responsabilité, 3

2. Closely associated with a neighbor

How do a man come who is called the neighbor here? In considering this question it is impossible not to mention our lives. In short, there is in our pilgrimage toward death the phase of mature, that it can be called a wisdom. So, I am a different man, I do not still am a thoughtful or a daydreamed man¸ as if permanently haunting the monastery walls, but I’m me myself fully. In which concepts it can talk the neighbor? Emmanuel Levinas gives an answer on this question tirelessly, and the sites had been devoted to it in his books they belong to the most beautiful of all philosophical literature. There are the several points of what he is thinking about briefly that were presented here. First of all, saying the negative figures, the neighbor (in French there is a pronoun), it is not a generic element or species, he is seen as it were a human species; he is not the concept, no substance, he is not defined by ownership, by its nature, the social situation, by its place in history. Neighbor is not the subject of knowledge, an representation, a comprehension, he is not overcome. Neighbor is not subject to the description, there is no “phenomenology” of a neighbor. It is even wrong to say in this regard about his appearance, in these concepts of an explanation, in the terms that belong still more to the register of a knowledge and an expertise. What it can be said positive about him, therefore, about the neighbor of ours. It cannot include him in everything we know, so by a being as philosophers say, what do can tell about the neighbor who comes, moreover, not belonging to any world? Purifying our language, what remains? Neighbor is the “face” , there is not in the sense of face to be seen, the face that may prevail in a photograph or a memory, but the neighbor is the expression, like a prior conversation. The neighbor is “face”, that is at once a demand, a supplication, an order-injunction, a learning-advice. Hence the “face” obliges, demands of an answer, a support, a care, an effort, a pity, a compassion. Thus we are coming to the notion may be the most used by Emmanuel Levinas: a responsibility towards your neighbor. What it must say in contrast with M. Buber, Levinas’ the relationship with his neighbor is fundamentally dissimetric. It’s not a meeting between two people that is being located at the level of an equality, a friendship based on a reciprocity. The obligation of a self towards the face of our neighbor is not the result of the contract and is not freely chosen. Such an event as an arrival of neighbor to my life, it pulls away a self from his condition, and deprives from its persistence (ipseite) and it places a self on a situation infinitely obliging, vouching for someone. The figures of this dissymetre are numerous and often offer a sense of life for the most situations of everyday; Levinas’ “after you” of a politeness, a relationship to a femininity, a relation of son, an order for emptiness oneself, and a foreign that is not familiar, there are examples of the most simple. Sometimes the thinking of Levinas increases at the time more and more, to penetrate into a region he knows that there is an utopia; peculiarly in the problems concerning the death of another, the cost of sacrifice of my own life, a liability for fault, a culpability towards the neighbor, even if it haunts me (extreme formula that uses Levinas always directly). This mutation of care, a care for Self, the neighbor’s care, the subjectivity that is not already defined as a persistence in being, a taking over for yourself, and a domination, but rather as a servitude, coercion, subordination (sujetion), such Levinas’ “ontological return” constitutes true humanity of man.

3. The thirds and all the others

There is still another situation. From a one, somebody says about another, he is a self-made man. Isn’t caused this situation a selffeshness, he asks. On the other hand there would had been an error to believe that everything in a matter of my own it reduces to a relationship with his neighbor. We are often look on the package rather than at a substance, not at a solidity of gift. What remains it imagines the third and everyone else. But when you give yourself to a first newcomer fully(premier venu), it will be wrong for the next man. Hence, I must reflect, calculate, compare, “believe” at any occasion. Theory, knowledge, institutions, laws, orders of the first time, they find their right place at last time. Levinas is not an anarchist. Democratic state has its own role, to guarantee a justice. For Levinas nothing is more alien as a certain ecology (from a Polish cement mill it takes over the dried cement, then he is transported to Germany, but it has no toxic ingredients now, I read about this recently), which puts nature, forgetting the human society. Never the slightest a denigration of science and technology, the thinker says. The problems that can put a technics, they should have been considered as a surplus of technology, Levinas says sometimes. In this way, ethics must be renewed by science, through the institution and a policy. Europe is the Bible and the Greeks. Let’s note the originality of perspective here. Classically a state’s calling it analyzes as a necessity of order only that constrains the appetites for a power, because in the state of nature a man is wolf to man. Levinas gives to a law (la lois) another dimension: to establish, designate, to set a limit for the nobility toward the face of our neighbor. The generosity is so excessive not by forgetting the Self than by forgetting the third. There is therefore still the third movement. Institution in which we saw the necessity, it may be corrupted, and to forget its excuse (an improvement), and destroy what is human on the impersonal totality. We must remain vigilant when it comes to a jamming, in terms of human rights, specifically the rights of another man in his uniqueness. These rights, it shouldn’t poke fun at them by the abstractions of the system. First philosophy, ethics, philosophy is also the last: the organization must be criticized, continuously improved; the morality should control the state ultimately. As in Jewish law, in which the judge ignores the “faces” during an audience, but he still finds them in a way out. (Today, unfortunately, it ignores a life on the beginning of this millennium, we can show it with our fingers.) Levinas gives the ethics of the statute of the first philosophy (and last), but not only. The primacy of ethics in the thought of Levinas goes to addressing all of the theological reflection in a very strict sense of a similar determination. Mysticism, the sacred, to have a man by God (and “numineux”) are the only denunciations, chimeras, and sometimes, even with idolatry. Without dogma here. So, if Levinas is a believer or eteistą? In his view is absurd question philosopher replied: “We are far away from the ignoration (allaged)of the faces be the juish lawyer during an audience, but again finds its way out. (Today, unfortunately, ignores the effect of this millennium, we can show it with your fingers.) Levinas is not only the ethics of the statute gives the philosophy of the first (and last). The primacy of ethics in the thought of Levinas goes into a chasing all of a theological reflection in a very strict sense of this determination. Mysticism, sacrum, possessing of a man by God (and “numineux”), there are the only denunciations, chimeras, and sometimes compared here even with idolatry. Without dogma here. So, is Levinas a believer or atheist? In his view there is an absurd question. The philosopher replied: “We are far away from the alleged Spinozists, a alternative of which a believer-unbeliever is as so simple as a pharmacist, not pharmacist.”

