Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:22:46 -0500 From: Don Socha <socha1de-AT-cmich.edu> Subject: Re: Fear. >G/all > >I had thought of the Levinas angle but discarded it, for myself at >least, because of my rejection of his ethics. Beyond the critique of >Levinas by Badiou, there is something deeply reactionary in statements >such as "...Ethics is, therefore, against nature because it forbids the >murderousness of my natural will to put my own existence first..." > > >regards >steve I don't see what's necessarily reactionary about this position, Steve. Surely you don't mean to suggest that Levinas is anything like a biological determinist. Though I don't want to overlook the always difficult context of his work, isn't he simply saying that while nature is indifferent, people need not be fatalistic? I've yet to read Badiou (plan to begin this week), but doesn't Levinas mean something quite distinct when he says "against nature"? I do know he wasn't in favor of putting his own existence first... rather, his whole ouvre stands against precisely this. Or do you see ethics as something other than an artificial means by which better versions of ourselves might be explored? Don Socha
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005