This book shows how Heidegger and Levinas, in a novel and non-totalizing manner, attempt to re-think the history of philosophy in order to reveal a difference that has remained unthought, yet supposed by it. For Heidegger, this difference is the truth of Being, whereas for Levinas this difference is the other person. Uljée presents the relation between Levinas and Heidegger as a subtle, profound and complex rapport, which includes both their proximity and radical difference. This rapport is conceived not as (...) a confrontation but rather as a transformation, as Levinas's notion of justice does not renounce Heidegger's account of truth and its deployment. Thinking Difference with Heidegger and Levinas shows how the ethical relation transforms the essence and task of philosophy in its entirety, since it shifts the orientation of philosophy and the task of thinking from its concern with truth as ground or foundation to a question of justice. As a consequence, philosophy is no longer riveted to Being and its truth, but answers to the call for justice. As such, philosophy must be conceived of as infinite commencement, where its impossibility to totalize meaning means that it can and remain open to the alterity of transcendence. (shrink)

"Before the Voice of Reason is a phenomenological critique of reason grounded in our experience of the voices that already address us and summon us prior to the ...

_Provides a critique of reason, demanding that we take greater responsibility for nature and other people._.

Contemporary phenomenological discussions on relationship between painting and nothingness have mainly employed Sartrean and Heideggerian notions of nothingness. In this paper, I propose another perspective by discussing the possibility of pictorially depicting Levinas’s notion of the nothingness of being, which he develops in his early works in terms of the il y a. For Levinas, the il y a intimates itself in moments like insomnia, where the world as a horizon of possibilities slips away and all there is left is (...) an experience of present absence, an enchainment to the night, which renders the insomniac utterly impotent and exposed. The possibility of eliciting an experience of the il y a through artistic means has been extensively discussed in literary theory, but so far there has been hardly any discussion regarding the pictorial depiction of the il y a. In this paper, I suggest that the atmospheric interior paintings of the Danish artist Vilhelm Hammershøi exemplify par excellence a painterly rendering of the experience of Levinasian nothingness. Through an analysis of Hammershøi’s compositional techniques, I show how figurative means can bring about an anonymous, non-figurative presence which eludes reification. (shrink)

The chiasm is usually considered the key notion for Merleau-Ponty’s later philosophy. I argue against a common conclusion, namely that ‘the chiasm’ is equivalent to ‘reversibility’. Even when the two terms are not taken as interchangeable, the precise nature of their relation has not been adequately established. Focusing exclusively on ‘reversibility’ has implications for a range of philosophical issues, including relations between self and other. The danger of substituting one term for the other is that existential relations are construed as (...) inversions, rather than as genuine exchanges. I examine two trajectories that can be discovered in ‘The Intertwining—The Chiasm’. The first is the inclusion of difference within a peculiar, extended sense of ‘reversibility’. The second is the development of a plurality of expressions, among which ‘reversibility’ is necessary but not sufficient. I go on to argue that Merleau-Ponty secures difference within the chiasm by supplementing the notion of reversibility with ‘imminence’, the idea that something has not yet occurred. I also propose that the figure of a threshold illuminates how the chiasm operates as a transition where both joining and differentiation occur. (shrink)

What is the origin of language? For Levinas, from Aristotle to von Humboldt, the tradition of Western metaphysics has understood language as a representation of reality, going beyond or transcending experience. In this way, language is a metaphor that substitutes for experience—and all language is originally metaphorical. Experience however, is essentially inexpressible—for it not only transcends language, but it does so because experience is always experience of the other, of that which remains infinitely other. And language reminds us of its (...) failure (a failure which Derrida sees, ironically, as a success) to express this other by maintaining a trace of the inexpressible in every expression—and metaphor is failure of expression par excellence. But what is the origin of this original failure? In fact, it can be found in the way in which language makes metaphors (which is the way in which it makes itself, transcends itself, substitutes for itself, becomes other than itself). For as Aristotle reminds us: metaphor-making (indeed, all language, every word and deed) is poiēsis—and the origin of poiēsis is improvisation. If we have, however, discovered the origin of language in improvisation—but what is that? (shrink)

Resumen: El propósito de este artículo es exponer la tesis levinasiana de la inevitabilidad de lo dicho, teniendo como trasfondo algunas cuestiones epistemológicas que suscita. Para esto, se comienza presentando la contraposición que establece Levinas entre verdad del desvelamiento y verdad del testimonio, destacando sus diferencias más radicales. Posteriormente, teniendo la subjetividad como hilo conductor, se reconstruye el camino que relacionaría ambos tipos de verdad, mostrando cómo la tesis de la inevitabilidad de lo dicho adquiere relevancia en las discusiones epistemológicas. (...) Finalmente, se concluye sugiriendo algunos aportes de esta reflexión para las consideraciones acerca de una racionalidad renovada.: This paper discusses the Levinasian thesis of the inevitability of the Said, having as its background certain epistemological issues arising from that thesis. I begin by showing the contraposition between truth of disclosure and truth of testimony, as Levinas defines them, and point out the most radical differences between the two. I then reconstruct, with subjectivity as the connecting thread, a way of relating both kinds of truth, showing how the thesis on the inevitability of the Said is relevant to epistemological discussions. I conclude by suggesting some considerations with regard to a renewed rationality. (shrink)