Bringing me more than I contain … Discourse, Subjectivity and the Scene of Teaching in Totality and Infinity

This paper explores the relationship between language, subjectivity and teaching in Emmanuel Levinas’s 'Totality and Infinity.' It aims to elucidate Levinas’s presentation of language as always already predicated on a relationship of responsibility towards that which is beyond the self, and the idea that it is only in this condition of being responsible that we are subjects. Levinas suggests that the relation with the Other through which I am a subject as one uniquely responsible is also the scene of teaching. Through examining these ethical conditions of subjectivity, I suggest that this notion of the self as oriented towards the Other in a relation of passivity presents a challenge to many of the standard topoi of teaching and learning and invite us to consider the nature of teaching in a provocative new manner

Questions to Luce Irigaray

This article traces the "dialogue" between the work of the philosophers Luce Irigaray and Emmanuel Levinas. It attempts to construct a more nuanced discussion than has been given to date of Irigaray's critique of Levinas, particularly as formulated in 'Questions to Emmanuel Levinas' (Irigaray 1991). It suggests that the concepts of the feminine and of voluptuosity articulated by Levinas have more to contribute to Irigaray's project of an ethics of sexual difference than she herself sometimes appears to think

Rebuilding the Feminine in Levinas's Talmudic Readings

This study presents a reconsideration of Levinas’s concept of the feminine. This reconsideration facilitated by a philosophically informed analysis of Levinas’s Talmudic readings on that subject. The innovation of this research is based on the methodology which combined the two corpuses of Levinas’ writings as important parts of his thought. Two main phenomena are derived from Levinas’ Talmudic readings and arouse main principles of his ethics. In the hearth of the discussion on Eros stated the differentiation of feminine and masculine in Levinas’ thought, and its implication of gender and Ethics of otherness. In the center of Levinas’ terminology of maternity stated his phenomenology of pregnancy, and its ethical implication on responsibility to the other. The extreme responsibility committed to the subject since there is a immanent conflict between parents and their child. The characters of Leivnas’ discussion which described here are obligating the reconsideration of the philosophical question: are Levinas’ concepts of the feminine exclusive to the women? The subjects of Levinas’s exploration of the feminine, in this view, emerge from his Talmudic readings, but his phenomenological analysis of those very subjects goes beyond what can be found in those readings. Analyzing the meaning of the difference between the sexes—the topic of one of the Talmudic readings—leads Levinas to a wider phenomenological treatment of the status of woman that does not bypass the feminine voice. Delving into the Talmudic concept of rodef (persecutor) as applied to the relationship of fetus and mother leads Levinas to a phenomenological analysis of the concept of maternity and readiness to accept responsibility (even suffering) for the Other. Those two discussions lead us to a rereading of Levinas’s essay “Phenomenology of Eros” and enable us to rebut the charge that in that essay Levinas presents only a masculine voice. Levinas’s concept of “responsibility” will be seen to resemble the feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan’s concept of “care.” We must then reconsider whether Levinas’s concept of the feminine is exclusively the domain of women

Levinas, Simmel, and the Ethical Significance of Money

An examination of Emmanuel Levinas’ writings on money reveals his distance from—and indebtedness to—a philosophical predecessor, Georg Simmel. Levinas and Simmel share a phenomenological approach to analyses of the proximity of the stranger, the importance of the face, and the interruption of the dyadic relationship by the third. Money is closely linked to the conception of totality because money is the medium that compares heterogeneous values. Levinas goes beyond Simmel in positing an ethical relation to money permitting transcendence

The Triune Drama of the Resurrection Levinas\u27 Non-Phenomenology

The article aims to develop the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas as a valuable new perspective in understanding the triune drama of the Resurrection. Firstly, the juxtaposition of Levinas’ thought and Christian theology will be argued for, followed by a development of von Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology of the Resurrection. Especially, Levinas’ non-phenomenological notion of “otherness” will be used to offer an understanding of the Risen Christ’s “Otherness” as communicating the non-phenomenality of Holy Saturday to the disciples. As a result, we discover significant theological openings towards a vision of a Biblical God free from the constraints of ontological thinking and phenomenal experience

