Monday, September 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
by Samuel Bak
OT00443B1 New Brunswick Theological Seminary
Memorial
by Samuel Bak
According to Levinas, "totality" is a sort of "sameness," common attributes. He also explains totality as, "an overarching rubric or structure," or politics. He explains that we need them to live but they create a lack of justice because they cause one not to see the differences in the other. He does see the need for certain totalities, but an ethics of commonality allows one to disregard the "other" and invalidate them as human beings. He does not believe that "responsibility to the other" have limits because of an awareness that etically, one is responsible for the other no matter what the other has done.
ReplyDeleteThe totality according to Levinas is an attempt at universal synthesis a reduction of all experience, of all that is reasonable to a totality wherein consciousnesses embraces the world and leave nothing outside of itself, and thus becomes absolute thought though knowledge. (All are affected by the disruption of one.) However there are some things that are not synthesisable by knowledge but by true togetherness achieve by human interaction that of human relation (the face to face). We are all responsible for one another. Totalities cannot be avoided in justice the other face command us to seek justice. Levinas use the analogy of Here I am to describe the practical living of the responsibility of the Other. Here I believe the Other is God, that infinity that engulfs us to carry out the practical everyday responsibility to the universality of society of the other without limitations.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Levinas, ontology by its very nature attempt to create a totality in which what is different and “other” is necessarily reduced to sameness and identity. This desire for totality is a basic manifestation of “instrumental” reason. And the use of reason as an instrument for determining the best or most efficient means to achieve a given end. Moreover, because instrumental reason does not determine the ends to which it is applied, it can be used in the pursuit of goals that are destructive or evil. In this sense, it is responsible for the major crises of European history in the 20th century, in particular the advent of totalitarianism. Levinas considered that its account of human experience and intentionality gave excessive importance to self-consciousness. He argued that the prior relation of the self of the other is inscribed in experience which implies that every person has a fundamental and infinite responsibility for the other person. He therefore asserted the primacy of ethics over ontology, and the priority of moral and religious experience over rationality and reflection.
ReplyDeleteTotality at its base understanding (politics) is any consciousness or social structure that 'makes same'--it softens the rough edges of anything it touches and the Levinasian notion of totality is that at it's core this is false--a moral error that allows room for injustice. However, he recognizes totality affects acts of justice and that is a reality of living, but he warns that those carrying out these acts must recognize that these rubrics of totality sit on broken foundations which are innacurate and static. To remember one's own brokenness as part of humanity is essential and without compromise. To be whole this must remain focused on the ethic of otherness--the two, who are I and the different other. And between the two is this 'rupturing encounter' that is at the heart of an ethics of difference where the two stand amazed at the other's holy and unique difference--their otherness.
ReplyDeleteBlog Post 2
ReplyDeleteTotality is Levinas’ word for any overarching rubric or structure, be it conceptual or practical, ideologies philosophies, theories, policies, explinations ideas of a universal, system of justice are all descriptions of totality.
According to Levinas resposibility has its limits. As stated: “Now there arises for me the issue of competing responsibility. I see that if I give everything to the one who stands before me, I will having nothing left for anyone else.
According to Levinas, a totality is when consciousness embraces the world, leaving nothing outside. All thought isjoined together, and there is no "other". If we are to purely and completely realize justice - if we are to accept the "other" as ourselves, we have achieved totality. If we completely realize justice, totality is not avoidable. Practically speaking, "responsibility to the Other" has its limits. There is no place that we can look and not see "otherness". Inorder to meet the need of all this "otherness" we would have to deny self 100% all the time. There would be no time for family, career, or renewal. Although we are always responsible to the "other", we cannot always meet that responsibility.
ReplyDelete"Totality" is a stereotyping of people into only looking at the surface. In this sense it's justice which prevents us to kill while the "totality" invites us act of violence (page 86). In finding out what is behind the face, such as the Other's authentic story, it is possible to have "authentic relationship" and therefore be responsible of the Other.
ReplyDeleteAdultery group
For Levinas, totality is to apply a universal truth to all of human experience thus, making all experience the same. Further responsibility for the other does not have limits. Levinas says, "The tie with the Other is knotted only as responsibility; this moreover, whether accepted ro refused, knowing or not knowing how to assume it, whther able or unable to do something concrete for the Other." Ultimately, by virtue of being human, one has a responsiblity for the other. Although our contribution to change the Other's situation may seem insignificant, the fact that one chooses to acknowledge such responsibility simply by saying "here I am" contributes to the larger solution.
ReplyDeleteSabbath Group
Levinas defines “totality” as an oneness without distinction, sameness with common attributes. He states that we need some “totality” to exist in this world. We would go crazy if we noticed every possible distinction in the world. We would not be able to focus. However, he also warns that if we view the “other” in “totality” we no longer really “see” the other; we are viewing them as a monolithic group. Therefore, “totality” does not allow us to seek justice on the behalf of the “other” but it often leads people and governments to “do what they think is in the best interest of the other.” We often do not ask “the other” what they want and need” we just ascribe our values and judgments upon them. Levinas writes that we should be available to the other with a “Here I am” attitude. We should be ready to face “the other” without reducing them into one group but view them as individuals.
ReplyDelete