursprünglichen besteht. Hier geht es vor allem um die „Gegebenheit” des Anderen, die nach Levinas in primärer und originärer Weise ein moralisches Verhalten fordert -auch und gerade schon da, wo es sich „zunächst” um die „bloße Erkenntnis” des Anderen handelt. So ist es schließlich Levinas' Idee, daß überhaupt die Ethik die philosophische Funktion der notwendigen Selbstkritik aller Philosophie hat, in der diese ihre Geschlossenheit durch das Ausbleiben des Anderen unendlich in Frage zu stellen aufgefordert ist. Mag Levinas' Heidegger-Kritik in gewissem Sinne selbst sich auf einen Gedanken gründen, der Heideggers Idee der ontologischen Differenz verwandt ist, mögen ohne den Blick auf diese Idee die Streitfragen undeutlich bleiben, die jene Kritik aufwirft, es sind doch Fragen, die in ein Dunkel eindringen, das der „ontologischen” Aufhellung sich bislang entzogen hat. (shrink)

Trata-se de demarcar o contexto esentido fenomenológico geral da sul:Jjetividade emHusserl, Heidegger e Levinas desdeseus conceitos fundamentais, verificando asuperação da postura Idealista e das filosofias daconsciência; ao mesmo tempo, verificar as suasinsuficiências e a inserção no contexto da mesmaegologia que se quer criticar, já em nome de umasubjetividade assignada. Pensa-se o inícioda ultrapassagem possível e necessária dentro deuma nova abordagem da questão do sentido dasubjetividade, considerando mesmo afinitude, temporalidade e historicidade. Esteartigo pressupõe a superação da ingenuidade quedesliga a esfera (...) da ética dagnosiologia e mesmo da ontologia fundamental. (shrink)

The article examines the critique of Being and Time formulated by Levinas in Totality and Infinite, a critique centered on Heidegger’s omission of two fundamental forms of being in the world: enjoyment and inhabiting. This omission is symptomatic: as a critique of modernity, Being and Time internalizes and ontologizes the prevalence of the equipmentality that characterizes our era far more than scientific objectivism does. Thus, a certain type of pragmatism would constitute the keystone of Being and Time as a (...) whole: the acknowledgment by Heidegger of this “contamination” would explain, at least partially, his transition to the “history of being”. (shrink)

_Investigates the philosophical relationship between Levinas and Heidegger in a nonpolemical context, engaging some of philosophy’s most pressing issues._.

After considering Buber’s and Levinas’s critiques of Heidegger and of each other, I propose that we should acknowledge authenticity, “essential relations” of love and friendship, and holiness as aspects of a good life, though they pull in different directions. We should resist the temptation to take sides in a battle between different approaches to the complex nature of our social being.

This book explores the relation between Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida by means of a dialogue with experts on the work of these mutually influential thinkers. Each essay in this collection focuses on the relation between at least two of these three philosophers focusing on various themes, such as Alterity, Justice, Truth and Language. By contextualising these thinkers and tracing their mutually shared themes, the book establishes the question of difference and its ongoing radicalization as the problem to which phenomenology (...) must respond. Heidegger’s influence on Derrida and Levinas was quite substantial. Derrida once claimed that his work ‘would not have been possible without the opening of Heidegger’s questions.’ Equally, as peers, Derrida and Levinas commented on and critiqued each other’s work. By examining the differences between these thinkers on a variety of themes, this book represents a philosophically enriching project and essential reading for understanding the respective projects of each of these philosophers. (shrink)

La declarada admiración de Levinas por el pensamiento de Heidegger no excluye explícitos y fundamentales elementos de diferenciación y crítica que el autor examina a lo largo de las tres partes del presente artículo. En la primera parte se expone la relación de Levinas a Heidegger en términos de un progresivo alejamiento que busca el significado de la experiencia ontológica no profundizando en ella sino saliendo de ella gracias a la irrupción metafísica del rostro humano y que pretende (...) también subordinar la idea del Ser a la del Bien o del Infinito (¿judíos?). La segunda parte presenta críticamente la caracterización de Levinas de la "cerrazón" del Dasein heideggeriano, cuya interrogación por el Ser lo mantendría dentro de sus propios horizontes, lo que le impediría abrirse efectivamente a la alteridad del otro hombre excluyendo así toda posible ética y cayendo en una suerte de "barbarie del ser". La tercera parte pretende mostrar -desde el suelo común de la fenomenología husserliana- algunas diferencias imborrables entre ambos autores, pese a que, hasta en su distancia extrema el "pastor del ser" y el "vigilante del otro" puedan invitamos a un pensamiento renovado de la responsabilidad del hombre como núcleo más profundo de su humanidad. El acento en la diferencia (ontológica) o en la alteridad (humana) tiene, sin embargo, consecuencias muy diferentes en los contenidos éticos y políticos de tal exigencia a la responsabilidad. (shrink)