Levinas, Durkheim, and the Everyday Ethics of Education

This article explores the influence of Émile Durkheim on the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas in order both to open up the political significance of Levinas’s thought and to develop more expansive meanings of moral and political community within education. Education was a central preoccupation for both thinkers: Durkheim saw secular education as the site for promoting the values of organic solidarity, while Levinas was throughout his professional life engaged in debates on Jewish education and conceptualized ethical subjectivity as a condition of being taught. Durkheim has been accused of dissolving the moral into the social, and his view of education as a means of imparting a sense of civic republican values is sometimes seen as conservative, while Levinas’s argument for an ‘unfounded foundation’ for morality is sometimes seen as paralyzing the impetus for concrete political action. Against these interpretations, I argue that their approaches present provocative challenges for conceptualizing the nature of the social, offering theoretical resources to deepen understanding of education as the site of an everyday ethics and a prophetic politics opening onto more compelling ideals for education than those dominant within standard educational discourses

Against Liberty: Adorno, Levinas, and the Pathologies of Freedom

Adorno and Levinas argue from distinct yet intersecting perspectives that there are pathological forms of freedom, formed by systems of power and economic exchange, which legitimate the neglect, exploitation and domination of others. In this paper, I examine how the works of Adorno and Levinas assist in diagnosing the aporias of liberty in contemporary capitalist societies by providing critical models and strategies for confronting present discourses and systems of freedom that perpetuate unfreedom such as those ideologically expressed in possessive individualist and libertarian conceptions of freedom

Levinas and the symbol of the Temple of Jerusalem for the whole of humanity

Levinas no suele hablar del Templo, pero en sus comentarios talmúdicos, dice algunas cosas muy impresionantes acerca del templo y de su imagen. Así, al comentar el Tratado Yoma 10a del Talmud, dice que «El templo de Jerusalén, según el pensamiento judío, es un símbolo, que significa para la humanidad entera». Esta ponencia se centra en clarificar esta tesis de Levinas y en la universalidad de un sólo templo, que según su comentario al Rabbi Hayyin Volozhiner «es una réplica exacta del Templo celestial, el orden de la santidad absoluta»Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech

"Esau I Hated: Levinas on the Ethics of God's Absence

Emmanuel Levinas objects to traditional theodicy. But his objection to theodicy is so untraditional that God’s existence is incidental to it. The primary problem with theodicy, he argues, is not evidential but ethical. The primary problem with theodicy is not that its claims are false, but that its claims are offensive. In laying out Levinas's unusual view, I first sketch out the specifically ethical nature of theodicy’s offense: failing to acknowledge suffering. Next I discuss Levinas unusual account of this suffering, which theodicy fails to acknowledge. I then show how Levinas’ accusation against traditional theodicy does not hinge upon positive claims for the existence of God. I show how Levinas’ ethical objection to theodicy serves equally well as an objection to the negative existence claims of atheism. For atheism, too, has an overlooked “atheodicy” which fails to acknowledge suffering, and so may similarly offend. I then shift from the theoretical to the practical. I treat the insights gained regarding theodicy and its offenses not as ideas considered but as a strategy lived. I offer a profile of the biblical figure of Esau, whose remarkable reaction to God’s malicious absence involved no consolation, sense of grievance, or resentment of his brother Jacob, God’s beloved. I conclude that the brothers’ eventual rapprochement demonstrates a deep spiritual affinity between atheist and theist. Both live out their lives under "a gospel not to be preached". And the end of such preaching suggests a way forward in our own God-centered disputes

Ethical Passivity between Maximal and Minimal Meanings

This paper is a critical review of the most relevant studies about the Levinasian concept of passivity. The purpose is to follow the way in which Levinas’s scholars have dealt with the following aspects: the relation between ethical passivity and the possibility of effective ethical agency, the origin of passivity, and the validity of ethical passivity in the public sphere. As a starting point for future research, I finally argue that the best way to read Levinas’s passive ethics is through the dynamism between maximums and minimums present within it. This means that without sacrificing the omni comprehensive view of divine revelation and Jewish tradition, Levinas presents ethics as rationally understandable by everyone and philosophically defensible. Despite being biblically based, Levinas does not appeal to authority in supporting his view, he is confident in arguing rationally. This account could place Levinas in the way of public ethics, which consists in an ethos shared by all members of democratic societies. These minimums of justice could be the way to universalize Levinas’s ethics