EMMANUEL LEVINAS (1905-1995) - St. Mary Catholic ... LEVINAS (1905-1995) Born in Kaunas, Lithuania Lived during the Holocaust with his Jewish family Began studies at University of

EMMANUELLEVINAS(1905-1995)

�  BorninKaunas,Lithuania�  LivedduringtheHolocaustwithhisJewishfamily�  BeganstudiesatUniversityofStrassbourgin

philosophy�  LevinassawacontrastbetweenWestern

philosophyandhisstrongJewishfaith(westernershadahabitofcategorizing

peoplebytryingtoestablishwhatwasthesamebetweenthem.)

LevinasandWorldWarII

� WWII–LevinaswascaughtbytheGermansandwasaprisonerofwarfor5years.

� HiswholefamilydiedintheHolocaustexceptfoehiswifeanddaughterwhoescapedandhidinamonasteryinFrancebutlostcommunicationwithhim.

� HiswarexperiencemadeLevinasmoreawareof“theOther”

ConnectingwithhisJewishRoots

� MordachiChouchani(Jewishteacher)wasLevinas’teacheratageof40

� HeinstructedLevinasintheJewishTalmud�  Soon,LevinasalsoinstructedtheTalmudto

youngJewishintellectualsinFrance

TeachingandLastYears

�  1973–BecameprofessorofphilosophyatSorbonne(mostprestigiousschoolinParis)afterwritinghisfamousbook“TotalityandInfinity”

�  Becameapopularwriterandsoonretired�  Eveninlecturing,tookhisJewishvaluesvery

seriously(NolecturingontheSabbath)�  Inhisownwritings,PopeJohnPaulIIusedLevinas’sideasanddiscussedwithhimoften.

WisdomofLoveLévinaspreferstothinkofphilosophyasthe"wisdomoflove“ratherthantheloveofwisdom(theliteralGreekmeaningoftheword"philosophy").Inhisview,responsibilityto“theOther”precedesany"objectivesearchingaftertruth".ForLevinas,ethicsis,firstandforemost,bornontheconcretelevelofpersontopersoncontact.

Hedoesnotfindmorality�  inscribedwithinthewillofGod(Aquinas),�  inreason(Kant),or�  inanyuniversaldesireforpleasure(Bentham,Mill).

“TheOther”Levinasisnotconcernedwiththepropositionoflawsormoralrules.ThedrivingforcebehindLevinas’strainofthoughtisnottodiscoverthetruthofethics,buttomakeanappealforethicaltransformation.Levinasinvitesustolisten,notonlytowhathehastosay,but,moreimportantly,tothevoiceof‘theOther’,whosanctionsallofourmoralobligation.Whendefiningethics,Levinaswouldarguethattherecanbenoethicswithoutatleasttwopeople.Itistosaythatethicsisanimportantissueforusbecauseitgovernsthewayinwhichwerelatewithoneanother.

ThisdefinitionaccordingtoLevinasisnotunfounded:�  St.Thomastellsusthat"harmshouldnotbegiventoanother".�  Kant'sCategoricalImperativeindicatesthatthemoralagentshould"treat

humanity,whetherinhis/herownpersonorthepersonofanother,notonlyasameansbutalsoasanendinitself."

�  Mill's"principleofutility"impliesotherswhenhenotesthatethicsisrootedinthenotionofthegreatesthappinessforthegreatestnumber.

�  Ifethicsisconcernedwiththeother,thenitwouldappearthatinordertofilloutacompleteaccountofethics,themeansbywhichtwopeoplecomeincontactwitheachotherwillbevitallyimportant.Here,thenistherootofLevinas'concern:toestablishthesourceofcontactbetweenpersonsorthesourceofinterpersonalmeaning,andinfindingthismeaning,Levinasfindstheethical.

Whatis“TheOther”?Toanon-philosopher,thesourceofcontactbetweenpersonsseemstobeasuperficialquestion.Theansweris,atfirst,easy.Theotherpersonismetinexperienceeveryday,onthestreet,intheclassroom,intheworkplace,etc.Toaphilosopher,however,thequestionisnotsoeasybecausetheybecomeburdenedbyexistentialthoughts.

�  Doestheotherpersonhaveamind?�  Istheotheracreationofmyimagination?ThefamousphilosopherDescarteswasparticularlypreoccupiedbythesequestions.Hestated,“If‘theOther’ismerelyanidea,oraworkofmymind,thenhowcanIknowwhatisrealindependentofmyperceptionofitsinceideasarecreatedandinventedbyamind,notdiscovered?”

