JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives


FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives


FILM-PHILOSOPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Home

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Home

FILM-PHILOSOPHY  2002

FILM-PHILOSOPHY 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

(no subject)

From:

Jon Baldwin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Jun 2002 07:53:15 EDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (113 lines)

F.A.O. Clark Gobel.

Can I reply to some of your points?
And apologies to Eric for somehow being confused with, and thought to be, me
(I know how you must feel, it happens to me all the time.)

Clark wrote:
Just to make clear, Levinas' "ethics" aren't really ethics in the traditional
sense of the term.

[[Why do you want to be clear? Wasn't Levinas all against the metaphor of
light, clearness, enligthenment? Didn't Levinas have a thing for shadows,
secretcs, darkness? Should we not learn from our philosophers?
Yes, Levinas sees ethics as 'first philosophy' - which in my opinion is an
attempt to seek ontological origins, an enterprise at which we laugh.
Yes, Levinasian ethics push further than 'traditional' ethics.]]

This confused the hell out of me for quite some time. However the term
"ethics" is really not the best term to use. It is an ethic in a metaphorical
sense at best. Probably a better way of thinking of it is as a kind of
near-metaphysical responsibility that verges more on a hermeneutic
requirement.

[[What does 'near-metaphysical' mean? And yes Levinas has a foundation for
his ethics in a notion of 'responsibility'. These ethics, however, are a
requirement: we can never be ethical enougth in Levinas - that's why he is
diabolical.]]

Even that isn't quite right, but it avoids the baggage that I think "ethics"
as a term brings. What you describe of Levinas is how I read him at first as
well. However I eventually realized I was subtly misreading him.

[[Thank you. I think that you subtly misreading him is a greater achievement
than performing a preferred reading - well done you!]]

However I think there were flaws in Levinas and his work after Derrida's
"Violence and Metaphysics" takes a lot of those criticisms into
consideration.

[[Ok, I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny here. Two things - God and
women! Are these resolved in the later Levinas? And what about Levinas on the
question of Israel? Ok that's three things. Three serious problems that, for
me, remain in Levinas. But maybe you were joking with me when you claimed
that Levinas took the criticisms into account! He might have considered the
Derridean criticisms but I dont feel that this impacted upon the core of his
thought. And we also have the feminist critique of Levinas and Baudrillard's
lovely 'take' on Levinas.]]


___ Eric ___ | What is wrong with Sartre stating his politics? Sartre spoke |
out and was political. Heidegger said nothing. But his | nothing was also
political. ___ It probably would have been better had Heidegger said nothing.
However he did say a lot that was extremely troubling in his connection with
National Socialism.

[[Hey come on, it's not just his workds. At the University where he was
employed Martin H. did nothing about the nazi discrimination of his
colleauges. His apathy, for me, makes him complicit with the nazis. Man, look
at the wartime activities of Sartre, Camus, Walter Benjamin, etc - these
people are heros. Heidegger's work, for me, will always be polluted with the
trace of his cowardice and stupidity.]]

That's why Levinas is interesting as in attacking Heidegger he arrives at
many similar points. The problem of Heidegger's Nazism really hasn't been
addressed satisfactorily to my mind - especially its connection to his
philosophy. I think Levinas is popular because that whole problem in
Heidegger obviously can't be attributed to a Jewish Rabbi.

[[Not necessarily. That's a bit naive isn't it?]]

A friend of mine who specializes in Heidegger often says that he likes
Levinas because of how it makes him reconsider Heidegger. Perhaps that is why
so many of us keep discussing Levinas. Further the connection between Derrida
and Levinas is strong enough that there is still that way of dealing with the
approach of Heidegger. I just don't see that in Sartre. But to each their own
I guess. I personally just don't see what Sartre brings to the table.

[[It's a fashion show, really, isn't it? Levinas is this years brown.]]


 ___ Eric ___ | Heidegger is wrong and indistinguishable (or is it |
undistinguishable?) from nazi ideology (although this might | be giving too
much credit to nazi ideology). ___ Heidegger's philosophy and politics
actually don't line up with Nazi ideology at all. (Any more than Nietzsche's
did) The Nazis used him, but it was more him trying to use the Nazis for his
own purposes. Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending or apologizing for him in
the least. However saying that his political philosophy is Nazism is a bit
hard to support. I think that his sense of aesthetics required a kind of
totalitarian regime so as to "remake" Europe. This probably isn't the place
to discuss that though.

[[Nietzsche and Heidegger propagate aristocratic relations (connected to the
'earth'). The nazis propagate arisocratic relations (connected to the
'earth'). These aristocratic relations run counter to, and attack, democratic
relations. Both stances are similar are they not? I'm not saying the nazis
read Heid or Nietz, nor that you can find evidence to the contrary in them. I
just think that people should state their interest in defending or distancing
Heidegger from the nazis. I know you got a lot of intellectual capital tied
up there, but let it go.]]


Now a quick reply to Robert Koehler:
Yes I was very flippant about the late great Stephen Jay. My apologies. He is
socialism hidden as biology. Which is better than conservatism hidden as
biology.
The George Lucas comments were not directed at you, sorry for the
misunderstanding. I don't know what you have to say on the matter.
On the subject of aiming comments - the exhibitionism comments were aimed not
at Doyle, but Clark. Hope that clears up the confusion!

I remain your humble servant,
Jon

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager