the Other and things we like - things like democracy

I picked up the book "Levinas, Judaism, and the Feminine" from Old Goats the other day simply out of name recognition. I have heard of Emmanuel Levinas before but was unclear what he wrote about (Wikipedia does not reveal everything) so I wanted to find out. I discovered I could use the text for the class so I had no second thoughts about purchasing it. The book itself seems to be part of a philosophy of religion series from Indiana University Press and thus a lot more specific and focused than I hoped, but alas I did find something to blog about with in the text.

I do not know whether one can be a 'fan' of a Christian theologian who most people outside academic theology circles know nothing about, but if you can then I am a fan of John Milbank. Specifically I found fascinating his reading of modernity being founded on the notion of original violence. No wonder the following quotation from "Levinas, Judaism and the Femonone" drew my attention and produced an abundance of reflection on my part:

"Modern philosophy viewed subjectivity as a clash of egos, in which competing drives ultimately find themselves at war... [and because they are at war they] are together. And this view understood peace as that condition in which reason reigns. Thus, modern philosophers believed reason [would stop the war]." and because of this "Rather than maintaining the alterity of the other, [that] peace assimilates the stranger into the Same." And another quotation:"This pursuit [of peace] violates the alterity of the other, in the name of the needs of the community".

What is being said here is essentially that in order to have peace, stability, justice etc etc one needs to make sure that any difference needs to be eroded, consumed or destroyed. For example, to be part of high school clique one must be like the other members of the clique in someway and hide or change the part of you that is not like them. Levinas is saying that this is in reality the way our modern state government and culture functions because it is based on "reason" which looks for the best way to rule and is not based on the ethical impulse to take care of the stranger.

Originally 'we are elected to responsibility' and we do not choose this responsibility. Instead it is the first thing that is required of us to be human. At one point the author points out that for Levinas ethics is always 'Anarchical' because it is based on our responsibility to the other, the stranger, and not to the commands of rulers. On the surface this seems contradictory, but that is not the case. Instead what Levinas means is that our human-ness is not defined by 'natural rights' as in the case of politics (American, French, European, Canadian and A LOT of modern states) but by our natural responsibility to the other. Natural rights focuses on what individuals deserve and can demand from others, where as natural responsibility demands that you take care of the other who deserves your aide .

There is a world of difference between the two understandings.

Of course in the discussion of the responsibility to the other Levinas brings up a host of different stories from Torah, being a practicing Jew and Talmudic commentator. His focus is the command "thou shall not kill" as the fountainhead for the practice of responding to the Other. He expands this through an exposition on the Stories of Adam and Eve, of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, and the book of Ruth. He even interprets the creation story as an element of this theme. In my next post I hope to explore his use of the biblical text in his discussion of "the responsibility to the other" and to ask how he can be both a philosopher and biblical commentator, how he reconciles what he calls "the greek" and "the hebrew" in his work.