For Levinas, the moment of real meaning is in the relation sustained with alterity. This relation is difficult or impossible to characterize philosophically, however, because to render it in comprehensive or objective terms would reduce the relation to one of comprehension and make it commensurate with the ego. Thus philosophy has an ambivalent status with respect to transcendence and ethics; but Levinas is convinced of the essentially transcendent or ethical meaning of Judaic practice: Talmudic exegesis, but also Jewish ritual and (...) the keeping of the sabbath; and these elements are included within a conception of Jewish educational practices. Thus to what extent transcendent meaning can be discussed in philosophical terms and evinced in philosophical work —or rather, to what extent transcendent meaning is possible at all—may be clarified by a sketch of Levinas’ broad approach to Jewish practice, particularly in terms of education. This essay shows how Jewish education is essential for transcendence and ethics for Levinas. Reference is made to several untranslated texts that Levinas published for intellectual but nonacademic French-Jewish journals, in which he explains his own pedagogical vocation. This offers an invaluable perspective on his philosophical and Judaic writings; and above all it gives an indication of his vision of the quotidian and life-long educational practices through which ethics and the transcendent relation between human beings are possible. Finally it raises the question of whether a secular or philosophical education could offer this as well. (shrink)

In the modern consideration of historical time, reason is the driving force of progress through a homogenous, linear and continuum time. In fact, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries humanity was witnessing a history of progress in which it appeared that history was progressing towards a better world. However, the tragedies of the twentieth century indicate the opposite. Western reason proved unable to stop the barbarism of war. At the heart of this panorama, according to Emmanuel Levinas and Johann Baptist (...) Metz, was the idealism of the Greek logos presented in the philosophical and theological mode of thinking. Theology and philosophy would share in this way the same idealist vocation towards totality which, in Levinas’s categories, is the forgetting of singularity and their concrete situation in favour of universality. I will show how by resorting to the Jewish legacy, and particularly to the concepts of eschatology, apocalypse, and messianism, Levinas and Metz define a new relationship with historical time. In this way they not only oppose the mainstream consideration of history as a vector of continuous progress towards its own realization, but also introduce in history the contingency of individual experiences and particularly those of the victims of such history. (shrink)