Levinas vis-à-vis the Other

Levinas vis-à-vis the Other

Philosophy, arising from its Greek tradition of a “love of wisdom”, seeks to critically examine those questions most fundamental to humankind; it is concerned with essential concepts (or rather, questions) of being (metaphysics), rightness and goodness, knowledge, truth and beauty. As a branch of metaphysics, ontology seeks, in particular, to understand the nature of being (or existence) by placing objects within categories and organized totalities, while always assuming God as the first cause (causa sui). (Rebidoux) Yet as most philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Descartes each attest to their distinct definition of “being”, there is an exception to these ontological contenders: Emmanuel Levinas. By avoiding strict classification or definition in his writings (he avoids putting the saying into the said), Levinas seems to desire participation, or an encounter with, his reader.

Levinas’ personal history – including an early exposure to the Bible and Jewish philosophy - may explain both his somewhat unorthodox methods and his massive undertaking of transforming Talmudic concepts into Greek philosophy.(Rebidoux, 19 Jan 2004) No doubt influenced by a traumatic experience as a Jew during the Second World War, Levinas also owes much of his ideological foundation to his studies with Heidegger and Husserl, who greatly inspired his awareness of phenomenology. In his writings, he applies Husserlian knowledge of this science of phenomena, i.e. things apprehended by consciousness and concrete experiencei [i] , to his ontological inquiry into the essence of being.

Levinas founds these theories primarily on the “face to face” encounter with “the Other”. His notion of the Other, borrowed ...

... middle of paper ...

...ylink).

27 February 2004

http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t98.e1245

6. Rebidoux, Michelle. Lecture. McGill University, Montreal. 21 January – 9 February 2004.

Notes:

[1] Left without any proof that the Infinite exists and having only a sense of transcendence and new-found ipseity, one’s experience of a “trauma of awakening” is no doubt completely and incommunicably personal, and therefore must be difficult for Levinas to convey to his readers, as it is for me to convey within the limits of this paper.

[2] One’s own sense of self that arises from this initial inspiration of the Infinite would more aptly be called one’s ipseity, yet to speak of one’s ipseity would be to de-value its utmost personal meaning, and so for the purpose of this paper the ipseity of the Other will be referred to as his or her alterity.