An examination of Emmanuel Levinas’ writings on money reveals his distance from—and indebtedness to—a philosophical predecessor, Georg Simmel. Levinas and Simmel share a phenomenological approach to analyses of the proximity of the stranger, the importance of the face, and the interruption of the dyadic relationship by the third. Money is closely linked to the conception of totality because money is the medium that compares heterogeneous values. Levinas goes beyond Simmel in positing an ethical relation to money permitting transcendence.

This article offers an interpretation of Georg Simmel’s philosophy of culture as a theory that can be applied to a critical view of the cultural and political economy situation of our time. This interpretation allows us to somewhat re-actualize the legacy of the German philosopher in the context of contemporary critical thought. The interpretation was created on the basis of the analysis of two Simmel’s key concepts, namely: “tragedy of culture” and “conflict of culture”, as well as their relationship. In (...) addition, the basis for such reading was Simmel’s understanding of the subject, which denies the absolute sovereignty and asserts his appearance only under the influence of cultural objects. This is complemented by the interpretation of the “tragedy of culture” as a theory that debunks the “sovereign subject” as discussed by Dina and Michael Weinstein in Postmodern Simmel. Interpretation of Simmel’s theory of culture as critical towards its object includes an analysis of various phenomena inherent in modern culture from the standpoint of this theory. First, such a phenomenon is the capitalist system, which, due to its self-regulation, is an absolutely alienated object and a stimulator of the quantitative distribution of cultural objects. Secondly, the imperious relationship of cultural objects and the level of influence of some objects on the development and distribution of others allows us to look at how certain cultural phenomena transform culture as a whole. The third point is the relativization of reality and values and the role of the phenomenon of money in this process. Finally, it is the transformation of the role of subjects in the process of creating cultural objects. This transformation arises as the effect of placing the “tragedy” and “conflict” of culture in the same plane of contemporaneity, as a result of which the impulse to reproduce an objective culture can no longer be provided by a subjective impulse; but there is no decline in the rate of growth of an objective culture, and therefore, the key objects of culture are taken the function of this impulse.Manuscript received 10.08.2020. (shrink)

In this article I consider the normative and axiological dimension of Simmel’s thought. Building on previous interpretations, I argue that although Simmel cannot be interpreted as a systematic normative theorist, the issue of values and the normative standpoint can nevertheless be traced in various aspects of his multifarious work. This interpretive turn attempts to link Simmel’s obscure theory of value with his epistemological relationism. Relationism may offer a counterweight to Simmel’s value-pluralism, since it points to normative elements (e.g. internal teleology, (...) justice) that can contribute to the reconciliation between incommensurablity of forms and totality. Axiological and normative concerns (of a Hegelian source) survive also in his metaphysics of life, pointing beyond a merely Bergsonian and conservative Lebensphilosophie. I conclude with some thoughts on how this normative rethinking of Simmel’s thought can contribute towards more adequate appreciations of Simmel’s overall theory. (shrink)