In Totality and Infinity, Levinas says that the primordial expression of alterity is “though shall not commit murder”. The other expresses an infinity “stronger than murder”. In this paper I propose a reading of this passage elaborated against the backdrop of “The Temptation of Temptation” in his Talmudic Readings. I will argue, that as the law in the Talmudic elucidation of Exodus 24:7, this demand is pre-conceptual and because of this putative primordiality one is forced to “do before hearing”. -/- (...) I will also argue that, as the other’s “first word”, the demand not to murder operates in a fashion similar to natural law, which does not prescribe but rather defines the limits of the possibilities for the totalizing power of the Same. On this account, this primordial demand is constitutive of the Same and, as such, of its ontological aspirations. Finally, I will claim that as the law in the Talmudic reading, the demand does not rely on free-will but is the very condition of its possibility. (shrink)

Abstract This paper sketches a Levinasian theory of action. It has often been pointed out that Levinas' ethics are incapable of providing principles of adjudication for guiding actions. However, a much more profound problem affects Levinas' metaphysical ethics and negates the possibility of adjudication and that is a patent lack of freedom from the yoke of the ethical. If ?ethics is primordial? indeed, then no act can be unethical in that there is no alternative possibility to the acceptance and performance (...) of the law. In this paper, I will argue that it is from the totalization of the acceptance and performance of law ?implicit in the subject's action? that alternative possibilities become visible. This is to say, it is through totalization that the subject demarcates the locus for the emergence of principles, which can permit adjudication among different acts without negating the radical primacy of ethics, which is probably Levinas? greatest contribution to the field. (shrink)

A certain type of metaphysical manicheism has become quite prevalent among Levinas readers who insist in declaring his ethics to be a morally and, ultimately, politically necessary departure from Heidegger’s ontology. This approach inadequately moralizes Levinas’ articulation of the ethical which, I argue here, ought to be understood as an account of the pre-reflective normative conditions of ontology as meaning. In this paper, I seek to show that Levinas account of Ethics is squarely rooted in the epistemology of Heidegger’s Being (...) and Time and that, his phenomenological articulation of pre-deliberative normativity may be read as the Deduction and Schematism of Being and Time, that is, as its central mechanism. (shrink)