From inception to extinction, objective criteria regarding the defining characteristics of "personhood" are sought to justify responsibility. But, when we relate to others, what do we actually relate to? In The Ethical Significance of Illeity, L vinas's concept of illeity is used to argue that the responsibility owed to others flows not from an ability to comprehend the defining characteristics of "personhood" but from the fact that persons are ultimately "neutral" and beyond disclosure. Ethics should not be dominated (...) by knowledge; rather, the ethical relationship with the other should guide the progress of understanding. Philosophy is the wisdom of love at the service of love. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Levinas’ concept of ipseity and on its change between the 1960’s and the 1970’s, arguing that this change implies the undoing of the subject. In Totality and Infinity (1961), ipseity is considered as the deep core of the I, whereas, in Otherwise Than Being (1974), it is the other person inside the self. Levinas also theorizes another kind of other-in-the-same, which is illeity, the trace of God inside the human soul. It is shown that (...) class='Hi'>illeity is not problematic for the subject, since it does not cause its undoing. Furthermore, it is argued that ipseity, in Otherwise Than Being, is not a mere opening to alterity, but a source of alienation. Finally, it is shown that Levinas starts to change his mind on ipseity in 1968 (“Substitution”), however this modification becomes clear only in 1970 (“No Identity”). (shrink)

In accounts of Emmanuel Levinas’s relationship to the Jewish theological tradition, scholars often analyze Levinas’s essays about Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, and specifically his 1824 book Soul of Life (Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim). This article treats two essays that Levinas wrote in the mid-1980s on that book, and shows that Levinas’s praise for that book involves coming close to endorsing its theology of suffering, a theology that strikes this article’s author as obscene. In Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim, those who suffer deserve their suffering, their (...) suffering is in proportion to the sins that gave rise to it, and their suffering purifies and atones for their sin—in the language of the Jewish theological tradition, “it is God’s way to sweeten bitter with bitter.” This marks a departure from Levinas’s standard treatment of issues of theodicy in essays such as “Useless Suffering” (1982). In the article’s conclusion, the possibility is raised that Levinas’s account of divine illeity liberates theologians from problems of theodicy. (shrink)

In accounts of Emmanuel Levinas’s relationship to the Jewish theological tradition, scholars often analyze Levinas’s essays about Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, and specifically his 1824 book Soul of Life. This article treats two essays that Levinas wrote in the mid-1980s on that book, and shows that Levinas’s praise for that book involves coming close to endorsing its theology of suffering, a theology that strikes this article’s author as obscene. In Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim, those who suffer deserve their suffering, their suffering is (...) in proportion to the sins that gave rise to it, and their suffering purifies and atones for their sin—in the language of the Jewish theological tradition, “it is God’s way to sweeten bitter with bitter.” This marks a departure from Levinas’s standard treatment of issues of theodicy in essays such as “Useless Suffering”. In the article’s conclusion, the possibility is raised that Levinas’s account of divine illeity liberates theologians from problems of theodicy. (shrink)

Although Adorno and Levinas share many arguments, I attempt to sharpen and evaluate their disagreements. Both held extreme and seemingly opposite views of art, with Adorno arguing that art presents modernity’s highest order of truth and Levinas denouncing it as shameful idolatry. Considering this striking difference brings to light fundamental substantive and methodological incompatibilities between them. Levinas’ assertion of the transcendence of the face should be understood as the most telling point of departure between his and Adorno’s critiques of instrumental (...) reason. I attempt to explain why Levinas believed this move was justifiable and how Adorno would understand Levinas’ notion of illeity as a cultural byproduct and a form of dogmatism. Adorno’s historical and sociological account of the disenchantment of the world and the destruction of aura within a culture fully administered by scientific rationality and economic reductionism sharply contrasts to Levinas’ transcendental phenomenology, and I argue that Adorno’s thoroughgoing refusal to constrain dialectical reflection is ultimately more compelling. (shrink)

Levinas’s idea of substitution promotes what sounds at first sight like a full-blown notion of relationality. This is reflected, for example, in his adoption of Rimbaud’s phrase “I is an ot...