Print

---

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