Giventhisviewtowardsideas,then,anytimeIperceiveorpresupposemyideaofwhatorwhoapersonshouldbe,Ihaveclosedoffcontactwiththerealperson;Ihavecutofftheconnectionwiththeotherthatisnecessaryifethicsistorefertorealotherpeople.Thisisacentralviolencetotheotherthatdeniestheotherhis/herownautonomy.Levinascallsthisviolence"totalization"anditoccurswheneverIlimit‘theOther’toasetofrationalcategories,betheyracial,sexual,orotherwise.Indeed,itoccurswheneverIalreadyknowwhattheotherisaboutbeforetheotherhasspoken.Totalizationisadenialoftheother'sdifference,andaccordingtoLevinasthisisunethical.AccordingtoLevinas,‘theOther’existsindependentlyofme.‘TheOther’cannotbeaninterpretationoraworkingofmyownmind.Onecannotreduce‘theOther’tohis/herdiscretesetofideas.Thiscutsoffcontactwith‘theother.’

Transcendence�  Levinas'work,TotalityandInfinity(1969),isacritiqueof

Westernphilosophy.LevinaswasconcernedwithWesternphilosophy’spreoccupationwith‘Being,’attheexpenseof‘theOther.’LevinasperceivedtheWesternphilosophicaltraditionasattemptingtoovercomealldifferenceanddiversitybygroupingeverythingunderanall-encompassingunitywhichitcalled‘Being.’Beingseekstonamewhatthingshaveincommonwhenyoutakeawayallthedifferences.AccordingtoLevinas,westernerswereguiltyofthinkingawaydifference.Differenceisreducedtobeingaccidental(meaningnon-essentialbecauseitchangesineveryindividual).Thisconceptofbeingisdangerousbecauseittakesawayfromrealitywhatisitsmostfascinatingquality:thateachpersoninincrediblyunique.

Infinity�  LikeAristotle’sandKant’s

ethics,Levinasisinsearchofthegood.WhereasWesternphilosophypreoccupiesitselfwiththesearchforBeing,LevinaswentinsearchofthegoodwhichhesaidgoesbeyondBeing.TheGoodisinterestednotinwhatiscommonamongthings,butinwhatisabsolutelyuniqueabouteachpersonorthing.Levinascallstheseuniquethingsandpersons‘traces’oftheGoodorGod.NotangibleobjectiseveridenticaltoGod,orthegood.

AccordingtoLevinashowdoweachievethegood?

�  Inordertoachievethegood,Levinasarguesthatwemustorientourselvestoward‘theOther.’ForLevinas,theoptimalfacetofaceencounterrequiresaspecificorientation.When‘theOther’entersourself-focussedworld,‘theOther’placeshim/herselfaboveus.Notinasuperiorordominatingsense,butinawaythatyoulosethepowerofyourownproudsubjectivityandbecomeinsteadtheonewhoiscalledtorespond.Youarenowplacedintheroleofservantratherthanmaster.Youareplacedinareceptiveandresponsivepositionwhichdemandsyouraction.‘TheOther’thatimposesitselfdoesnotlimitbutpromotesmyfreedom,byarousingmygoodness.‘TheOther’impactsyouunlikeanyworldlyobjectorforce.

�  Thinkofatimeyouhadanabsoluteexperienceofanother:afacetofaceexperiencethattouchedyoudeeply.Intheeyesoftheotheryoumeetastranger,onewhomyoucannotreducetobeingyou.Andinthisperson’slook,‘theOther’callsyounottoreducehis/herfacetobeingthesameasanyotherface.Thisperson’sfaceisa“no”:arefusaltoletyoureducethefaceortodenythefaceitsuniqueness.Whenonerealizesthat‘theOther’s’faceescapesobjectification,thisiswhenLevinassaysthatweexperienceanepiphany.Thisepiphanyrevealsourresponsibilityfor‘theOther.’Weare,asLevinasstates,"hostage"totheotherthroughourresponsibility.Ourresponsibilityfortheotherisnonreciprocal–weexpectnothinginreturn.Wealways,asLevinasinsists,havearesponsibilitytoattendtoaswearesubjecttothefaceandcallof‘theOther.’

�  Herethesearchforthegoodends.Levinas’sethicsdoesnotbendusinGod’sdirection,butittwistsusinthedirectionofourneighbour.God’sinfinitegoodnesstouchesuswithoutourknowledge.God’stouchwillalwaysbeindirect.Godtouchesusthroughthefaceof‘theOther’whobegssparechangefromus.Godrefusestoappear,leavingonlyatraceinthefaceof‘theOther,’retreatingtomakeroomfor‘theOther.’