Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:47:54 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Heaven as Las Vegas - the Paradise Lounge


Geof/All


Geof/Eric

I have been thinking about the below quotes from Eric and considering 
them in terms of the refutations of the Levinas and related Derrida 
positions. Not simply in terms of Badiou's "Levinas = the wholesale 
destitution of philosophy in favour of ethics..."  but also in terms of 
the difficulties it shows in allowing theology to dominate and influence 
philosophy. The principle underlying  Levinas's conception of the 
responsibility for the other is that "there is no Other except to the 
degree that he is the phenomenon of the wholloy other..." In this the 
other is God or pure transcendence. This re-introduction of the 
theological into the ethical  is not a radical move but rather one of 
loss. 

Ignoring for the moment Badious work, then it's clear that if one is 
looking for a radical ethics then it seems that Peter Singer's work is 
more real and useful then Levinas's dependence on a real or a 
transcendent figure.

regards
steve



Eric wrote:

>Geof, 
>
>
>I think Levinas' asymmetrical ethical relationship with the Other and
>Derrida's 'messianic turn' fail us strictly on internal grounds; not
>merely on account of some complicity with religiosity.  
>
>The simple fact of the matter is that by attending to the needs
>presented by the abject face of the Other, I enter into an ethical
>relationship, but also one that can be sustained without seriously
>disrupting the status quo of an existing social order in which the
>economic interests outlined in the Prisoner's Dilemma trump over those
>which are ethical. The kind of charity offered by figures such as Mother
>Theresa fulfills the ethical requirements of a Levinas while the
>institutions such ethical individuals serve tend to reinforce the very
>unjust situations that produce the Other's needs in the first place
>while also serving to sanctify and validate the charitable acts who
>serve. 
>
>While I honor the move made by Levinas in articulating this ethical
>transaction in terms of the face-to-face encounter, I also think it is
>insufficient in helping us to meet our real contemporary ethical needs.
>
>  
>