Already in his earlier works Levinas proposes a distinct phenomenological project which takes into consideration the radicality of the other and otherness by questioning intentionality and the validity of intersubjectivity within intentional consciousness. His move “towards Heidegger and against Husserl” was due primarily to Heidegger’s Dasein analysis, understanding of Being and being-with. However, in his major work, Totality and Infinity, Levinas proposes a new perspective on reading intersubjective relations with the Other which strongly contrasts with the Heideggerian concept (...) of intersubjectivity. This paper addresses the question of the Other, intersubjectivity and ethics in the writings of Levinas and Heidegger respectively. It considers Levinas’s critique of intersubjectivity as provoked and developed by Heidegger’s analytic of Dasein, and concentrates on Levinas’s specific understanding of intentionality in his account of metaphysics, metaphysical desire and the Other. It also takes up the question of temporality as a necessary condition for intersubjective relation and explores its implication for the self and the Other in Levinas’s and Heidegger’s respective philosophies. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, Volume 10, Edition 2, October 2010: 23-32. (shrink)

In his reflection upon Dasein’s attempt to approach, understand and appropriate the possibility of its own death in Being and Time, Martin Heidegger makes an interesting side note on the phenomenological appearance of the dead body of another. Make no mistake; it is only a note – one made in passing en route to a much larger argument. But it is a note of interest nonetheless; for within it is contained the thread of a thought that, when pursued to (...) its end, seems to unravel some of the fundamental elements of the Heideggerian analytic. It is the goal of this paper then to follow that thread to its logical end by engaging in an detailed examination of the enigmatic phenomenon that is the dead body of another and, in doing so, not only illuminate the curious nature of its appearance; but, more importantly, reveal some of the limits of the Heideggerian analytic. The paper will conclude by turning to the work of Emmanuel Levinas in attempt to stretch beyond those limits. (shrink)

Martin HEIDEGGER, Fiinţă şi timp [Être et temps] ; Bruce BÉGOUT, La généalogie de la logique. Husserl, l’antéprédicatif et le catégorial ; François-David SEBBAH, L’épreuve de la limite. Derrida, Henry, Levinas et la phénoménologie ; Marcus BRAINARD, Belief and its Neutralization. Husserl’s System of Phenomenology in Ideas I ; Toine KORTOOMS, Phenomenology of Time. Edmund Husserl’s Analysis of Time-Consciousness ; Roland BREEUR, Singularité et sujet. Une lecture phénoménologique de Proust ; John J. DRUMMOND & Lester EMBREE, Phenomenological Approaches to (...) Moral Philosophy A Handbook. (shrink)

In this article I argue that Levinas can be read as a critic, not just of Heideggerian being, but also of being-with. After pointing out that the publication of the Black Notebooks only makes this criticism more interesting to revisit, I first of all discuss passages from both earlier and later writings in which Levinas explicitly takes issue with Heidegger’s claim that there is no self outside of a specific socio-historical community. I then explain how these criticisms are reflected (...) in Levinas’s own account, arguing that Levinasian subjectivity and alterity are precisely defined by their not belonging to a larger unity; to the extent that they partake in a multi-personal collectivity, this does not take the form of a traditional community. In the final section, I look into a different and seemingly opposing argument Levinas makes against Heidegger: on the basis of the latter’s reflections on death, he argues that Dasein is anti-social rather than overly immersed in the socio-historical. Arguing that this rests on a misreading of Being and Time, I use this opportunity to raise questions about Levinas’s interpretation of Heidegger and his “otherwise than being-with” more generally, for Levinas’s account runs into several problems as well. Yet as I will conclude, this in fact offers a valuable insight, not just for the present-day reception of Heidegger, but also for thinking community today. It indicates that a radical break with human situatedness does not automatically fare better than a firmly enrooted account of existence. (shrink)