4. God is beyond knowing and being

Levinas wants to swiveled out from this problem. He avoids for a notion of God the category of existence. God gets out of existence and is not subject of knowledge. God is not being, but somehow he was certified as the highest (supreme). Infinite God, you cannot say anything more about him, you cannot even identify him as a “necessary existence”. Levinas is not a thinker “religious.” The Thinker also wrote: ‘’Moral relation is combined simultaneously in a consciousness of the Self and an awareness of God newly. Ethics is not corolalium (added) of a vision of God. Ethics is the same vision …In the holy Arc, in which Moses hears the voice of God, there are the tablets of the Law only… But ‘God is merciful’, it means ‘Be merciful as God’ … To know of God, this is what should be done …So, pious it meens a fair’’ . The thinker of the twentieth century Rav Kook wrote: It do not sadden us when this or that he determines the structure of social justice without any mention of God, because we know that the only requirement of justice … is constituted by the outpouring of God’s the most brilliant (l’epanchement). This concept Levinas applied to the State of Israel. And the establishment of Israel’s existence and his calling have a meaning that goes beyond politics. At this point, for us so living, that do not require a specific philosophical competence, we give voice to a thinker: “The importance of Israel is not consists of an ancient promise, or the debut, that would be as a sign of an era of a material security… but on occasion that has been given, to fulfill the law (la loi )of a social Judaism finally. Jewish people were greedy of its land and its state, not for a reason of the independence without control, of which he has been waiting for, but because of his life’s work, which could finally begin to start anew. To this day this people meets the commandments, then he creates art and literature, but all these works, which were expressed as the schemes only, they had remained too long youth. Finally it comes the hour of a “dish of the day'(see-menu). It was also terrible (horrible) to be the only people who were defined by the doctrine of justice and the only one who could not apply it. Tearing, pain and the moral sense of the Diaspora. Conforming to your promises that articulates the importance of religion, as the resurrection of Israel in ancient times had justified the practice of justice a present time on earth.” It’s through that a political event has been completed, transferred. Levinas emphasizes the opposition between Jews here who are looking for a state for their justice and those who are seeking a justice for the living state(subsistance). For Levinas the religion is a justice as a cause for an exsistence of state only.

5. The obligation, the subjectivity, the answer, the brotherhood

I can’t endorse this scheme. Our security is imperiled again. Moreover Levinas do not aim at the reconciliation of philosophy and Judaism. His philosophical topics is guided by a proper logic, the invocation is an illustration of the Bible verse, but never a proof, even abundancy of “the garden of Scripture,” of the bible, with its peaches, pineapples and dates. The work of Levinas has been translated into numerous languages, was the subject of numerous works, became the subject of numerous works. Let us repeat the Jew passes that history abundantly using the verse of Bible based on the power and transcendence. Israel is greedy happiness to his life work could begin. The State of Israel, it is precisely such a justice. The state exists for such justice only. Then it follows a submission of the citizens to their state. State citizenship is based on subjective responses, brotherhood. To exceed the requirement in this State it must wake up the next generation of people in order to rescue the longest their individual freedom. “You do not demolish altars of the past, although you can one’s improve.” I am already bound by faith and personal sacrifice. Let us pray. Because we are the same, the prayer only changes everything. We have to work the human life can begin finally. Unfortunately nothing could be done to the next generation. Though we are together from time to time, it is nothing be done a man became both as a person and oneself. The most beautiful day in early May of this year Polish Episcopate has put on Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy in charge. He will be a chairman of general meeting of Polish priests, who should have appeared at the feet of Our Lady of Czestochowa, Queen of the Fatherland, in prayer. May this prayer bring the expected fruit. Personally, I am for Christ, the Supreme Shepherd, for one flock for all people of good will, and not for the Cardinal Hummes , even Cardinal and Brazilian. But I want to see the brothers in the procession to the Black, the beautiful Lady. And now on the White Sunday for all the readers of me I wish a grace of the Blessed Virgin of Czestochowa, the greater blessings of God’s and of Jesus’ words of life, moreover to take things easy and not weakened good health.

Leave a comment